Because Only Terrorists Use 802.11

skinnyd writes "Consultants working for the Department of Homeland Security have announced that the Feds view open WiFi as a means of abetting terrorists, and say that they will compel the open wireless operators will have to close off their nets. 'Homeland Security is putting people in place who will be in a position to say, "If you're going to get broken into ... we're going to start regulating."'

Comments

Insecure Networks?

[jorupp]

So it's a crime to run an insecure network? What about an insecure computer that can be cracked and used to launch an attack, is that a crime too?

Hmm... wonder if that means running a non-up-to-the-latest-patch OS or application is a crime?

Re:Insecure Networks?

[mosch]

clearly you run a small, unimportant network. at many companies it's a fact of life that you need to put security fixes through a verification process to make sure that they don't cause any problems that are worse than the vulnerability before applying them. In the meantime, you're knowingly running a network with some security flaws.

In the real world, we can't all just apply every patch immediately, some of us need to make sure that a patch won't cause a problem with vital services before we do so, and contrary to what you may have read on slashdot, those verification processes aren't always trivial.

Re:Insecure Networks?

[Anonymous Coward]

In some industries, it is; run a google search on HIPAA.

Seen the recent thread on this on /.? It turns out all the big players, starting with MS, have exemptions for running their systems regardless. As always, the law will be imposed upon those lacking the legal resources to resist.

Re:Insecure Networks?

[deranged unix nut]

That is an interesting question. To take that line of thought a bit further...

How long before it is a crime to release software (or make available source code) that contains known security flaws?

If running a non-up-to-the-latest-patch OS or application is a crime in some industries, what liability does the software provider have? If they know of a security flaw or weakness, can they still release it for use in those industries?

Then, would it become a requirement to do a certain amount of testing for security weaknesses before releasing software?

If that happens, would sharing "in-development" source code (sourceforge) become illegal for "security reasons"?

The article says terrorists

[doubtless]

can bring down the network of this country very quickly once they are on the network. Tell me, what is to prevent anybody from just signing up the NETWORK with the AOL cds?

Give me a break, goddamn it. Shutting down WiFi security holes will prevent intruders from going on the NETWORK?

I can understand if this is to prevent government agencies or companies with knowledge of government secrets from having wide open WiFi, but for EVERYONE?

Land of the free, just a thought.

Re:The article says terrorists

[garcia]

"Land of the free, just a thought."

Correct. It is just a thought... We are obviously willing to give up our freedoms b/c of that bearded fuck w/limp and a cammo jacket...

Someone else noted that the terrorists are the only ones that will stand up. While I feel what they said is dumb, I see their point.

We are all just standing idly by the water cooler having our morning chat as President Ripper closes down the base and prepares to launch an attack.

Only the dorks know that WiFi isn't a security threat, and only the dorks know that it's only b/c coporate America wants other wireless methods to open up and make money from...

We will never convince the REST of the sheep of this...

Thus, we are all morons under the power of President Ripper.

Enjoy Strangelovian paradise. It's a blast.

Re:Great...Big Brother, anyone?

[isorox]

only terrorists use wireless Internet

No, the problem is only Campaign funders run cable networks, wireless is a competitor that is cheap to set up, impossible to control, and very useful. Like the old BBS's, or peer to peer.

Whatever

[RomikQ]

Alright, I agree with the fact that wifi is insecure and it should be regulated, but please please is it really necessary to make everything a terrorist threat in order to convince the US masses nowadays. Why not just give reasonable arguments, facts, instead of saying "it's a terrorist threat, that's all you need to know". Instead of outlining the real dangers, like stolen or falsified information, they have to go on and make a statement that to any half-smart person seems a blatant attempt to get quick public support.

It's bullshitting like that which undermines the trust of intelligent people into the administration.

Regulation is bad.

[MikeFM]

If it's my network and my bandwidth I have every right to do with it as I please. If I want to provide an open gateway to the Internet that is my right. The same right any ISP has to not charge for access.

Regulating things because you are afraid boogey men could possibly use them is a fools game. I could kill you with string cheese. That doesn't mean we should require a minimum standard of conduct on using string cheese.

In case you haven't noticed almost nobody actually follows speed limits on highways. It isn't safe following speed limits on highways. If you don't match the speed of traffic your endangering yourself and others. Laws that are largely ignored as the general public doesn't favor them are wasteful and leave loopholes for various assholes to take away more and more freedoms.

Re:Hello?

[AntiFreeze]

This is not a good thing. Alerting people to the insecurities of wireless networks is a good thing. Setting up minimum standards for wireless security is a good thing (which is part of what HomSec wants to do). But saying that if you don't adhere to those minimum standards then you're helping terrorists is ludicrous.

If your admin isn't interested in security, then you've got a bad admin. Government regulations and threats of helping terrorists won't change that.

As far as the security of America goes, there are much more potent problems to deal with before worrying about terrorist's annonymous internet access. Our ports. Our porous borders. Our politicians.

So to sum up: HomSec may have a very valid point, but how they've addressed it is pathetic. There are more important things for the new department to be taking care of. If HomSec latches on to every little "security" problem in America, they'll get nowhere fast. If they choose big problems and start with those, the deparment might even make itself worthwhile.

Insecure wireless networks shouldn't be a matter of National Security, they should be a matter of personal security.

This is not about security

[0x0d0a]

This is not even remotely done because of security issues.

It's pretty blatantly obvious to anyone involved the security area that security fixes that require "securing the rest of the Internet" just aren't going to work. A good example of this is the attempt to "secure the Internet against spam." The current approach -- trusting other servers on the Internet and trying to simply secure all legtimate mail servers from spammers does not work. Keep in mind that anti-spam measures have nearly universal support, a tremendous number of volunteers, high visibility, and is a well-understood problem. It's pretty well understood now that trying to secure the Internet by securing every possible point of entry is not in the least feasible. The closest anyone has come is USENET, which is a much less critical, more tightly controlled system with the Usenet Death Penalty for offending ISPs -- and even so, as USENET aficionados know, there's still a huge amount of spam.

If the OHS is scared that they won't be able to trace someone because they're coming in from a wireless port, they need to secure all the services that they're concerned about and require a digital identification of some sort. Trying to make the Internet watertight is not, no way, no how going to happen. You can't secure the US and lock the rest of the world out, and you can't secure the entire world. You can't even reasonably secure all the possible points of entry in a state.

This isn't about security. It isn't even about technology.

Ever since Bush signalled that he was willing to back just about anything that "fought terrorism", every stupid agenda out there has managed to include "fighting terrorism". People competing with 802.11b (*cough* telecom corps pushing 3G services, currently being pretty much ignored in favor of the faster, cheaper 802.11b) would love nothing better than to hand their favorite politician a few dollars to "crack down on terrorism" on 802.11b. In contrast, *their* networks are easily monitored, and as evidenced by cells in the past, telecom corps are more than happy to use key escrow and provide information to federal agents. It's a ploy to try to save all those dollars invested in 3G, the marvellous moneymaker where telecom corps can charge you by the kilobyte. It's not a security issue.

Friends, this is US politics at its best -- "campaign contributions" (bribery) at full throttle.

Open discussions and Anonymous Cowards

[burgburgburg]

are a clear violation of the Homeland Security Act and all participants ("citizens" or not) will be immediately detained for as long as is necessary to combat this scourge against free society.

Next week, we will determine that free society is a clear violation of the Homeland Security Act, and anybody trying to exist in one will be detained for as long as is necessary to combat this scourge of free society.

Do I have this right?

[roseblood]

So...we're looking at taking away the ability of 'terrorists' to use free connectivity via 802.11? Do folks have to turn over their ID and proof of residency to get a hotmail address? Do you have to give your ssn# to use the computer at the local library? What about CyberCafes and PCBaangs? I don't see how a wireless lan makes our nation that much more a target for terrorism. Things that one might think are a little more important on the list are: 1) Our borders that are SO resistant to illegal entry [ I have a sponge that stops water better than our borders keep out illegal foreign nationals ] 2) Our ports in which only a small fraction of containers are ever searched. Will it we keep up the status quo until a WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction) is smuggled in and used against us? 3) Our politicans that are more concerned with their positions of power than the saftey and well being of the citizens they are supposed to represent?

Damnit, I've got some things to say...

[Loki_1929]

This may be a troll; this may be flaimbait; but please allow me be the first to say:

Fuck The Dept of Homeland Security
Fuck John Ashcroft
Fuck Tom Ridge
Fuck Poindexter

Fuck every single COWARD in this administration who is so afraid of his/her own shadow that they feel the need to break down every door on Earth to hunt down everyone who might be thinking about hurting them. Grow a Goddamn pair and get out of my home; you have no business here. Come back when you have balls and a brain and have a reasonable, legal, Constitutional suggestion for how to truly improve the security of this nation. Until then, just sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up because you're not helping. I swear to Christ you people deserve to be put on trial for high treason. You've systematically stripped every single American of his/her rights and freedoms one by one, while simultaneously innundated our primary defenses against terrorists with tons and tons of completely irrelevant information. When we asked for a response to Sept 11, we didn't mean just any response; we wanted a REAL response. What the hell are you people thinking??? Have you all completely lost it?? Has every single person in this administration lost any and all sight of what their job is? Mr President, your job is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That is your job description, and you need only worry about that. Please, take a moment to sit down and read the thing some time? If you simply do what it tells you to do, you'll automatically be doing everything that you're supposed to do.

This administration has, in my view, taken a complete "ends justify the means" position, and has decided that the rights, liberties, and lives of the American people are irrelevant sidenotes next to their political agendas. I am, at this point, absolutely disgusted with my own government; and I find that completely fucking pathetic.

I love my country with all my heart, but Goddamn my government's a bitch right now.

Re:Ludicris

[gmack]

More like wi-fi scares them because it's insecure by default and most big corps leave it on default settings without realising that it's the electronic equivelant of dropping your pants and bending over.

I actually asked a 3com sales guy about it a year ago and got "Well personally there is nothing on my network worth breaking into and I doubt there is anything on yours either"

These people need to take action and clean up before the govt gets more motivated to regulate them.

It used to be Communism

[tres]

I'm not surprised. It's always been like that.

Before they had Terrorism they had Communism. Everything that didn't fit their agenda was part of a Communist plot.

Maybe you don't remember, but not too long ago, Communists would suck the blood out of your children if they were given the chance. (Funny how all those blood-suckers are now in NATO.)

Who can deny that the best thing that ever happened to this bump-in-the-road, lackluster, infantile, wannabe tricky-dick administration was Osama Bin Laden?*

*I in no way support the actions of either camp of fundamentalists. Bin Laden is as intellectually and spiritually meagre as our own pet idiot.

Re:Read the article? No, too hard?

[jonny-mt]

Why yes, thank you, I did read the article ;)

My issue is this: we had a good thing. WiFi was really beginning to gain ground, was really going to be something great. Imagine; freely available Internet access for anyone with a laptop supporting the standard (which most do nowadays). It's everywhere, and it's working.

So what does Homeland Security do? Do they go after the holes (numbering hopefully less than WiFi access points) that hackers exploit in the first place? No. Do they go after Microsoft and (gasp!) Linux for security issues? No. What they choose to do instead is to attack something that in fact has little role in the scheme of things, choosing to ignore the real vulnerabilities.

"We know that (an attack) could bring down the network of this country very quickly. Once you're on the network, it doesn't matter where you got in," said Daniel Devasirvatham, who headed the Homeland Security task force for the Wireless Communications Association International trade association.

Let me quote that again....

Once you're on the network, it doesn't matter where you got in

Right, right.... Good to know that since it doesn't matter where they get in, we're going to spend untold millions of dollars to infringe on personal rights so that we can stop them from getting into the places that don't matter. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the DOS attacks on the root Internet servers amount to approximately bupkiss?

What I do like, however, is Sky Dayton (Boingo CEO) saying that wireless security is possible; it just needs to be easier. Right on, Sky; I agree with you completely! Instead of attaching labels to something so that it can be instantly regulatable (I'm pretty sure that's a word), he's opting to make wireless security ma- and pa- friendly.

And isn't that what it's ultimately about?

Re:Ludicris

[UberGeeb]

Actually, I believe the point is that it is right now 2002, and in either 2 or 6 years someone other than Bush will be in office. He's on year 2 of a 4 year term. This ridiculous idea ranks right up there with outlawing cash because the terrorists might mug us and take our wallets. "Once you're on the network, it doesn't matter where you got in," huh? So let's outlaw AOL, anyone can stick an AOL cd in their computer and get internet access. Terrorists are the real-world equivalent of trolls, and every time we make a rediculous, reactionary lawto try to stop them, they just laugh that much harder.

Will they make up their minds?

[Ironica]

First, the NSA didn't like fiber-optic lines because they had too much trouble listening in on them. Now OHS wants to crack down on Wi-Fi because it's too easy to get into. It sort of looks like the government wants our networks to be transparent to them, and no one else.

And, here's what I really don't get:

"We know that (an attack) could bring down the network of this country very quickly. Once you're on the network, it doesn't matter where you got in."

Does that guy honestly believe that getting into one Wi-Fi network can allow someone to bring down the entire Internet? And if he does, hm, maybe he should look at the original ARPA spec, compare it to the current topography of the 'net, and break up a few megacorps, hm?

Let's not forget that the people making these boneheaded pronouncements are rich white men who remember when color TV came out and they got one for their kids. The internet is a really scary unknown thing. They know it's incredibly powerful... and not much else.

But if they do manage to ban AOL from sending out those disks, I'm going to have to buy them a cookie.

is it just me?

[aberant]

is it just me, or when you read articles like this you remember how you read the book 1984 in the early 90's a chuckled about how it wasn't accurate. Then everyday since you have noticed how this country has moved closer and closer to being something out of that book?

Re:Sucks... but,

[NigelJohnstone]

"One of the many ways terrorists and their cells/hierarchy communicate is through the net "

You don't know who terrorists are until after they commit the crime.

Those 9/11 terrorists had access to telephones, internet and everything else, none of them needed to use open Wifi.

If anything, Arabs driving around with a scanner looking for an open WiFi connection would have alerted the authorities to a problem!

Notice they specifically go after Open WiFi, but they could have gone after free ISPs or Internet PayPhones.
(In Europe there are Internet public payphones, so I assume the US has them too.)

Nobody (outside of China) has gone after Internet Cafe's, nobody has even mentioned public Internet Payphones, only WiFi.
So this must be a commercial agenda aimed at closing Open WiFi connections.

Gotta be that COMETA consortium pushing this drivel.

Politicians don't read Slashdot

[GrouchoMarx]

I've read a lot of posts on this thread b&ming about how stupid the administration is. Guess what, folks. THIS IS THE GOVERNMENT THAT WE ELECTED. The US is still a democracy. Congressmen don't buy the election, the use campaign contributions to buy commercials that sway the opinions of mass numbers of people to support them. YOU are those people. On election day, it is YOU who punches the little hole in the ballot, and YOU who puts every single one of those 500-odd people in Congress in office, as well as the President. If you don't like it, get off your damned ass, close your web browser, and take control of your own government.

How many people here even know how their own representaives voted on Homeland Security? For the record, here is the official list of who in Congress voted for and against the creation of Homeland Security:
House Roll Call
Senate Roll Call

(Interesting note, Senator Hollywood voted against. There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests.)

Is your senator in favor of Homeland Security? Are you? If the answer to those is not the same, then write a one page letter to your senator expressing your extreme displeasure with his/her actions. No, not tomorrow, not when you have time, RIGHT F*ING NOW! Fax it or snail mail it to their local office. (Not their federal office, snail mail doesn't get through there any more due to extended antrax checks.) They represent YOU! If they're not doing it right, make it clear to them.

Is your congressman in favor of Homeland Security? Are you? If the answer to those is not the same, then write a one page letter to your congressman expressing your extreme displeasure with his/her actions. No, not tomorrow, not when you have time, RIGHT F*ING NOW! Fax it or snail mail it to their local office. They represent YOU! If they're not doing it right, make it clear to them.

But what if they did vote the way you wanted them to? WRITE THEM A LETTER OF THANK YOU! Everyone likes positive feedback from the people who control their job. If your senator was one of the nine dissenters, thank them for standing up for what is right! Include with the snail mail letter a check (not cash) for $100 to their campaign fund. Polticians speak two languages; votes and money. Speak your mind in both, in enough numbers, and they WILL listen.

While you're at it, write a short OpEd for the local newspaper. Short, sweet, to the point. Maybe they'll publish it, maybe they won't, but they definitely won't if you don't send it.

This is a democracy. Your government SPEAKS FOR YOU! Your representatives represent YOU. Remind them of it. Daily. Make them scared shitless of losing their job if they cross you. Their first thought when they wake up should be "am I pissing off the people who vote for me?" Their last thought before going to bed should be "am I pissing off the people who vote for me?" As a voter, it is YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to see to it that those who claim to represent you actually do.

250,000 Slashdot voters is 500 times the difference in Florida in 2000, for a Presidential election. Imagine the sheer power of that electorate in congressional elections, if only it would get up off its collective ass and do something.

The Patriot Act of 2001 labels many so-called computer crimes "terrorism." I openly state, I am a terrorist. I seek to instill terror in the hearts of my government of trampling on my freedoms, or of voting against my will. I seek to make my government live in fear of me and my power over them. I seek to give George W. Bush nightmares of crossing me.

I am a voter. Are you?

Pay phones next?

[niola]

If they are going to go after 802.11b because of easy access, why not go after all the bell operators for pay phones since they could be used to plot terrorism? Why not go after all the radio shacks because equipment they sell can be used to make bombs?

This may sound like irrational conspiracy theory, but I actually think that this isn't about terrorism. It is a "foot in the water" test to slowly start regulating the net, and with it free speech.

Just my $.02...

--Jon

Re:Ludicris

[xigxag]

The sad thing is that the terrorists are the only ones with any balls to stand up to the government.

The sad thing is that you felt compelled, and justifiably so, to post that insightful yet "Anti-Amarikin" remark as an AC. Just keep in mind that in the future, anonymous posting on Slashdot may have to be eliminated...because only Terrorists post as Anonymous Cowards.