Slashdot Mirror
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."'
The only thing I can say on this... Sigh...
What else will homeland think of next
and today all pr0n is banned becuase only terrorists shoot a load off
Do you work at 2am eastern? And no, pr0n doesn't count.
My net name says clearly "notforkooks". So that undesirables will stay away...
For God's sake, man, give us back our freedoms!!
I own a cell phone and a radio! I must be a terrorist! OHH and Truckers have radios too! Some of them have laptops with wireless, are they terrorists too?
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?
On the one hand, this obviously is an example of extreme overreaction and paranoia, they do have a point here.
Open wireless nets where anyone can log in without any trail left (other than the hacker must be physically close to the AP OR have a high gain antennae and be miles away) would allow someone to be truly anonymous online. They could trade in kiddey porn, hack poorly secured computer systems, say nasty things about federal employees...all the usual suspects that piss the government off. The government doesn't like this, and is using the umbrella of "homeland security" to do something about it. It has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism (face it : any computer that controls anything truly important probably isn't connected to the internet or has extensive protection).
It would seem that anyone who could get internet access could potentially affect networks. Should they regulate AOL distributing CD's with a thousand free hours? I mean, the terrorists could easily use a stolen credit card (oh, I'm sure they'd have qualms about doing that...)to get initial access....
Okay, so they wouldn't be moving as fast as they would going through a corporate network.
But if a LAN Admin is stupid enough to leave his access points open (with access to the outside world), then the company gets what it deserves for hiring an MSCE to do its network design.
Yes, I run an open AP at home (and there's nothing really interesting to look at, I assure you), but I'm not to the point where I think it's a good idea to put one on the network at work. It's been discussed before, and it'd just be more difficult than it's worth.
"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.
:)?
Right... So, open Wi-Fi, with that dangerous 50-foot useable radius is a top priority for national security. Why not just set up a National Firewall instead
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.
geek page at KY speaks
But I wanted it to be read more widely than was happening with it on my own little homepage so I posted a copy at Kuro5hin. An advantage of the K5 version is that it enabled followup discussion.
Here's the intro:
Thank you for your attention.-- Could you use my software consulting serv
...is far worse than what any cyber-terrorist could dish out.
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
Secure Networks?!? My god what a concept! This is such a direct assault on my constitutional rights! Damn Feds! Next they'll want me to actually supervise my own childeren!
Shift happens. Fire it up.
I really see this and the real story on the same level. Shelters are run by volunteers charitably. Open WAPs are run by volunteers charitably. Both have the theoretical possiblity of aiding terrorism. Shouldn't both be banned if one is? Seriously, how far will we tolerate having our freedoms taken away in the name of security?
live(free) || die;
sure security is good but what about us people who want to share our connection with everybody and everybody?
Also...we should be free to be lazy.
internet like monkeys'
If someone wants to get unfettered access to the internet, if they have some desire and some knowledge they will always be able to. Even if there was no 802.11 whatsoever, I'm sure anyone who is able to take 4 airplanes and crash 3 into major landmarks is also smart enough to physically tap into someones line and gain the access they would have gained through an 802.11 network.
All this will do is cause the end of 802.11 access for most consumers until better security is devised. Corporations should be able to hire people to secure their wireless networks. Geeks will be able to secure their home networks, but right now that is beyond the average consumer. If I tried to tell my father than he should use an SSH tunnel for better security, he would look at me befuddled.
Yes, I can see potential for "homeland security" abuse here (as anywhere). Gotta love the hysterical soundbite from the fed they quoted in the article -- "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.
But it's still just dumb. I'm surprised warchalking hasn't spread much faster.
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.
Join the elite! Post at score:2! Ghostwheel is online.
Myers was one of several consultants for President Bush's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, which is finalizing its National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace.
Last time I checked, cyberspace was not the property of the United States or Bush. How do they expect to secure something that is ment to be used by all people? Is anyone ever going to stand up to this?
SecondPageMedia - Wha
As some people have pointed out, it is good that someone is trying to get bad administrators to secure their networks.
However, that they are doing it because of yet another terrorism threat is definitely not good. The way terrorists are used as a reason for anything nowadays is very scary.
Even if they'd use these tactics to disband Microsoft, I'd still be against them.
My Sig: SEGV
I'm at work now. And yes, I live in the eastern time zone. I've got the midnight to six shift at a desk. Although I'm not actually doing any work...
modded down gets YOU!
WAKE UP LEGISLATORS!
Soon if you donate food you will be responsible to make sure that the can of food has no microscopic pinholes that could have caused the food to spoil.
Donating money to your favorite charity may soon be a terrorist act if there is a terrorist person who benefits from such charity.
Even worse:
If your car is broken into, you are now responsible for finding the thief (you pretty much are by the way...) and paying the police department to run fingerprint analysis. Secondly if the terrorist sells your stereo and obtains money used for a terrorist action by selling your stereo, you are now a terrorist!
WTF Call this a stupid rant, but if we don't band together against this kind of political bullying what will it take? New York not enough? How bout L.A., Seattle, Miami.
Contact your congressman
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
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.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
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.
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
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.
May we never see th
Our department of "Homeland Security" is creating the situation where all users of the net must be tracable....for the purpose of spying on them and controlling our ability to peacefully associate on the net. Our right to assemble for the purpose of communication is gauranteed in the bill of rights, but is under assult.
As with the "Great Firewall of China" articles that I've been seeing here lately, governments are fearfull of any tool that would allow people to communicate freely. Annonymous communication over the net allows disent to grow without the heavy hand of big brother picking out the "ringleaders."
I notice in this article that there is no discussion at all about why this is necessary for security. I don't believe at all that one guy with a laptop on an open AP could "bring the net down"...
We must force our government to explain WHY this and all of the other USA Patriot act bullshit is necessary....making Bush, Poindexter, Ashcroft and the others explain their position to everyone is the act of a real patriot.....don't believe the hype.....
That would be Way High.
Crackers.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
The very title of the department is unfortunate. The tin ear that brought us "Operation Infinite Justice" has surpassed itself with "Homeland Security." The word 'Homeland' is somewhat alien to the American experience. We are a nation of immigrants and decendants of immigrants. Our 'Homeland,' for the most part, is somewhere else. Our country, is America. Of course, National Security Department, and Defense Department were already taken.
The worst part about pronouncements like this is what will actually happen when there is some sort of important warning to get out. Wolf, I cry, Wolf!
I wonder whose advice the feds have been taking on this matter -- could it be from "experts" in the wireless industry, who are in the business of selling wireless, and want to ensure there's no competition?
The government wants harder to break 802.11b. The entire complaint is that 802.11b security is a joke and it's too easy to crack.
So "Big Brother" in this case is saying, "Make your data harder to snoop".
Knowledge, and wisdom, are the needed fuel of a democracy. Groups that enable the accent toward enlightenment are worthy of praise. By limiting what, unclassified-knowledge, citizens may seek, we stunt our growth, we limit our potential, and we soak in apathy.
---
Never stop dreaming.
but we all get stirred together in the soup.
"All they want to do is mandate minimum security levels for Wi-Fi network operators so as to prevent intrusions."
You just don't get it.
Envision this scenario.
In the not too distant future, maybe 10 years from now, a company creates a wifi "web" technology. IT works like the internet. Except without WIRES. It works just like the internet. Someone connects to another local computer, or several of them, and they pass the data along from computer to computer till their reach their destination... JUST LIKE NOW, but without wires.
Except that with idiots creating laws like this, we will never have that internet utopia. It would be illegal to allow just ANY computer to connect to your "network" because the government doesn't want you to be able to allow people to connect to you if you don't know who they are.
Have you ever heard of FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION? I consider this a freedom of association. I have the right to allow strangers into my house. I also have the right to allow strangers to go through my filing cabinets. And damnit, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO ALLOW STRANGERS TO LOG ONTO THE NET through my pc!
The fact that terrorists could use this as a tool to help them out is NOT a good enough reason to crush this sort of technology. This sort of technology has WIDE reaching uses far GREATER than the risk involved could EVER be.
Imagine if this sort of legislation was enacted on the INTERNET back in the 1990's. That it was deemed dial up conenctions were too dangerous to allow to connect to the net, because it is too easy for someone to purchase a dial up account and connect from a large number of locations, and move about secretly.
We would HAVE NO INTERNET TODAY.
And we will have no WIFI INTERNET 2 tomorrow if such BACKWARD thinking people as yourself are allowed to create assinine laws like this.
There's a difference between intentionally limiting rights and establishing minimum standards of conduct. I suppose you guys never heard of speed limits on highways."
Your analogy is poor. High speed kills thousands upon thousands of people a year, and the benefit from it is very small. The risk to benefit ratio is very high.
The benefit from this EXTREMELY great. And the risk is REALLY SMALL. And shitting it down would do little to NOTHING to prevent the terrists from speaking secretly. So the risk to benefit ratio for this is really LOW.
LOW RISK, HIGH BENEFIT.
They MUST NOT do this. It would be ABSURD and make us fall even farther behind countries like Singapore where EVERYONE has a high speed net connection whereas most Americans are still on dialup. When they have WIFI internet that is FREE, with FREE BANDWIDTH, and we don't, it will hurt our economy, and JUST PLAIN SUCK.
Network security is an example of a market externality: if an intruder gains access to one network, attacks can be launched against other networks. These attacks often hurt the recipient of the attack, and not the originally cracked network.
As a result, it seems that basic economics predicts that companies will not, of their own volition, spend sufficient effort and money to secure their networks. In cases like this government intervention can often make everyone better off (compare environmental regulation). Let's at least consider the possibility that the government does something besides make people's lives hard for no reason.
"Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security."
-- Ben Franklin (1971)
I, for one...agree.
-- AcquaCow
up 12 days, 22:30, 2 users, load averages: 993.20, 994.21, 994.56
*makes note to limit user processes...
They seem to be saying that leaving unsecured WiFi is a way to allow hackers into your network.
For example. Imagine you had a bunch of windows machines on your home LAN, and they all connected to the net through a Linux or BSD firewall using NAT or something. You put up a Wifi net so you can user your laptop, and now everything's vulnerable.
The situation is even worse at a large company that might have sensitive documents, or tons of unpached computers waiting to be hacked and turned into DDOS zombies.
I don't think he's attacking open Wi-Fi connections that let anyone get online anonymously, at least not directly, just pointing out that Wi-fi can punch holes in security systems, and allow hackers to get in and fuck with your stuff.
At least, I certainly hope he's not saying the government is going to make open wi-fi illegal.
Open wifi is a tool that can be used for good or ill. Better laws would mandate that servers be patched and such.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
yes, people today in the US fell less secure in some ways, say, when traveling on airlines. this is understandable due to the trauma of 9-11 and the threat of worse, such as the SAM attack in Kenya last week. bad things do happen in the world, they are unavoidable, and my mother would agree, better paranoid than alive.
however, it is this /.er's opinion that the right wing extremists of our beloved (not) presidential administration is overly eager to use the situation to extend the police powers of the state.
every little chink in personal liberty, every new crime invented, every new link to terrorism where it does not exist, ALL of THEM, are affronts to not only the liberty of the land of the free, but to the free world at large.
take Jose Padilla. an enemy combatant now, why? last time i looked (i took a history degree in a prior life) a Citizen of the United States had certain rights, even if he used them in a way detrimental to society. this is a "free" country, treason is an option, still punishable by death, none the less an option. that isn't to say it's my choice, but he made his willingly. why is he all of the sudden, this native born son (or bastard, don't know yet really, do we?) having something taken by Ashcroft (remember, he did lose an election to a corpse before his elevation to Grand Inquisitor), that a proper court of Law would only strip of him (this is being decided now) in the most dire of circumstances.
wi-fi security is just another nick in the neck of lady liberty. unfortunately, if you add the nicks up, there's a gaping hole at the moment, and not enough people to stand up to GOP sticks and stones making these nicks. may the god i don't believe exists help us all, without faith based government initiatives.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
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.
"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,"
I see something along the lines of the gov't national id here... perhaps a gov't supplied logon for every internet user? (think Microsoft Passport) something that might be required to get onto the internet? If nothing else, a more aggressive monitoring of the internet by the gov't and lots more restrictions and shutdowns, maybe things like the 'great firewall of china'.
I hope that it doesn't come to this... but it's a scary and very possible thought...
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
In other news, the Department of Homeland Security has issued a statement outlining that planes, trucks and box cutters are tools for terrorists and therefore will be dissolved out of society. Director of Homeland Security, Steven Martin, is quoted to have called these tools of terrorism "double plus not good".
To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
It's starting to look like the Simpsons might outlast West. Civ....
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
in soviet russia dead horse beats you!
Would "everybody and everybody" include spammers and DDoSers that would be more than willing to use your connection as a spoof IP?
when we have a department of our government telling people that somthing is bad becasue it is open,
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
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?
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
he's a wee bit older than that. :)
Let me give you a list of things that aid and abet terrirists: 1. Water. Terrorists drink it you know. 2. Toliets. They use these too. 3. Beds. Terrorists sleep you know. 4. Air. They also breathe. 5. Newspapers, books, especially phone books. You know that terrorists wuse codes based upon all of these, don't you? 6. Telephones. Terrorists use the phone to talk to each other 7. The Internet. Enough said? 8. Restaurants. Terrorists meet at restaurants. 9. TV, Cable TV, the radio. Terrorists use all of these to see what their cohorts are up to. 10. Parks. terrorists meet at parks all the time. 11. Train stations, bus stations, airports. Terrorists meet at all these places. They use these to travel. Just think of what they did with airplanes after all. 12. Stores. Terrorists buy items used in terrorism there after all. 13. Cars. Terrorists travel in cars all the time. Same thing with motorcycles, motor scooters and bicycles. We need to BAN these items as soon as possible! Don't be surprised if this is just scratching the surface. Another list will be out next week. Please not that guns are not on the list though. After all, if guns are banned, only terrorists will have guns!
What's next? Regulation of the open ethernet ports or phone lines in lobbies and libraries?
I suppose I am aiding terrorism by providing an open (but regularly monitored) open AP for the couple hundred feet around my apartment and for providing ethernet drops to my neighbors.
I know it isn't a paranoid design, but it is regulated through monitoring. If it is abused I'll lock out the abusers and depending on the specific abuse, I might even do offensive data collection and hand data over to the authorities. I think my "policies" are sufficient so that I can help out neighbors that need access and keep abuses to a minumum.
Must all communication be trackable? I guess we have freedom to speak, but not to listen?
So let me just straighten this mess out for all you people that are lucky to live in the 'land of the free'.
;)... "Hooray!"
Running an insecure wireless network is a crime.
So lets fix this... oh no wait... discussing security issues relating to said wireless network is illegal under the DMCA. (assuming theres even a tiny bit of copyrighted media on it)
Truthfully I think litigation is pushing the US technology sector into a downward spiral. Something is going to break soon, it will have to.
Its obviously time for new tactics, Elftor style
those who control the past, control the future. those who control the present, control the past.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Terrorists use these too after all.
Would wireless networking users rather:
A. Secure their access points now
or
B. Be responsible when an unauthorized user uses their open access point for illegal activities
If anyone doubts that a tyranny is being established in this country, check out the following:
6 1116A4ECB1A7BE88256C8600544DCB/
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit:
"The Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms."
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6
Dangerous times in this country:
In 1999, the State of California enacted amendments to its gun control laws that significantly strengthened the state's restrictions on the possession, use, and transfer of the semiautomatic weapons popularly known as "assault weapons." Plaintiffs, California residents who either own assault weapons, seek to acquire such weapons, or both, brought this challenge to the gun control statute, asserting that the law, as amended, violates the Second Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and a host of other constitutional provisions. The district court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims. Because the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms, we affirm the dismissal of all claims brought pursuant to that constitutional provision.
Slashdot is for geeks, but you forgot:
Sex!
Breed terrorist, breed!
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
I have tp agree this IS bullsh!t. Let them show they are at least competant before they start asking for more. Let them at least SPOT Bin Laden, then we can talk some more. But until they show they can use what they have, I see no reason for them to get more.
Seems like I have yet to hear a single good idea from the White House, including dems and non-partisans as well.
Why the white house can only come up with obvious ideas that a 6 year old can thing of, yet they want us to think they are intelligent and smart is beyond me.
Their decisions show the intelligence and innovativeness of a child.
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.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
So are they saying all you need is ACCESS to the Internet to do a crime? While I understand that yeah, once on the Internet you can crack or hack stuff, this seems like the wrong approach.
If you can drive a car, then BOOM you can drive under the infuence (DWI/DUI)?? SO NO CAR FOR YOU? OR ANYONE?
Let's think about his for a minute. Access to a means of _possible_ wrong doing is wrong? (or being the one to set it up, and enabling it?) Come on.
I agree using a publically accessible wireless net is cool and all, but I also think their admins should either 1)lock it down 2) not use them in the first place b/c securing a wireless lan is either 100% impossible or nearly so.
If you are a corp with Wireless then my suggestions would be to reconsider using it, b/c of freeloaders adn security. Then if you must use it, consider making the IPs it hands out public IPs only. THen use a firewall so those IPs can only access a PPTP or tunneling server that gets the users on to the "private" or 10.dot networks. Have those users use the pptp connection as their default gateway and disallow getting from the regular IP to another IP but the PPTP server. THis way it is open for all, but useless unless you tunnel in to the real (private and controlled) network...
On the other hand, we all know war-driving kiddies are terrorists, and because they are stealing bandwidth, and SPAMMERs are not, because they steal TIME and Bandwidth.... If only that spam dude from yesterday could be found to have setup a wireless network at his home (and office) we the people could use this to get him locked up!!! (just kidding, his mail would pile up and cause a public eyesoar, and we'd have to lock him up again...)
And all that is not to mention how this assumes that access to the internet is by itself a problem. If that is the case then we are fucked as a country, because of how people don't patch their systems, and company sell insecure software which is what is the real cause if y0u ask me.
-i patch daily, and am behind a fireall (@home)
-gardeners have root access **
-friends come and go, enemies accumulate **
-attention windows user: you have moved your mouse, please reboot **
(brought to you by slashdot sigs)
**(these are my favorites)
Silly Rabbit: tricks are for kids.
This just in, investigators have determined that old ladies should not carry credit cards. It has been determined that terrorists could mug such old ladies, and use their credit card to signup for an account on aol and send email. The office of homeland security is attempting to pass a bill making it illegal for old ladies to carry credit cards. Investigators have also found that old ladies should not carry cellphones, live anywhere with a phone, have a computer or even a mailbox. Terrorists could use all of these things for their evil purposes. All old ladies are advised to report to the closest prison to be locked away for the remainder of their lives. Little old men are reportedly under invesigation now. Currently the dept of homeland security is recommending that everyone live in a box and turn into paranoid schitzo's.
The office of homeland security has no affiliation with al-qaeda.
I guess we just have to come up with something that's "for the children" and "fights terrorism" at the same time. Seems to me, that would be an unstoppable combination.
The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
-- Scotty.
I'd like to turn in my jerk of a next door neighbor, who has horrible wireless security, but does have a really fast connection, and some great pr0n on his comp...... Um, (remembers Homeland Security and Patriot Act hacker clauses) nevermind, just forget it...... What is a network???? IchNiSan
Ignoring the arguments about whether it's "terrorism", this does touch on a very important issue. Does making your computer deliberately insecure count as negligence if it is used to commit a crime? Are you liable if you accidentally leave your car unlocked and it is used to commit a crime? What if you did so deliberately? What if you put a sign in the window saying "Anyone is free to use this car so long as you return it"? Where do you draw the line between generosity and irresponsibility?
I knew this was coming, but hoped it wouldn't. Folks, its time to realize that what is going on has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. We are witnessing the rapid deployment of a full-scale police state, the likes of which has never been possible in human history. All the signs and seals are there.
I wish all slashdot readers the best of luck. Freedom was great while it lasted. Enjoy it while you still can. May we all survive the coming tragedies and meet on the other side alive and free.
www.enthea.org
This helps terrorism, that makes you a terrorist, X and Y give terrorists the means to Z. Give me a break. There is no way for a free society to be completely secure. This is a fact of life. Putting every little thing into either a "your helping the terrorists" or "your helping America fight the terrorists" light really doesn't do justice to the situation and trivializes the horrible things the terrorists have done by putting them into the same category as having an insecure wireless network. Come on.
</rant>
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
I think there are a number of different things going on here.
First of all, we're talking about an administration that is breathtakingly clueless about technology. Because they don't understand how a thing works means that the thing will be used to wreak havoc, right? That sounds chillingly similar to our cold war "capability equals intent" policy.
I also think it's a pretty solid bet that the infotainment industry is fueling those fears to protect their investment in broadband and their ability to sell it.
I also tend to think that people like Dick Cheney and George Bush view technology (espcially technology that provides or enhances intellectual freedom) of any kind as an inherent threat to his vision of what America should be. After all, "There ought to be limits to freedom."
Karma
I just opened my Wireless router wide open. Anyone with an 802.11b network card should have no problem immediately getting an IP address from my router and should have completely open and unrestricted access to the internet from anywhere within about 800ft of my house. I encourage every single one of the 250,000 daily slashdot readers who has a wireless access point or a wireless router to do the same thing. Secure your computers, open your wireless.
To hell with the Dept of Homeland insecurity and their ridiculous ranting. They can take their Gibsonesque FUD elsewhere.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Yeah, like that'll happen.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Can someone please explain to me what the 'IN SOVIET RUSSIA' jokes are all about? Which slashdot story did I miss?
It is more likely that the government intends to set up their own. When 802.11 is outlawed, only the feds will have 802.11.
Our department of "Homeland Security" is creating the situation where all users of the net must be tracable [...]
Annonymous communication over the net allows disent to grow without the heavy hand of big brother picking out the "ringleaders."
I agree with you up to the point where you brought in the tried and tired Big Brother rhetoric of the unhealthily paranoid.
"Homeland Security" does want to create a situation where everything is traceable, and they wouldn't be able to do it, if it wasn't for the fact that they could bully ISPs and telcos into compliance. The Internet protocols in place don't allow for normal traffic to be very traceable if you don't want it to. At the very worst, you find out what ISP somebody got access through, but the ISP refuses to say anything.
Now "Homeland Security" wants to bully all open WiFi ports into closing because of the hypothetical premise that a 'terrorist' could use the open APs to anonymously conduct terrorist business online. And that's true - but guess what, it's just as easy to splice a few wires in the right locations to get the same access, only wired. Or they could splice and then put on an AP and homebrew their comm links.
This is doing nothing except regulating a new useful technology before it even gets off the ground. I'm pissed - I want WiFi to become ubiquitous, but not with the hand of "Homeland Security" on its shoulder. What bullocks!
Note to feds: hands off my technology. If you want to touch it, you'd better be prepared to show me a search warrant.
Unfortunately, they don't even need a search warrant anymore, under these new bills. *sigh*
Best rant ever!
If I had some mod points I would use them and give you a +1 Kick Ass Rant.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
All they want to do is mandate minimum security levels for Wi-Fi network operators so as to prevent intrusions.
There's a difference between intentionally limiting rights and establishing minimum standards of conduct. I suppose you guys never heard of speed limits on highways.
Argument by analogy is always a dicey proposition. It's not clear how speed limits are precisely the same as mandating a secure network. After all, the threat of bodily harm is far more readily apparent in the latter case. If you want to extend this analogy to its natural conclusion, you would be forced to agree that mandating secure wireless networks is wrong, because the government cannot establish a speed limit on private roads...oh sure, you can get to public roads (the internet) from your private road, but regulation does not apply until that threshold is crossed.
So let's drop the shallow analogy and argue the actual point at hand. Many home and business users would probably stand to gain from regulations of WiFi equipment. However, only a few business and institutions are actually in a position where a network compromise could prove dangerous. And these should clearly not be employing wireless technology (I would be concerned, for example, if the computer network controlling the local nuclear power plant were attached to a wireless network...) But for the average business, or home network, the real concern is not that vital computer systems are more vulnerable (since there is no shortage of systems hacked through the wire network), but the greater anonymity afforded the attacker.
I don't deny that this is a problem, and makes serious attacks that much harder to prosecute, but it does pose an important question for the general populace as this technology becomes ubiquitous. Namely, what are the responsibilities of a private citizen to monitor their own private network? I mean, whether the hole in security is due to faulty protocols implemented in the hardware or a clueless user (or an intentionally open network) is immaterial from the perspective of infrastructure security. I think this discussion needs to happen soon, and should not be one-sided (the government lecturing the public).
I also think it mildly amusing that the government is now incredibly concerned with the security of private home and small-business networks, given its own chequered past, with missing laptops and high-profile break-ins. Maybe the terrorists don't need much help
Apologies for rambling...
Cheers,
The Mouser
Do you realize this puts a stop to wireless internet services that are intentionally left open for free public access?
You missed the Slashdot story, and its dupe.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
I think it's totally within your right to run your open network. Then when somebody uses your open network to cause havoc and destruction, you should be held liable as a facillitator of their crimes. Seems totally fair to me.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Call me crazy, but if you do the right thing for the wrong reason, then you have *not* done the right thing. You just got lucky.
Like what I said? You might like my music
You're a fucking idiot; What you're saying is absolute bullshit. If you really believe that make the fucking government tell Microsoft to get their fucking act together. More damage has been done by their products alone than anything else on the net. WiFi isn't what is insecure its corporate networks that are the core of the problem. Most corporate networks run Microsoft software; what the fuck does that tell you?
It was originally a joke by Yakov Smirnoff. Then it turned into a meme on Fark, got added to their filters, and moved to Slashdot. Basically, the idea is to take a sentence, switch it around, and add "In Soviet Russia" (e.g., "You watch television." becomes "In Soviet Russia, television watches YOU!").
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.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
and today all pr0n is banned becuase only terrorists shoot a load off
If you jerk off, terrorists win.
Obviously......
The Fed's consider domestic terrorists to be a greater threat than the one posed by the foreign terrorists?
Not a day goes by, without my server being an attacked by Nimda, or some hack attempt from a foreign land.
Nothing in their grand plan secures those foreign ISP's or those already hacked domestic PC's.
Or the million or so, H1-B's tech workers they left running amuck in the USA.
Makes you wonder, just who is running the Fed's funny farm?
The car doesn't have to be actually used in a crime.
She gave me the specific example of how her next-door neighbor in the town of Fortune left her keys in her car parked on her driveway. The car was stolen by some joyriders and driven over a cliff. The neighbor was charged for leaving the keys in the car.
I leave it up to you to debate whether that was appropriate or not, but it makes a certain sense to me.
However, if your network is buttoned-down so no one can crack your hosts, but you provide free anonymous internet access to anyone who might happen to be in the neighborhood, I don't see how that could legitimately be considered negligence.
Instead, I see that as providing a valuable public service, for example to enable those working for legitimate political change to communicate among themselves without fear of reprisal.
That's not terrorism - at least not if what the folks are doing anonymously on the Internet is planning to win an election that would remove a despotic regime from office.
No, that's one of the basic principles upon which our great nation was founded.
Anonymous pamphleteering, for example, was one of the popular ways of promoting patriotic causes in the early days of the union.
It's been done elsewhere. I understand the British put a price on Jonathan Swift's head for writing A Modest Proposal.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Worst case at this time (depending on your point of view) we've only got our 3rd amendment right left, which is quartering soldiers in private houses without the owner's permission (nothing for renters here). Best case we've still got 3,9,10.
There's not much left to lose, and plenty of room for them to tighten up what they've already taken.
Like what I said? You might like my music
- Public Libraries
- Kinko's
- Hotel Rooms
- Tourist Information Centers
- Airport Lounges
- Highway Rest Stops (often have Public Internet Terminals)
- Internet Cafes
- Cable Company Kiosks
I hope that helps you commit your fiendish acts of email and web browsing after all the 802.11b access points in the world have been properly secured.Praise Allah.
As a ex Enlisted US Air Force person, im very ashamed in my government.
I served this country for its freedoms and the rights of the people.
Now the government wants to take it all away bit by bit.
How much of the original constitution is there left? Really?
The government now has the right to spy on its own people, so much for privacy...
If we share knowledge, and its illegal now? (DMCA)
Are right to have guns are slowly being token away.
So much for freedoms of America, the thing I was fighting for in the service.
I don't know about you guys but im about ready to head to Canada.
-- Trevor
- Mr. Echo
See, terrorists can put items on ebay and use the money they make to promote more terrorism! So..when you use Ebay, you're helping terrorism.. get it? This will have to be on next week's list. Thank you, John Asscroft
And, here's what I really don't get:
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.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
in other news today, the whitehouse has been classified as a terrorist target and has been moved to canada.
Reporter: We hear that you've come up with a list of things that should be regulated because a terrorist may use these things to cause harm. One of the well known ones is wifi networks, are there any others and how do you think terrorists are using them to their advantage?
Bush: Yes, well one of our other main concerns is airports.
Reporter: Airports?
Bush: Yes, airports. I spent millions of dollars researching previous terrorist attacks to see what they may do. It turns out, in every airline hijacking the terrorists went to an airport to board the plane. If we shut down the airports the terrorists can't get onto the planes so there will be no more airline hijackings.
Reporter: But how will people fly planes?
Bush: I am not at liberty to disclose that information at this present time for fear that terrorists may use it to their advantage.
Reporter: Ok... moving on, it says here that you've decided to enforce stricter laws on, I don't know if I'm reading this correctly, buying coats?
Bush: Yes, that's right, it seems that most suicide bombers hide explosives under some sort of coat. If the terrorists can't buy the coats, they can't hide the bombs, if they can't hide the bombs, they can't blow themselves up. It will eliminate the suicide bomber threat.
Reporter: But if we can't buy coats how will we keep warm in the winter?
Bush: See that's the beauty of it, there's this great thing I heard about called global warming. We're not going to need the coats because it's getting warmer, not colder!
Reporter: Ummmm, right, well anyway, what's this about putting restrictions on telephone use?
Bush: Ahhh, that's my greatest plan of all, see now if I can stop the terrorists from using telephones, cell phones, earphones, headphones, megaphones, all types of phones, they won't be able to talk to each other. If they can't talk to each other they can't plan things or make threats or do any of that nasty terrorist stuff.
Reporter: How are you planning on stopping terrorists from using phones?
Bush: Well I'm going to make it illegal under the new "Apple Pie and Baseball, God Bless America Act". Under this act, it's unamerican to use telephones, and it's illegal to be unamerican because terrorists are unamerican.
Reporter: But how bad would it be if we stopped using telephones? What if there's an emergency and you need to use a phone?
Bush: Emergency? What emergency? Are you hiding something? Are you a terrorist?
Reporter: That's the most rediculous thing I've heard, what makes you think I'm a terrorist?
Bush: AHA! Only a terrorist would say something like that! Seize her!
*At this time 5 secret service agents arrest the reporter, hold her in prison for weeks without telling her what she's done, or giving her a trial, or a lawyer*
Sad thing is that's not too unlikely
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?
Wuuhuu! Way to go again, the "Land of the Free"!
Are you happy in your police state? How long till the Great Firewall of USA?
One of the referring pages I found listed in my log is I've held it in too long: I am no longer Proud to be an American. wherein the poster says:
and so on.Look at the bottom of the guy's post where he gives a link with the text "This is what inspired me to finally say something".
I've worried about the potential for backlash by saying what I did in such a public way, and further to be making such an effort to get people to read it.
But if I was able to get even one person to speak out as this fellow said I did, well that makes it all worthwhile.
There's lots of people who posted to the K5 discussion who don't agree with what I said, but that doesn't bother me so much. I'm very pleased to have opened up so much debate. People are talking about these issues that might not have otherwise.
People need to talk about this stuff, or we will end up in a great deal more trouble than we are already in.
And there were some fairly intelligent points raised at K5 that seem to poke holes in my argument. That's OK too, because I have answers to their objections, and will be able to make some small revisions to my original piece that should ultimately make it stronger and more convincing. So in the end those who found fault with my essay have done me a favor.
Finally, in the little while between posting the above and being just about to post this, my copy of the essay has received 102 page views referred from this slashdot discussion.
I'm very glad of that - prior to posting at K5, the essay was getting about 300 page views a month. So far this month (just a few days into the month) my copy has got 594 page views, and I imagine the K5 post got many times that.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
There have been a spate of these stories coming out of the BSA for months.
9 22 8&mode=thread&tid=95
BSA is not a government organisation its a commercial on.
I think it is because of this:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/06/125
The companies that want to sell Wi-Fi connections. But if everyone gives it away how can they sell it??
So they claim open WiFi is a security hole for terrorists and bingo Government makes laws, people close their networks and IBM, Intel etc. can then sell those services.
So, because there's the POSSIBILITY that someone COULD, or IS using my open network to facilitate terrorism is enough to convict me now?
Guilt by association. I love it.
So, because there's the possibility that one of my guests at a neighborhood barbecue or block party COULD BE a terrorist, that I should be held liable because I was giving aid and comfort (gave him a burger off the grill and a Coke out of the cooler), right?
And just because I COULD go berserk with a cleaver and chop a few people down to hamburger, I shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects right?
And because I COULD go blind watching TV, I shouldn't be allowed to do that.
And because I COULD be run over by a car, walking down the street, I should never leave my house.
The earth COULD drop into the sun tomorrow! So why should I give a damn about doing anything productive today?
It's called "taking a point to the ludicrous extreme". And the original point is already fairly ludicrous.
I also call it "overbearing".
Only an idiot thinks they can make the world completely safe, which is what these jackboots are trying to do.
Life is a series of risks. Some of them educated, some not. If we take reasonable, non-invasive action, and educate people as to some of the ultimate extremes of what could happen, you've allowed them to make an educated decision about their risks.
Rather than simply removing people's rights, and acting in a manner which has no bearing on common sense. Because of a POSSIBILITY.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Mod a car, to be a radio controlled bomb.
Easy to do, but once the feds learn you do this crud, they intercept frequencies, and find you, and you get smoked.
Why was there never any big Radio Controlled car thieves with surveilance cameras? CUZ THE FEDZ!
Now you have your radio controlled terrorism, but you take it to the internet. CRUD! YOU USED SOME OPEN LINK, and you can't be traced! No one knows who you are. Feds can never catch you, ever.
This is why they so freaking want this crap cleaned up... If you think its tough to get exact protocol to defeat a radio controlled device terrorist, this next step is freaking close to impossible.
God spoke to me
Wired's article implies that they're trying to protect us from attackers using a wireless access point to launch a significant attack on the Internet itself. "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," were the words of the Homeland Security representative.
That's true, but stupid. By exactly their "logic", a terrorist or criminal could launch the same attack whether they connect through an unsecured wireless network or any other way. So unless they have a comprehensive strategy for making sure that terrorists can't get internet access *at all* then this doesn't accomplish anything. So either the administration doesn't realize this, or they do but they're using it as a smoke screen for some real reason, or it's being misreported. Frankly, I'd give about equal odds to all three.
You can't be serious.. This is a troll right? There is no such thing as GIVING UP YOUR FREEDOM, it's not a sacrifice, it's not a convience, it's givng away of your freedom. Parents and grandparents during WWII did not give up their freedom they fought for it. Which is what we need to fucking do, fight for our freedoms. Man you're really brainwashed; thinking that things can be undone. Once you give up your freedoms you just don't fucking say ok I want them back now. That's not how it works MeatMan, when you give them up they are GONE and the only way to get them back would be to get a mass gathering of people to vote for it. However, there are laws in place that already do away with "your vote counts" so the only other way is bloodshed because what's left in essence is a country run by the few. Trust me, the war on terrorism is screwing and will screw alot of people over in the future and it can and probably will happen to you. Can't you people see that the only people being litigated against are people who have done nothing wrong?! This war on terrorism has caught how many terrorists?!
Note that this was 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is located in San Francisco, California. Justices for this court are drawn from places like Hawaii and California, where the law has been drawn strictly against private firearms ownership. This court is also heavily stacked with Democratic appointees - of the 28 congressionally allowed spots, 17 are Democratic, and only 7 are Republican (yes, there are vacancies - you can blame the previously Democratically held Senate for that.) Worse, cases are usually decided by a 3 judge panel, so it isn't as though the decision was a consensus of all 24 active judges.
Please note, that this decision goes against the current administration's belief that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, so I'd expect press from the White House regarding this in the near future. Basically, all this means is that they'll have to go to the next layer above the 9th circuit (Appellate? Supreme Court? Someone who remembers the judicial review process please speak up...) It probably would be more effective in the short term to amend the California Constitution to prohibit laws infringing on the individual right to bear arms, but given the politics here, we're probably better off waiting until the Supreme Court (which seems to have a better understanding of the Constitution) weighs in.
Another note - for those of you willing to sit through the 70 pages of court opinion (I just skipped to the back) you will notice that the court judged the 2nd amendment to be a collective right, and as such, the provision in the California assault weapons act allowing retired officers to hold so called assault weapons to be inconsistent with the intent of the CAWCA (California Assault Weapons Control Act.) I wonder what the Fraternal Order of Police has to say about this...
Final note. None of this would even be an issue if Bill Lockyer and Gray Davis had been cashiered a long time ago (yes, the original Roberti-Roos act was signed in 1989, but it only banned a few models specifically by name. The amended 1999 act, signed by Davis, bans firearms by type - no centerfire rifles with detachable magazines and flash surpressors, no fixed magazines greater than 10 rounds, etc.) Those of you who can, but don't vote, have only yourselves to blame...
well, had a quick flick through a few posts and can't see it mentioned...
What about the implications for the "free access points" that we've been hearing about?
Terror abuses the freedom so I don't think companies, governments and individuals will be able to live with free access points if they want protect themselves against the unknown; to be distrustful towards everyone [Firefighters anyone?].
A compromise may be possible with some sort of distributed key system but I think that's a fudge. It would be better to toss a coin and allow or disallow?
A blog I run for the wealth
I thought this was BS being pushed by the 3G backers aswell, but I suspect now that it is the Cometa consortium to sell WiFi via 20,000 hot spots:
9 22 8&mode=thread&tid=95
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/06/125
If there are already several thousand free hotspots then they could not sell that service, so they push this nonsense as a way of getting laws to shut down the free competition.
Nobody needs to come to America, find an open WiFi connection then use it to attack a government website. All they have to do is to go into a cyber cafe and use that, or dial into one of the free ISP from whereever in the world they are use that. They don't even need to leave their living rooms.
The story is just complete crud.
No, what I'm saying is that, there shouldn't be some regulation, and that you should be able to run your network however you want. Then if somebody DOES use your network to cause havoc, you get to pay part of the price for their actions.
Create an incetive for people to maintain security and they will.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I agree. This sucks butt!
The government is saying, quite rightly, that if you provide a conduit to the net, then you must take responsibility for that conduit.
That's what governments do best - make sure there is accountability for whatever goes on (without regulating what goes on).
Gosh, by that standard, running Windows helps terrorists.
(But since Microsoft gives zillions to the GOP, we won't see much done about that. Heck, they might try to mandate running windows. Remember, laws are now being drafted directly by big business, without the cumbersum middleman of an elected representative.)
Oops! Did I say that?
I have been reading slashdot for little under a year now. I rarely post but I do enjoy for the most part reading what others think about the stories. Often times some very insightful and useful information is posted, and other times a liberal will start to explain without any real facts to back the claim how the government is doing all this horrible stuff to take everyones rights and is passing a bunch of laws that do not make any sense and are stripping people of their rights.
It gets rather tiresome to hear someone with extreme leftist ideas spout off about an article they did not read and then get modded up as insight when really it just trys to excite and confuse people, getting them to take action before honestly knowing what the problem is in the first place.
If one reads the article they will see that the government is trying to get people to make a real attempt at securing their networks. They are not saying you can not run a WAP or that you will be arrested for doing so. It is saying here are some tips that someone should follow if they wish to avoid litigation. If a person runs a service they are liable for what the users of the service do. The fact that the word terrorist is thrown in at every which point is sickening but the reasons why someone should attempt to secure their networks is not.
As for the idea that the government is stealing everyones rights in the name of homeland security, while it is not necesarily a bad thing to be paranoid, at least try to think about what exactly is being done. Most of the PATRIOT ACT actually does have some parts to it that make a great deal of sense, as well a few parts that are a bit broad. Allowing our government to have more powers to watch the citizens is not necessarily a bad thing. A certain amount of privacy should be kept but not at the cost of life. If reading someone's email saves someones life, then it was worth the invasion of privacy. I know i'm going to get killed for such a comment but its true.
Thank you for listening to me rant on a bit.
The real reason behind canning open access wireless is this: If people can connect freely thanks to altruistic techs, they won't pay $49.99 a month to some random lobbying corporation.
It is recently announced that a group of companys' are joining together to provide nationwide wireless access, for a fee of course. Then the next day the government comes out trying to make it illegal to provide free internet access.
What a big suprise.
Netzero you better start sending money to DC or your going to be next.
"but it seems that anyone who opens their "pipe" to the "community" is in violation of many ISP's subscription agreements"
9 22 %208&mode=thread&tid=95
Absolutely, the ISPs have long tried to detect and ban NAT Servers from their network and even tried to change the NAT protocol so they can look behind and see what network they are driving.
However, thats a big difference between "you are in violation of your terms of use for your ISP" and "you are helping terrorists" - which is the nonsense line being pushed here.
It seems to be COMETA pushing this, exactly the right timing for them, exactly the right location (US Market) and Intel's+IBM's+ATNT presence in this consortium indicates that Turf/Fake PR/FUD and other stuff are likely:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/06/125
So how long before skateboarding is a crime?
I was going to ask, but was too embaressed.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Orwell's RPMs have increased to at least 10,000.
"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.
Maybe the schmucks that are running the Internet show should be held responsible if their network is at risk. Open wireless networks are usually decentralized and able to withstand a network attack much more gracefully than a structured network such as a corporate LAN or even the Internet. Once all these local open wireless nets work their way into spanning the world the network will be much more robust against attack. Not that I don't love the Internet but it certainly isn't my fault if people can break it so easily.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Why not the department of Domestic Security? The word is even in the preamble to the constitution - "... insure domestic tranquility..."
/. readers who are not students of history or may be too young to remember.) The first Gulf War? Not about 'freeing Kuwaitis', but about oil. Why are we going after Iraq? It has nothing to do with terrorism or security. (If the administration were really worried about who potentially has a nuclear weapon, we would be going after North Korea which has stated that it has a nuclear weapons program. And they're part of the spun-for-bloodlust-creating Axis Of Evil. Remember that one kiddies?)
I'll tell you why. Because it doesn't sound as warm and fuzzy. The people who came up with "Homeland" did a lot of research. Probably even more research than is put into the search for a new business names. There were probably psychologists and sociologists and focus groups - sworn to secrecy of course. "Domestic" sounds sterile and abstract, although entirely accurate. "Homeland" is a middle-america, bread-basket term. "Keep the home fires burning", "gotta protect the 'home'". "Fatherland" would have pissed off the women - besides it's already been taken. Also remember that this was aimed at the average sixth grade level of the population.
Just like you said, we americans don't have a "homeland". That's a term for a place where the people have lived continuously for many, many centuries. I don't think the two centuries we have been here counts. And besides, this is the "homeland" of the indigenous peoples who were here for centuries before we arrived\invaded\committed genocide on the previous inhabitants. I don't feel comfortable calling them "indians" as that name came from a navigational\perception error and "native americans" is another term imposed by the conquering people. Why should people already here name themselves after Amerigo Vespucci, a spanish invader?
And before I get people observing that domestic security doesn't cover those americans who might reside in another country, homeland doesn't cover it either. There may be a better description to include that, but I'm sure that those who made the decision were not nearly as concerned about accuracy as they were about spin.
The phrase "Homeland Security" pisses me off. The way Dubya says 'nuk-u-lur' pisses me off. (Actually I'm embarrassed for my country every time I hear him say it incorrectly)And the references to a (permanent - see George Orwell's 1984) "War on Terrorism" piss me off. The attacks on 9/11 were not a declaration of war, only countries can do that. They were criminal acts perpetrated by and organized group. We have plenty of laws, both domestic (RICO, etc.) and international that cover that. But to call it a criminal act and hunt down the conspirators would not have furthered the administrations agenda of restricting the constitutional rights of americans and making the middle east safe for an american pipeline to bring oil from the Balkans to the Atlantic. Is there anyone still naive enough to think that this is not about oil and american imperialism? When will we stop letting our leaders do this to us? Actually there is a really good article here about why we buy it and do it to ourselves. It talks about the 'strict father' mode of communication (Obediance to authority - Conservative\Bush) vs. the 'nurturant parent' mode (Empathy and helping others -Progressive\Clinton, for example) and how they drive the american psyche. It's worth a read.
The actions in Korea and Viet Nam were not about human rights or freeing people, they were about industry and furthering a political agenda - wiping out 'communism'. The equivalent of an ideological pissing contest. (This info for the benefit of
Nope, Iraq is all about oil and Daddy's wounded pride. In addition to having the one of the worlds largest reserves of oil, it's the next place where we need to put a pipeline. And don't forget that Saddam put out a contract on George Bush the first. And that Bush the first took a lot of heat about not going on into Baghdad and Removing Saddam. He took the heat even though the greatest minds of the time said it was better for middle east and world stability to leave him there.
The U.S. action with the U.N. in Bosnia and Kosovo were primarily humanitarian actions. And under whose administration did they take place? Yup, Clinton. If there had been a republican administration in power at that time, we would not have helped. Bosnia and Kosovo have no oil or natural resources that american companies can make a profit from. Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Republican administrations go to war for business and political interests, Democrats go to war for humanitarian interests. Personally, I know which one I prefer - if it has to happen at all.
I'm sorry if this has been a rant and off-topic (sort-of), but I just had to vent. Mod me down if you must, but engage me in discussion if you can. That is the very essence of our freedom.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
The point of all the recent laws and bills is not to stop terrorists so much as it is, to quote Carlin, fuck you in the ass any time they want, as long as you let them.
No indefinite and unjust jail time, regulation of WiFi, or reading every email will every stop terrorists from trying. And as long as they try, they will succeed occasionally.
Does anyone think any of these laws are going to stop terrorism? Slow it down? The only way to stop terrorism, and I know I will take some flammage for this, is to redesign the foreign policies of all Western nations, not just the U.S.
There is a reason terrorists hate us, and it's not our religion, or our surplus of freedoms. It is that we continually bomb and economically rape countries poorer than us -- bully them into submission. And, if that doesn't work, its obviously cause we haven't bombed them enough, so we bomb them some more.
It's a vicious circle; We bomb, they bomb, we bomb, they take flying lessons, we bomb... what next?
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
You're probably right, and I'm probably writing down that which is commonly mis-pronounced. What you're saying makes a good bit more sense then what is commonly said (or at least what I hear when someone says it).
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Since being named special advisor to the president for cyberspace security last year, Clarke has stressed wireless access points as a national security threat.
Ten years ago, who would have thought we'd hear phrases like that in the popular press.
No, I did not read the f***ing article!
no ones mentioned that.. they aren't following their own policies historically speaking (as you were stating) - ie, they as a party screw up - fire the finacial director (happened yesterday TWICE) for his beliefs, and march on. Same here.. terrorist communicate via methods they can't modulate or monitor.. whats the answer? the extremist 'your communication standard is very flawed, move away, nothing to see' rhetoric. What I suggest is a discourse on proposed solutions based on already funded projects and available academic projects within realm of interest, move to a panel (sp?)- then move to vote. Not a media driven declairation of fear. Bah humbug I say. Admit wrongs and make right decisions when they're obvious instead of reloading new men behind old issues..
new bonuses..
sigh
the cycle continues
pm
are you my friend? (I don't believe in linking)
** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
Warning: link spoilage ahead:
It popped up one window which then floated all over the screen which made it hard to close. Actually it was the current window so techinically it wasn't event a popup. All the while my speakers played what sounded like a chorus singing "You are an idiot". On screen text read the same.
Charming - I wanted to pass the link along to a friend but I see the author has edited their post.
It did not crash my browser (Mozilla). -rick
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?
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
As a former honcho of CNN just pointed out two days ago in a PBS interview, CNN and the rest were formerly NEWS organizations. They are all now subsidiaries of ENTERTAINMENT conglomerates who, in his exact words, "don't give a damn about journalism." He resigned from one of CNN's top jobs when a memo was circulated from the head of AOL-TW that, whenever there was a mention of reasons why some people did not like the US, there must be an accompanying reminder of what happened to the US on 9/11. He was simply unable to brook that kind of intrusion into the news department.
Sure, and leaving your car unlocked (either accidentally or on purpose) is a potential for having it stolen. Same with your front door, your cell phone left on a table, your wallet loose in your back pocket, etc.
/WIN/. This is just another of those same stupid rules.
Does that mean a law should be written about how to wear a wallet properly? Or should some public inspector walk around testing all the cars in a parking lot to see if the doors are open and the car can be stolen for a car-bomb threat?
Sorry US Govt: FUCK YOU.
You're right. People should have the common sense not to go walking around in public naked and not expect to get groped or possibly raped (metaphoricly speaking for 802.11 stuff). We've already got problems with 'attractive nuisance' bullshit laws and criminals who sue their victims and
Nobody can honestly blame the government for being concerned about network security. They recognize a valid threat to a growing part of our country's infrastructure, and geek ethics be damned, they're probably going to want to do something about it.
The article does well to point out that the verdict is not yet in; the Feds have yet to figure out what should be done.
If ever there were an opportunity to demonstrate to the Powers That Be the inherent value of OSS/FS, this is it.
The Office of Homeland Security, bureaucratic as it may be, is going to be looking at this issue carefully. There's a good chance they will decide, "We can't issue mandates to private businesses, but we can set internal policy, and we can make recommendations." Suppose the Office recommended OSS/FS platforms, as opposed to proprietary software, precisely because of its security strengths. They might even be convinced of the need for extra funding to OSS/FS security-based groups.
I think this battlefield, the struggle to win the heart of Tom Ridge, could turn out to be far more important to the OSS/FS communities than the fight for the desktop.
First of all, the single target of 'liberals' is pretty darn close minded of you. Second, the government really is doing a bunch of horrible things (detainees that haven't been declared POW's anyone?). Third, what do you think "we're going to start regulating" means? If you don't do it their way you will be told to change it or they will shut you down.. that's how regulations work ya know.
/that's/ the reason behind the use of 'terrorist' and other such buzzwords. Who on earth would want to disagree with a bill that would get past if it labels them as someone who's pro-terrorist?
The government is doing it's damndest to whip people into a patriotic fever so that they willingly give up their rights and not appear to be 'taking' them -
Patriot Act allows the government to detain people without legal counsel, without being accused of an actual crime, and many other things that go completely opposite of everything this country has tried to be so far to date. And lets not forget the Citizen Corps, where the government sets up tip hotlines for people to call in their neighbors for suspected dangerous activities.
You're right: 'homeland security' in the sense of the ability to protect our nation from threats (internal or external) is important, but at what point does it stop being a free state and start being some quasi fascist state? Mail is mail is mail. It's against the law for them to open a piece of snail-mail sent to someone unless they have good cause to do it (and good cause is not 'hey this guy has a middle eastern last name - lets check up on him'), so why the fuck should email be any different?
Honestly the answer to that one is simple: because they can and no one will know it. Sniffing packets and logging traffic is a lot easier than searching through mail without making it look tampered - that doesn't make it any less a piece of mail that is personal and NOT something they should stick their nose in without some damn good reason.
Anyway, there's my counter rant and not really meant to be a flame aside from the first paragraph.
Whenever you buy gasoline, youre supporting terrorism.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
Don't think it's just America that's gone to pot.
:-)
This is happening everywhere where there are politicians, because the Internet and all computing and advances in communications are undermining the power that governments once had in being able to monitor and control their subjugate populations. The idiocy which you see is a response to their belated realization of the new freedoms which people have acquired over the last few years, their panicked attempt to regain control. All the bogeymen are being deployed, "Stop Terrorism", "Protect the Children", even "Safeguard your Culture" in many places.
So, since the highest level of security is so important to them, comply: use the strongest encryption possible, everywhere. This will of course also make your systems unbreachable and unmonitorable by them as well. Oh dear.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Sometimes people have things to say that the government doesn't want anyone to hear.
For them to be able to say it, they need to feel safe from reprisals.
People being able to post stuff on the net through an open wireless access point is one way that one can say something important without fear of official retribution.
For example, one could blow the whistle, anonymously, on a crime that has been committed by a government official. Reports of such official crime, for example presidential employees wiretapping the opposing political party, have already been enough to cause a regime change in the U.S. - most slashdotters are too young to remember but Dubya is old enough.
Most methods of internet access (such as all those AOL CDs) leave audit trails. They may not be able to prevent people from posting to the net, but they can track them down and either imprison or kill the posters afterwards, and to a large extent, the knowledge of that possibility is enough to prevent many people from speaking out.
So let me suggest that a good way to ensure a free and fair presidential election in 2004 would be to remove the password from your wireless access point.
Thank you for your attention.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Read the international building code. and the international residential code.
the interesting thing is that there's even regulations about what kind of security you are prohibited from putting on your building.
The thing is though building security != network security. while door locks and building alarm systems and indeed buildings themselves are well understood, the wireless network and the way we want to use it is new and evolving.
Imagine if you were trapped by an earthquake under tonnes of microwave transparent material, and the only thing in your little coffin shaped cavity was your fully charged and still operational laptop. You fire up snort and find a wireless lan and then attempt to contact the admin...
Network security could be a matter of life and death.
Now suddenly they are being asked to do something other than obtain campaign donations and talk crap on TV. And they have not the slightest idea what to do. When a politican or a civil servant doesn't know what to do, what is the reaction? Find something that people are doing, and stop it. It is so much easier to ban something than to think of a positive action.
The posters who are making jokes about banning telephones and coats are not actually that far off the mark. In the Soviet Union, that dangerous instrument the typewriter required a licence, and all official typewriters had their fingerprint taken by the KGB so that any typed document could be traced to the original machine. As for photocopiers, each one had its KGB operative to control access. We now seem to be heading for a government policy of achieving basically the same thing electronically. In the long term, it is likely to be about as successful.
The big problem is, who is going to educate the politicians? Or do we need to find a way to replace them with younger, better educated ones who might actually have a clue about the modern world?
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Public libraries - usually requires library card with name and address on record. otherwise the person at the loans desk will have seen you. That's part of how they caught that big identity theft guy.
kinkos - never used it myself. Is there a security camera behind the desk?
hotel room - the clerk saw you, and would probably identify you in a line up. Happens to people all the time.
Tourist information center - clerk and camera.
Airport lounge - you probably have an air plane ticket. Interpol is great at tracking those. using a fake name/passport just makes them feel like it's going to be a good day.
Highway rest stop - actually this might be a pretty good one. The only thing I can think of is taking biometric evidence like a fingerprint off the coin you fed it. unless there's a clerk and camera.
internet cafe - clerk and camera.
cable company kiosks - Do you mean those kiosks which stand in the middle of the street? They usually are very crippled in their interface. you can't even run ping. I dunno. Maybe you might be able to exploit them.
I think the evidence for the existence of hydrinos is better than evidence that intelligent people have ever trusted the Bush Administration.
Tech Public Policy stuff
When companies discover that not bringing their servers up to "best practices" standards doubles their insurance premiums and that running IIs with half-competent MCSEs is an expensive luxury for them as well as the rest of us and broadband home users running open relay boxes get sued, the word to "tighten up or else" will get around real fast.
It isn't just open access Wi-Fi ports that are the problem. Yes, these things should default to "secure" out of the box. However, cablemodem setups should also come with firewalls installed out of the box as well.
Tech Public Policy stuff
This also means that sooner or later, this will probably wind up being resolved at the Supreme Court level.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I read your page, and remembered that I always meant to join the ACLU, but never got around to it. Well, I'm a member now. Thanks for the link.
I find it amazing that belonging to an organization whose only stated purpose is defending the Constitution - the same oath that the President takes, I might add - is considered a legitimate point for attack by many in this country.
This is ridiculous. I've been running an open AP at home for over a year now, quite on purpose. If you want my bandwidth then have at it. I'm not using it 99% of the time, so have fun. If you hack my machine (good luck!) then you now 0wn all my porn, to-do lists, and pictures from Europe. Enjoy.
I'm well aware of the ramifications of running an open AP and I do it anyways. Now this makes me a criminal? That's just insane. I'm going to be a fucking felon, just because I let somebody check their e-mail on my dime?
Alright, say I buckle and secure my home network. What are they going to do to my employer? I work at a fucking school. Providing free bandwidth is part of my job. Are they going to lock down my computer labs? Are we going to run background checks on all of our students? Are we going to have to close our doors because the public is too dangerous to be allowed near a computer?
I am pissed beyond all reason at this. Secure wi-fi is fine and dandy, but sometimes access needs to be free.
This
....they sing patriotic songs about Saddam. And they are told that iraq is the best country in the world.
Hmm makes you wonder.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
Subject to your ISP's acceptable use policy. The concept of acceptable use is much like speed limits; completely ignore them and eventually other isp's will shut you off.
About speed limits, first that depends a whole lot on where you are, on either coast of the US, yes folks typically exceed the posted limit by 10-15 mph, otoh in AZ/MX nearly all traffic travels 10-15 mph under the (70mph) limit, while in the midwest I've found that people pretty much mark the posted limits.
However, you're not allowed on the road at all without maintaining your vehicle to safety and emissions standards, and (except in a few states) getting tagged at 90MPH+ earns both a stiff fine and a nasty hike in insurance rates.
I for one have darned little patience for irresponsible morons running insecure networks / systems that are a haven for script kiddies. So while the particular name on the problem today is terrorism, I pretty much welcome actual enforcement of some minimum standards of competence.
Because tracking an attacker who's grabbed onto an open AP is effectively *far* more difficult than other avenues, sorry but I think moves in this direction are probably a pretty good idea.
But then if it were up to me MCSE's wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a live 'net connection ;-).
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
I'm going to leave it open cause I believe that most people who use it will be good. I may or may not monitor it once in a while and if I monitor it and I catch somebody using it for inappropriate means then I will warn them and tell everybody in my neighbourhood about them :)
But...if spammers use it then it's my problem not the governments'. If the people who get spammed complain to me then I will direct them to the person who spammed them.
internet like monkeys'
You are absolutely correct. However, politicians may steal as much as they can, but it's the people that still elect them. Only when the masses wake up will things change. And unfortunately, throughout history, this has rarely happened until after the point of no return.
What you list above is an admirable way to protect the 'homeland' but it still misses the main problem. Check out Usama's letter on what his reasoning is. We were founded on the premise of religious tolerance. However, there are elements linked to the government through the current administration that are now just as bad as Usama himself. Extremist conservtives drunk with intolerance of any religion other than Christianity and set on enforcing their view of morality on the rest of the world - just like Usama. Only difference is that they have the worlds largest military and corporations to back it up.
When and if we correct this problem, will there be no or little reason to monitor our borders and ports - except maybe to keep others away from prosperity (which sounds odd if you think about it). But for now, I fear you're correct and we are already starting to see ridiculous examples of democracy gone awry.
But what's insecure?
Is a network insecure if the average Joe Coffee can break in?
Is it insecure if the average IT worker can break in?
Is it insecure if the l33t H@x0r5 can break it?
Considering any terrorist worth his salt will only employ the best, I guess it's the last option. So now if a network is compromised both the hacker and the victim are criminals...
Glad I'm not living in the states.
how when we really need regulation, like keeping all the cable companies out of the internet business (net control + content ownership = lost rights and caps) the gov is keen to look the other way?
We're not far off from more examples of Starbucks-taking-over-wifi-everywhere. R.I.P. free and open networks.
IBM, AT&T and Intel Plan National Wireless ISP Well now we know how they plan to deal with free competition
Forbid everything connected and any terrorist can still use the net untraced. Steal a mobile phone, snatch the sim-card and put it into a mobilephone modem connected to your laptop. They really dont get it, the more people thay trace and spy on the bigger holes there will be in the net.
The most funny thing is that terorists have pretty much abandoned the net and use IRL messages while homeland security is focusing on phones and the internet to no use. This makes me wonder if the act is just an excuse to spy on USA's own citizens.
HTTP/1.1 400
Only a police state regulates the actions of potential victims of crimes to "protect" them.
What about suicide? The criminal and the victim are one and the same. The state intervenes: you must not kill yourself. Police state, or state of mandatory benevolence?
-kgj
If someone breaking into a bunch of 802.11b networks (at 10Mbps) can bring down the network of this country, the US portion of the Internet is flakier than I thought and we really have bigger problems than this.
In any case, people cut through major cables, there are earthquakes, there are software glitches, etc. Major chunks of the US Internet will go down, even without terrorists, sooner or later, just like major chunks of the telephone network have gone down from time to time. People better be prepared for that; it just shouldn't be a serious matter.
It's not the Department of Homelamd Security. It's the Ministry for State Security.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
We all will get the government we deserve. If we don't like the trends we are seeing in the US government, we must /do/ something about it. Posting on Slashdot is low on the List of Effective Measures for Change.
Look, everyone, I see a lot of knee-jerk reactions going on here. At least in our current legal system, if you, say, leave a loaded gun (which you legally possess) out on your front porch, and someone comes along, picks it up and uses it to shoot someone you could probably be held negligent by our court system (whether this is a good thing is obviously a separate question). On the other hand if you leave the keys in your car and someone steals it and uses it to run someone down, the equivalent result is unlikely.
.x pieces of that number, and in these cases, they're almost certainly referring exclusively to 802.11b. Why do people keep dropping the b?
Free 802.11b Internet access isn't quite like either of these things, because it's more like a utility that ties into a lot of other people too. However, the key difference between it and a highway (substitute a utility if you want) is that those are basically heavily regulated, state-granted monopolies in the US. One of the closer analogies I can think of here is an easement. This is when there's a well-trodden path over a piece of your property. You still own the property, but you can't deny people the right to cross it. (Of course, you can deny anyone access to your 802.11b access point at any time, but bear with me...) Anyway, I think it's obvious that you can be held liable for the misuse of your easement.
The only relevant difference between access through an open 802.11b and just any old ISP as far as security-related issues goes is that the 802.11b is probably anonymous (at least unless you're caught in the act). Is this a significant security threat, justifying government intervention? I don't think so. Even the anonymity can almost certainly be achieved through other means if it's actually important. Trying to seal security threats by denying "bad" people Internet access at all is just stupid. They're going to get it. You have to secure your own systems.
One final point: it's really starting to piss me off when people write "802.11" rather than "802.11b" or "Wi-Fi" (as does the title of this story). 802.11 is the entire Ethernet standard. Wireless Ethernet is a particular set of
I metamoderate all Redundant and Offtopic moderations as Unfair.
Just as Microsoft uses the word "Security" to cover up changes to the software that take away functionality (e.g., introcution of DRM in Media Player), the US Government is using "Security" as a cover for its attempt to outlaw anonymity.
What will Homeland say about the free wireless community networks popping up all over the place? If these allow open, anonymous access, are they to be targeted by future regulatory action?
Would Homeland object if a company set up an encrypted, but open wireless network? It could offer each user privacy and security, while protecting the company's intranet from unauthorized access. This is already how many companies set up their wireless networks. It allows minimal configuration on the client side, and that reduces internal support costs. But it also offers a good degree of anonymity to users. It is anonymity to which Homeland ojbects, not a lack of "security" per se.
How does regulation in this direction affect the wireless solution to the "last mile" problem?
This is close to my heart because I'm a contract engineer and my wife and I live in an RV full time. Like many people, we often can't find cable (Internet or TV) access where we live.
Given wireless service that is widely available, highly desired, and subject to regulated availability (i.e. DirecTV)--isn't it reasonable to expect a serious effort to gain unauthorized access to that service?
Is it not unreasonable to expect that such efforts will produce some not insignificant success?
And if that is a reasonable premise, doesn't it follow that *any* large-scale wireless coverage will be insecure?
With a high speed copper connection, somebody has to at least run a physical wire to each NIC. Not so with 802.11b.
Will regulators feel they need to curtail the growth of 802.11b itself? How can they do this? It's not the security that's even the issue here. Security can always be broken. Once 802.11b is widespread, large-scale anonymous access is inevitable.
Limiting service providers to a few "trusted" organizations will not solve the problem. DirecTV (again) only has 1 provider, and breaking its security is a hobby for thousands of people.
Will regulators feel a need to kill 802.11b and like technologies altogether?
Will we see the same "death penalty for parking violations" response to wireless hacking that we've seen for cable modem uncapping?
Points to anybody who recognizes where I stole "death penalty..." quote from.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
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
That I've been trying desperately for years to tell people this was happening time. But no one listened, I was just a 'nut'.. Then 9/11 happened and I said it again, but I was 'anti patriotic', so again, no one listened.
Even in school in the 80's people that valued freedom, our constitution, and wanted to protect both were labeled 'radical' and programmed to think it was wrong.. In reality we were no different then our founding fathers, and should have been labeled 'federalists' instead..
Now here we are, almost at the gates of oblivion.. Who among us will be the first person to stand up and say NO.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Ok ok.. so the word 'time' out of the first sentence was supposed to be edited out.. so sue me :)
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I am wondering if we could convince the Goverment that only Terrorist Send SPAM. That way we can use these laws for our advantage.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
We are obviously willing to give up our freedoms b/c of that bearded fuck w/limp and a cammo jacket...
Funny, I don't see any bearded person handing down these pronouncements from the Department of Homeland Security.
Yes, Osama was the bearded fuck who guided jet planes into the WTC and started this mess, but be honest -- the erosion of Americans' civil liberties and rights in the 15 months since have been guided by the Supreme Court-appointed poser sitting in the White House right now, and his team of right-wing extremist croneys. They're simply using the bearded fuck as an excuse for their actions.
You're right, though, that too many people are giving President Ripper free rein on this mess. Vote him out of office in '04!
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
Okay, now I feel better about posting now that I found someone else sharing a similar view.
At the risk of inviting flames and down-mods, I believe we need to take a moment to see the government's side in all of this and understand where they are coming from. The cries of "police state!" I am hearing do not ring true after reading this article. The reason for this is that I did not see a single mention of the government's intent to regulate what information flows through the network.
Think about it for a moment. What is the government asking? They're asking WiFi networks for some basic level of security, something similar to what you see on most non-wireless networks.
Yes, a setup like this may mean the end of free network access. Well, that's too bad. Face it, folks. There's no free lunch anymore. You want access, you pay for it. It's as simple as that. And any access to the network is going to mean some basic level of security, even if its only requiring a login/account number and a password, which is exactly what you have today in non-WiFi networks.
Now, will this stop terrorism on the net? Unlikely. In this I totally agree that the government's thinking is flawed. But realize also that the government may not be thinking this if people who run the servers that are getting hacked WOULD SECURE THEIR GODDAMN BOXES. With the cutbacks in IT budgets, companies are hiring lower-paid, less qualified staff to run their servers and they're leaving their machines wide open. This is where the problem really needs to be addressed, and the government needs to be made aware of this fact. But knee-jerk reactions like "The government is enacting a police state!" and "This is a government conspiracy to take away our rights!" is just going to get you branded a crank at best and a radical at worst.
If ever there were an opportunity to demonstrate to the Powers That Be the inherent value of OSS/FS, this is it.
I agree with this statement, but this is not the complete answer. OSS systems can be just as insecure as proprietary if people do not set them up correctly. We must be careful not to suggest this as a magic-bullet, cure-all solution. The government must be made to know that there is NO quick-fix solution.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Even closed APs have breakable keys.
There are two issues.
The first is simply ACCESS to the internet. This is uncontrollable, just as access to the telephone network is (at least as long as there are public phones).
The second is TRACEABILITY. So even though the entire cyberinfrastructure will collapse, we can rest in the knowledge that the specific AOL dial-in and the phone jack where the evildoer connected will be found.
The latter has nothing to do with anti-Terrorism which by necessity bypasses niceties of proper procedure and due process to prevent great loss, but leaves evidence tainted for any trial.
The threat was there from before the first WTC attack. The second one didn't involve any high-tech. Just box-cutters. Our society is insecure - but that is economically more efficient. Even if we turn it into a surveillance state it will still be insecure.
For example, in the Northern Ireland conflict, they used Molotov Cocktails a.k.a. Petrel Bombs.
So are we going to have to all have secure gas caps ($50 locks like a Kaba or Medeco, not the cheap pickable ones) and have to go through the same kind of airport gate rape to get a fill-up at a gas station? One PSA noted one cup of gasoline is equivalent to 8 sticks of dynamite.
How are they going to fix this?
The problem is that the security agencies think like law enforcement, not terrorists.
The two other classes of similar problems that come to mind are Legerdemain and Thievery. You don't try to determine how a trick is done or how to create security, you try to determine how to do the trick, or how to find and exploit a security problem.
That is how Al Queda is operating. They found "box-cutters" got through. Now we are preventing them from getting through security and using secure doors for the cockpits (the latter suffices, so I guess they are keeping the gate-rape part because they like the sport).
I'm quite sure that Al Queda has already thought about this and is ahead, and that the average slashdot reader spending 15 minutes considering the problem will not be flying any time soon, but the Homeland Security Agency will go along oblivious to the next weakness until it is exploited, but instead seek to regulate visible but trivial things like open access points.
Which reminds me of a classic joke in several forms including an old I Love Lucy episode:
Ricky comes home to see Lucy crawling around the Living Room.
Ricky: "What are you doing?"
Lucy: "I lost my earrings."
Ricky: "You lost your earrings in the living room?"
Lucy: "No, I lost them in the bedroom - but the light is so much better out here."
The article seemed to say that they were concerned about non-closable access points; i.e., the same security problems we all know about with 802.11. That is to say, they want to make it easy for people who use 802.11 access points on an intranet to have the default installation be secure, and if they industry doesn't do it, the government will regulate them into it. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. Nowhere in the article did I see that that providing Internet access was going to be outlawed.
The Bush government is starting to look more and more like Big Brother. I don't think the terrorists of 9/11 could have hoped for a better result than this. USA is turning to everything they say it is. It's starting to be just the imperialist, unilateral evil empire they are talking about. And no US politician seems to dare to protest, for fear of being labeled un-American. Since the US is the greatest power on Earth these days, what happens there spills over to the rest of the western world. Soon we will see these measures over here too, either by our own government or by pressure from the US. Unfortunately, we don't have a say since we're not US citizens. So all we can do is ask you who *are* to protest with all your might! This is a dangerous development. Your government is getting more and more dictatorial powers, with being able to hold people prisoners indefinitely without trial, being able to look into their private information without court orders, etc. Please, for yourself and for the rest of the world: PROTEST!
Meep.
Just one minor point:
... one can very easily argue that al queda/ taliban fighters didn't meet all of these requirements.
;) ... but it seems that all the claims of bush's war acts violating international and domestic law aren't entirely accurate. Both sides of a debate need to be well-informed for it to get anywhere. Perhaps the laws of war need to be reformed, but we're not really breaking them.
detainees that haven't been declared POW's anyone?
I've heard statements like this a lot, and believed them until I actually did some research and read up on the Geneva convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) and other applicable war laws (ie War Powers Act of 1973).
There are some very high standards that enemy combatants must meet in order to have the right of POW status. If they don't meet all of them than a country doesn't have to give them POW treatment. The factors are:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
The only thing I wonder about the detained prisoners is if we met the requirements in this passage: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
Did we ever give the detainees a tribunal to confirm that they're not POW's?
--
On a related note, don't go into the "but Congress never declared war" argument unless you can point out *exactly* where it says in the geneva convention that you need a declaration of war. I read "all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict" which seems to make it unnecessary. And the war powers act cited above gives congress the power to give the president specific wartime powers without a formal declaration of war (see "specific statutory authorization" under section 2(c)).
I just want to say that I hate the bush regime and their attitude towards international and domestic affairs (esp the OHS) as much as the next whiny liberal
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
I think its time we find a leeader who is interested in preserving American Freedoms by some means other than taking them away.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
So you are perfectly willing to blindly give access to anyone wandering by.
Then when you get shut down for initiating a DOS attack, or spamming or whatever you'll probaly claim "but it wasn't me, I didn't know".
It is your connection, it is your responsiblity.
If people can't play nicely and take responsiblity themselves the government HAS to regulate it.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
The behavior of the department of homeland security is utterly predictable; it is exactly the behavior of wildebeests. Rather than do something about the lions, wildebeest bulls push the herd around. All of our current 'security' is based on looking suspiciously at all of the wildebeests to make sure that they aren't lions is disguise; one could scarcely come up with more idiotic behavior.
Animal herds respond to pressure - not to vacuum - as a result herds stampede away from danger. If herds stampeded as a response to 'vacuum' then it would follow attacking bulls and trample predators - instead of running from them. That simple change would be the end of the lions who are built to attack the spine of a fleeing animal - not respond to the charging attacks of raging bulls.
What prevents the United States from charging? The answer is 'Political Correctness'. I will tell you how to forever end 'Political Correctness' as a force.. Simply invite all of the politically correct college professors to the local high schools to give a lecture to the student body on political correctness. Before the professors can start speaking the high school football team goes on stage and drags the professors into the nearest girls bathroom and starts dunking the professors' heads in the toilets while the cheerleaders all stand around laughing at them. This would expose "Political Correctness' for what it really is; a bunch of passive aggressive weenies who are trying to make people feel bad.
The fact that 'Political Correctness' wouldn't survive the 'dunk' test makes the physical demonstration unnecessary; the movement collapses from its own internal weakness and corruption. Passive aggression is just pathetic behavior to try basing anything on.
Even Ghandi's form of passive aggression can't survive the girls bathroom treatment. By the way - how many of you knew Ghandi was islamic? Kind of changes your view of what he had to say doesn't it? It is one thing when a 'rabbit' tells you to adopt the posture of never fighting back - he does so from a position of courage - it is something entirely different when it is a 'crocodile' telling you to never fight back; one has to suspect the latter of having a rather obvious agenda.
What about the open mail relays? There is untraceable mail bouncing all over the place.
If the feds put the muscle against the open SMTP relays that are more likely being used for terrorist communications, the side-effects of less spam would gather them a lot of support, instead of this Don Quixote tilting-at-WiFi crap.
News flash, suspected terrorists will be forced to wear mittens to prevent communication via sign language...after the required $100 million spent on "intelligence" of course.
I don't believe at all that one guy with a laptop on an open AP could "bring the net down"...
No, but he could introducce a virus or a worm from that point.
I've been saying this for months: if you run a wide-open AP, with the full knowledge that you are providing anonymous connectivity to others, you should not be surprised when someone uses that open AP to perform an illegal act, and the feds trace that act back to you.
If they can't nail you for the illegal act, there is definitely an argument that you aided and abetted. You knowingly left your AP wide open for others to use and "conveniently" failed to provide a mechanism for authentication.
So what happens? Would you rather the feds say, "Oh shucks, looks like it was an anonymous user using the 'Net through this fine citizen's free Wi-Fi resource, guess we'll never catch them."
This way lay anarchy. That's basically saying any Internet crime is now untraceable and unpunishable. Just find one of those Slashdot kids that has an open Wi-Fi network and commit crimes to your heart's content.
It's not just about electronic terrorism, or even the coordination of traditional terrorist activities.
Anonymous communications is a dangerous thing.
Here on Slashdot, Anonymous Cowards are not fully anonymous. Slashdot logs the IP address and time of every IP post. If I find a post that allows me to take legal action against that poster, I file the case and then ask the judge to subpoena Slashdot to turn over the IP address from which the AC post orignated from. I can then look up who owns the IP block that IP address belongs to, and subpeona that ISP to give me the name and billing address on the account that had that IP address at the time of the post. Gotcha.
The internet is inhernetly P2P already. Get some business-class bandwidth (instead of the restricted consumer-priced stuff) and you can set up any services you want, and offer them to anybody you want.
The new definition of P2P seems to be "let me send and receive data in an untraceable way because I want to transfer data that's illegal to transfer." Be it a pirated MP3 or an order to a sleeper cell, neither should be allowed.
Our freedoms are disappearing at a frightening rate. The Bush admin has done a number of song and dance routines about Anthrax. The security that has been implemented since 9/11 is a joke. It is still easy to attack the aircrafts, airports, trains, or cars. It is still easy to get anything into this country. In all fairness, that is and always will be the case in all countries that have large infrastructure and borders. But now Bushes cronies blame 802.11 for causing problems while still pushing MS everywhere. At the same time, the fight OSS of anytype even though it has been proven over and over that OSS is better in anything dealing with server space. Finally, they threw a group to study 802.11 by its competitors and they come out blaming all sorts of problems on it and ask for regulations. That meeting is almost certainly the same as Cheny's meeting with Enron on how to deal with USA's Oil issues. WakeUp USA, IKE warned us and we did not listen.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
'If you're going to get broken into ... we're going to start regulating,'"
Like they did with Microsoft?
13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
OMFG. Score one more the Osama.
... we're going to start regulating,'" said Cable and Wireless security architect Shannon Myers in a panel dubbed "Homeland Security vs. Wi-Fi."
... we're going to start regulating,' HEY where is the Shannon Myers when my car gets "broken into" by foreigners from Mexico? When do we regulate that?
Okay, so, some terror dudes come into the country via our wide open borders, invested by the millions in training and planning, the covert undercover operation known of course for years only by the FBI, and let through, but, shucks, they forget the username and password list back in Saudi Arabia to get on the 'Net, so they have to access the Net via a Pringle's can they pick up from their cousin at Quicky Mart. Geeze.
And what kind of nazi statement is this?
'If you're going to get broken into
'If you're going to get broken into
The Three Stooges aren't dead, they're cloned and have multiplied and now run OUR country who are run by foreign Collectivists, et al.
Besides, I've read allot of HLS, and it has provisions protecting liability from the drug companies if their (forced inoculations) damages patients. So if one company is protected it may indicate they are all in it, and knowing already the communications companies want Wi-Fi heartily dead (until they control it, naturally), this move here is the middle linebacker/safety blitz they intend to attack Wi-Fi with. Homeland Defense IS terror. Of course, this is common, but useless knowledge, I know.
So, is this yet another victory for Osama Bin Laden against America? Soon, He'll have America just like his country, Saudi Arabia, and it is working very well! Strip the Constitution untill it falls like a twin tower (A planned implosion?)
And our Senators, are they retards? Do any of them even own a PC?
The Ice Crushes You!
No, it's here in the US where television watches YOU, if you have a V-chip.
How ya like dat?
on a gun rack in my truck (which I never lock)
, but it will soon be illegal for me to go to starbucks
and browse the internet on my PDA?
Cool.
-J
Possibly justified hysteria aside, the subject of this thread is a prime example of a thing which provides two equally valid answers to a social question: is the umbrella of 'homeland security'--the name alone is nauseating--being used by the forces of vacuous greed in Washington to provide favors to large, commercial internet businesses, or is the simpler and better assumption that the Wonks in washington just dumb and prone to suggestion?
Before everyone with an I.Q. over ninety buys a plane ticket to Canada, we should consider what we're really dealing with in the U.S. government nowadays. It is easy for a Slashdot-quality mind to spot the sheer, arid uselessness of a ban on free 802.11 and this has got to make you wonder.
On the one hand, WE know that terrorists are far more concerned with keeping secrets than ordinary users are. WE fully understand that terrorists, spies and clever lunatics put real work into hiding their intentions and there are too many ways onto the internet to filter all of them--that is, at least, using any method we know of.
It's easy to imagine, a mind like John Ashcroft's simply bypassing this; you can almost see that sloping brow furrow horribly as it bypasses the obvious fact that terrorists have no need to reach for free radio Ethernet.
On the other hand, it is just as easy to conceive of the current administration's love for corporate power making it despise grass-roots initiatives to provide free internet fill-in-the-blank and ducking fast behind the poor, beleaguered flag at the first murmur of dissent.
Both answers are perfectly imaginable: It is easy to imagine genuine nastiness on the part of any government as piggy-eyed as the one we have right now. At the same time, the absence of a clue on the administration's part is just as credible an explanation.
To paraphrase the name of musical group, 'they might be midgets.'
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
It would also drastically reduce the spam problem as well.
How will encouraging open Wi-Fi networks (or at least discouraging prosecution of open Wi-Fi operators for crimes committed through their networks) reduce spam?
As these things become more and more ubiquitous, and as operators are not held liable for the anonymous acts performed through their networks, I cannot believe that the amount of spam will go down. If anything, it would go way up as spammers discover they will never be caught.
Our of curiosity, when someone does sit on your network for a few hours, uses some stolen credit cards, uses a script to hack into a few hundred systems, launches a distributed denial-of-service attack against a few government system, maybe sends out a bundle of spam, and the feds come knocking on your door, what do you plan on telling them?
All you need to do is to have a welcome HTML screen to your WiFi network that requires that users give you their name and verifyable e-mail address before they're allowed to roam. You don't have to give that info to the government unless they already have a good judge-approved reason to need it, but wouldn't you come running to the government yourself if you knew anybody connected with 9/11/01 used your bandwidth?
Most of these "5" replies are about terrorists using airports, beds, water, etc. Freaking relax! Airports are being secured as much as possible subject to cost / inconvenience constraints. Water supplies are gaurded and tested against terrorist attacks. Now someone wants to secure WiFi as much as is reasonable subject to cost / inconvenience constraints. Big fucking deal. Sounds like a good idea to me. It helps to be able to track viruses, which do cost money, b/c most users are ignorant about computer security.
I've paid tax's under 2 different goverments now and given the loose terms of aiding terroism I would have to say I'd prolly qualify once a 3rd goverment gets in place.
It's worse than that Jim...
So..... what's to stop young Aheeb from taking his iBook (because only pinko commu^?^?^?^?^? terrorists use Macs) to Starbucks, or any of the handful of airports that are offering 802.11 service to patrons? DEAR GOD WE'RE HELPING THEM AT THE AIRPORTS NOW! BRING THAT TRAVEL NETWORK TO A STOP!
This is utterly fscking re-goddamned-diculus. The next thing you know we'll have the great firewall of America. But remember, if you can't watch the superbowl comercials then the terrorists have already won. There's noting quite like the momentum generated by a buearuacrcy motivated to look good to keep it's money.
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
when Bush said "you're either with us or against us", did he mean 'us (you or I)' or 'them (gov't or large corp's)', cause I don't want any daisy cutters in my back yard.
Karma: Censored (mostly affected by decency laws)
I will be one of the first people to say that "freedom of speech" necessarily requires anonymity. People need to be able to speak their minds anonymously without fear of getting their words traced back.
But there is NO reason true anonymity needs to extend to your IP address. There are plenty of places in the physical world where you can post something anonymously (perhaps an op-ed piece in your local newspaper). There are HTTP anonymizing services that allow you to post comments on bulletin boards anonymously. Heck, most sites and most ISP accesses are anonymous to the extent that a court order would be needed to get your identity (well, excluding some of the Patriot Act provisions). That type of anonymity may be perfectly sufficient for some. For the rest, we already have those tools.
The point is, a completely anonymous Internet connection has a very limited usefuless for those hoping to protect their freedom of speech, but it has immense value for those wanting to commit electronic crimes (spamming, intrusions, distributed denial-of-service attacks, worm injections, identity fraud, etc.). By providing immunity to the Wi-Fi operators, we're basically saying it's perfectly OK for people to start abusing these networks without fear of ever getting caught.
If you thought spam and the occasional DDoS attack was bad today, just wait...
brendanoconnorwrote:
> If a person runs a service they are liable for
> what the users of the service do.
I have a private (as secured as it can be) wireless network, not a "service". Someone who breaks into it is a thief, not a "user". I'm not responsible for what criminals, who are stealing my property, do with it. That is ridiculous.
> A certain amount of privacy should be kept but
> not at the cost of life. If reading someone's
> email saves someones life, then it was worth the
> invasion of privacy.
The government knew at least some of the 911 terrorists were terrorists. INS gave them visas anyway, six months after the fact. No amount of reading emails or securing wireless networks would have prevented 911. Having INS pay attention to the FBI's watch list might have. Rather than dealing with that, they'd rather read our email, secure our wireless networks, and strip search cancer patients. When that doesn't work, we'll go to war with Iraq. Yes, America, the King of Terror hasn't only stolen your heart, he got your brain too!
The only people who stopped terrorists from doing damage on 911 were the courageous people of Flight 93. They didn't let their emails be read. They didn't secure their wireless networks. They, ordinary Americans, gave their lives to stop the terrorists hijacking their plane. Their sacrifice reveals the "save lives at the cost of liberty" position for what it is: a pile of stinky manure. Flinging our rights to the winds does not stop Terror, it enables that reign of Terror called "oppression".
The attack on America by the King of Terror did not begin with 911. The first front, fought and lost, was in our schools. Remember the warnings Slashdot gave then, the voices from the "hellmouth"? The King of Terror first stole the hearts of children, warping them to murder. America responded by turning our schools into prisons. Then he stole the hearts of people in the Muslem world, turning them into terrorists, forming Al Qaeda, attacking on 911. America lashed out in terror again, flinging her rights away. Then the King of Terror took your heart, America, turning it to oppression. Who is this King of Terror? Azi Dahaka, the Great Devil that comes from the sky!
It's not too late. The King of Terror can still be defeated and destroyed! How? Three great powers forge the sword, the heart, which can defeat him. On 911 the King of Terror claimed the deaths of thousands, the three powers saved tens of thousands! These are the three:
What secret only Wisdom knows?
Look to the wisdom of your founding fathers, America.
What weapon forged, Courage shows?
Flight 93 showed what the courage of your people can really do.
What power, Love when freed, greatest of all, can give?
Compassion, of course. Compassion can reach the heart of a lonely, resentful, troubled child before they bring a gun to school. Compassion brought countless people out of the WTC alive because a friend, a coworker, or a stranger helped them out. Compassion is Al Qaeda's bane. They may be able to deceive a naive kind person into donating to a charity that funnels money to them, but true compassion is too wise for them, and has no room for the hate Al Qaeda needs to thrive on.
"The last hope is to fight by ourselves...
Lola, kindness is not enough, look for the reason of hatred and anger.
When you find and understand that, love becomes the strongest power."
Belabera, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"
Your government better watch out... There are a few governments here in Europe that are willing to take up the competition.
Meep.
Now, consider the nature of the 'enemy' we claim to be fighting. In a previous attack, they spent years recruiting and planning, creating model citizens and sending them to commercial flight schools. Can anyone really expect that the next 'big plan' will hing on something as unpredicatble as the availability of an open access point? It would be so much more theatrical to drive up to my driveway and unleash the killer virus through my Airport, than to do it privately over DSL in some statistically average appartment in a statistically average community. Theatrical maybe, but it wouldn't be near as practical.
In the mean time, the only decent way to secure wireless communcations is some sort of end to end encryption. However you do it, VPN, tunneling, whatever, if done correctly, increases the number of encrypted packets floating though the network. Nice heavily protected strong crypto packets that require CPU years to decode. And now, with all the freshly secured wireless traffic, a 6 year olds letter to grandma will be indistiguishable from real terrorist communications. I, for one, find this to be a good thing, but it sure gets in the way of the current investigational mentality which says the only things deserving encryption must be 'evil' secrets.
No, sir, I'm not hiding anything. Just doing my patriotic duty.
Where is your journal? I would like to see it, and possibly contribute to it.
www.enthea.org
Now let's look at how they are getting there. This is what they have to say for themselves on their little page of horors. First You are not too small to matter. Good, the argument "no one is interested in the particulars of your mundane life so don't worry about security" is both false and misleading and is going to be killed. Lip service is given to user education but takes the form of consumer awareness of comercial products which won't work and will be filled with DRM.
What we need to do is take their message and run with it. Those parts that are true back free software. The government must be made aware that only free software is secure, that they must use it to protect themselves and should not stifle it. They have understood the scale of economic harm that can occur if things don't work right. You are aware of the raid the White House ordered on ptech
and worried in part that ptech had put in backdoors?
The company's software code was checked by the government to determine if outsiders could read or steal any sensitive data from the government, or embed the code with something destructive, officials said. Those checks began months ago, when the probe of Ptech started.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
our gov't is feeding the public any information they can get on worldwide terror. As if folks were not scared enough, we have our own gov't trying to scare them more (it's a power thing). Anyone who isn't terrified is either
A. Real depressed
B. Not letting the terrorists win
The chance of terrorists actually harming you or anyone you know is real slim. The chances of being innocently incarcerated by the feds (accused of being a terrorist) is way more likely at this point.
Karma: Censored (mostly affected by decency laws)
When NYC make it nigh-impossible for cancer patients to travel the subway, slashdiots line up to tell the cencer patients it's their own damn fault.
When the Bush administration proposes taking away wireless networks - oh the outrage, oh the humanity.
Speed in itself isn't a problem; careless driving while speeding is. That said, careless drivers following speed limits still cause lots of accidents.
And before you say 'if they were speeding it'd be even worse', let me say this. The same can be said of driving a smaller car instead of an SUV. A semi going 55 mph will do ALOT more damage then my sedan.
With that being said, the next logical step would be to get rid of crap littering the net, such as 203.197.23.26 - - [04/Dec/2002:18:36:41 -0500] "GET /default.ida?NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN%u9090%u6858% ucbd3%u7801%u9090%u6858%ucbd3%u7801%u9090%u6858%uc bd3%u7801%u9090%u9090%u8190%u00c3%u0003%u8b00%u531 b%u53ff%u0078%u0000%u00=a HTTP/1.0" 400 323 "-" "-".
After that, it seems likely that it would be for the good of the net to just shut it down all together. Being such a inhospitable place where hackers and terrorists lurk, it is for your own good.
DISCLAIMER:
I don't believe what I write, and neither should you.
I'm sitting here in the relative security we have north of the border, and I just don't understand how you americans let your government gets away with this.
Just yesterday, Slashdot had a story about New York radiation therapy patients being strip searched in the subway in the name of anti-terrorism.
And now this. Another example of your rights being taken away in the name of anti-terrorism.
More recently, Canadian citizens (even ones that have been citizens for a long time) are stopped at the border and detained for questioning and registration just because they were born in one of a list of 6-7 countries. (And they say it's not racial profiling.) Is this not overkill?
Here's another interesting story. One Canadian was imprisoned for 34 days for purchasing gas at a gas station 15 metres inside U.S. territory, as locals had been doing for years, with approval, or at least acknowledgement from U.S. border officials. His crime: he had a criminal record and a rifle in the back of his truck (he was going hunting). They claim he was supposed to check in at the U.S. customs station which is another kilometre down the road (and was closed at the time)! Was he a terrorist threat? I doubt it!
And now a personal anecdote: I was canoe tripping in Quetico Provincial Park (of Ontario) and the Boundary Waters Wilderness Canoe Area (of northern Minnesota). It was so refreshing to be able to travel right along the border, maybe cross it for lunch and sleep in Canada, or zig zag down the centre of a lake or river and say "Canada, U.S., Canada, U.S." (kinda like that Simpsons episode where they go to Australia) We never went through U.S. customs; in fact we couldn't even find one if we tried. Next time I go back, I won'e be surprised if I see U.S. customs posts every other lake, with motor boats buzzing around in an attempt to keep out filthy-looking canoe trippers that have been in the bush for the last 30 days. Well... they could be terrorists.
In Canada, 56% of people think that Saddam's the biggest threat to world security, and 38% say it's Bush. (The poll results are here (PDF format)) Anyone surprised?
So now, the big question is why do Americans let the government walk all over the liberties and freedoms that they hold so dear to their existance?
Maybe you can answer that.
-- Bob
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
Here's a comment that find incredibly insightful and relevant from here and here as posted by circletimessquare.
;-P
QUOTE
1) DENIAL
"September 11th doesn't really change anything."
2) ANGER
"John Ashcroft is an asshole!"
3) BARGAINING
"They might do this or that, but we can always march and petition and campaign!"
4) DEPRESSION
"I'm ashamed to be an American."
5) ACCEPTANCE
"I guess, after all, Islamic Fundamentalism really is the enemy."
As soon as this person made the issue America, they lost their own argument.
Dude, blood is on the hands of every nation on earth. Hypocrisy is equal opportunity.
Does America suck big time on some issues? Sure. No one is denying the obvious criticisms you have pointed out.
But surely you can see that America has more freedoms when it comes to the press, speech, etc., than China, for example, which actively seeks to control these things. Or Pakistan, Iraq, or Afghanistan.
Does this make America better than China or these other nations? Of course not. That is just nationalism. Nationalism stinks like racism or sexism stinks. So maybe we, and this includes you, can move beyond the America sucks/ America is better rhetoric and focus on the issues at hand: basic freedoms, regardless of where in the world we are.
Because no one else is talking about these issues in this thread as an "America is better" or "America is worse" kind of way except you. Who cares about that. Iraq is pursuing WMD. That sucks. All by itself that sucks. Whether America is the center of all evil in the universe or all Americans walk around with haloes of purity and innocence on their heads. Either way, this Iraqi prusuit of WMD still sucks. Period. End of story. Get it?
So I'll make you a deal: we'll move beyond the nationalist rhetoric as soon as YOU move beyond the nationalist rhetoric, capice?
Geez.
ENDQUOTE
Not trying to karma whore, but if I post anonymously, it's likely a lot of people won't see it. I can honestly say I've seen myself go through this after September 11, 2001.
Try actually READING my post instead of REACTING to it.
If you wish to make something publicly accessible, and someone utilizes it for other-than-benign purposes, why should you be held responsible for THEIR actions?
See the example about giving the guy a burger and Coke at a block party again.
Suing someone because they had their charitable action subverted is BULLSHIT. It arises, no doubt, from the desire to find a scapegoat. And any scapegoat will do for you, right?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I've been saying this for months: if you run a wide-open AP, with the full knowledge that you are providing anonymous connectivity to others, you should not be surprised when someone uses that open AP to perform an illegal act, and the feds trace that act back to you.
/., not a dissertation committee!)
It seems to me there are two methods of dealing with this sort of vulnerability. I will treat them as opposing and competing philosphies, for reasons that will become clear, but in practice both are often used.
1) You can move in the direction of giving the actor minimal power while requiring minimal accountability. Let anyone in on your network, even anonymously, they can futz around all they want, but they simply don't have the required privileges to damage your well-protected system. This is essentially the principle behind the Java sandbox, and behind the anonymous user account on a Unix system.
2) You can give the actor maximal power while requiring maximal accountability. Every move must be authenticated and recorded, however once given access the agent has the ability to manipulate and potentially damage the system from within. This is essentially the principle behind ActiveX.
Usually on a given network you will see some kind of combination of the two methodologies, encryption, permissions, access lists, antiviral programs, all working along various stages in the chain of communications to prevent damage by a hostile actor. However, despite these cooperative methods, I believe the two methods are fundamentally at odds with each other at a deep philosophical level. At their essentials, they boil down to Raymond's Cathedral and Bazaar. The Cathedral stands for maximal power for the actor. Here the Government strives to keep track of users and access points, and shuts down any unauthorized (anonymous) use. It restricting to itself the ultimate authority over who has the right to penetrate your system. (In this scenario the Government always mantains super-Superuser status for itself.) This requires you to trust your Leaders as infallible. The problem is, as we saw with that recent Active X debacle, once we have decided to "trust" someone, they now have the power to damage us, and particularly if it is a super-trusted authority, e.g. the government or Microsoft, the entire security method can be instantly rendered worthless.
The "Bazaar," or minimal power method, which builds security into the system from the outset by not allowing rogue processes any ability to compromise operation, is harder to implement, and rather unpalatable to the Government since even it can't escape the sandbox, but in the end it affords better protection for everyone because if any given user is compromised, that user can only damage him or hserself. In practice, of course, even a sandbox-type system can be vulnerable to exploits such as buffer overflows, but this is where open source shows its superiority, anyone has the ability to fix their own machine if so inclined, and indeed to pass such fixes along to be utilized and scrutinized by the community.
(Regarding the above, I tried to organize my thoughts since I had a lot of competing ideas going on in my own mental bazaar, but I fear I wasn't entirely successful in these few minutes. Sorry for any lingering incoherences, but hell, this is
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
I completely agree that our right to peaceably assemble is being assaulted.
But it goes so much farther than that. The ultra-invasive Information Awareness Office , wants information on every little part of our lives. The WiFi deal is just helping them reach that end.
In the name of security they ask us to give up our privacy. We must ask ourselves, is that a sacrifice we want to make?
War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left.
The American Government by American People and for American People must protect American People from all threats such as terrorism and terrorism comes in all forms it comes from everywhere that is UnAmerican! It is illegal to be UnAmerican because terrorists are! Let's protect the big corporations, because they define what American means. Let's protect AOL Time Warners cable company by forbidding WiFi networks. Let's enforce electronic ID on everyone and track everyone everywhere all the time everytime forever. Did you get your EID implanted? If you did not you are UnAmerican and illegal! Let's use MSPassport to pay for all our purchases, to pay for everything including cab and restaurant and subway and home insurance and taxes (tip is automatically calculated and included and taxed once again) so let's forbid paper money and if you are against it you are UnAmerican and thus you are a terrorist! Let's split the entire nation into an electronic grid 1kmX1km and in order for you to cross a line between grid cells let's authorize you with your MSPassport and if you are not authorized let's stop you by sending a special electrical signal into your brain to disable you (police car dispatch, please remain unconscious until we decide to turn you back on once you are in jail.) What the hell, let's connect everybody's brains to our computers so we can monitor your thoughts and emotions thus allowing us to force you to do exactly what you must, to force you to buy exactly what you must buy to stay American, so the commercials can be sent into your brain directly and since commercials are IP you will have to buy license to watch them, so for your convenience we'll just move 24.99 from your obligatory Credit Card (MS Passport.) And if at any point of time you will try to regain your own consciousness and try to actually think for yourself - you are UnAmerican and Illegal and a Terrorist and we will bomb the hell out of you.
God bless America!
You can't handle the truth.
Observing first your elections then the present state of your government from this far land beneath the trees, I was left with some impressions:
a) Gore is far more educated than Bush, yet far dumber. How little backbone one must have to bow the way he did to conservative media and movers and throw away his last, best chance to win, namely the extremely charming, intelligent and popular president Clinton?
b) From right and left (or Republican and Democrat) does not follow tough and soft. During the last century most American wars were fought by Democrat presidents.
c) Hilary C. looks far tougher than both Bush and Gore. That would kill many rabbits at the same time: a woman, a wife who managed to keep a publicly difficult marriage, someone who could truthfully promisse to keep (or restore) internal freedoms and make war to terrorists. I think this scenario is pretty strong.
d) A sitting president won't lose an election if there is a war abroad. So all Bush has to do, and he has plenty of opportunity, is to produce a major war or crisis (Iraq, Sysria, Iran, Korea etc) near the elections.
This reasoning behind this is ridiculous. If you outlaw anything a "terrorist" could use, well, that is anything a normal person could use as well. It may be helpful for terrorists to find an open 802.11b network. Why? Because it is usefull for ANYONE with a properly equipped computer to find one.
A thought:
c -power-station.doc" rather than those looking for a cheap, quick way to xfree86.org
If you leave the networks insecure, would it be difficult to set up a few with monitoring to log who tries to access sensitive goodies?
If everyone secures their networks, such an unsecured honeypot would stick out like a sore thumb, nobody would be stupid enough to touch it, and you lose something that's potentially a useful security tool.
This assumes, in contrast to several posters, that the goal isn't to cut off cheap, decentralised wireless, and assumes that you'll get a better terrorist hit rate if you check only those who are downloading "easily-exploitable-security-holes-in-local-atomi
It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
Wow, some of you must have a hard time walking with your knees jerking so violently. I know that we've all decided that President Bush and every last person in the US Government are now minions of the Antichrist who think nothing of trampling the rights of every American, biting the heads off cute furry animals, and beating up old ladies on the street just for fun. But you should at least try and retain the appearance of rational thought.
How many articles have we already had on Slashdot lamenting how hard it is to properly secure a WiFi network? Why is it horrible when the Feds point out something that we already know? How is it a sign of the End Times for the gov't to advocate good security practices? If they'd said "Gee, guys, the root logins on your main servers really should have passwords" would we have people unsecuring their boxes in protest?
The article is vague and badly written, and we have no real context for any of the quotes they include. (Hell, no one they quote uses the word "terrorist" at all.) However, it's fairly clear from their analogy to the phone system that they're talking about big corporations, ISPs and big network providers. These are buinesses that already have a legal responsibility to secure their networks properly, and some of them have already shown that they either can't do it with current technology, don't care enough to bother, or just don't know how to do it right.
This is not an attack on people or businesses who want to operate open access points. But that decision should be a positive choice, not an accident or a consquence of someone bypassing bad default security settings. And when that choice is made it needs to consider the security of other data on the network, like confidental customer information, that obviously should not be open to every random person with an 802.11 card.
But nevermind all that. Let's go back to babbling about the imminent arrival of a police state and demonzing people on the basis of inflammatory Slashdot postings. That's ever so much more productive.
This reminds me of when the government gave the film industry an ultimatum: censor yourselves or we'll censor you. (Note that film was not protected under the 1st amendment at that point in time.)
The film industry realized it would be folly to give the government such an absurd power, so the MPPDA (Motion Pictures Producers and Distributors of America) was instituted to censor films. For the next 40 years, many great works were created that had to be slashed to bits because of this, but eventually this stark oppression was eliminated and replaced with the ratings codes we have today (G, PG, PG-13, etc.)
The government is giving the tech industry a similar ultimatum: secure or be regulated. If history is any indication, the industry will promote security to avoid government control. I think the government's reasoning is flawed, and I think the idea of de-facto outlawing of open APs is foolish, but I'd prefer this sort of self-regulation to government regulation any day.
The zealots in our government won't be there forever, and if we can appease them while they are there--meanwhile fighting them and disseminating the American ideals of freedom to the sleeping populace--then perhaps someday we can open up our APs once again.
Or maybe I'm just a foolish idealist with no grasp on reality. I suppose that's it, so I'll go slink back to my my cave.
I have a private (as secured as it can be) wireless network, not a "service". Someone who breaks into it is a thief, not a "user".
You are not the problem. Carry on.
You see, now this is an example of why some people think IE sucks when in fact it's almost always the fault of an idiot... if you had any reasonably good popup killer running, as you always should in this day and age, this wouldn't have been a problem. I clicked the link. One window, a WAV playing, that's it. I clicked my mouse's scroll wheel (mapped to browser back) and I was out of it. No crash, no ill effect, nothing. Just a little annoying, which is a fair description of 85% of the Internet in general.
Sure, it'd be nice if IE had a popup kller built-in ala Mozilla, but come on, we're always complaining about MS bundling stuff, here's a time when they didn't and we're going to bitch about them NOT bundling? I DON'T THINK SO!
Before you complain about ANYTHING, stop and ask yourself "Am I an asshole?" You'll find that better than half the time the answer, if your at all honest with yourself, will be "yes", and then you won't blame this, that or the other person at all.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
It's unbelievable the magnitude of stupidity shown by those entrusted with providing our security. Regardless of the subject, you don't fix large security problems by starting with the inconsequential nit-pick details! It'd be like worrying that a burglar could enter your home because they might kick down the door when in fact every window of your house has no lock. The 9/11 tradedy itself solved our air travel security problem. No hijacker will ever again obtain control of an airliner simply for the fact that the passengers and crew will not allow it. Gone is the assumption that a hijacker just wants a large ransom or political favor. Problem solved. We didn't need strip searches and confiscation of nail files.
Trying to regulate, monitor and secure communications channels is absolutely the most useless way to "fight terrorism" -- not to mention it's not even remotely possible in an open and free society. What we really need is an "open source" style audit of our national infrastructure by ordinary Americans who work daily in their areas of expertise. We need simple ingenuity to fix any holes that may exist.
How does one get past the lameness filters Or would those be the 802.11 encryption filters ? which ever ..
Our of curiosity, when someone does sit on your network for a few hours, uses some stolen credit cards, uses a script to hack into a few hundred systems, launches a distributed denial-of-service attack against a few government system, maybe sends out a bundle of spam, and the feds come knocking on your door, what do you plan on telling them?
I plan on telling them that I'm no more liable than the phone company is for allowing them to make phone calls. It's called the "Common Carrier" principle, and I think it applies here.
I mean, if you hold me liable for what somebody else does through my bandwidth then you'll have to lock down every public library, Starbucks, Internet cafe and airport where they let you browse the web for free or a small cash donation. Network availability is becoming ubiquitous through a variety of technologies. Regulating 802.11 doesn't prevent people from getting on the network, it just kills 802.11.
Securing the network from "bad people" isn't really an option any more than securing the phone system is. Do you want to get rid of pay phones too?
This
is it possible to geta last post ???
All you need to do is to have a welcome HTML screen to your WiFi network that requires that users give you their name and verifyable e-mail address before they're allowed to roam.
I foresee a lot of foo@hotmail.com accounts showing up in my logs. Really, there's no good way to track people without demanding a credit card or proof of identity.
Hell's going to get real cold before I demand a driver's license to use my school's computer labs. The same goes for the library computers and my home network.
This
Also on the list for the FBI, is unlocked doors. FBI agents will be going from home to home, trying to open doors without a key. You are advised to lock your doors, because if your door is unlocked, they will come in and arrest you for being a terrorist.
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
is helping the terrorists too... they just let anyone come in and purchase food. Those terrorists couldn't have made it to the planes if they had starved first! This will end terrorism because terrorists are too stupid to buy an AOL account!!!
This statement by the Dept. of Homeland Security was probably funded by AOL/Verizon/etc.
Karma Clown
There are at least a dozen different places a totally anonymous person can get free internet access in my town in very obvious places (that's not including hundreds I've located via wardriving). The easiest and fastest are the public library and the community college library. Speaking of which, my local community college has a nice open WiFi net. Better lock it down so the communists, err terrorists, don't hack any inappropriately connected resources (why should any vital US infrastructure systems EVER be connected to the internet?).
Why should every military base have it's own internet access? Sounds like suicide letting G.I. Joe order up ADSL and let him connect it to a secure network. ALL military internet access should be required to flow out a small handful of highly fortified internet connection points. Even modems should be banned. If the government had HALF a clue it wouldn't matter how insecure the internet was. Paraphrasing here, but it goes roughly like this: Remove the plank out of your own eye before you try to remove the splinter from mine.
Having said that, I believe if you're going to run an open AP, you need to do so responsibly. You need to filter SMTP access so someone doesn't use your bandwidth and IPs to use an open SMTP relay to spam folks (and yes, of course the SMTP relay shouldn't be open, but you shouldn't give them high speed anonymous access to it either). You should be able to account for who is using your internet access, if nothing more than a MAC address and email account. Yeah, a totally open WiFi network world wide would be cool, but each WiFi operator should be aware and able to shut down abusive behavior.
For my own "open" WiFi at freenet.artoo.net I use NoCAT to authenticate all users. Yeah, it wasn't as easy as unboxing an AP and plugging it in, but it wasn't that hard to configure, and now I know exactly who is connecting within any 5 minute sliding window (it uses pushed SSL auth to verify the original sign-on is still valid, and will block and force an SSL redirect to a login page if the original SSL auth isn't kept up). So, worst case is someone could wait for another WiFi user to go idle and spoof their MAC address, and they get 5 minutes of access.
Read the my sig.
These gun onwers might be our last help.
Hacking and slashdotting is not bad, but the last line of security is a good, 7.62mm semi-automatic rifle.
The website http://www.a-human-right.com - I saw that website a year ago and I didn't think too much about the issue even despite living in a country where gun ownership is common - is an eye-opener. Even if it doesn't coincide with your political views.
And that's the State government. I can't imagine how much more paranoid the feds are.
" Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable: (1) without government, as among our Indians; (2) under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence, as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our states, in a great one; (3) under governments of force, as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep.
" I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
And,
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Someday we'll all be negroes
It doesn't apply here. You can't just say, "I'm providing a service, so make me a common carrier." The phone company bit is a horrible example, because you cannot merely make a telephone call and hack into other systems, send a million spam messages, or command your DDoS zombie army. You'd have to have an ISP in there somewhere to get you online. The telephone call is merely the "physical" layer of your network connection. For the rest of your examples, you're still not getting free anonymous access. For your library, you generally need a library card, and even if you don't, people saw you. They can trace the activity back to the PC, and a librarian or a visitor could easily say, "Yep, I remember him." Many libraries also generally permit only web browsing. If you set up a Wi-Fi network and put it in a DMZ and only permit proxied (filtered?) HTTP traffic, I'd say that's a responsibly-run Wi-Fi network, though I still might have my reservations about running one. But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? It's about truly anonymous, full IP connectivity. That is not generally found in a library. For Starbucks, you have to sign up with an account, which requires a credit card. Even if you used stolen information, somebody probably saw you sit down, assuming you didn't buy any coffee. For an Internet Café, same thing. You had to pay to use the service, so you either spoke to a vendor, and/or they have your credit card. I also don't know how many of these places offer you full IP connectivity as well. I would think most of these would be heavily firewalled and proxied also. In an airport, first of all, you've bought a ticket. Secondly, I don't know of any "all-airport" networks that do not require you to sign up with an account. Thirdly, for those airline clubs that do offer "free" Wi-Fi access, you had to walk in and demonstrate that you were a member. They've noted this. There is presently nothing similar to open Wi-Fi networks in providing 100% anonymous full IP connectivity. When they do knock on your door, and they've stated that they've traced all sorts of illegal activity back to your network, and you do simply state "I'm no more liable than the phone company is!" what do you think they will do? Do you think they will shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh damn, better luck next time"? If what you're advocating (immunity to open Wi-Fi operators) comes to pass, crime on the Internet will skyrocket. Spam will multiply by orders of magnitude (now they have no fear of being caught, and it would only be you that's shut down). Is this the Internet of the future? You're also forgetting that you are ultimately responsible for fulfilling the obligations of your terms of service with your ISP. You can call yourself a "common carrier" all you want, but you're still contractually bound there. If your ISP gets enough complaints, you can bet they will shut you down. You can scream and shout about how it was some other armless guy using your open, anonymous Wi-Fi network all you want, but it doesn't really matter. You failed to curb the abuse (because you made the deliberate decision to open your network up promiscuously).
I can't believe you said this...
And modded "Insightful"?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
> AC because I don't want a file at the GPU er KGB er HSA er "Homeland Security Agency"
Or a visit to the Ministry of Love
---
Never stop dreaming.
You want me to hire someone to fix other people's networks so that they can't be hacked and used to DDOS me?
Yeah, that makes sense...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
My friend wrote this: Disarming law-abiding citizens is typical of the criminal court system that only exists to legitimize this tyranny we live under. So only state militias are able to bear arms, huh? Well, maybe they should read the Pennsylvannia Minority Paper; written during the Constitutional Convention Debates by the same people who demanded that a Bill of Rights be added to that document of despotism known as the US Constitution. These quotes, I believe, help set the context for determining exactly who is supposed to bear arms and whose interests the Bill of Rights are intended to serve.
- ---
-----
7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people OR ANY OF THEM, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.
8. The inhabitants of the several states shall have liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times, on the lands they hold, and on all other lands in the United States not inclosed, and in like manner to fish in all navigable waters, and others not private property, without being restrained therein by any laws to be -passed by the legislature of the United States.
-----
Further down in the same document they talk of the dangers of a state militia and standing army/state police force:
The absolute unqualified command that Congress have over the militia may be made instrumental to the destruction of all liberty, both public and private; whether of a personal, civil or religious nature.
Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independence; but in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.
As this government will not enjoy the confidence of the people, but be executed by force, it will be a very expensive and burthensome government. The standing army must be numerous, and as a further support, it will be the policy of this government to multiply officers in every department: judges, collectors, taxgatherers, excisemen and the whole host of revenue officers will swarm over the land, devouring the hard earnings of the industrious. Like the locusts of old, impoverishing and- desolating all before them.
http://www.constitution.org/afp/pennmi00.htm
-
Also, Jefferson, in a draft of the Virginia Constitution made it clear what he had in mind:
Note: Arms
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].
-- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Constitution for Virginia
[June, 1776.]
FAIR COPY
OK, so my organization is going to be regulated because we use 802.11? What about Internet Explorer? With a weekly security flaw found in the world's most popular browser; shouldn't the feds regulate the development and deployment of such a widely used bit of software? It seems there are many more opportunities to commandeer a machine via IE than 802.11.
-ted
Well, the telcos have a whole lot of stock in broadband too. Anybody with sufficient bandwidth can become an ISP.
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
we used to be able to freely have "open" networks running. Now they are offenses that are illegal b/c they harbor terrorists.
That's not freedom.
If I use security measures (such as encrypting all my traffic) I have something to hide, and must be a terrorist. If I don't, I am allowing others to use my network, so I must be a terrorist.
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
I've lived over a lot of the US. I've yet to find anywhere that people consistantly follow the speed limits. Costal places are nuts, big cities are nuts, the midwest is nuts (ever been in KC at rush hour?), rural roads are nuts. I've not been out west much.. maybe that is where all the people are that follow the speed laws. :)
.001% of people that are shitheads. It won't protect you (as the shitheads just move on to better toys) and it screws everyone else over.
My vehicle didn't have to meet any standards. It's a total POS. I just took it to a mechanic I knew would pass it as being okay. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
There is a difference between an open network and an insecure network. I might leave all the doors open for people to use my web servers, proxy server, use me as a gateway, etc but I've never been hacked by anyone and doubt I ever will be.
I have every right not to have my network usage tracked and so does everyone else. You can't punish everyone for the
Windows sucks. I'd never run it inside any trusted part of my network. For me I always distrust any machines running non-free OS's or any machines I haven't configured myself. Hell I even distrust myself (I tweaked my boxes so I can't logon as root when buzzed).
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Since they just announced the Cometa consorium whose goal is put 802.11b hotspots all over the US, I suppose they will be subject to Dep't of Homeland Insecurity actions....
Seriously. Any 911 center admin who does that deserves to be shot.
So basically you're saying we should have instead elected the fascist bastard who was running against Davis, right?
Davis was Lieutenant Governor long before he was Governor. In addition, he had to qualify for his own party's primary against another democratic challenger, before going on to the November election against a slate of challengers, including Independent, Green, and Reform party candidates. Unless every person he's ever run against was a facist bastard, voters have had many a chance to pick a different candidate.
Yup, and there are plenty of places that are selling anonymous connectivity, both in the US and overseas. AOL, for example.
Besides, there are plenty of ways in which terrorists can get other people's credit card numbers.
Secondly, an open Wi-Fi network is a perfect place to release a destructive virus or worm. You don't need a lot of bandwidth to do this.
No more or less perfect than any other Internet connection.
We can't have the roads open to the public. Terrorists could drive on the roads. Ummm, better close down Walmart too. Terrorists could buy their box cutters there.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Not only do we have an 802.11b network setup (he and I are the only ones that use it) but we did encryption, MAC address filtering, a nonsense ESSID. You think that is paranoid you should see the firewall!!
<bad humor>
Tonight on channel 4 news, local Lutheran pastor arrested for using 802.11b networking technology, the FBI said that all you use 802.11b are terrorist, still at large the sysadmin for the church police are instructed to shoot on sight.
</bad humor>
You know they will not say wireless, because then people will know how stupid this is.
where is this going to stop? Is holding a private conversation aiding and abetting terrorists as well? This is well beyond the pale. I think that the silent majority in the US better open there mouths, otherwise its all going to be silent.
If someone hops on an access point with a localhost IP, the packets that leave/enter the account are going to be tagged with the access point's IP... and if the owner says "I created an open access point, I have no idea who used it", the owner doesn't get off the hook in a civil lawsuit this would be a response to.
That's what pushing liability back onto the responsible party means.
What I'm calling for is liability law applied to cyberspace, not just for open access 802.11(whatever), but for everybody. Starting with the idiots with cablemodems, no firewalls, and 0wN3d computers.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Yup, here is a good recent article from Business 2.0 on how terrorists use counterfeit $$$ to aid their cause. It is titled, "Forging Terror How rapid advances in scanning, printing, and other technologies have made counterfeiting a potent new weapon of holy war."
somewhat weird: wired.com posts news about wireless LANs...
You know what? No great loss. Yep. That's right. It'd be like 1988 when almost nobody had net access. I was a courrier back then. There were signs all over the place that said "FAX It!" because that was a hot new thing back then. We routinely made pickups of mag-tapes to deliver to computer centers. You know the old bit about never underestimating the bandwidth of a truckload of CD-ROMs? Well, never underestimate the bandwidth of a college drop-out making a run with a cardboard box full of mag-tapes.
Now, of course we are a lot more dependant on the 'net these days and some things would get disrupted. But GET REAL. Very little data would be lost because it's backed up... much of it still to tape. Some businesses like Amazon would "lose" a lot of sales, but the bottom line is that Junior will still get his socks and that copy of "Harry Potter and the Delayed Puberty" for Christmas. It just might be late, that's all.
Making the Internet a national security issue is like making Showtime, Playboy and the Home Shopping Club cable channels a national security issue.
When I was a dialup tech we used to make fun of people with no backup ISP who said "my business depends on the internet". The idea of someone depending on just one ISP was funny, but the idea of depending on the Internet was funny too.
Now, I seriously doubt that someone logging onto the net--through 802.11 or otherwise--could bring it all down. Even if they could, the outtage wouldn't last long. This is big business now, and you know the problem would be isolated in hours. In the meantime, as Scott Adams said "the network is down, but everybody else is happy".
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
This is not about insecure company networks so much as it is about free neighborhood networks. All those free wireless neighborhood networks sprouting up in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Boston, et al. If they continue to catch on and as they begin to overlap there will emerge a wireless Internet. People will be able to wirelessly send email, visit websites, trade files, and all the things they did on the original Internet but without the creeping centralization and control that is starting to pervert the Internet into just another Mass Media distribution system.
The real fly in the soup from the Feds point of view is that there would be no choke points such as ISPs to get ahold of it. Such a wireless mesh would truly route around any obstacles.
Just when the FBI has essentailly been given a green light to monitor the 'net, email, chatrooms, etc along comes a tech that has the potential to break their control. If you think they are going to sit back and let that happen I have a bridge to sell you.
I think, therefore, ken_i_m
Doesn't that sound like they should start regulating Microsoft, I mean, how many times do the MS servers get cracked? Seriously...I know some idiot's going to mark me as 'MS bashing' or whatever...don't mod me down for being 'typical' mod me up for pointing out the link to how we use this to prevent companies from creating insecure code.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Perhaps I misunderstood the original post. I was under the impression that it was suggesting that we need to shift our resources away from combating promiscuous Wi-Fi networks and towards goals that would possibly have an impact on reducing spam. I found this argument silly. But perhaps I misunderstood.
I am completely in favor of everything you describe in your post.
Again, well-put post.
Btw, moderators - isn't it -1, redundant to mod my earlier comment off-topic?
It was clearly marked off-topic. ;)
for a revolution.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
I don't believe in violence, I don't even believe in peace.
"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."
Sounds like more of a case to freeze what's left of Microsoft's assets and liquidate. Obviously everyone should be running OpenBSD on their workstations, not just in their server rooms.Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Black vans will be prowling around "sniffing" for wireless lans. When they prowl through your neighborhood and detect that you have 802.11 running they will send a SWAT team to kick your door in, shoot your dog and rip your house apart in the name of National Security because you are aiding and abetting "Abdul" down street.
Remember when they declared PGP to be a munition and banned it's export??
What do you think will happen when you begin to send PGP encrypted email to/from your friends?
Why would ANYONE want to hide anything??
When you hide something there must be a reason for it. Why make your conversations private? We can't have that now can we? Only terrorists would want to speak to one another in secret.
Privacy will become illegal in the near future, when nothing is hidden then there can be no terrorism, right?? And when someone tries to speak privately then those persons are plotting something and must be arrested for interregation.
They tried to push the clipper chip on us and nobody went for it. Now, we are staring down the barrel of Palladium and Longhorn and it's only a very short time before all privacy is lost and thus all freedoms are restricted.
We will be prisoners in our own minds.
I see two choises for "foreign" (i.e. not USA) countries where Internet connectivity is available:
hany
Pravda.Ru reports:
The chairman of the department for the struggle against high-tech crimes of the Moscow Central Directorate for Internal Affairs, Lieutenant Colonel Dmitry Chepchugov, has recently released a statement about pornsites. Dmitry Chepchugov stated that the income earned from pornsites is being used to fund extremist and terrorist organizations.
Read the full story.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Excuse me? Have ever even left America before? I am sick and tired of Americans falsely believing that they have the most freedom in the world. You don't, in fact you have one of the places with the most loss of freedom in the past decade. Where on Earth did you get that misguided notion? Honestly, you are a terrible advert for your country.
What can you do that we can't? The rest of the world isn't "IN SOVIET RUSSIA..." you know. You want a free society, take a look at Europe. We're even allowed to teach about evolution in schools here...
(sorry if I've offended anyone, but this dumbass had to be set straight)
For some reason, I just don't buy into the whole "Terrorists want to bring down the internet." bullshit. I tend to think these types of morons would much prefer strapping a bomb to themselves. They would probably just look like a bunch of punk kids if they actually tried to bring down the internet. Afterall, it's all about image if you're a terrorist...
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
The Feds are now claiming that communications per se are terrorism or tools terrorists can use. Well, yes, terrorists as well as everyone else can use the telephone, the mails, wired networks and wireless networks. So what? It is the interest of all of us that the ease of communication and the ability to communicate without Sammy peering into our thoughts as we do so, be preserved and increased. That some will communicate what we would rather did not exist does not mean that you threaten communication channels as such or invite Sammy to examine and control each and every packet.
Here we have Homeland [In]Security showing their true colors. "If you don't do what we want then we will regulate you (i.e. use the force of arms) you into non-existence or until we don't feel at all uneasy, or until or corporate sponsors don't feel you are a threat to their monopolies." Thanks, Sammy, for being so clear.
Of course the "telecomm" industry was represented. These positions came straight out of and are in the interest of big telecomm. They have at last found a toe-hold to get the State (Heil Bush) to kill off or threaten free-range competitors.
Isn't it interesting that Homeland Security is threatening WiFi, especially the relatively free and open networks, but not threatening known ultra-vulnerable OSes like those of MicroSloth?
If someone cracks your home network then exactly how is that a threat to national security per se? Exactly what are they going to do with the average homeowner machine and set-up? DDOS attacks are about it. But those machines are easy enough to attack when wired. Ask the FBI. They brag of the ability to install key-loggers on most any machine on the Net today.
This is such a canard. Everyone with a bit of sense knows that almost the entire infrastructure of predominantly Microsoft running machines is quite vulnerable. Whether it is conneced wirelessly or not changes little. The only purposes of this threat are to float a trial baloon giving Homeland Security larger powers and authority than it ever should have, to test the level of the opposition to such moves and to increase the monopoly powers of Big Telecomm.
When PGP was invented, the laws were pre-existing. Zimmerman et all went out of their way to challenge these laws and their application of sofware.
I've been exchanging encrypted email with friends and co-workers for many, many years now. Nothing "has happened to us".Face it, the government really doesn't give a damn what the average American citizen does or thinks, or what the citizens communicate to other citizens.
Some big corporations care, but only to the extent that your actions impede their efforts to turn a profit.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Common carrier is not something you can call yourself with impunity. You must ACT as one. Do you filter your network traffic, and offer your network (and not just wireless) to anyone as you please?
Was anyone besides myself foolish enough to print this thing out before scrolling through it?
I just killed a small wooded lot.
Just a thought, next time George and the boys offer up something this important, they really should think about making it a PDF and or gzip it.