Because Only Terrorists Use 802.11

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

Comments

Ludicris

[Cheeziologist]

What else will homeland think of next

and today all pr0n is banned becuase only terrorists shoot a load off

Re:Ludicris

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is that the terrorists are the only ones with any balls to stand up to the government. We are all sheep.
Wifi scares them because it's not something they can just turn off like any ISP.

Re:Ludicris

[gmack]

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

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

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

Re:Ludicris

[UberGeeb]

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

Re:Ludicris

[blincoln]

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

Should it be illegal for businesses to have poor security for their buildings?
Breaking and entering (in the physical and electronic world) is already a crime. Only a police state regulates the actions of potential victims of crimes to "protect" them.

Re:Ludicris

[zatz]

Terrorists are the real-world equivalent of trolls

Yes, exactly. When you respond to a troll, the terrorists have already won.

Re:Ludicris

[xigxag]

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

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

Re:Ludicris

[gnovos]

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

I know you realize this, but I feel like spelling it out for everyone who would read this sentiment and agree... Even if you don't have any DATA on your network that any hacker would want, you still have a NETWORK that hackers would love to control. 9999 times out of 10,000 "hackers" are not looking for blueprints on your top secret inventions that they could sell to a competitor. They are not looking for your credit card databases, nor your emails to use as blackmail. 9999 times out fo 10,000 they are not looking for data AT ALL! Instead they are looking for a network that they can control that will allow them to go and attack a DIFFERENT network. IF you wanted to hack into the DOD's computer network, would you do it from your home machine? Or ould you do it through a series of hacked accounts on other networks? If you are hosting child porn, would you prefer to have it sitting on the machine under your desk at the office, or would you prefer to put it on somone elses machine entirely?

If you think you are safe becuase there is no important *data* on your machines that hackers would want, you are not safe.

Next time you get this kind of answer make sure you get in writing the guy's willingness to take full responsibility when the MiBs come knocked at your door becuase your hacked machine was used to send death threats to the president.

Insecure Networks?

[jorupp]

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

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

Re:Insecure Networks?

[mosch]

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

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

Re:Insecure Networks?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:Insecure Networks?

[deranged unix nut]

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

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

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

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

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

And this is limited to Wi-fi how?

[idiotnot]

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.

The article says terrorists

[doubtless]

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

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

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

Land of the free, just a thought.

Re:The article says terrorists

[garcia]

"Land of the free, just a thought."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy Strangelovian paradise. It's a blast.

Re:Great...Big Brother, anyone?

[isorox]

only terrorists use wireless Internet

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

Please Read "Is This the America I Love?"

[goingware]

The original of "Is This the America I Love?" is at http://www.goingware.com/notes/america.html

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:

I just feel the need to write right now. Something has gone terribly wrong with the country I was raised to love. The good things that America stands for are being trampled into the dirt by those charged with the burden of protecting them.

I was raised to be a patriotic American. I grew up a military brat - my father was a proud officer of the United States Navy, who served in the Vietnam War. When I was young, I was always told that my father was fighting to preserve the freedoms that were guaranteed us by the United States Constitution.

In the first grade, I attended a school run by the U.S. Navy in Gaeta, Italy, where my father was stationed aboard the U.S.S. Springfield. Each day when we started school we sang patriotic songs and said the Pledge of Allegiance. We were told that America stood for freedom and democracy and justice.

I loved America for what it stood for.

Thank you for your attention.

More things terrorists use...

[GimmeFuel]

In other news, a recent report indicated that many terrorists use homeless shelters for food, housing and clothing. A Homeland Security directive today ordered all homeless shelters demolished and anyone who's given to charity in the last year arrested.

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?

Out of hand doesn't begin to describe it

[MalleusEBHC]

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.

Whatever

[RomikQ]

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

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

Re:Whatever

[Alsee]

I agree with the fact that wifi is insecure and it should be regulated

And I agree with the fact that doors are insecure and should be regulated. Some buildings like the pentagon have seure doors, but do you realize just how insecure supermarket doors are? They swing open the moment anyone walks by! A terrorist can just walk right into a supermarket! This situation is intolerable! All doors must be regulated immediately!

-

Regulation is bad.

[MikeFM]

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

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

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

Re:Hello?

[AntiFreeze]

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

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

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

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

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

This is not about security

[0x0d0a]

This is not even remotely done because of security issues.

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

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

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

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

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

It's not too hard to see where this is all going..

[Dr_Marvin_Monroe]

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.....

Read the article? No, too hard?

[Synn]

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".

Re:Read the article? No, too hard?

[jonny-mt]

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

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

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

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

Let me quote that again....

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

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

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

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

Re:Great...Big Brother, anyone?

[outlier]

That's not what the article says. It points out that wireless insecurities, particularly on corporate networks, pose a security threat -- no surprise there.

Because of all the hoopla about homeland security, people are pointing out that *any* insecurity that allows people to access networks in unauthorized ways can be a vector for Bad People who want to do Bad Things.

The same could be said about critical security problems in networked computers that may be exploited to attack critical networks. I'm sure that federal cybersecurity czar Richard Clarke would say that any insecurity that enables unauthorized network access *may* be a national security threat.

It doesn't say that you can't have a home or office wifi network. It doesn't even say that freely available wifi is a tool of the terrorists. It says, that systems should be secured, and that responsibility lies at many levels (manufacturers, corporate users, etc).

This isn't to say that the government doesn't engage in FUD or that civil rights aren't under attack. But it makes mare sense to fight the real threats to individual liberties.

Open discussions and Anonymous Cowards

[burgburgburg]

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

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

Do I have this right?

[roseblood]

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

Re:Do I have this right?

[Ironica]

Will it we keep up the status quo until a WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction) is smuggled in and used against us?

Why would anyone have to smuggle in a WMD to use against us? Aren't most of the world's weapons of mass destruction already here?

Paranoia, The Destroyer

[Newer Guy]

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!

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

[Loki_1929]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kir]

While I COMPLETELY agree with you, you forgot to mention the two other ridiculous branches of our (American) government - the judicial and legislative branches. These fucking morons have completely abandoned us. Checks and balances? I'm not seeing it. Regardless of who is "in charge", our government is fucked. Not fucked beyond the point of no return, but fucked none the less.

This brings me to a post I made earlier. People will bitch, moan, and ORGANIZE for a fucking television show, but they'll do shite about this. THAT, I think, is the even more pathetic than the American government.

Are there any governments left that exist FOR the people? Hmmm....

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

[theLOUDroom]

Right on.
It's all just frickin' McCarthyism.
Seriously, just go through and replace every instance of the word 'terrorist' with the word 'communist'
If you don't agree with them, you're helping the terrorists and therefore are one.

Really, it's amazing. Does anyone remember that whole rat out your terrorist neighbor program they wanted? Replace terrorist with communist and you'll see who the true enimies of freedom are.

The LAST thing these people need is more information. They had all the infomation they need to stop 9/11 from happening and they fucked it up. They need to get smarter about how they handle the info they do have. (Read as: We need smarter people in charge.)

Devil's advocate

[Have Blue]

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?

Very very sad

[cosmosis]

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.

Re:In other news....

[presearch]

Beg pardon comrade, but according to The Eleventh Edition of the Newspeak Dictionary the correct form would be "doubleplusungood" .

As in:
reporting bb minitrue doubleplusungood refs wifi slashdot unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling

Civil Disobedience

[Loki_1929]

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.

It used to be Communism

[tres]

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

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

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

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

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

Help for the terrorists

[mosch]

Allow me to help the terrorists. Relatively untraceable internet access, that doesn't require a credit card, is available through:

• 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.

Will they make up their minds?

[Ironica]

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

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

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

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

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

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

An interview with George W. Bush

[Zakabog]

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?

[aberant]

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

Very proud to have done my small part

[goingware]

I used analog earlier this evening to check my server logs to see how people were finding Is This the America I Love?. I've had the page up for over a year, but since the election I have felt a renewed sense of urgency to get people to read it.

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:

America just makes me sick now. The worst part is nobody seems to see the Injustice of it all. Are you all Blind? Have you not seen the greatly exaggerated and proposterous veil that has been strewn upon America?

Something is indeed wrong. I've sensed it, and to this day haven't been able to find the words to describe what it was, but I have to say something. Why? Because I have a fucking voice, and I will fucking spread it, because that's what America USED to be all about. Now? Now it's nothing, not even a shadow of it's former self. I'd literally rather live in Canada right now, because despite what people thing of Canada, it's pretty cool.

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.

What are they trying to prevent?

[Squeamish Ossifrage]

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.

Re:Fine, run your open network...

[Alsee]

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.

My local supermarket has a payphone out front. We need to hold the supermarket liable as a facillitator of any drug deals made over that phone. Don't forget to hold Home Depot liable for murder when someone gets bashed in the head with a brick.

Jeez, and your post got a 5?

-

Re:Sucks... but,

[NigelJohnstone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gotta be that COMETA consortium pushing this drivel.

Politicians don't read Slashdot

[GrouchoMarx]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a voter. Are you?

It's not just America

[Morgaine]

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. :-)

Sure, for now..

[Lysol]

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.

Isn't if tunny tho

[Lysol]

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.

Pay phones next?

[niola]

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

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

Just my $.02...

--Jon

How can I convince the Goverment.

[jellomizer]

I am wondering if we could convince the Goverment that only Terrorist Send SPAM. That way we can use these laws for our advantage.

Re:public != insecure.

[ncc74656]

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.

If they're running IE (or a browser built on the IE engine), all you need is some useful binaries squirreled away on a webserver to do whatever you want with their computer. Security settings are almost always such that you can run untrusted EXEs. At Comdex, I ran PuTTY off of my home webserver so I could check my mail. There's no reason I couldn't have stashed some malware ahead of time and run that.

(Mozilla, OTOH, won't let you do that. It'll prompt you to save the file someplace. If "Run...", "Command Prompt", and IE are removed from the Start menu and Windows-R is trapped (it's a keyboard shortcut for Start|Run...), good luck getting your downloaded file to run...assuming that you can find a directory that'll let you save your file. (One college lab had "Run..." and "Command Prompt" removed from its machines, but opening IE and giving c:\winnt\system32\cmd.exe as the URL gave me a command prompt.))