Slashdot Mirror
War Driving To Be Protected In NH
AllMightyPaul writes "A big article on Wired.com talks about the new House Bill 495 that would legalize the innocent stumbling upon open wireless networks. Basically, it put the burden of securing a wireless network on the owner of the network and allows people to connect to open networks that they believe are supposed to be open. This is excellent news as I'm sure we've all tried to connect to one wireless network and ended up accidentally connecting to another one. Being from NH, now I can finally drive through Manchester and connect anywhere I want with little worry, but not until after January 2004, and that's if the bill passes the Senate."
So was it previously illegal? AKAIK, there are no laws against war driving, so while they may have protected this right, they didn't legalize it. Definately a step in the right direction, though.. it's so infrequent that we see lawmakers making laws to PROTECT our freedoms rather than remove them.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
There are still real moral issues here with whether or not it's actually RIGHT to connect to other people's networks. Just because the networks are not completely secure, you're still not justified in connecting to them, specifically if your reason to connect is to abuse them.
The law has decent motivation, but it's basically saying "Go ahead and break into wireless networks, because if they're not completely secure, it's not your fault." What happens when people start snooping the traffic, stealing corporate secrets, and then claim that the wireless network wasn't secure, so they can't be responsible?
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Well, as the article says, if they want to use a wireless network, the burden falls apon them, nit the state to make sure that network is secure.
Frankly, I feel that this is a good approach to hacking in general. Why should buisineses, who often lobby to pay the state less in tax revenue and whatnot, still expect the state to prosecute people who break into thier networks because they were too lazy to apply a patch?
Now, as a caveat to this, I feel that if the company can show that they took all reasonable precautions to secure thier network, then the state should go ahead with prosecution. This way a company that is 'following the rules' is not unduly punished, but the company that is too lazy or too cheap to implement good security is, and cannot fall back on fear of the state to be thier security apparatus.
You say you want a revolution....
Where in the world is this place?
New Hampshire is bordered by Canada on the north and by Massachusetts on the south. On the east, New Hampshire is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean and Maine and on the west, New Hamsphire is bordered by Vermont.
And for all you Wardrivers... it's
Longitude: 70 37'W to 72 37'W
Latitude: 42 40'N to 45 18'N
However, if you have the ability to use someone's network "accidentally" how do you distinguish someone who is using a lot of bandwidth for an innocuous reason from someone using a little bandwidth for a protective screen? I seem to recall reading an article about SPAMmers using open links to anonymously go through SMTP sites to further propogate their "stuff"...
And if the company is running Windows and has shared network resources, where does my 100 page accidental printing land on the scale of things?
I agree that you don't want to arrest someone for browsing through "linkedsys" when they meant "linksys" (or picking up the wrong "linksys" which is probably even more likely). But I'm not sure this is the answer.
FWIW,
Ewan
Waitaminute. What you're saying -- in essence -- is that you think it should be *legal* for people to enter your house without your permission if you're too stupid/lazy to keep your door unlocked. I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you. Unlawful entry is unlawful entry, and unlawful hacking is unlawful hacking.
That being said, I think it's completely different with wireless networks precisely because you don't even know what network you're picking up -- and you can pick up the network completely by accident. This is in effect similar to the case where an non-scrambled phone conversation is picked up via a scanner accidentally...perfectly legal to listen in, at least in most states.
My journal has hot
Well, I don't know about you, but here in NC if I drive through a nearby office park with Kismet there's a spot with EIGHT IDENTICAL members of the "linksys public access network" if you know what I mean (LinkSys products with default unprotected configs).
... you might just be committing a crime and theft of service if you pick the wrong one.
.. how about just renaming your access point to "PRIVATE ACCESS" or something that takes half a brain cell)....
:-)
.. how do you KNOW we have a wireless network ... from OUTSIDE??? You must be a TERRORIST!"
If I were to hypothetically sniff some of these packets, I might hypothetically discover that they are going to different ISPs, which makes me hypothetically believe that most if not all of these belong to different companies.
So imagine you are an employee of one of these companies and the boss tells you "hook up to the linksys"
This law puts the burden on the hardware owner to make the fucking tiniest effort (I'm not talking IPsec or even turning on WEP
This is GOOD, not BAD.
The signal is physically going through my body and if it doesn't say "Don't Use Me", then by fuck, I'm going to use it! I figure that's in exchange for the 0.00001% increased cancer risk.
I debated going into these businesses and telling them that I'm a computer security professional and would be happy to give them some free consulting but then I decided at least one of them would get panicky and have me arrested. "But
No good deed goes unpunished you know.
A others have mentioned, NH is a nice place to live. No state income tax, no sales tax.. It is a nice place to be.
I'm seeing a lot of "the idea is good but...", but I do think it's a good idea. I read the analogy of walking into someone's house if it's unlocked and taking their food, etc, but I don't think that's the right analogy.
A better one, (which also applies in NH) is that if you're hunting in the woods, you can't be prosecuted for trespassing unless it posted "No Trespassing" or the owner comes along and tells you to leave. This keeps people who are in the woods and might not have a convenient parcel map from the town from being prosecuted because they wandered into an adjacent lot. Do note that this is not the same as walking into land that is expected to be private, i.e. a house or an office building (during non-business hours).
Just my input.
Live Free Or Die.
We're on a mission from God.
I'll summarize it again as I have in other forums.
- My laptop sees a signal and requests access to the network by asking for a DHCP address.
- Access point sees my request and GRANTS me a lease on an IP address with which I can access their network
- I surf using the network
- I leave.
I asked, they said YES. They could have easily denied me, but they invited me into the network when I asked if I could. There are SO MANY different ways to keep people out, that owners of AP's just have to do something to secure themselves. Shame on them if they fail to do that.
-- There is no sig line, only Zuul.
It seems to me that this change essentially says that any network which isn't secured in any way is to be considered a public network; that is, if you find a network not using WEP or anything, you should assume that it was intentionally left open as a public resource (like people have started doing). I doubt that the defense provided for this behavior would apply to a network using even a small WEP key, though. Even if you sniff the key, it seems unlikely that you could then claim that the network's owner meant you to have the key. So, while people do have to secure their networks, they don't have to secure them particularly effectively; just well enough to block your defense.
What this law means is that, if you don't want people to use your wireless network, you have to use some sort of technological measure to let them know to stay out. This makes a lot of sense, because there's no way to find out that someone does want you to use their network.
It seems that with every article posted on Slashdot I get a better picture of the lack of morals possessed by the average Slashdot reader.
They see no harm in taking goods and services that they did not pay for and are therefore not entitled to.
Now they see no problem with hijacking bandwidth someone else paid good money for simply because it's available over the airwaves and unsecured? Tell you what: let me know where you live so I can help myself to your water, electricity, and internet access if your door happens to be unlocked. It's not my fault if I sneak in, you were too stupid to secure your house!
Also, I don't really buy the whole "this is good, now we'll see some better security" argument. Right. You're telling me you'd like nothing better than to see ALL wireless networks secured so you can't go joyriding and stealing bandwidth? Right. A Slashdotter who doesn't want to get a free ride. Next thing you know you guys will be telling me that you'd be in favor of a foolproof scheme that protects your fair use rights for music and movies but prevents you from sharing with millions of random people.
This is really sad when you think about it. The prevailing morality among young people seems to be "screw everyone else, if it's not bolted down I'm taking it!" There used to be a time in this country when you could leave your doors unlocked because people were decent enough to respect each other's property. Not anymore, I guess.
In your example, would you think the person that takes your car is guilty if the city you lived in routinely leaves cars with the keys in the door as a public service, allowing anyone to use them.
The truth is, that your example is not even accurate. A better example would be if cars come with an optional LOCK. They give strict instructions that if you do not want everybody in the world to use your car, you should install a Lock. If asked, they say they build them without locks so that you can get your own lock, not one that they can open, and to allow pbulic oragnizations to make them available for general use without a Lock
If you get a car without a LOCK, then it is YOUR fault if someone takes your car, and the person that took it has the RIGHT to claim they thought it was a one of the cars made available to the general public for free.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
This law does NOT make it legal to take things at all, let alone things that you know the owner did not want you to take.
All the law does is make it LEGAL to enter the house if you leave it open. Which makes a LOT of sense considering that a lot of people are intionally leaving their doors open so that if you want to get out of the rain, you can enter their house. (Analogy - public groups are offering free services).
The law does not allow you to steal data, it just lets you wardrive. war drive is using their network to access the internet. If you use their network to access the private, secret data of the company, that is theft, and you can still be prosecuted.
Admittedly, the law does make it harder to prosecute you, as you have to be caught with the goods, but that is fair. After all it SHOULD be harder to prosecute a theif when the MORON of an owner takes ZERO effort to protect their property.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The whold leaving your doors unlocked & open and then people walking into your house is a bad analogy. A better one would be:
You leave your T.V. pressed up against your window, and then people walking down the street watch it.
Or...
You put a speakerphone in the middle of the street, and then yell out your window whenever you make a call... and then people can listen to your conversation, and even add some comments in.
Lots of people are comparing this to making it legal for someone to come into an unlocked house and eat the food.
That's a bad analogy. Why? Because there is a widely growing movement of setting up open networks that anyone can connect to. There's no widespread movement to leave homes unlocked and free food in the kitchen.
This bill doesn't give people the right to break WEP encryption or spoof MAC filtering. They probably couldn't even use it for defense if the SSID had the word 'Private' or something similar in it. The bill simply recognizes the growth of free connections and tells people that if they don't want to be mistaken for a free connection then it's their responsibility to do something about it.