Unsecured Wi-Fi to Become Illegal?

echucker writes "News.com is carrying a story for a draft proposal for law in Westchester County in New York state that would outlaw unsecured wi-fi connections. Public internet access would require a network gateway server with a firewall and also require home/business office users to install firewalls to protect personal info, even if their connection is encrypted. Violations would carry fines of $250-$500."

Comments

Will they also require we lock our front doors?

[tinrobot]

What ever happened to personal choice?

If I want to leave my data connection open for any number of reasons, that's my business. If I want to leave my front door open or not lock my car, that's my business too...

Ridiculous.

Here's the Big Brother part...

[Anonymous Coward]

any business or home office that stores personal information also must install such a firewall-outfitted server even if its wireless connection is encrypted and not open to the public. All such businesses would be required to register with the county within 90 days.

I wonder who is really behind creating THAT database?

Re:allowing an unlocked house & meth lab

[Angostura]

So let's be clear. You are in favour of strict penalties for anyone who leaves their house with a door unlocked on the grounds that the premises may be used for illegal behaviour?

In that case, I would like to propose compulsory content analysis and blocking on all backbone routers. Because you never know when someone somewhere might use the Internet for something distasteful.

I suspect that the proposed legislation has zero chance of getting anywhere.

Re:This is absurd

[Gulthek]

You might not think that when you discover that your mortgage office, which stores an obscene amount of personal info, has all of that personal information on desktop computers on an unsecured wireless network.

Yes, I have worked as a mortgage loan officer for such a place. Yes, I insisted on that being changed (to extremely computer clueless management). Yes, I eventually quit for these and other questionable practices.

Which might be a good reason to leave it open

[SuperKendall]

All those nice things that if done from their own isp connection would get them kicked off by their ISP or have the police visit. Guess who gets the blame? All traces stop with the person who owns the internet connection.

So when the P2P police come calling if I'd had an open wireless connection it provides an element of doubt that I am guiltiy, which is pretty handy (if you're into P2P). If I used P2P a lot I'd do it from a box that operated only through my wireless connection - then any records don't even show the MAC address of your primary computer and you could ditch the box quickly if you got The Letter.

Re:This is absurd

[GuyverDH]

"Negligence is a crime, and negligent computer users are quite responsible for the botnets/internet congestion/virus outbreaks which affect us all in some way (though some, but certainly not all, of that blame can be directed at vendors). We won't see any changes until we hold users responsible for their (in)actions."

BULLSHIT.

The writers of bots and viruses are responsible for those outbreaks!

The writers of the host operating systems that were *shipped* with obscene numbers of security holes are responsible for those outbreaks!

The users who are uninformed (ie - the box/manual doesn't say the software comes with security holes) are NOT responsible for the spread of malicious activity.

That's like saying the people who ride public transportation are responsible for the negligent amounts of polutants that city buses put into the air.

Let's start enforcing the laws we have.

Jail time for those who write viruses and bots.

Every time a new virus or bot hits the net, fine the company that sold the bug filled software that enabled the bot to run. Make the manufacturer responsible for the problems their incompetance (or negligence) caused.

If a car manufacturer sells vehicles that crash all the time, they are forced to do a recall.

If a hardware manufacturer sells computers / laptops that have a material defect that can cause harm or property damage, they are forced to recall.

If a software company releases software that causes (through bugs, incompetence, negligence) damage, financial harm, or physical harm (ie bad software controls for automatic equipment) they are somehow held NOT responsible?

If I write a piece of software designed to do a specific task, then state in the EULA that it may not be suitable for that purpose, and that in the end, it's the users responsibility to determine suitable (and in some cases, safe) functionality in that task, I get off with no responsibility or accountability?

I believe that any member of government who says that people in general should be fined because they take a product and use it by just plugging it in and running it as it was shipped by the manufacturer is, to put it bluntly, bull shit. It's just another ploy by less than intelligent, power hungry law makers blindly trying to find a culprit (in all the wrong places - as usual) and make some money off of it.