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

Wardriving Police Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see it now :)

This is absurd

[TFGeditor]

It is like fining somebody for leaving their door unlocked and they get burglarized.

This is the epitome of a YRO violation. Interesting it was posted under the Hardware banner.

Re:This is absurd

[remahl]

No, it's like fining somebody for leaving their door unlocked and _not_ getting burglarized.

Re:This is absurd

[Sensible Clod]

They say you can't outlaw stupidity...

Would that mean this bill is doomed?

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.

Re:This is absurd

[shish]

The word is "burgled", burglarized would mean "to be turned into a burglar"...

(...or am I missing a Simpsons reference?)

Re:This is absurd

[roystgnr]

No, it's like fining somebody for leaving their door unlocked and _not_ getting burglarized.

No, it's like fining somebody for not having a fence around their property and not getting burglarized.

A locked door isn't like a firewall, it's like a secure password-protected service. Firewalls easily let you limit access to "all or nothing" - but hell, if that's as "fine-grained" as you need your security to be, you can get the same effect on a good OS just by turning off the services you want inaccessible. You can use a firewall to limit access by IP, but you could do that without a separate firewall by having clients do IP (or better, asymmetric encryption key) checks themselves. What you can't do is use a firewall to forward outside connections to an inside service and expect that service to become any more secure.

Does this have something to do with the push behind SP2? I can't imagine Microsoft wanting to widely advertise, "You need to upgrade for security reasons because pre-SP2 versions of our programs are swiss cheese!" but they did need to get the "You need to upgrade for security reasons" message out there - perhaps what got across to consumers and lawmakers was "You need to upgrade for security reasons because SP2 has the all-important magic of Firewall!"

Re:This is absurd

[timeOday]

Stupidity? It's a choice. For instance my brother lives in a very friendly neighborhood where everybody has wifi and broadband. None of them secure it because they all get better coverage that way.

Re:This is absurd

[ThaFooz]

It is like fining somebody for leaving their door unlocked and they get burglarized.

I'm not sure I agree with your analogy. If someone owns something which is both desirable & dangerous (ie handguns, swimming pools, etc) they are required by either laws or insurance premiums to secure it.

I belive the same argument can be made for the internet. Sure the concequences aren't as severe (children having access to unfiltered content & computer virii instead of, well, death and injury), but neither are the punishments under this law with just a fine comparable to that of a speeding ticket.

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.

Re:This is absurd

[QuesarVII]

It wouldn't be my negligence that led to OmniCorp's problem. It is OmniCorp's job to secure their data. There are many other ways besides my access point for a hacker to get to OmniCorp's server.
You can't feasibly control every method of connecting to the internet. Besides, people with the ability to hack into OmniCorp's servers are going to have no trouble getting past a wep key!

Re:This is absurd

[Spacejock]

In other news ...

It is now illegal to use passwords of less than 26 characters, or those containing only letters of the alphabet
It is now illegal to drive a car with clear-text license plates
It is also illegal to speak on your mobile in English. Klingon is permitted until normal people learn it, at which time you'll have to switch to Esperanto.
All medicine bottles will be made from titanium and fused shut. If you can't open it - well, you just discovered what 'survival of the fittest' means.

I used to laugh at the tower of Babel story. Now we're living it.

Re:This is absurd

[bcrowell]

For instance my brother lives in a very friendly neighborhood where everybody has wifi and broadband. None of them secure it because they all get better coverage that way.
I don't use wifi and don't know much about it. Can anyone explain this using crayons? Suppose I put a wifi card in my linux box, take it to this neighborhood, and don't take any extra special precautions. What the heck is going to happen? I'm on this network with a bunch of other people. I fire up my browser and visit Slashdot, using http; the packets are available for the public to care, but so what, isn't that the same is a wired network? Now I go to Amazon.com and order a book over https; the packets are encrypted, nobody can get my credit card number, so what's the issue? Somebody tries to log in as root on my machine, but they fail because they don't know the password: so what?

Is the issue simply that Windows users leave too many services on, pick weak passwords, and normally are insulated from the consequences because they're firewalled by default by their ISP?

Re:This is absurd

[WalterSobchak]

This is entirely absurd. While there are people who don't know better, some chose to have their WiFi open.

And "some people" include such ignorant folks as Intel Corp., who operate a free-for-all access point on San Francisco's Union Square. Would the law outlaw this kind of marketing, too?

Oh, and a hint: Put your phone no. or eMail in your SSID and I will personally thank you when I use your AP.

Alex

Re:This is absurd

[gmack]

I once talked to a USRobotics sales rep and he thought exactly the same way you do. "personally I don't have anything on my network that people would want to break into". He was completely missing the point. The issue is that someone else can come visit the neighborhood someone not so nice and doesn't belong there who can now send spam or attempt to break in to other people's servers. 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.

Re:This is absurd

[dthrall]

In this case, the company storing this information is basically being criminally negligent.

There are laws that address the practices of institutions & business that house these types of personal information. I currently work in IT at a large insurance company, and each company wireless router is specifically configured in a secure fashion.

Businesses have an obligation to secure confidential information.

The problem is that we're talking about the impact on individuals.

Re:This is absurd

[Chris Burke]

Is this really about protecting private information or stopping computer crime?

It seems to me this would mostly benefit ISPs who don't want people sharing their broadband connections with everyone on their block. Won't someone think of the lost monthly fees?! Not that this would necessarily prevent connection sharing; but a mere firewall won't do much to prevent information stealing either.

I'll admit my main reason for thinking this is cynicism.

Re:This is absurd

[Midnight Thunder]

Oops, looks like I didn't check what I had written. I should have been:

This is why a prefer the "insurance company" approach: we WON'T fine you for leaving your door unlocked, but we won't pay up if it is unlocked and you get unlawful entry either.

Remember you can walk into most buildings, but once you see the sign "authorized personnel only", have a need of a key (electronic or otherwise), or an employee of the building indicating you can not pass you know that this is where you stop, unless you have business being in the building, legitimate or otherwise.

Re:This is absurd

[Pendersempai]

This is why we need strict liability for having your customers' personal information stolen. This is not an argument for arresting/fining people with an unprotected WiFi.

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.

Re:This is absurd

[pimpin apollo]

So the consumer who buys the linksys box, comes home, and sets it up is liable to protect themselves... but the company that produces software that lacks these purportedly basic protections is under no similar obligation?

It just is more evidence that the legislature should be regulation of last resort. Anybody who's been on their work network or a campus resnet knows that bureaucratic rule making is the least efficient kind out there. That's why we delegate power as much as possible. This doesn't work though when legislatures (even county legislatures) start trying to write network policies for everyone.

There's a myriad of paranoia over anything that happens with a computer -- people could send anonymous emails this way! -- that conveniently forget there are always much more dangerous real world alternatives (do you show id at a mailbox?).

What's more, the only dangers to innovation aren't just patents and copyrights (although these are significant). There's also danger in over-regulating technology simply because most people don't understand it - again, conveniently forgetting that most people don't understand most things and yet this does little to engender a rash of absurd regulation.

New York State should pass a pre-emption statute so that local municipalities can't arbitrarily run over much more important things in pursuit of some meaningless 'security'.

Re:This is absurd

[tehshen]

It's like someone turning off the protective personal forcefield on their mini lunar spaceship. And then it gets burglarized, and explodes.

Re:This is absurd

[Viper168]

You're way off buddy, it's more like your forcefield fails, a cat sneaks onto your ship while you're making a sandwich, then you forget about the sandwich and still don't feed the cat. When the cat finally gets upset and leaves, you take a shower and then take a nap.

I don't see how you could have missed this from the start.

Re:This is absurd

[bhtooefr]

It's like being fined for parking your (locked) car in your driveway, instead of in your garage.

There, car analogy.

Re:This is absurd

[timeOday]

someone else can come visit the neighborhood someone not so nice and doesn't belong there who can now send spam or attempt to break in to other people's servers.

The Internet is an open global network, not a closed private network. Taking one or two feeble steps towards closing it will hurt average users much more than it will ever prevent spam or hacking.

For instance, I like getting free WiFi at cafes. Holding the cafe responsible for whatever somebody decides to do to the Internet through their hotspot would kill free anonymous Internet access. And how much would that really cut down spam? Not at all.

Re:This is absurd

[ultranova]

Now I go to Amazon.com and order a book over https; the packets are encrypted, nobody can get my credit card number, so what's the issue?

The issue is that your Corporate Overlords and their Political Henchmen want to keep an eye on you, and that is easier if all the data from and to your computer goes through a single wire. In a world full of public anonymous Wi-Fi access points, anyone could connect to anything from anywhere without giving away their own identity, allowing free exchange of information without fear of legal consequences, and making things impossible to censor (since it might be impossible to find the servers the data resides in, especially if the servers are running a P2P network like Freenet); it is Big Brothers and Big Businesses worst nightmare.

Freedom is the worst enemy of Power, so of course powers-that-be try to crush it. This law is just another attempt of forces of darkness to crush all opposition and bring about a Digital Dark Age.

Re:This is absurd

[jelton]

I think one reality to face here is that while strict liability may pressure large businesses to act immediately, many smaller businesses either won't know they need to act or will simply choose to roll the dice. If the goal is to make sure businesses protect customer data, than fining companies failing to comply with a statute requiring that they secure the network would work much better than allowing people to sue after the fact.

This is really no different that the Health Department making sure that restaurants are clean and people don't get sick when they eat there or the state enforcing speed limits to proactively encourage people to slow down. you can always sue the restaurant or the driver, but does that really help the family who's member gets sick or injured after eating bad food or getting hit by a reckless driver? And no, I'm not equating food poisoning to identity theft...I think ID theft might be worse in many cases.

Re:This is absurd

[bcrowell]

The packets that are sent are recorded on the screen. You can pick up passwords, IM conversations, even (yes, that's right) credit card numbers. It's really quite scary how insecure an insecure wifi network is.
I don't see what any of this has to do with wired versus wireless networks. Packet sniffers can be used on wired networks as well. Every packet you ever send across the internet is public, and could pass through fifty different machines, none of which are guaranteed to be owned by nice people. If you're a Chinese political dissident using IM, I hope you're using an IM protocol that's encrypted -- or are you saying you're willing to trust your life to your ISP, as well as the owner of every other machine your packets pass through? In the case of credit card numbers, that's why https exists. If you want privacy on the internet, you have to use encryption.

Re:This is absurd

[TFGeditor]

Is that you Douglas Adams?

Re:This is absurd

[mre5565]

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.

You have single handedly undone in my knee jerk reaction; I think your point is well taken.

We have National Electric Code which most municipal electric codes based their rules on. The NEC is defined by the electrical nerds. We ought to have a National CompSec Code defined by the nerds. It appears this county is trying to fill a cap (and will likely mess it up). This is a complex area crying for straightforward guidelines. With generally accepted guidelines, it would be easier for small businesses to deploy this stuff safely.

Another reply pointed out that Sarbanes Oxley covers all this. It doesn't actually. What I've observed first hand and from reading the statute, is that there is nothing specific in the statute, and instead, corporations defer to third party auditors who define security policy. For example the auditor will often insist that passwords be changed frequently (every 3 months is often preached) and that the passwords use combinations of upper and lower case, special characters, and numbers. Thus the passwords are difficult to remember, and by changing them frequently, the result is less security because people write them down on sticky notes.

Incredibly, the auditors don't seem to care if passwords are going in the clear over the network.

This is what happens when the nerds stand around and let the idiots (politicians) make the rules. It appears the plumbers and electricians figured this out decades ago. Our turn.

Firewall? Nahh..

[JoostSchuttelaar]

I can imagine the requirement for encryption and perhaps for some form of logging, but a firewall? Isn't that the responsibility of the users who connect?

Is this because of the telco's?

[koan]

Is this a response to the Google plans and various other implimentations of free wireless?
These legislators have gotten downright dangerous, I also wonder, how uesful is an open network for hacking?
If you were up to no good is an open AP the way to do it?

Re:Is this because of the telco's?

[rkcallaghan]

If you were up to no good is an open AP the way to do it?

The short answer, YES.

The long answer, if its not a honeypot and you can evade physical detection, YES. The former may be harder to detect on the fly, but the latter is as simple as hiding in plain sight in the parking lot of an apartment complex or frat house.

~Rebecca

Luckily it is just a proposal.

[Nichotin]

This law would be impossible to enforce anyway. You would have to send a task around to track down all unsecured access points, then bust in the doors of a whole lot of white middle class people.

Re:Luckily it is just a proposal.

[l3prador]

Actually, from the article it seems to only apply to businesses, or home offices, not just any homeowner. Their intention seems to be to prevent theft of credit card information from customers of the business.

Make Unsecured OS Illegal too!!!

[Tuqui]

Make Unsecured OS Illegal too!!!

Speeding also illegal, as is cheating on taxes

[Gothmolly]

Um, just making something illegal doesn't stop it. Try doing the speed limit, in Westchester county of all places.
To me, this sounds like one of those "I'm protecting your children from Teh Internets" moves that politicians do periodically when they have to remind the masses that its time to vote.
How about holding someone responsible (gasp) for any malicious activity that originates FROM their network?

Re:Speeding also illegal, as is cheating on taxes

[RAMMS EIN]

``How about holding someone responsible (gasp) for any malicious activity that originates FROM their network?''

Now there's a good idea. Actually, don't we have that already?

In related news...

[M555]

Leaving you front door unlocked is now illegal

Re:In related news...

[iggymanz]

that's a disgusting mindset that makes laws like that, people need to start taking full responsibilty for their actions rather than having government take away freedoms and meddling to protect people from themselves.

Right. That'll work.

[Morky]

If being an idiot were illegal, most of my company would be in prison.

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.

stupid stupid stupid

[Matey-O]

We've got a public access wifi point in the building for visiting salsefolks and people from other government departments.

Open you laptop and you'll get 'do you want to attach to PublicWifi?'

It's firewalled off, URL filtered, and aside from http(s), DHCP, DNS, SSH and VPN, nothing else can get through. Further, those ports will only attach to outside IPs. All traffic is monitored, and there are notices in all meeting rooms that Your security is Your problem.

This is a solution that protects OUR network, has zero admin overhead, and still permits the resource...So that's now illegal?

Re:stupid stupid stupid

[FluffyWithTeeth]

No, it's fine. It doesn't have to be encrypted, just firewalled. It's a crap summary, I'm afraid.

Well, driving without a...

[teewurstmann]

... seatbelt is illegal, too. So why not make a "digital seatbelt" mandatory? I'm just curious how many users that can barely turn on their computer will become criminals with such a law...

Re:Well, driving without a...

[capoccia]

they won't become criminals. it will be one more thing that their broadband supplier will convince them to buy.

default passwords

[capoccia]

if this law passes, people will be buying routers that automatically configure themselves to be "secure" with default passwords.

So who gets to enforce it?

[mrmaster]

When I read this article I was thinking that I wouldn't mind having the job of enforcing this. Then I realized I would have to have the mindset of a parking enforcer to do something like this. Hell, let the parking enforcers take care of this as well. They love a good power trip. Parking enforcer: "Ma'am, your wireless access point is not running a firewall." Some old lady: "My what isn't on fire?" Parking enforcer: "your internet. It is against the law to allow others to use your internet for free" Some Old lady: "Oh, my 10 yr old grandson got that internet thing to work? Isn't he wonderful? He is so smart." Parking enforcer: "Ma'am, here is a ticket for running an unsecure access point. Don't let it happen again." Some Old lady: "How dare you come to my house and threaten me with this! I've been living here for 30 years and have never been treated like this! Parking enforcer: "Ma'am, have a nice day" Slow day at work. I apologize

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?

Equivalent of seatbelt laws?

[Antony-Kyre]

Isn't this the equivalent of police looking and pulling vehicles over for the driver not wearing a seatbelt? In other words, something that only endangers one self is trying to be prevented, right?

Re:Equivalent of seatbelt laws?

[syukton]

You know, I get the feeling that you're an inconsiderate moron.

Suppose you've got a person who was just in a car wreck and you've got a child who was just pulled from a burning building who is in serious need of medical attention. The county only has one free ambulance at this point in time, who do they go get? Well if the guy in the car wreck had worn his seatbelt and not been thrown through the windshield, they could just go get the kid. But since the guy in the car was thinking only of himself and didn't even bother to consider that his actions could affect others, he wasn't wearing his seatbelt and now a 911 dispatcher needs to choose between who lives and dies. Most people who don't wear seatbelts don't consider this at all, that by their being a negligent jackass they're depriving others of services they deserve because they aren't selfish, ignorant, negligent jackasses.

So you see, seatbelt laws aren't there to protect just the driver, they're there to protect the rest of society from those drivers' innate ignorance, selfishness, and negligence.

This proposed law is nothing like a seatbelt law, at all.

As if it isn't enough already?

[saskboy]

As if it isn't enough that using someone's open Wireless Access Point without permission is illegal, now they're making it illegal to own current wireless technologies? That's like bank robbing being illegal, but they're banning banks just in case. And I'm not saying connecting to open wireless is like robbing a bank, it's just an extreme analogy to show what the law is outlawing.

Ok.. I just turned on WPA....

[cowmix]

The passkey is 'passkey'. Am I legal now?

Do they have standing?

[redelm]

A legislative body can pass whatever they want, but it might not withstand legal challenge. In this case, I don't see how the county can show an interest. This is clearly interstate, and the FCC has jurisdiction.

Yep and then they will tell you what crypto to use

[dindi]

O.K.
1st step: let's force a broken security model (WEP) on all users.
2nd : limit the allowed encryption so all government agencies can come and look into your house ....

it's like telling someone how to run their servers ...

wha if I like all my access points running without any crypto and just have a tunnel inbetween my machines, and not ruoute any packets into the net that does not come from that "internal net" or VPN ?

What if i want to see wardrivers trying to mess with my access points?

What if I run Linux or BSD as an access point with my own security measures ?

What if I just hate big brother telling me how to run my home network ?

It's like the safety belt issue : I wear it as once it saved my whole family's life in a nasty crash, however I know people who are scared of it as they were stuck in a car in a rollower accident and they choose to crush their head instead of burning in a car upside down tangled in a seatbelt .....

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.

Where does the FCC fit in here?

[rayd75]

I certainly hope this fails as I don't think legislation is the solution to wireless security... at least not in this form. Perhaps it should just be illegal to ship an access point that is open by default. I realize that manufacturers want their products to be easy to use but I don't think it's unreasonable for buyers to jump through a hoop or two before getting a completely open access point if that's what they want. On the other hand, maybe the FCC will get involved. Obviously, they have no jurisdiction over network design and such but any requirement to register an access point sounds a lot like a requirement to register a radio transmitter. It has been long since been established that local governments generally cannot regulate radio devices operating in accordance with the applicable FCC rules.

Do lawmakers know enough to legislate this?

[zerus]

Here's my question, do lawmakers really know enough about WiFi security and firewalls to write a coherent law requiring this? I'd draw the parallel between the FCC and the slow move to HDTV, which they really can't push too quickly because many people don't want/need to pay for a new tv and then pay more for cable/satellite. So since many people (including myself) run old equipment, what type of standard encryption and firewall will the law entail? Will they require WEP64/128, which can be easily broken, or WPA which old equipment isn't compatible with, or another form? Can they force a standard to be adopted by the residents within a county without stepping on the toes of the FCC? To the best of my knowledge, the band that 802.11 works in is public and unrestricted. What about firewalls? Are they going to legislate which ports you can have open? I seriously doubt the lawmakers would understand concerns like this, but should that be the case, how can they effectively legislate a law?

No it wouldn't

[FluffyWithTeeth]

It would not outlaw unsecured wireless connections.

It's allowed to be unencrypted, it just has to be running a firewall. Which is stupid. Really stupid.

I don't live in America, so this won't effect me. I just still think it's stupid. I run my own connection free of firewalls anywhere in the chain. Sure, if someone can be bothered, they could get into my files, as long as they spent long enough with a bruteforce. Hell, I even allow root connections via ssh. Unless someone's seriously personally interested in cracking my machine, I don't need one, I only run MacOS, Linux and BeOS on the net, I'm not worred about malware or viruses. My wireless data is encrypted, but it won't keep anyone out, the encryption key is exactly the same as the SSID

The only reason I have that is so the (computer illiterate) people a few houses over don't connect accidentally, and use my bandwidth for no reason. Hell, I've connected to their router and changed its channel and such to produce the minimum interference between them.

I don't care if a guy nearby has lost his net for a bit, and so uses mine for a backup. I don't care if someone driving through switches to my connection.

If someone is using too much of my bandwidth, I'll just block their MAC address for a bit. Sure, they can crack that. If they do, I'll just change my WEP password. They're bored enough to crack that as well? Fine, I'll just stop my router from giving anymore DHCP leases than I use. Meanwhile, I'll track down where they are, using the many machines and people I can pull up to pinpoint where wireless traffic is. Then, I'll go over and kick the shit out of them.

So far, no one's ever done anything with my connection that's pissed me off. I've had people talk to me on rendezvous with iChat (Or whatever it's called now, the LAN chat thing) and thank me for letting people connect.

I like sharing my internet. I once set up a directional antenna so that a friend some ways over could use it when his cable company had screwed things up.

And we pay these jackasses salaries'?

[Starker_Kull]

For the love of god - seatbelt laws were enacted because the consequence of not wearing a seatbelt was a much higher probability of DEATH in an auto accident (and assuming you are just injured, the associated higher costs of health care which has to be borne by everybody) - hardly the result of someone who "hack[s] into the [your] network and steal your most confidential data". Jeez, even that quote, "the network", like there is only one shows how clueless some of these politicians are. Now we need laws going after WiFi providers who don't secure themselves sufficently?

Let's pass some other useful laws, then:

1) Fine people who use unpatched OS's, or OS's with KNOWN, UNPATCHED security holes. They cause all those net problems!
2) Fine people who don't lock their car doors at night. They're letting car thieves make a living!
3) Fine people who purchase something without collecting a reciept - they're enabling tax fraud, and employees ripping off corporations!
4) Fine people who plug in electronic equipment without surge protectors in place. They're tempting God to wreak havok with his lightning bolts!

When did it become acceptable to penalize the victims rather than the criminals?

(/rant)

Do the same here...

[bogaboga]

We in the country do not lock our homes when we leave. Nothing has ever happened. I guess I am speaking for myself and the few friends I know here.

Our politicians should do what matters for the ordinary folks like fixing health-care and other services, then legislate on matters like these. Is that too much to ask for?

Phone Companies Must Be Behind This

[diakka]

Looks like they want to cut off all the free wirless access so they can charge you for it. Aren't you glad they care about making your internet safe?

Seriously though, one poster asked jokingly why they aren't banning insecure OS's and it sounded funny, but it does point out a problem with the bill. Certainly people running insecure OSs are just as bad for spam, and illegal activities as are free wireless, yet nobody is proposing a bill to fine those users. Naturally, if someone proposed this, MS would throw a shit fit.

Internet Traffic Ticket

[canuck57]

Violations would carry fines of $250-$500."

About time. I figure the only way law enforcement is going to enforce internet good practices is if it becomes like traffic tickets. Get caught, pay the fine. This is a good idea unless you want your access point open.

Industry Regulation

[jpl166]

While it sounds like this particular proposal was written by people who just don't understand, maybe it will give people with a bit more clue (and authority) an idea.
People were talking about this being like getting fined for leaving your door unlocked. How about fining a landlord who doesn't provide locks on the doors? With the prevalence of wireless "internet router" units, many of which include basic firewall functionality, it wouldn't take much of an upgrade to make this work well. Anything that provides 802.11[bg...] should have a firewall built in and come with a VPN client - anything on the airwaves is then firewalled AND encrypted. How much would this really cost the industry? How much would it benefit the public?

Re:Industry Regulation

[Buddha Joe]

But when I rent that apartment from the landlord who hasn't put locks on the doors at least I know enough to put one on myself..... And if I choose not to put a lock on the door that should be my business.

Re:I don't mind this

[Pichu0102]

Thank god we have the government to protect us from those evil terrorists trying to snoop on our cybersex IMs!

battle of the law enforcement agencies

[v1]

The way the trend is going, we will be legally required to encrypt our connections.

OK, then when the law hops in and screams bloddy murder because they can no longer tap into our traffic, THEN what do we do?

They're all idiots. It's just that simple.

Simple solution.

[polyp2000]

Enable encryption on the access point and then make the encryption key publically available.

are they also going to make it illegal to

[darth_linux]

keep doors and windows unlocked in your home?

ah, local politicing

[E8086]

It's either they really care about the security of the resident's home wireless networks or they're planning some municipal "Wi-Fi" subscription service and they want to eliminate the free competition and have a monopoly for themselves. If they really cared, instead of fines, they'd create a free guide on securing a wireless connection and distribute it at the town hall and/or in the local paper. I'll go with 'eliminate the competition' it's all politicing, there has to a reason other than "for the public good" for why they want close down all the open networks. Hatch is owned by the **AA, maybe they've been bought out by Verizon broadband wireless.

1) take down all open wireless networks (sources of free Internets)
2) install municipal subscription service at $9.99-$59.99/mo
3) PROFIT

Re:Unlocked == asking the WAP and getting "OK"

[pnewhook]

But even if I left the car door wide open, the keys in the ignition, and a big sign on the roof that says 'take me' I wouldn't be responsible for the criminals actions. Although the insurance company may not be entirely pleased.

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:Great idea!

[h4rm0ny]

Although depending on the wording of the law, this could be used to hinder anonymous internet access. Example - if you are providing a public internet access then unsecured could be interpreted as allowing access without identity verification.

And another bit of privacy is lost.

Re:Great idea!

[hector_uk]

err, personally i have my wireless network completely insecure, my computers are secure but anyone can use my internet connection, i'm friendly with my neighbors and they use it when their connection is down and vice versa, and personally i dont mind if someone uses my connection for a bit if they need some directions or some info. this law is silly.

Re:Great idea!

[Bryansix]

So when your neighbor starts a child pornography ring and posts photos of children in sexually explicit acts to the internet using an IP address assigned to you, you'll take responsibility?

Re:Great idea!

[hector_uk]

well seeing as their will be no evidence on any of my macs/pc's and their will be on my neighbors pc's it's a moot point, my neighbor may borrow my cork screw and stab someone with it, should the lending or cork screws be illegal? hell no.

Comrade, this is not a North Korean only forum...

[gd23ka]

while I appreciate your zeal, Comrade, I must remind you that you are posting
on a computer forum where foreigners discuss issues in the context of their
imperialist regimes. Rejoice however, that even our greatest enemy is copying us.
In the past years their state has become so much more like our own beloved state
as they are finally getting rid of these obscene so-called "liberties" of theirs.

Wait Comrade, and be patient. They have a lot to catch up to but also they are
working very hard to become like us.

Re:Great idea!

[Bryansix]

The law of negligent entrustment is another area in which courts have specifically defined negligence under very limited circumstances. A dive shop operator who lends a vehicle or a spear gun, or a boat owner who lends a boat, may be found guilty of negligent entrustment if the borrower is incompetent, unfit, or reckless and the owner knew or had reason to know that the borrower was unfit. The law of negligent entrustment is fairly broad and covers nearly any dangerous instrumentality. The injured person may allege that the operator or user of the equipment was negligent; or the plaintiff may allege that the owner of the equipment was negligent and that the user of the equipment was simply unfit. For example, a person injured in an accident may allege that an automobile owner knew about the driver's tendency to black out, but loaned the car to the driver anyway. The injured person may not claim that the driver was negligent, but can still claim that the owner should not have lent the car.
http://www.pernet.net/~danat/negloview.htm

Except...

[msauve]

for this little thing called the US Constitution, which provides free speech guarantees, and which this law certainly infringes. IP is just another form of communications.

Re:This is absurd [OT]

[signifying nothing]

The original English word in this group is the noun "burglary", quickly followed by "burglar", both of which are first attested in the early 1500s, and ultimately derive from the Indo-European root *bherg, which means "high". The verb "burglarize" is a regular verb form, dating from the late 1800s, formed from "burglary" by the same process that gives us "scrutinize", "sympathize", etc. The British form "burgle" is an (apparently originally humorous) back-formation, also dating from the late 1800s, but not widely considered acceptable (in Britain) until somewhat later.

Unenforceable

[HermanAB]

Sure, they can pass such a regulation, but any communications limiting regulations are unenforceable in most states. In Canada, only the Federal Government can regulate communications. So, yeah, nothing to see here, move along...

Law written by the telco's lawyers

[webweave]

This is an attempt to stop free internet access from competing with big telco. It's all about the bucks, don't you know?