Slashdot Mirror
N.Y. County Mandates Wireless Security
Mynister writes "CNN has an article about Westchester County NY forcing small business to use basic security on their wireless networks. From the article "The law also requires that businesses offering Internet access -- coffeehouses and hotels, for example -- post signs warning that users should have firewalls or other security measures.""
Espescially client credit card info, home phone numberes, social security numbers, purchase history...
From the article:
The law requires each business to install a firewall or change the default SSID, the name that identifies a wireless network, if the personal information stored has not already been encrypted.
Umm...changing the SSID does nothing, in terms of security. If that's all that's required to satisfy this new law, I'm amazed.
Westchester County has outlawed all glass and china dishware, knives and pencils longer than 2 inches and water over the temperature of 120 degrees F.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Actually, it is super-enforceable.
They can do it on the cheap with a few fulltime inspectors walking around with laptops & their eyes open for the notification signs.
In addition, I imagine they'll make some noise in newspapers and whatnot to get computer nerds & other concerned citizens to report any violations of the law.
Stuff like this is very easy to enforce. A friend of mine's father was made an honorary postal inspector and given a card saying so... because he would constantly report on people who were illegaly parked around the local Post Office. They even gave him freebie phone cards & disposable cameras to sweeten the deal and allow him to document the parking violations. And before anyone says the guy had too much free time, he was an insurance appraiser & was in the Post Office twice a day, every day.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I don't think they want to enforce it.
They're just making this law so that the courts can blame someone in case of damages
It's easy to enforce. Someone does a spot of wardriving. Once they find an unprotected wireless network, they triangulate to where its coming from and then issue the appropriate fine.
The old article was "they're trying to do this"
The new article says "they did it"
A lot of laws get drafted, proposed, and then rejected.
This one didn't. So how is it a dupe?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Not a dupe, a continuation. You took all the time to search for the story but you didn't bother to read it. The first story was about the proposal. This story is about the enactment. The only dupes here are the comments about this story being a dupe.
Mr. Universe: "They can't stop the signal, Mal. They can never stop the signal."
I like how you duped the guy right below you. Sorta funny.
I also like how when there is one minor change in detail that it somehow makes it not a dupe. Its a dupe. We knew about it happening. This belongs in a Slashback, not a new story.
I'm pretty sure he did read it, otherwise he wouldn't have known it was a dupe.
It can't be hard to do and with the appropriate marketing might shift a few more devices.
The text of the law can be found here.
What?
When you go to court for child porn, you get to go to jail even if you claim someone else used your wireless to download it... ;p
Next step is to draft and enact a law making it a criminal offence not to lock your door. Won't take long 'till the whole family is gathered, together again, in prison/workcamp. It'll be fun!
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
If I'm not mistaken, Westchester was the town where Commodore set up its headquarters, in its heyday of the PET/VIC series. Would they be required to conform to this law, or would they not fall under the 'small business' provisions?
(Ignoring the fact that Commodore would probably implement their own wireless standards with lowest-cost components, to exempt themselves.)
xkcdsw: the unofficial archive of Making xkcd Slightly Worse
There's a name for that kind of guy...
"Busybody"
And it's not a good name. I'd hate to be his neighbor. Are you suggesting that Westchester county ask for vigilante^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H volunteer network scanners? How about we ask that your neighbors check to see if you're violating any of the "laws of nature" in your bedroom?
--
BMO
Please dont obey this law, unprotected wifi makes me using it easier.
But I just had to RTFA on this one, and it only applies to businesses where CC#s are stored on the network (which should be limited to Visa and Mastercard headquarters), not your average joe who couldn't be bothered to RTF huge notice duct-taped to his new router saying to enable wep/wpa/anything. Or that's how I read it anyways.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
It is not super enforceable. According to the fine article, the law would only prohibit open networks where some kind of confidential data is kept by the business. And what if the confidential data is on a separate, firewalled network, away from the open network - who knows? Anyway, see how compicated this is getting? Your proposed wardriver would only be at the tip of the investigation.
This is all to protect private information that might be on the local area network of the entity providing wireless connectivity.
At work we put our wireless access on the back side of our WAN connection, and that goes through a proxy with ClamAV on it. They never even touch our internal network.
Sure we took reasonable steps. When I first got my new machine with wireless I saw at least 4 businesses with wide open networks. Went over, introduced myself and showed them how to secure the networks.
What I'd be more worried about is home networks that don't use at a minimum one of the three possible methods of preventing unauthorized access. All one has to do is spend five minutes looking at the documentation for your new wireless router/access point and figure out that they want to employ one of 6 or so combinations of features to secure their network.
I broadcast SSID, but enforce MAC address recognition and WPA key encryption. Bit me in the ass when I had to replace a mini-pci wireless adapter recently. Had to insert the new cards mac address but made sure I deleted the old one. I know how easy it is to spoof but it's just one more layer.
I already have several calls from clients who want me to shut off open access in their places of business. Yes, they have firewalls and are protected, but the DA Jenine Pirro has come out and said how open wireless hotspots help pedophiles and stalkers and these business owners do not want to get involved with this political hot potatoe in any way whatsoever. Their feeling is that it simply is not worth the risk anymore.
Ummmm... pretty much every single enforcement agency (public or not, examples: the BSA, your local community board) has a mechanism for the public to report violations.
It really depends on how the enforcement agency feels about what you're reporting. If they don't care, you get ignored and called a busybody.
To put it in perspective: Would you make the same complaint about people who reported building or health code violations?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
It'll only stop seeming unlikely until it happens.
Some people want their system "insecure" by choice, knowing not everyone in their neighborhood/family can afford it yet. And no i do not see it as stealing or morally wrong to allow others on your wifi if you're paying your provider the bandwidth fees they ask for. Same as allowing someone else to sit at your computer.
But isn't wardriving illegal?
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
The only dupes here are the comments about this story being a dupe.
I'm going to go back to the first article, cut and paste the comments modded insightful, and whore up my karma, so we'll have a greater variety of dupes here for this article.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
All they are going to do is push a button or tell their IT dude to do the same. Most people don't have time to wade through the vendor BS to learn anyting.
It does nothing for real data security. The easiest way to get data is not to drive, it's to bomb your target's IE or Outlook, at home or at work. Your ISP gives you access to the world and the world access to you. Your WAP gives access to the portion of the world within 100m of your WAP. There are considerably more bad guys in range of your network through one than the other.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
We live in an instant gratification-based society where a very large percentage of the population can't be bothered to do things like read instructions or even a slip of paper. If it doesn't work when it's plugged in and / or switched on, people assume it's broken and return it. And since the competing router comes with security switched off (and seems to "work" when powered up), the consumer translates that into well-thought Amazon reviews such as "WHAT A PIECE OF CRAP ... COULDNT GET TO WORK AFTER AND HOUR, TOOK IT BACK TO BESTBUY AND GOT THE LINKSYS NOUF SAID." That's really the only reason Linksys / Netgear / et al ship their stuff with security disabled.
What if they're trying to offer free, open wireless access? I guess they can just change the SSID to comply, but really...
After reading the article, this line is of interest:
"The law requires each business to install a firewall or change the default SSID, the name that identifies a wireless network, if the personal information stored has not already been encrypted. Penalties would range from a warning on first offense to a $500 fine on third offense."
How would any of this help with the security of a wireless network. I did not see anything regarding the use of encryption - unless I missed it.
They could probably mandate the signs and they have some authority over the operation of businesses, but if the place is offering free WiFi on (all together now) "unregulated spectrum", they can't do much about it. If your landlord, University, airport operator, etc. can't prevent someone from setting this up or doing it in a particular way, why the hell should Westchester? And, btw, the law doesn't just cover 802.11a/b/g - it would cover using a GSM/Edge/CDMA/whatever-based data service, the way I read it. It just refers to any company offering "wireless internet" as doing business in Westchester, and merely hooking up to the "internet" without cables as "wireless internet". Seems like that would cover Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T/Cingular, etc.
The FCC regulates radio spectrum and the Internet, because both are Interstate services.
Local laws making bandwidth stealing a crime will also likely get overturned in federal court.There's something in this country called the SEPARATION OF POWERS. It gives the federal government the right to regulate: "Interstate Commerce". Since radio waves don't respect state boundaries, courts have determined they are INTERSTATE in nature!!
The Internet has also been defined as an Interstate service.Local Govts have NO RIGHT to regulate EITHER of these! Recently, Florida passed a law making the operation of a pirate radio station within the state a felony. It WILL be struck down by the first appeal of any conviction. Why? AGAIN, because the states DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to regulate Interstate Commerce!!
One has to wonder how these nanny apes think putting a firewall in front of and/or behind a wireless access point--or on the PC for that matter--helps anything. The whole point of sniffing on wireless networks is to sniff traffic that (gasp!) is going through a radio signal, last I heard. And people, ummm, connect directly to it. It's like putting a pack of ninjas in front of a radio tower to keep people from picking up the signal.
Besides, anyone idiotic enough to send personal info in a phukin email or unsecured web site should be flogged in front of their parents. My mother knows not to do that and she can barely get past turning a computer on. Meanwhile, businesses there have to incur extra expense and create frustration with their customers to not be in violation of this ordinance. Positively brilliant. Aren't there a couple potholes in Westchester County, NY that need attention?
Unsecured RESIDENTIAL wireless networks have already been illegal in westchester county for about 6 months. These laws aren't made to be enforced, per se, they just raise awareness of wireless encryption for the average westchester county layman. Most non-technical people see encryption as an unnecessary hassle. This problem is even worse in Westchester, which is one of the wealthiest counties in the country, where people tend to not want to be bothered with things they deem too much of a bother. I set up networks all over the county and often hear "well I don't want to remember another 'password'" or "but then i'll have to call you when I buy another computer" or "why would anyone want to steal anything on my network?". It's a lot easier to reply with "Well it's county law" than to try to make the common sense/good practices/file-share liability arguments.
I was under the impression that the US wireless spectrum and wireless devices were regulated exclusivly by the FCC. Have they given locals the authority to do this?
Second, if you offer Internet access to the public, you must post a sign suggesting that customers' personal machines implement a security measure. It's not necessarily the best way to protect customers, but a sign is a low-cost requirement and probably rarely burdensome.
The law doesn't forbid offering unrestricted Internet access to anyone within range. This is a good choice. A person or business should be allowed to share use of an Internet connection, provided they are willing to take the risk that someone might use this connection to do very bad things. For example, you might want to offer your Internet connection to the (semi-)anonymous public by running both an unprotected wireless hotspot and a Tor exit node.
Far be it from me to argue with someone so well-versed in the art of being louder than his opposition, but "separation of powers" refers to a model of government where the activities of the government are divided into multiple branches.
Besides that, local governments could argue that the usable range of a wifi signal is very short, occurring fully within their jurisdiction. They could also argue that they aren't regulating the physical communications layer (the radio signal), but rather the configuration of the data link layer, which doesn't necessarily depend on transmission via wireless signal (even though, in practice, that's the only way it's communicated). While there is the potential for a battle up into federal court, I don't see it as being nearly as cut-and-dried as you do... unless you have some legal precedents you'd like to share with us.
If you read the article the networks must be encrypted if the business stores credit card or financial information of it's customers on it's network.
I don't know about you, but I think this is a very good thing. It is quite possible that it is within the jurisdiction of the local government as the business' which are licensed by the local government must conform to local business laws.
Personally I think the FCC should consider enacting similar regulation such that if it CAN be challenged on the grounds the FCC regulates it that they give the authority for that to the local community, or fully enact it themselves.
The number of business which employ wireless networks will only go up over the next few years, and any reduction in methods of easily obtaining credit card numbers is a good thing. I don't actually think these steps are sufficient though.
I most certainly did read both articles. Really, there's nothing new other than the law has now been passed. The rest is just a rehash. The fact that the Slashdot article summary doesn't point out this was discussed before and the only new information is the law is not in effect makes it a dupe as far as I'm concerned. As others have mentioned, this belongs in slashback or should clearly be marked as a continuation of an old story. This is a dupe.
IMO if someone goes around turning people in for stupid things they are total scum of the earth. Maybe instead of looking at other peoples faults they should look at their own. I think the only time one should report people is when it is something that is gravely immoral (i.e, murder, rape, etc.) or dangerous to others, etc.
Wired connectivity ONLY on networks that pass information about credit cards around. That shit has no business being on a WiFi network. I will *not* do anything on a wireless network that requires sensitive data being thrown around.
All WiFi networks, even those with WEP (Ha! It is to laugh! Wired Equivalent Privacy my ass!) or WPA, should be dealt with as *untrusted* networks. As in be careful what you do on them and don't give out any personal info on them.
I was horrified when I was working at this one place that sold computer media online. This was about three years ago. The computer I was using for order entry was connected via WiFi to their network. Any dumbass with a sniffer could have had a lot of fun with the info that was being thrown around in the clear. I complained about this and told them they should have my computer on a wired link. They fired me for insubordination. Fuckers. I bet they still have that same in-the-clear WiFi link to that same computer, and they still use it for mail order entry.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
All AUP issues with my ISP aside, what if i want to give away part of my business's bandwidth? im NOT a 'coffee house' or other such 'hotspot', Im just a nice guy.
That mean i get fined if they manage to find me?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
IMO if someone goes around turning people in for stupid things they are total scum of the earth. Maybe instead of looking at other peoples faults they should look at their own.
The trouble is, a "stupid thing" to one person (usually the person doing the activity, oddly enough) is a major annoyance to another, and/or in some cases, against the law - noise issues are a good example.
I'm sure the pothead I used to live under a couple years ago thought I was "total scum of the earth" after I called the police on his numerous violations of a town noise ordinance, and eventually got him evicted.
People think the laws against silly things like noise pollution, parking in fire lanes, etc. are optional, but hey...Not liking a law doesn't excuse you from following it.
Everyone's at church/temple.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Does it even need to be enforced? The warning could be a listing in the local newspaper. "The following businesses were found to have unsecured WiFi connections in violation of ordinance XXx.y: " Now, if you deal with customer data, you have angry customers after you so you secure your network. If you only have your own data to worry about you still secure your network because the whole county now knows it's open.
I smurf everything and everything I smurf is perfect.
Jacknis said easily available firewalls would protect credit card transactions, for example, from being detected by a hacker posted outside a dry cleaner that uses a wireless network.
.........
Please, God, tell me that that's shitty reporting, and not the considered opinion of somebody who's passing laws
Yup, you are about the only person with a clue here, but why the Nigerian capitals? "This router uses FOUR MILLION BITS encryption!" ;)
Oh well, what the hell...
Requiring businesses to secure their wireless networks is analogous to requiring businesses to lock their doors. Locking your door is based on knowledge of ease of entry and possibly the intent of people in the area. There should be no mandate or law which states that a business should secure their network. This is the responsibility of the company to be aware how and why to secure their network. Furthermore, establishing a requirement for securing wireless networks puts government quarely in the middle of recommending standards which constantly change and are regularly exploited. If anything... vendors offering equipment should be required to state that the device a person has purchased is unsecured and data on their network may be accessible by unintended parties. Similar text can be used at coffee shops and other WiFi locations. BeDammit!
I'm pretty sure this is how Linksys ones are set up by default. I know that you cannot administer them remotely (from the WAN side) by default, it seems like they ought to set them up so that you can't administer them wirelessly without first changing from defaults (or at least checking a box somewhere, like the WAN option) also.
I'd check, but my WRT54GL doesn't have the default firmware on it anymore. (And obviously it's not using the default password.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Nicely put. And in the example given up-thread, we're talking about jerks who were parked in places they shouldn't have been, spots that were presumably necessary for the orderly flow of a [mostly] government agency - our government agency. We'd probably be irritated if the government spent money adding a salaried employee whose only job was to check that parking laws around post offices were being followed, but we should be happy when someone is willing to take a little unpaid time to help fix things that need fixing.
One wonders if the GP feels that neighborhood watch groups are the "scum of the earth" because they're trying to keep their houses, and those of their neighbors, safe.
Just last night, there was a party across the street that started going wrong (a lot of people - more than 20 - screaming at each other outside). It was only about 10:00 at night on a Saturday but should I have felt bad because I called 9-1-1 to inform them that something very loud and concerning was going on in my neighborhood, even though I wasn't sure that any laws were being broken? Maybe I should have also felt bad that I called the police on my next-door neighbors when they were screaming and breaking things. Personally, I don't think so. I prefer to think that I might have averted something much worse by getting Portland's Finest out to check out what was going on. Or, maybe, I'm the "scum of the earth" because I'm getting involved in someone else's business...
It is unsecured in the fact that you can use it. It is also unsecured in the fact that someone could have stolen your online banking info or any other personal information you did on the internet.
What sort of bad crack are you smoking? Have you ever heard of SSL? Looked at the bottom corner of your web browser for that little "Lock/Unlock" security thingy?
The only way you'd be giving up any security by using a public WiFi access point to do online banking or shopping is if you were sending your information over the network unsecured, and in that case you pretty much deserve to see charges for massage parlors in Fiji on your next American Express bill.*
If you're not using encryption, it's insecure by default, I don't care whose network you're sending it over. The Internet is insecure by design -- deal with it.
*(This is assuming you haven't frequented any Fijian massage parlors lately.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
People think the laws against silly things like noise pollution, parking in fire lanes, etc. are optional, but hey...Not liking a law doesn't excuse you from following it.
I'm sure the pothead I used to live under a couple years ago thought I was "total scum of the earth" after I called the police on his numerous violations of a town noise ordinance, and eventually got him evicted.
I agree people should of course try their best to follow the law. On the other hand I think people should only use the police/court system as a last resort for solving what are essentially private affairs such as you mentioned about the noise issue you had with your pothead neighbor. I would hope before calling the police you had the courtesy of asking you neighbor to be more quite/considerate of your needs, etc. and if that failed followed that up with you landlord. Really that should have been sufficient but if he was really obstinate than I could understand you need to call the police if it was effecting your sleep, work, etc. I am assuming from you comment that you probably did try to resolve the issue on your own but I think must people would not especially the busybody types of the world and that is what really upsets me.
The scenario you paint isn't similar. They are requiring (certain) business -- which, by the way, require licenses from the government to operate -- to secure their networks; although I do not agree that the steps the law outlines is anywhere being close to secure, that isn't the point of this post. Making it a criminal offense to not lock your door is not the same as making it a criminal offense not to secure your wireless network. Does leaving your door unlocked allow multiple people to use your house to commit crimes? Yes, you could argue that someone could do this, but it wouldn't be very long before they were caught and arrested.
Business who run wireless networks need to secure them; I say, leave the broadcast and default SSID on, but require instead for a key to be used to get on the wireless network. Problem solved.
By Microsoft! They used to sell wireless hardware with security on by default, and offered a way to copy security settings from one box to another so they could interoperate.
Buffalo came up with a one-button security approach called AOSS.
What if they're trying to offer free, open wireless access?
Then they're communists and should be thrown in jail.
The problem with WEP 40/64bit is that the key is only 40bit and can be quickly attacked with brute force. The problem with WEP 128bit is that the standard implemented RC4 encryption poorly and known weak IVs, initialization vectors, are used. To crack WEP an attacker needs to collect a large number of packets that use the weak IVs. The time it takes to collect these packets depends on the ammount of traffic and can take days or months. Some access points and wireless cards have a driver option to disable weak IVs.
WPA is much stronger and WPA2 is even better. WPA is vulnerable to weak keys. This is more a problem for pre-shared keys (the common home setup) then for certificate based authentication. The authentication mechanism uses 4 packets. Those 4 packets can be captured and attacked using brute force offline. IIRC the attack is not that fast and typically uses dictionary based attacks.
Use WPA with a strong passphrase and you should be safe. A passphrase with 16+ chars and numerals should be good. Some access points have buggy webbased management and can't accept other puctuation or special chars.
Ofcourse this won't stop a well financed (state sponsored) attacker. It will stop the neighbour's script-kiddie teenager.
this is what it means.
One wonders if the GP feels that neighborhood watch groups are the "scum of the earth" because they're trying to keep their houses, and those of their neighbors, safe.
Well they sound nice in theory and I would hope/expect if my neighbor saw someone shooting me or beaking into my house to call the police. If that is what they are doing then great they are being good neighbors.
Just last night, there was a party across the street that started going wrong (a lot of people - more than 20 - screaming at each other outside). It was only about 10:00 at night on a Saturday but should I have felt bad because I called 9-1-1 to inform them that something very loud and concerning was going on in my neighborhood, even though I wasn't sure that any laws were being broken?
Well first I think using 911 for anything other than a major emergency is an abuse of the 911 service. You really should have just contacted the police via thier non-emergency number. Now I personally think what you did was wrong and unnecessary though I think you heart was in the right place. If you had heard screams for help, gun shots, etc. then you should of course have called the police but if all you heard was some verbal fighting then I really do not see the point in wasting the police's time on a trival matter.
Maybe I should have also felt bad that I called the police on my next-door neighbors when they were screaming and breaking things. Personally, I don't think so. I prefer to think that I might have averted something much worse by getting Portland's Finest out to check out what was going on. Or, maybe, I'm the "scum of the earth" because I'm getting involved in someone else's business...
Well I would not have called the police. Couples fight and they sometimes throw things that is there business not yours. If one of them is really in trouble they can call the police themselves or run to a neighbor, etc. they do not need a neighbor watching them to keep them safe. Of course if you knew that the husband had a history of wife abuse, etc. then I could see you being more concerned/justified in your actions but I doubt that was the case from what you have said. Unless you really witness a crime you should not be calling the police and especially not 911!
It might be illegal to go on a fishing expedition like that for law enforcement purposes. But maybe not, they are broadcasting the signals.
But what will you do when you're halfway down the street and you see six access points, all named Linksys, and none indicates what business it's from?
Then you need radio direction finding equipment. Crude RDF things are cheap. Reliable direction finding in an urban environment (diffraction, reflections, multiple reflections) takes so much skill that's it's an organized sport.
Actually, a law like this might be helpful in a wardriving defence. Since the law mandates security, one could say that an open AP was an implicit invitation.
Still, though, aside from that unintended consequence, I'd rather have it be an explicit liability rather than a requirement. (If data got stolen, you'd be much more liable if you had open WiFi, but it isn't mandated. Kind of like the UL seal.)
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Wow. Your definition of appropriate 9-1-1 use is pretty limited. Had I called the "non-emergency" number, perhaps there would have been more than a short fight (a fight did break out last night between the time I called and the police showed up) before someone got to me and eventually sent out a cruiser.
As for husbands and wives fighting, again, what's the advantage of waiting until you hear a scream for help? Is it that perhaps the police officer who would eventaully come has a few more minutes to pull over somebody with a broken tail-light or going 45 in a 35 zone? Further, if you think that husbands and wives throwing and breaking things in their house during an argument is normal behavior, then I feel bad for your family. That sort of behavior is violent and I'd much rather have an officer arrive before someone gets a shiner (or much worse) than after. If the couple doesn't like that, then they're living in the wrong neighborhood. Perhaps moving next door to someone like you would be a good option...
r. I would hope before calling the police you had the courtesy of asking you neighbor to be more quite/considerate of your needs, etc. and if that failed followed that up with you landlord. Really that should have been sufficient but if he was really obstinate than I could understand you need to call the police if it was effecting your sleep, work, etc.
That I did - I think I spoke to him 3 times about the noise, and stuff like throwing junk over his balcony onto the patio, etc. First time we were civil, second time he was pissed but still shut the music off, third time we got into a shouting match at 3 AM and I called the cops afterwards, fourth time he was having a lovely party with blaring music and his buddies slamming the floor with (I hope) impromptu wrestling matches...That was it. About a month after the last time I had to call the police, I got a sudden email from the property manager saying he was moving out a couple months before his lease was supposed to end.
I am assuming from you comment that you probably did try to resolve the issue on your own but I think must people would not especially the busybody types of the world and that is what really upsets me.
Yeah, it's hard to say. I think my wife and I are more patient than most, but I can definately see how other people wouldn't even try talking first, especially someone older - and especially if the law in question doesn't require asking nicely first.
Well I would not have called the police. Couples fight and they sometimes throw things that is there business not yours. If one of them is really in trouble they can call the police themselves or run to a neighbor, etc. they do not need a neighbor watching them to keep them safe. Of course if you knew that the husband had a history of wife abuse, etc. then I could see you being more concerned/justified in your actions but I doubt that was the case from what you have said. Unless you really witness a crime you should not be calling the police and especially not 911!
Think that all you like, but if a couple is throwing multiple objects during a fight, chances are it is worthy of police intervention. Its not always possible for one to be able to call the police themselves or get out and run for help if it is a domestic issue.
Now, I agree that one shouldn't be using 9-1-1 for non-emergencies, but there are times when you have to get the police involved.
My Sysadmin Blog
After this, the State will just have to outlaw speeding, smoking pot, and underage drinking, and enact single-payer healthcare, and we'll all live happily ever after!
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Now, I agree that one shouldn't be using 9-1-1 for non-emergencies, but there are times when you have to get the police involved.
And I agree as well. My issue with GP is simply the definition of an emergency. If I have reason to believe that there is a situation in which violence is imminent, I consider that an emergency - it would be at least a slightly better world if police personnel could prevent as much crime as they address after the fact, but they have to know where to be in order to do so. In my example, had a police officer been walking down the street and heard what I did I think s/he would have gone right up to the door to find out what was going on.
Now, if I see a car parked up on the sidewalk or next to a fire hydrant, someone habitually throwing trash over their fence into my backyard, or even two people involved in a drug transaction...In none of those instances would I consider 9-1-1 the appropriate place to call since none of those activities are serious imminent dangers in terms of people (aside from the person who's doing drugs) or property. If, however, I think a situation could be deteriorating into violence, I feel more than justified getting the cops out rapidement. Better an officer take a little time to defuse a situation rather than show up after somebody becomes a hospital case.
Deep, final thought: If a man has just killed his wife, is it really an emergency? After all, the danger's over...
I went to the Westchester County Student Legislative Day a few weeks back, and the WiFi law was actually one of the subjects of the "mock legislative session."
I played the role of a member of the press, which basically enabled me to engage in some level of dialogue with my fellow student representatives. I asked them how changing what the network is called when it pops up in Windows is at all conducive to creating a secure network, at which point they tried to convince me that businesses would have to install a firewall. It went something like this:
Him: "I'd like to call your attention to this section, where it specifically mentions a 'network firewall'."
Me: "I'd like to call your attention to the word 'or'."
The one kid I was arguing with told me he thought his copy of the law was different, but it wasn't. So they dealt with it:
Him: "Okay, to appease this reporter, I'd like to propose an amendment, and change the word 'or' to 'and'."
It passed, by the way. Kinda scary.
For every karma whore there are four more people with mod points to kill.
Wow. Your definition of appropriate 9-1-1 use is pretty limited. Had I called the "non-emergency" number, perhaps there would have been more than a short fight (a fight did break out last night between the time I called and the police showed up) before someone got to me and eventually sent out a cruiser.
Well is it really the police's/neighbor's job to stop every fist fight? I mean is modern society so neutered that a couple of guys can not engage in a honest fist fight? It was not that long ago people use to dual in this county legally. Not that I think people should settle things with dueling or with thier fists but this is/was a free country and I think people should be aloud to decide on their own if they need/want the help of the police or their local neighborhood pro-active crime stoppers.
As for husbands and wives fighting, again, what's the advantage of waiting until you hear a scream for help?
Maybe giving people the benefit of the doubt? I kind of thought America was about assuming innocence not guilt.
Further, if you think that husbands and wives throwing and breaking things in their house during an argument is normal behavior, then I feel bad for your family. That sort of behavior is violent and I'd much rather have an officer arrive before someone gets a shiner (or much worse) than after. If the couple doesn't like that, then they're living in the wrong neighborhood. Perhaps moving next door to someone like you would be a good option...
Well normal behavior is rather subjective and varies alot among different times and cultures. Now breaking things is not good and is of course unnecessary but it is not illegal neither is fighting, screaming, etc. so I really do not see the point of a someone who is not involved in calling the police. The police are not her to prevent every crime they can not nor should they even try that is unamerican. People should be given the benefit of the doubt we should not assume people are breaking the law.
IMO if someone goes around turning people in for stupid things they are total scum of the earth
"Stupid things" are relative, and selfish, self-centered people of course believe that everything they do is harmless. A shopping plaza near here endlessly has major traffic problems -- not because it can't handle the volume, but because lazy, selfish, douche-bags park their cars right on the store fronts to save themselves a walk. The parking enforcement should be equipped with hammers to smash their windshields and to give them a $2000 fine, because it's that sort of selfish, self-centered, costs-everyone-else actions that lead to people hating one another. Follow the god damn rules.
I think the only time one should report people
Give me a break. Do you live in Soviet Russia or something? Are you talking about reporting people to the Nazis or something?
I live in a city with some pretty basic laws and regulations -- unless you're a complete and utter twat, there is absolutely no problem following them. These rules are to ensure that people live not only for themselves, but with their neighbours in mind as well. It would be a better world if every asswipe that thinks the rules only apply to others were immediately and harshly dealt with.
Yes, because if he has *just* killed his wife then he still has a murder weapon and is still on the loose. I'd call that a danger!
I would hope before calling the police you had the courtesy of asking you neighbor to be more quite/considerate of your needs, etc.
Do you think his neighbour was unaware that their actions were impeding on the lives of others? Asswipes do what they do largely because they know that most people are cowering in their corners, afraid of being titled a "busybody" (a term that usually means prying/intrusive people. What we're talking about are people dealing with intrusive people) or a snitch, and that most people are afraid of conflict.
You're right, which is why most police departments have non-emergency numbers. In the instances that you mentioned, 9-1-1 would be appropriate only in the drug transaction (if it actually is a drug transaction). The ones where the car is parked incorrectly or where you have a neighbor throwing trash into your yard could involve the police, but there is a number you can use to contact them which won't have them running to your property with full lights and sirens.
Even in those cases, though, the police shouldn't be involved except as a last resort. It never hurts to talk to your neighbors first to try and resolve the problem.
My Sysadmin Blog
ERm, you're not, by chance, living in a complex called Wimbledon are you? Because that sounds exactly like my experience living in Portland. Heh.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
The intent of the law is not to protect your precious data but to ensure that the bells and thier ilk gain unrestricted access to paying customers. If everyone put thier wifi routers outside of thier firewalls then the data on your home machines would be protected to the same level as they are protected from the internet. Do you really think this government cares about your security?
My bet is that this law was written by a lobyist for the telecomm industry and delivered to the law makers with a big fat cheque. On second thought, that never happens... Hey do your own search!
Is this the county where Master Card's headquarters are? If so I wonder if they aren't behind it mostly to find out if it can be effective. I know its very common to use wireless access points when testing out stolen or guessed card numbers these days.
You're right, which is why most police departments have non-emergency numbers.
:)
That was indeed the point I was making, and, yes, I would certainly talk to neighbors first for those relatively minor problems - I probably should have been a bit clearer.
In the instances that you mentioned, 9-1-1 would be appropriate only in the drug transaction...
Really? See, there's an example of a witnessed crime that I wouldn't consider "9-1-1 worthy." I'd probably still report it, particularly in my own neighborhood, but I wouldn't consider it that vital for the police to get there quickly.
What is all this "benefit of the doubt" crap? It's for the police, judges and juries to give "benefit of the doubt." If a police officer comes after my call regarding a domestic disturbance next door, then it's that officer's job to evaluate the situation. My responsibility, as I see it, is to report the situation if I perceive it to be dangerous.
As for settling things with fist fights, I think you're out of touch. While it's true that, in theory, two people can fight each other if they've given consent, it's not something that's condoned in much of adult society. People who get in fights are, in my experience, usually considered either stupid or crazy. According to the law, if someone doesn't want to be hit, then the person doing the hitting is breaking the law. Now, if I witness someone get punched in the mouth and the person fights back, what's my responsibility? To stand back and say, "Well, they'll feel better once it's out of their systems"? Maybe I should stand around cheering them on? In truth, if I was close (and if it was only two people), I'd break that garbage up - and I have. If I felt it was too dangerous to get involved myself, I'd call someone (like the police) who could stop it.
Hitting people isn't acceptable and, in most cases, IT'S A CRIME.
PS- It's not "unamerican" to try to help out your neighbors, whether next-door or far away. If your only goal is to get people in trouble, that's one thing. If your goal is trying to help see that people don't get hurt, that seems about as human as it gets.
Well said. If you think about the argument not in terms of neighbors, but in terms of friends, then you'll see why driddle's point doesn't hold water. Would you rather have a friend who just played it safe and left you alone all the time? Or would you want someone who is gonna confront you when they see you're making bad choices in your life?
"I most certainly did read both articles. Really, there's nothing new other than the law has now been passed."
Um, that's a pretty big 'new'. Sorry, but 'Informative' mods and narrow rationalization do not make this a dupe.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
and how many hours of tax payer time and paper was wasted on this which should be common sense by all computer users?
The only body that can regulate any aspect of wireless communications in the US is the FCC. Nobody else has that authority. I doubt that this silly rule will stick. I wonder how many millions of county dollars those idiots will spend to figure that out?
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
"t never hurts to talk to your neighbors first to try and resolve the problem."
I think that depends on the neighbor. I know of one case in Lincoln uk in an area called st giles where two neighbors fell out over a hedge. The end result one of them killed the other.
As for domestic violence as its quaintly called, yes call the police everytime. There are a lot of women put up with this kind of violence by their husbands a lot of children terrified by thier fathers.
Every occurance that is reported will be recorded and when the wife or children are eventually damaged enough for the situation to no longer be ignored and a prosecution made. Then there is a history of violence that the judge will be able to see when deciding what sentence to impose.
So call please , call everytime.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
you could program a linksys wrt54g to do that. the crude and moderately secure way would be to dnat all http traffic to an internal webserver and drop all other traffic by default. then make that web server add and remove entries to bypass the dnat/drop.
someone could still steal an existing ip but that would require fairly advanced knowlage.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Just recently I did a little "war-driving,"
although I would more correctly call it snore-driving, because it's not hard at all to still find loads of unsecured wireless networks.I totally agree that wireless equipment manufacturers should do more than make it real easy to set up a wireless network - maybe there should be an annoying pop-up reminding you to change the password and lock down the network - this could be built-into the configuration software and would pop-up every time you booted up or clicked on a web site
I can dream, can't I?/p
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
Clearely the most influential statement made this entire article. Someone downloads child pornography on YOUR network, YOU are liable. YOU will have the FBI raiding your computer. YOU will be the one going to court. And I am sure they will be very interested in those few thousand MP3's you have stored on your hard drive, or those couple of movies that are distributed by the MPAA.
One quick drive down my street with a sniffer and you'll find 25 networks that are open and you can easily carry out an illegal activity or malicious attack with. It's common sense, but many don't have it when it comes to computers.
Half of them are still using the Linksys SSID for that matter!
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
You overlook that many do not have the knowledge of even typing in a simple IP address and using the default username/password. I was asked to secure my neighbors network the other day. I told him I could easily do it from home if it is wireless, which it was. Default SSID, administrator password, and he had half the neighborhood leeching his internet. His fault? No. He's a retired steel mill worker, not one of the pioneers of the information age. No, that isn't required to know how to RTFM, but it sure as hell does help.
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
Governments--particularly small governments--love enforcing stuff like this. Why? It's simple.
Revenue.
Small governments (city/county) usually make a large portion of their revenue from fines. Consequently, they love trivial little laws that everybody breaks, and they really love busybody informants. This is just another way for the government to make money, and it has the added benefits of A) not being a tax increase, and B) duping the ignorant into thinking the government is Looking Out For Them.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
I agree... They must have all their other problems figured out to be wasting tax payer dollars on this kind of crap. You know what, if someone uses a wide open net to do things that should be done in a secure manner and gets burned, it is their problem, not the great state of NY or any other government. Just another instance of the man trying to make it so people aren't responsible for their own actions.
You will of course get mod'd down for this becuase people don't want to hear it or believe that it's true but their lack of belief doesn't make it any less true. Land of the free, right.
Maybe the whole Drug War was just an opening shot in the Abortion War, to ease citizens into the idea that there's no 10th Amendment. ;-)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Something you might check out
http://freewlan.org/ The Open WiFi AP wiki.