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
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."
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?
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? """
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?
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!
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.
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!!
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.
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...