Slashdot Mirror
Colorado Sheriffs To WarDrive For Safety
rwx writes "The Sheriff's Department in Douglas County, Colorado says it's going to start warning computer users that their networks may be vulnerable to hackers. It plans on equipping its patrol cars with devices that detect unprotected computer networks, and distributing brochures to computer users in vulnerable areas, instructing them on how to password protect their networks."
before governments try to make open wireless relays illegal? I set my wireless connection at home open on purpose...
I don't see the harm. Now if they are doing anything like making notes on who's routers are open for future "fishing expeditions", I'd be concerned, but if all they're doing is saying "hey bud, your front door is unlocked, just ta let ya know..."
Seeing as how most people have no idea that their wireless routers are so insecure by default...
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
Let's see:
-I can intercept the data being sent so I can passively and actively (I believe someone made a program that let's one return arbitrary data to webrowsers on wireless networks):
--steal passwords
--steal private information
-Take advantage of unsecured systems as there is no firewall/router blocking the ports
-Possibly change the settings of the wireless router
I can't believe any significant percentage of residential open networks are open on purpose. Most are linksys or netgear or whatever routers, still set to the default channel, ssid and password.
I think the idea of cops (or anyone) delivering a note explaining what the threats are and what you can do to fix it (if you'd like to fix it) is great. Good for Douglas County.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
While I think it is great that you are running an open network for the benifit of others... and I wish that our society wasn't so damn authoritarian that it was something we had to worry about.
But yikes, could you imagine the problems you could have if someone was using your open network for downloading child porn, or even for trading copyrighted music or movies, or for some sort of "terrorist" activity. Even if you have nothing to do with it, when the authorities have trouble catching the people actually doing the cimes they are going to look for a scapegoat, and that will be you for "recklessly enabling" the crime!
I am not saying you are doing anything morally or legaly wrong, I think what you are doing is a good thing. But I think what you are doing is a bit unwise. Just like it is morally right for Falong Gong to openly practice their religion in China, but it is a very bad idea for them to do so... I say it is a bad idea to run an open network! Sorry, but your instinct for self-preservation should be higher than your altruism.
To surf for porn^H^H^H^H information while they are sitting in the cruiser at a remote location with the A/C running. Hey boss, I'm just in the neighborhood looking for open access points. Child porn is one of the big "boogeymen" out there. I'm suprized they didn't throw "terrorism" in there somewhere.
Cops aren't supposed to armed and trained like the military. Their purpose is to keep the peace and peacefully prevent crime where they can. A large part of that is politely informing private citizens if they see something that could get them victimized. It's not common anymore because riding around with a loaded gun and the ability to bust down doors to raid drug users/dealers (if your stash is big, you must be a dealer). It's just not cool to do such old granny policing when the SWAT offers you the chance to play urban warfare with targets that typically don't fight back.
I don't understand why everyone is getting so mad. It's not like they're going to use signal strength monitors to track the router in your moms basement. They're going to find neighborhoods that have a lot of vulnerabilities and distribute "FLYERS" to let people know how to secure their networks. If you don't want to secure it, don't. They aren't going to knock down doors and force you to do it. In my opinion, what they're doing is just a service. Of course, if they take it to the extreme and start forcing people to close their networks, it would be bad.
The best example I can think of is the police driving through my grandparents neighborhood and noticing a lot of roll up garage doors partially opened to vent the heat buildup in the garage. Do they knock down your door and force you to close it? No, they sent out a flyer notifying people of the possible crimes that could happen as a result of it being rolled up. Am I missing something here?
The idea that an open network could be used for nefarious purposes is irrelevant. When you leave a tip at a restaurant, you might be enabling your waiter to go home later and purchase some child porn, or maybe even to buy a gun and kill somebody. There are any number of ways to connect each of us and the resources we control to criminal activities. But the ability to connect dots like this is not a sufficient justification for making policy that restricts the way we use or share our resources. Not only is it my right to share my network how I choose (assuming it's within the bounds of my ToS, although even then this is a contract issue and not one the police need to be involved in), but it is beneficial to society to allow this kind of sharing to happen, as people will use that connection for economically productive uses, and waste less time investing in security measures. It seems to me that they should be policing a little closer to the actual specific crimes they are worried about. If they are worried about child pornography, then monitoring close to the supplier is surely a lot more efficient than trying to monitor the wifi network of every single person in the county.
This is very important police work. If there are open APs, people might be able to communicate freely and anonymously. We don't want any of that now, do we?
My other car is first.
What's next? Are they going to start testing peoples' front doors to see if they're unlocked?
And that would be a bad thing? Some years ago cities and police departments figured out that abandoned building were a breeding place for crime and started going after landlords to either secure the property or face penalties ranging from fines to loss of the property. The result was that crime dropped, and the neighbourhood became livable.
Mind you I'm not suggesting an open network is analogous to a vacant crack house, but being a good and responsible neighbour is good for everyone involved, whether that's a residential area or the internet doesn't make much difference. It's perfectly reasonable that the responsibility is shared by everyone.
If one of my neighbours leaves their door open, that's fine by me. But if the habit or a laissez-faire attitude starts inviting problems (allowing strangers to party, kids hanging out, etc.) it's a different story altogether. Similarly, I couldn't care less if the average Windows user can't or won't grasp the necessity of securing his or her system, but if that system starts spewing out spam that ends up in my inbox, then yes, I would care. Someone taking the trouble to get involved and checking up on such dimwits can only be A Good Thing.
Stick to your department, which is upholding the law.
Given the state of affairs today, I'd prefer everyone be required to pass a proficiency test and receive a license to use a computer. No, I'm not kidding. Until that or something similar happens, the "law" is going to remain a hodge-podge of rules and regulations that remain mostly unenforced leaving people to think It's All Good and what people do or don't do doesn't really matter since no one's in charge anyway.
Cases of abuse aside (and they really do happen, perhaps not as often as is perceived, but often enough that nearly everyone has had at least one bad experience), the reason that cops get such a chilly reception is that they do "too much protecting" and "not enough serving". That is, usually people only are interacting with a cop if one, they are in trouble, or two, are recently a victim of trouble. If police departments put as much emphasis on the public service announcement schtick, people might react to them with less chill. But, as you point out, they can't perform that function well if people feel chilly towards them. Its a cycle that needs to be broken somewhere, and its easier to change department policy than to spontaneously change the public's attitudes.
Of course, it might also help if police departments changed some of the policies that feed into the disquiet that most people have with their police, such as the 'blue wall', or de facto harrassment, or discouraging legitimate complaints, or not having a system for filing said complaints anonymously. That might help too.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
C'mon at least make up a better bullshit story than "It's for your own good". You guys are parking on WiFi LANs so that you can claim you're looking for
Kiddy Porn
Child molesters
Porn Molestors
Sexual predators
Kiddy porn predator molestors
And terrorists.
And you'll catch almost nobody except some innocent person as always.
the Douglas County Sheriff's Office now gets free high speed internet from Comcast for their tireless efforts in making everyone pay for thier own cable internet... It's Craptastic!
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
"Sorry, but your instinct for self-preservation should be higher than your altruism."
Isn't it often people for whom this is *not* true that really get things changed for the better?
Just saying.