Slashdot Mirror
Could That Be The Wireless Police Knocking?
netbuzz writes "Should private-property owners be required to practice safe wireless? Are the wireless police about to come a-knockin' on the front door of your castle? Network World reports on a condo complex in Arizona that will monitor your wireless signal for security. Is this the way all condos and apartment complexes should go?" From the article: "'We just kind of kicked it around the table and everybody said that's a helluva good idea, (mandatory encryption) ought to go in the declarations,' says Welch. However, a lawyer warned that wireless technology could quickly overrun any specific covenants they put to paper, 'so we decided that instead of recording (declarations) at the county that we would leave it up to the hotel manager to put it in their rules and regulations.' Why bother at all? 'We just don't want to see anybody hurt with their wireless system,' says Welch. 'If someone (unauthorized) were accessing it and an owner's information, there could be damage and a potential lawsuit.'"
BTW my second sentence was in reference to the following quote:
--> "I am generally opposed to government infringing on individual rights," offers Jim Albright. "I think Benjamin Franklin put it best when he said, 'Those who are willing to sacrifice essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.' That being said, I am absolutely in favor of regulation requiring not just business-installed but all wireless networks to be secure. It is a long-standing premise that the rights of an individual end where they begin to infringe on the rights of others."
A beautiful quote by Ben Franklin ruined by a complete lack of understanding of both liberty and technology. How exactly am I infringing somebody else's rights by leaving my wireless network open? The answer is I am not.
So here is my counter statement:
--> "I am generally opposed to government infringing on individual rights," offers eliot1785. "I think Benjamin Franklin put it best when he said, 'Those who are willing to sacrifice essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.' That being said, I am absolutely in favor of regulation banning stupid people from talking. It is a long-standing premise that the rights of an individual end when stupid people are allowed to offer opinions on the extent of those rights."
There's a reason the law requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases. Let's examine a "worst case" scenario:
So, the cops find child porn online - what happens? They contact the ISP, perhaps get a warrant for the DHCP logs.
The logs show it was your IP. This gives them... probable cause for a search warrant. You get a nice visit from the friendly police squad, and they take your PC(s) as evidence.
Upon looking through your PC, they find *gasp* all kinds of porn, just no kiddie porn. Guess what, they have no case. They either drop it (likely, especially if you can demonstrate you had an open AP), or you get to rely on a judge or jury to drop it for them.
Eventually, justice prevails (possibly after a couple appeals and a lot of money), you get your stuff back, and you aren't convicted of anything.
Does it suck? Sure. That doesn't change the fact that you are an idiot, and "aiding and abetting" requires, among other things, mens rea (criminal intent). In other words, they have to demonstrate that you intended to violate the law. (There are civil issues, but we're talking criminal here).
It may be _unpleasant_ when someone uses your connection for something illegal; however, that doesn't automatically mean you are liable. In fact, courts tend to be hesitant to assign liability to ISPs that do not knowingly facilitate crimes. Imagine if Cox/Comcast were responsible for every illegal action performed by their users online. It would be "death by lawyers" for the internet.
wicontrol [-i] iface -m mac_address
Set the station address for the specified interface. The
mac_address is specified as a series of six hexadecimal values
separated by colons, e.g., ``00:60:1d:12:34:56''. This programs
the new address into the card and updates the interface as well.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I run the IT infastructure in a 200-unit building in a college town. We allow users to connect WAPs but I periodically have to go around and secure them. The problem isn't security, it's a simple financial issue. Running with 4 bonded T1s in 2 buildings costs a decent amount, but we prommised our users "High speed internet". We found at one point that we had almost double the number of registered users on our network, simply because people had open WAPs. Rather than having a bunch of non-tennants using the internet for free, we just enforced encryption policies. Mostly it just made more work for me... But if this place is at all similar, in that they provide the internet itself and users are given free access as part of the "package" then I can see this making a lot of sense. I bothered to RTFA and didn't find a mention of it one way or another - but it would explain both their vested interest, and how they plan to enforce it. Tracking down an open WAP is easy if you're running the ISP. Not so if you're just (functionally) a private 3rd party. I'd be willing to bet this is just an author that didn't bother to follow the whole story. Lots of residential units that provide free internet requuire you to not share it with non-residents. It isn't really YOUR network. You're just renting it from them.
If I leave my car running, with the keys in it and the door open and nobody in sight, that is called enticement and punishable where I live. (Belgium)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
As usual, I see a lot of people have confused the issues. Lots of complaining about the "nanny state" and "telling people what they can do with their own equipment" and how they have no right.
A condiminium board is a completely different entity than a local government. They are not held to the same standard, as far as most things go (the fair housing act being a major exception), as a local government is. The developer buys and develops the property all at once, then sells it (again, all at once) to the original investors (who generally start the 'condominium board'). Since everything was transferred and later subdivided at once, any covenants and hinderances written into the original title deed (usually binding the owner to the rules and regulations of the condo board, a provision implemented through the condominium board act in that particular state) are enforceable against the owner. Another vehicle for this is that people do not actually own the entire condominium; they own the interior in fee simple, but the exterior is owned by the condominium board, so the board retains an interest in the property to create legal leverage.
This is actually one of the more sane things I've seen out of condominium boards. Compared to, say, barring pets, this is simple and actually serves a good purpose.
I am amazed at the number of these networks both closed and open. I recently did a bit of war driving in my town of Casper, Wyoming a working class city of 60,000 which is not near any other city. I plotted the resutls to a google map https://home.wmcnet.org/services/wifi/ while the results are not complete, I have only covered a part of the city, they do show that it is almost impossible to find a residential location which does not have access to an open wifi network. This in a small city in an isolated corner of the United States. what must the network maps look like in bigger more prosperous communities?
If the ISPs were behind it, they'd simply mandate it in their TOS, and everyone would be caught by it
Regulation without enforcement is useless, and the ISPs can't enforce this. A landlord with a $14 keychain can.
It's the same reason why apartment complexs have and enforce policies against sharing cable. It's already against the cable company's rules, but the cable companies are powerless to stop it, or even tell that it's happening. That is why they either pay the complex for (illegal) sattelite dish restrictions and cable sharing restrictions. If they don't pay kickbacks, they threaten not to service the complex unless the restrictions are in place.
If you think tenancy laws matter one bit here, you've probably never lived in a very large complex. You talk about picking your battles... Lashing out against your argument is nothing. Try fighting every little breach of regulation by your landlord (or more likely: property manager). They know exactly how far they can go so that it isn't worth your time or money to take them to court, and they really push the limit.
Congratulations on being a typical over-reacting ad hominem throwing slashbot.
I feel my comment was appropriate in the context of the thread. If you chose to take it personally that's your problem. To a third party reading this story I think it accomplishes exactly what I intended.