California Passes Wi-Fi Guidance Law

MrNonchalant writes, "California's legislature has passed a law requiring Wi-Fi device manufacturers to include warnings about security. From the article: 'From 1 October 2007, manufacturers must place warning labels on all equipment capable of receiving Wi-Fi signals, according to the new state law. These can take the form of box stickers, special notification in setup software, notification during the router setup, or through automatic securing of the connection. One warning sticker must be positioned so that it must be removed by a consumer before the product can be used.'"

Comments

Considering. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that most phones, PCs, and PDAs come with some sort of wireless networking, everything must now say "Hey idiot! You just bought a computer! It's networkable! (This DUH statement required by people's republik of kalifornia)

Re:Considering. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

As always, those of us who were born, raised, and live in California encourage you and any others who think "people's republik of kalifornia" to be original or clever to continue to enjoy your current place of residence. Under no circumstance should you consider moving here if that's the best you've got - and I suspect that it is.

Re:Considering. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

So, am I the only one here hoping that california drops off into the ocean sooner than later? I swear, some of the attitudes the folks there have, thinking that their geographic location somehow makes them superior to the rest of the world...

Re:Considering. . .

[moldor]

Problem is that no amount of government meddling ... err, LEGISLATION... can protect idiots from themselves. Doesn't Windows XP automatically connect to an open access point if it finds it ?

Let's hope the "warnings" are well written

[SachiCALaw]

A law like this is only as good as the warnings. If the warnings wind up being heavy on the legal boilerplate or tech jargon, not many of the people who really need them will be helped. But if they are written with the law's intended target in mind -- clueless Mom and Pop (or Ted Stevens) -- and use simple explanations and instructions for securing the WiFi connection, the law could be a good thing. That's said, I'm kind of pessimistic . . .

Re:Let's hope the "warnings" are well written

[Anonymous Coward]

The act of living takes a certain amount of responsibility. Mom and Pop, if they are able to afford a wireless device, should have at least a minimum amount of responsibility.

Now, we can't expect Mom and Pop to know everything about their wireless device. But we can expect them to take some pretty basic factors into consideration. One such factor is security. They don't need to be experts, or even know much about the details. But they should be responsible enough to research the security issues associated with wireless devices themselves, or at least ask a salesperson, a friend, or a relative if the're still confused.

If it comes time to purchase one of these devices, and Mom and Pop still don't have much of an idea about the security implications, then they should realize that their best course of action is to not purchase the device. Such basic levels of responsibility really aren't too much to ask.

If Mom and Pop have bought and set up any device without asking themselves some simple questions like "Do I understand my need for this item?", "Do I understand what it takes from me to run it?", or "Do I understand the security risks?" then they're complete fools. They obviously can't manage the very small level of responsibility needed for living. At that point, it's probably best to let them find out the consequences of their lack of responsibility. In this case, it might be compromised data. Perhaps after suffering such an incident, they'll learn that they need to be more careful.

So maybe a sticker would help them realize that there are security considerations they need to take into account. But in reality, security is just one of the essential areas you find out about whenever you purchase any sort of device. If you need a sticker to remind you of potentially harmful effects, then you've pretty much fucked up the act of survivial. Perhaps failure is the best outcome.

Re:Let's hope the "warnings" are well written

[elmarkitse]

This post sounds a lot like the programmers who bitch incessantly about reasonably adept computer users who nevertheless use GUI's.

"If someone really wants to use a computer they should at least be able to get in behind the little artsy GUI's and do something with the software, GUI's are for pansy's and if you can't code you lose the right to complain"

Isn't there some responsiblity on the part of the manufacturers who are advertising to these ignorant mom and pops to educate them? Isn't it the responsiblity of software desginers to make their GUI's actually work?

There's no correlation between not knowing how to enable WEP / WAP / etc on a wireless router and, for example, being able to survive as you put it. Where on Mazlow's hierarchy of human needs do we see the 'Good with tech gadgets' section? Conversely however, we do expect our corporations to be good citizens, and if they sell an ignorant end user something that doesn't secure itself and the customers data, shouldn't we place some blame on the company targeting people who aren't savvy enough to use their products?

Re:Let's hope the "warnings" are well written

[rm999]

I strongly disagree with you. The last couple wireless routers I installed did not intuitively inform me of the risks. They made it easy to setup, but without security enabled by default.

Re:Let's hope the "warnings" are well written

[everett]

As a counterpoint I'd like to propose the notion of any company that turns a profit selling cigarettes or alcohol.

Re:Let's hope the "warnings" are well written

[Baloo Ursidae]

WARNING: Unless you understand network security, you should not buy this product.

Re:Let's hope the "warnings" are well written

[Chandon Seldon]

People who aren't able to cope with the world around them can go live in group homes.

Those who think they're up to living in the real world can cope with spending 10 or 15 minutes of research per hundred dollars they're going to spend on a new product.

California

[dch24]

California has more warning stickers than just about any other state. WARNING: This post may cause reproductive harm, as it has been used on a website where counter-reproductive agents known to the State of California exist.

Re:California

[sfjoe]

California has more warning stickers than just about any other state.

Not to mention that it has one of the highest GDPs of any state and is the world's 7th largest economy in addition to being a leader in innovation. Too bad the rest of the states can't seem to learn from California's success.

Re:California

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it funny how productive one can be when they're no longer worried that some corporation is poisoning them to make a quick buck?

Re:California

[inviolet]

Not to mention that [sticker-happy California] has one of the highest GDPs of any state and is the world's 7th largest economy in addition to being a leader in innovation. Too bad the rest of the states can't seem to learn from California's success.

Correllation != causation.

And another thing. The cost of warning stickers is inevitably reflected in the product's price. Therefore, the actual effect of this law is to force the consumer to purchase warning stickers that may or may not be necessary, useful, or effective.

Re:California

[QuasiEvil]

Personally, I can't wait for the day when they find that warning sticker glue is somehow very mildly carcinogenic. Then we'll get warning stickers on warning stickers on warning stickers on...

I advocate we go down to a single warning sticker on everything - "Please know what the fuck you're doing, or else return this product."

Re:California

[Anonymous Coward]

If you took the population of CA and choose any equivelent area on the East coast, you would have the same if not larger economy. Imagine if the mid atlantic states like PA, DE, NJ and maybe even NY in one governmental drawn boundary line that made a single state. The physical size would probably be smaller then CA in size but have a much larger economy. CA is not an economic powerhouse because of some special business sense or because of some business advantage, it is because of the population due to its physical size.

The per capita personal income for CA was $33,403 as of 2003, ranking 12th in the nation.
Considering the large difference of ranking between GSP (Gross State Product which you incorrectly refered to as GDP) and the per capita personal income, CA seems to be a great place for business but not for the people as a whole. The GSP is not consistent with income levels of the people who live and work there. Consider the median income and not the average income and it looks even worse.

Too bad the rest of the states can't seem to learn from California's success.
We have different ideas of who should be successful, the state or the people that live in the state.

Re:California

[Darth Liberus]

With the glaring exception of Prop. 65 warnings (THIS AREA CONTAINS CHEMICALS BLAH BLAH BLAH) we're actually pretty low on the "stupid warning nanny state" scale.

Personally I think we just did the entire English-speaking world a favor... I highly doubt companies will only put on the sticker and include directions on how to secure wireless routers destined for California, they'll just slap them on everything.

Next maybe we'll clean up the video game rating system... trust me, you'd MUCH rather have us do that instead of the US Congress ;)

Re:California

[soft_guy]

Too bad the rest of the states can't seem to learn from California's success.

Yeah, those idiots in Nevada should get a whole bunch of ocean coastline.

Re:California

[evilviper]

California has more warning stickers than just about any other state.

Don't you hate it when there's a sticker or sign that warns you of life-threatening risks?

I mean, sure, now I know that the wood sold by my local hardware store may cause cancer, but avoiding cancer surely isn't worth having to pull little stickers off of a small percentage of the things you buy.

Re:California

[Bing Tsher E]

Eventually, with any luck, they will.

Re:California

[radicalnerd]

why don't we just take the freaking safety labels off and let the n00bs get hax0r3d?

Re:California

[nsayer]

Except that damn near everything causes cancer. Therefore everything must have a prop 65 warning. Therefore, prop 65 warnings are made just about as useless as the Microsoft driver signature warning dialogs.

Re:California

[evilviper]

Except that damn near everything causes cancer. Therefore everything must have a prop 65 warning.

I've heard others say that too, but I don't see it.

Wood was a surprise to me. The only other place I tend to see it is on signs around junkyards, garbage dumps, packages of engine oil, grease, etc.

So far, I've never seen one entering any restaurants, supermarkets, electronics stores, etc. No Prop 65 warning on my TVs, shoes, DVDs, etc., etc.

What are you doing, and what are you buying, that you're seeing these warnings all over the place?

Re:California

[kb0hae]

This will not do any good. I liken this to the late 70s when my parents bought me a CB antenna.
This antenna was made of aluminum. It had warning stickers on the box (had to tear or cut to open the box), on the manual, and on 2 parts of the antenna itself. All of these were 4 inches wide by 3 inches tall, in red and yellow and black. They said" Please keep this antenna away from power lines. You could be injured or killed if this antenna touches a power line." There was also warning pictogram of a man being elecrtocuted by the antenna in his hands touching a power line.

Yet a few years later, someone decided that too many idiots were ignoring the warnings and being electrocuted, and that aluminum CB antennas were just too dangerous to be allowed to be sold here in the U.S.A.

Since then I have noticed far to many laws and rules put in place to protect idiots from themselves. If someone does not have the brains or the common sense to know that touching a power line with a metal object is not a good idea, then I say let them kill themselves off and remove their genes fron the gene pool! We have to stop protecting stupid people or those who cannot learn common sense from injury or death because of their own stupidity (or lack of common sense)!!!!!

I know that in most cases misuse or not using security measures for a WI-Fi device does not usually result in serious injury or death. All the more reason for those that use such devices without reading the manual and/or educating themselves about the many security risks to just take the consequences. WI-FI devices are inherently insecure, as they broadcast or at least receive RADIO signals. For example: It would be much easier for someone to tap into a neighbor's cable internet service if that neighbor has a wireless router, than if they used a wired router. Yes the wireless router makes it easier (than running Cat 5 network cables) to set up a shared internet connection to several computers in different rooms of a house. It can also alow neighbors and other to access not only your computers but your internet connection.

This is the Gene Police! YOU! OUT OF THE POOL NOW!!!

Re:California

[MasterOfDisaster]

There's a Prop 65 warning on the door of my appartment. It doesn't get any more everywhere than that. And it's not like I live in a garbage dump that became an appartment complex. It's a nice upscale facility. (that, according to the state of california, may cause cancer).

Re:California

[Sillygates]

It's about time there are warnings on wireless devices, many consumers set up wireless networks with weak or no security at all, and they dont realize the legal trouble they can get into these days (with the riaa, mpaa, etc).

Re:California

[Baloo Ursidae]

Not to mention that it has one of the highest GDPs of any state and is the world's 7th largest economy in addition to being a leader in innovation. Too bad the rest of the states can't seem to learn from California's success.

So that means there's a few people in California that know how to screw over the other 32 million idiots. Like it's that hard to trick a Californian...

Re:California

[legoburner]

Indeed I found it quite amusing that on my friend's house in California they had a sign by the entrance saying that the building contains chemicals "known to cause cancer". Who would have thought that there might be some dangerous chemicals might be found in a large apartment block, shock! horror!

Re:California

[ericartman]

Do you live in California? The stickers are everywhere, maybe you just missed them but every Safeway, Mervyns, Fast food joint, well heck they are everywhere! Maybe like all warning stickers, if you see often enough, they just don 't register anymore. Your right though I don't remember them on end products, just every business establishment I can think of.

Re:California

[fishbowl]

>It's a nice upscale facility. (that, according to the state of california, may cause cancer).

It would be more useful if the warning specified the chemical. Probably asbestos?
At least Prop65 required disclosure. Before that you could make infant toys out of the whole Actinide series and not
be required to disclose it...

Re:California

[b0s0z0ku]

California has more warning stickers than just about any other state.

They're even bleeding over to other states. Seen on a train from Boston to NY: "Warning: In accordance with Proposition ## of the State of California, diesel exhaust has been found to cause cancer and birth defects."

-b.

Re:California

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the problem with your analogy (remember, you can't spell analogy without a-n-a-l...):

Normal, every-day, Average-Joe-walking-down-the-street people learn from their normal every-day lives that electricity is dangerous and can kill you and that power lines CARRY electricity. Those same people have no real experience with wireless security. You can't just say, "well duh, power lines are bad!" and think that the same logic applies to wireless connectivity.

Re:California

[slashdotet]

This is the Gene Police! YOU! OUT OF THE POOL NOW!!!

Yes!

Lets bring back Lawn Darts, lead paint, blinds that kill, Dangrous Play grounds

If we don't well end up with to many stupid ppls in the world

If you can't swim get out of the pool

Re:California

[evilviper]

There's a Prop 65 warning on the door of my appartment.

Have you considered that, maybe, you should move?

It's a nice upscale facility.

That doesn't mean there isn't asbestos all over the place, and lead paint on the walls.

You should be happy that you've gotten the warning, and can look into the problem further.

If CA passed a law requiring cars with defective brakes to be marked with a sticker saying so, I wouldn't just ignore the sticker myself, and keep on buying cars with the label, and doing nothing about it... But that's just me.

Enjoy your toxic apartment...

Re:California

[nsayer]

So you think it adequate that, if that were the case, that the residents were merely warned?

Your attitude changes with the wind. Consigning the GP to "enjoy his toxic apartment" on the one hand, and applauding the warning labels on the other is hypocricy itself.

Re:California

[evilviper]

So you think it adequate that, if that were the case, that the residents were merely warned?

My example was (hopefully) an obvious exaggeration.

Whether a warning, or condemnation is appropriate, depends on the overall risk. If there's only some 5% chance that you'll develop cancer, if you live in the apartment your whole life, I'd say a warning is the best you can hope for, and SURELY better than NOT warning people at all, which is the current state of affairs in the rest of the country.

Consigning the GP to "enjoy his toxic apartment" on the one hand, and applauding the warning labels on the other is hypocricy itself.

No, it's sarcasm, which you seemed to have missed.

If you wish to ignore warnings, you can do so, just as it's perfectly legal to go sky diving, and other risky, life-theatening behaviors. If you get your thrills off of living in a (potentially) hazardous place, I'm not going to step in and tell you that you absolutely can't.

THAT would be the real nanny state... not a few stickers which inform people of the risks.

Re:California

[evilviper]

Do you live in California? The stickers are everywhere, maybe you just missed them but every Safeway, Mervyns, Fast food joint, well heck they are everywhere!

Yes, I live in So Cal.

There's no prop 65 warning on the Mervyns near me, none on or around the fast food restaurnts I go to (and I go to a lot of them), etc. No safeway around here, so I can't comment on that one.

Re:California

[nsayer]

The strawman about sky diving doesn't apply because the risks are obvious and inherent to the act.

If walking into a drugstore can give you cancer, then that's so obviously wrong it should be remedied.

If walking into a drugstore can't give you cancer, then the sign on the door has no business being there. And it's there. The fact that you haven't seen it points out how well those stupid signs have become part of the background noise. Look harder next time and you'll see it. Why? Because they sell spermicide. And spermicides are chemicals known to the state of California to cause "reproductive harm".

And hot coffee is hot, too.

Re:California

[evilviper]

If walking into a drugstore can give you cancer, then that's so obviously wrong it should be remedied.

You call my analogies strawmen, and then turn around and ignore everything I've said, and give the most utterly outlandish bullshit senarios you can come up with.

Nothing is sure to cause cancer, and those that can are usually only after long-term exposure. So even if the drug has airborn agents that can potentially cause cancer, it would still almost certainly be a risk solely to employees who are there for several hours every day, and even then probably still only a tiny chance of anything ever happening to them.

That is/would-be a very good reason to put a warning up, but not a good enough reason to condemn the building.

Now, this is the second time I've said just about exactly this same thing. If you're just going to continue ignoring it, I'll make sure to ignore your future comments.

The fact that you haven't seen it points out how well those stupid signs have become part of the background noise. Look harder next time and you'll see it.

I'm a meticulous person... The kind who reads contracts beginning to end, every time. If I haven't seen it, it's either not there, or been well-hidden.

Though, I haven't been to any drug stores recently.

Bad Idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope this doesn't lead to criminalizing open access points by brainwashing peole into thinking access points should be locked down and encrypted.. I provide free wireless to one of the coffee shops at the end of my block; and a friend of mine does to the other one. Of course our own computers are safely firealled off from the wireless access point which is in a sort of DMZ/outside our firewall.

This idea that people should not share wireless (even when their ISP allows it) is just one more step in wrecking the freedom of the internet.

Re:Bad Idea.

[GalacticCmdr]

Actually a better approach would be to completely lock down the access points that are sold. Then someone who wants to share can make the change to share. Those that simply want to plop down some wireless to connect their home laptop should have it easy. This makes this easy as a toaster for the technologically-challenged, but gives those that want to do something the ease to do it. What we currently have is crappy Windows-like security - what we want to get to is better BSD-style of security.

Re:Bad Idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with this and I would go a step farther and say that securing an AP isn't really a priority for home users since they rarely have data that would be interesting enough to worry about it. Most people who hop their wireless just want to use the Internet for a bit and if they snoop around probably won't find anything they care for anyway. The best I've ever found when snooping around is a bit of homemade porn. Businesses are the ones that should be educated on securing their networks and APs as well as implementing port security to stop rogue APs from being deployed by their employees. They have lots of sensitive data on a central place and many of the problems brought to media attention (especially in California) were a result of businesses with open APs getting credit card information sniffed/stolen from their network.

Re:Bad Idea.

[Firehed]

They're not against free wireless. They're trying to stop Linksys being the biggest and cheapest ISP around. If you WANT to give away bits, great - I would assume that the goal of this law is to make sure that the people who are doing so are doing so intentionally. I secure my AP just so people don't go sniffing my packets, but I'll happily tell anyone the AP name and key if they want to use it (in fact, I'm sure I've posted it in slashdot threads at least twice). AFAIK, there's no great way to have an encrypted connection without a password (though even something as simple as using your MAC address as a passcode would give me a bit of peace of mind), which is what I'd ideally have.

The aim of this law is (or, should be) to distinguish the metaphorical door as either being open with a big 'free stuff inside' sign hanging over it, or closed but you forgot to lock it, which still indicates that guests aren't to enter without permission. We all know how poorly the metaphor tends to translate (locks? hardly enough to stop someone with a plasma cutter, so obviously you don't care if THEY get in), but you get the vague idea here. If we make it clear that peoples' intention to give out bits, it really firms up the boundaries of cyber-tresspassing (and clearly indicating that it's the owner's responsibility to take appropriate precautions).

Re:Bad Idea.

[LordLucless]

Not quite; the manufacturer would then need to provide the encryption keys written down somewhere, and the consumer would have to configure their computer to use those keys. Security will *always* require a bit more effort on the part of the users. Unfortunately, people in general still aren't confident enough with computers to handle configuring some simple stuff like wireless encryption keys. If a company did this, you can bet they'd have an upswing in irate customers complaining the product didn't work, simply because the node was locking the customer's own computer out because they hadn't given it the keys. I'm sure if it didn't otherwise cause problems, most companies would do as you suggest - it would be of benefit to them, after all, having a reputably secure product - but it seems they've decided that having to deal with idiots costs more than the benefit of having a secure-by-default access point. Having dealt with a fair number of idiots myself, I can't really blame them.

Re:Bad Idea.

[ptbarnett]

Actually a better approach would be to completely lock down the access points that are sold.

When I upgraded my Verizon FIOS service to add TV, the installer gave me a new router: an ActionTec MI424-WR.

The wireless access point was enabled, but it had 64-bit WEP enabled with a password that looked like it was randomly generated. I switched it to WPA PSK and set my own password, but I was impressed that it didn't default to a wide open access point.

Re:Bad Idea.

[Mal-2]

There's nothing wrong with saying "don't share your Wi-Fi unwittingly, when you don't know what you are doing." The people who know enough to do it right are not the problem.

Mal-2

Re:Bad Idea.

[Professor_UNIX]

This idea that people should not share wireless (even when their ISP allows it) is just one more step in wrecking the freedom of the internet.

Sharing your wireless access point is an incredibly dangerous proposition, especially when the authorities come busting down your door for being a child pornographer, sending threatening e-mail to the President, or committing vast copyright infringement. How are you going to explain yourself? "Uh uh uh... I let ANYONE use my wireless so you can't prove it was me." Right. At the very least you'll be paying for a lawyer to get your ass out of jail. You could avoid all of that by just turning on WPA and taking simple precautions to stop people from pirating your wifi signal. In my opinion "sharing" wireless should be illegal because if I can pick up the signal outside my house using nothing but a non-modified laptop then the signal is too strong to begin with and you're violating FCC rules. You should take steps to ensure that the wireless signal does NOT leak outside your house and cause interference with others.

Re:Bad Idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope this doesn't lead to criminalizing open access points

Would government benefit from criminalizing open access points?

There's your answer. There is a reason why the US governmenet of today completely dwarfs the US govenrment of only 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people. There is a reason why every year there are thousands more laws and more crimes than the year before.

The reason is straightforward (and obvious, I hope): more government benefits the power elite.

Re:Bad Idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sharing your wireless access point is an incredibly dangerous proposition,

That's as absurd as saying you should lock your physical mail box becasue someone might use it to send illegal materials.

if I can pick up the signal outside my house using nothing but a non-modified laptop then the signal is too strong to begin with and you're violating FCC rules

And that's a bad understanding of the regulation of this part of the spectrum. My devices is unmodified, with no antenna tweaks or anything - just line-of-sight to the coffee shop, It's a 100% appropriate use of the spectrum.

Well

[slummy]

I feel this is good news. Most people don't understand the importance of securing their wireless connection, thus continuing to check their POP3 email, and browse the web unencrypted. At least this will give the apathetic/ignorant individuals a much needed blind blanket of security.

Re:Well

[APLowman]

You're forgetting that not all of us have our tin foil hats pulled over our eyes.... Seriously, if you have important information it's important to protect it with a secure system, but most web browsing machines don't have important information. Just because somebody dosn't care enough to secure their system dosn't mean they are ignorant. I for one am sick of security nuts assuming that every comuter should be a fireproof safe. If you know you aren't secure and you have no need to be, I don't see a reason to waste processor cycles. Besides you can always reformatt if something bad happens.

Re:Well

[slummy]

It's not a matter of how important the information is. I don't care if it's something simple like what I had for breakfast, I still don't want anyone to be able to obtain that information freely. Not caring about securing your system IS ignorant, not to mention just plain stupid. You're talking about being "sick of security nuts", yet you're worried about wasting processor cycles. I still have mp3 files from seven years ago, probably because I'm wise enough to secure my system/network.

Freaking California

[h_jurvanen]

I wonder how many trees have been killed in the name of all those idiotic "This item contains substances known by the State of California to..." labels and stickers.

Re:Freaking California

[mctk]

It's a wonder they haven't demanded that each warning sticker come with its own warning sticker.

Re:Freaking California

[Jeremi]

I wonder how many trees have been killed in the name of all those idiotic "This item contains substances known by the State of California to..." labels and stickers

If we're going to start with hypotheticals, I wonder how many people have been killed due to lack of those stickers elsewhere?

If there's a known carcinogen in the area that will affect my health, I want to know it -- then I can make a (somewhat) informed decision about whether I want to take the risk or not.

Re:Freaking California

[benplaut]

May cause papercuts?

Re:Freaking California

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that if they label literally everything, then the labels convey no useful information to you.

And you know what? They pretty have labelled, literally, everything.

Have you ever actually been to California?

Re:Freaking California

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't seen a sticker or warning in years that wasn't carbon based, i.e. made from oil byproducts. The glue to stick them on, the plastic they're made out of and the ink used to print them are all made from middle eastern oil. Let's not forget the people extruding the plastic, running the stamp machines, mixing the solvent based ink, the energy needed to dry that ink on a press cranking out those labels at over 300 ft. per second and all the tahoes and ford explorers those morons drive home. Let's not forget the oil company who produced the plastics etc. the train track, conductor and brakeman who delivered the raw materials etc.
If we stopped printing warning labels and started putting a $0.30 bullet into every persons brain that complains, we'd save billions every day. A bullet is made of brass, gun powder, and lead fired by a product mined, designed and created in the USA. The House of Saud didn't make a dime on that bullet.

Re:Freaking California

[bky1701]

Do not stick to forehead. May result in humiliation.

Re:Freaking California

[Baloo Ursidae]

If we're going to start with hypotheticals, I wonder how many people have been killed due to lack of those stickers elsewhere?

How many other states value stupid people higher than smart people like California? Is it such a bad thing stupid people kill themselves accidentally?

Re:Freaking California

[sqlrob]

It can get ridiculous, however.

I used to work in a lab (not in California). One of the chemicals had lots of warnings in little bitty print, including:
Causes Cancer
Immediately wash on skin contact

The chemical?
Sucrose (aka sugar). We often didn't bother buying it from the checmical supplier and just got bags from the store.

And...

[Future Man 3000]

For the cost of all these stickers (physical materials, labor, employee time spent in proper implementation meetings, enforcement), will consumers be one jot safer?

Well intentioned as this might be, it's probably worse than doing nothing at all. If you don't know what wi-fi does you shouldn't be buying it, and a five page manual (even with a cautionary sticker) is hardly going to cover the fundamentals of wireless encryption and firewalling a user needs to approach the security of a wired connection.

Re:And...

[System.out.println()]

a five page manual (even with a cautionary sticker) is hardly going to cover the fundamentals of wireless encryption and firewalling a user needs to approach the security of a wired connection.

Not every explanation of usage of a product needs to be as thorough as a man page.

I'll do it in one paragraph:

Open the router's configuration page (found at x.x.x.x) and enable WPA. Choose a password that contains letters, numbers, and punctuation. Check the "enable firewall" box on this page, as well.

People who don't understand Wifi, by and large, don't need to UNDERSTAND it in order to use it, given a few seconds of proper guidance during setup. No, really.

Re:And...

[cgenman]

A lot of people don't even know that wireless is insecure. Telling someone "this wireless network is insecure until you set a WPA password. See manual for details." would go a long way to letting average people know there is even something to know about.

You'll never get a full, detailed knowledge of the facts from a one-line sticker. But hopefully you will spread the knowledge to the point that people say "why would you need a sticker for something so obvious?" Simply put, it's the sticker that makes it obvious to a lot of people.

If you never try anything you don't fully understand, you'll never grow as an engineer or as a person.

- Chris

Re:And...

[SeaFox]

For the cost of all these stickers (physical materials, labor, employee time spent in proper implementation meetings, enforcement), will consumers be one jot safer?

Many routers already have a bunch of stickers applied to them that aren't really needed. When I bought my Linksys router, it had stickers on box flaps, the antistatic bag, and on the router itself covering the Ethernet ports that said to make sure to install the software before plugging in the router. I don't know why. The router did not have a USB port and therefore did not need USB drivers, and the Ethernet portion isn't going to require anything.

I didn't want some dumb software changing network settings or adding registry junk or spyware, so I didn't even take the CD out of the packaging. I hooked up the router, it worked unsecured with DHCP, then I logged into it and changed the admin password, set up the encryption, ect...

All linksys would have to do is change the printing on the sticker it already applies to the Ethernet ports to say that the user needs to secure their wireless network and they would be compliant, no extra labor needed.

Re:And...

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

Telling someone "this wireless network is insecure until you set a WPA password. See manual for details." would go a long way

Telling someone that "this device will not function until you have set a password" would protect them even better. That is assuming that the device does actually require a password first :-)

Re:And...

[Chaffar]

Well intentioned as this might be, it's probably worse than doing nothing at all.

It's not well intentioned, all they want is to avoid frivolous lawsuits that are brought up because they weren't warned that sticking a knife in your eye could cause harm. Remember the Caution! Contents may be hot! on your coffee ? Note the use of the word "may"; If the coffee isn't hot you can still sue them for lying :)

Receive?

[dougmc]

Lots of gear can `receive' WiFI signals. I've got a cordless phone that uses 2.4 GHz -- it cannot decode WiFi signals, but it certainly can receive the signal. Same goes for a little low power video receiver I've got -- WiFi looks like noise on the screen, but it's clearly receiving the signal. `Receive' certainly is not the proper word.

The law seems like a good idea (or at least the idea is good, even if the fact that it's a law really isn't good), but having laws regarding technology made by people who don't really know the technology involved seems like a bad idea.

Re:Receive?

[Anonymous Coward]

transceive

Re:Receive?

[mattmacf]

My leftover burritos and uncooked ramen can "receive" the WiFi "signals" my microwave transmits very well (2.4 GHz and all that). The actual bill that TFA links to spells it out a bit better though. Among other things are this wonderful nugget:

(b) This section shall only apply to devices that include an integrated and enabled wireless access point and that are used in a federally unlicensed spectrum.

Funny enough, the word "receive" isn't present in the actual bill itself. Go figure.

Re:Receive?

[Jeremi]

The law seems like a good idea (or at least the idea is good, even if the fact that it's a law really isn't good), but having laws regarding technology made by people who don't really know the technology involved seems like a bad idea.

Have you actually read the text of the law, or just the above summary of the law, written by (wait for it...) some journalist who doesn't really know law or the technology involved, and is trying to summarize the law's intent in one quick paragraph?

I'm not saying the politicians behind this law do know what they're doing (I haven't read the law either), but it's hardly fair to accuse them of ignorance when you haven't even looked at what they did.

Re:Receive?

[evilviper]

Lots of gear can `receive' WiFI signals. I've got a cordless phone that uses 2.4 GHz -- it cannot decode WiFi signals, but it certainly can receive the signal.

By that crazy definition, I've got a 3" piece of wire that can `recieve' Wifi signals.

`Receive' certainly is not the proper word.

Did you read the full text of the law, and see "recieve" in there, with no definition of it? ... Or are you just taking something some reporter wrote out of context, and acting as if it came from the pens of the lawmakers?

Re:Receive?

[dougmc]

By that crazy definition, I've got a 3" piece of wire that can `recieve' Wifi signals.

It's hardly crazy ... the first definition of receive that I see is `To take or acquire (something given, offered, or transmitted); get' and I'd say my examples qualify. Your wire may not, however -- it will resonante with the WiFi signal and re-radiate it, but won't actually `take' it.

But you don't need wire ... your flesh will happily receive (or at least absorb) WiFi signals too.

But you're right ... I read the article, and not the law. In any event, I think the law is silly, as everybody ignores those California warning stickers anyways. Really? this fishing weight contains lead, which might cause cancer? Well damn! What am I going to have for lunch now?

A better law would have mandated enabling WEP/WPA by default, and including the (randomly generated I'd hope) key and instructions on how to use it. If somebody wants to disable encryption, fine, but they'll have to go in and do it manually. I still don't like the idea of this sort of thing being mandated, but it would be more effective than another sticker. Your AP probably already will have a `this product contains chemicals known in the State of California to cause cancer' sticker on it, so does it really need another?

Is it going to be like the solder warnings?

[gameforge]

When you purchase standard solder at the hardware store, it says something like "This product contains formaldehyde, a substance which is known to the state of California to cause cancer."

So are these routers going to have little labels in front of the power connector that say "The state of California strongly advises you to take these steps to ensure your network is secure. The other forty-nine states and the manufacturer advise you need only plug and play."

Or will it be like on tobacco and liquor products:

"CA NSA ADVISORY: INSECURE NETWORKS MAY CAUSE CREDIT CARD FRAUD AND/OR THEFT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY."

I love California to death, really. I wish to live their someday. But I think it's illegal to be Conservative(R) in public there...

Re:Is it going to be like the solder warnings?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love California to death, really. I wish to live their someday. But I think it's illegal to be Conservative(R) in public there...

Shhh. Don't tell their governor.

Re:Is it going to be like the solder warnings?

[Karthikkito]

known to the state of California to cause cancer

Well, it doesn't cause cancer in the other 49 states. Duh. =p

Re:Is it going to be like the solder warnings?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in the major metro areas (San Fran, Sacramento, LA and San Diego)

Orange County and most other non-densely populated areas lean to the red. (In fact, where I live, it's over 70% red.)

Re:Is it going to be like the solder warnings?

[sfjoe]

I love California to death, really. I wish to live their someday. But I think it's illegal to be Conservative(R) in public there...

We're going to build a wall and have volunteer Minutemen to keep conservatives out.

Re:Is it going to be like the solder warnings?

[mrraven]

This pointedly stupid yuppie safety crap isn't left or right it's stupid.

Re:Is it going to be like the solder warnings?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just silly. Liberals don't know how to use guns nor how to volunteer for military service.

Re:Is it going to be like the solder warnings?

[Dun Malg]

I love California to death, really. I wish to live their someday. But I think it's illegal to be Conservative(R) in public there...

Only in the big cities. Get out into the suburbs or the rural areas and it's like you're in the midwest.

Re:Is it going to be like the solder warnings?

[soft_guy]

Both political parties do stupid things. When the democrats do stupid things, it is often things like this.

The stupid things republicans do are typically a little different.

Re:Is it going to be like the solder warnings?

[mrraven]

B.S. the OMG the world is scary protect the children by coating the world with latex safety bumpers b.s. comes from BOTH parties. Politics in the U.S. is shot to hell. Watch this little bit by George Carlin to see what time it is:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14 837.htm

Hint the more AFRAID BOTH parties can keep us the less likely we are to question the government or the ill effects of corporate globilization.

Re:Is it going to be like the solder warnings?

[evilviper]

I love California to death, really. I wish to live their someday. But I think it's illegal to be Conservative(R) in public there...

Yeah, the 40%+ of the population of California, that votes Republican, is here illegally...

Or do people really not know that California != Los Angeles & San Francisco.

Re:Is it going to be like the solder warnings?

[Baloo Ursidae]

We're going to build a wall and have volunteer Minutemen to keep conservatives out.

That would imply that Californians are bright enough to understand that actors act for a living, and aren't to be trusted with public policy because they put on a pretty face and pretend for a living; a fact not even in the slightest bit in evidence.

Re:Is it going to be like the solder warnings?

[Alsee]

That would imply that Californians are bright enough to understand that actors act for a living, and aren't to be trusted with public policy because they put on a pretty face and pretend for a living; a fact not even in the slightest bit in evidence.

Isn't it a unfair to single out California there? The entire country elected an actor as president not so long ago.

Oh for the good old days when a right wing conservative president was at least reasonably rational and reasonably competent. Even if it was an actor.

-

Re:Is it going to be like the solder warnings?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

The stupid things republicans do are typically a little different.

Like letting New Orleans flood by not fixing leeves and letting people drown and communities collapse by not providing rescue or rebuilding assistance after.

TO THIS DAY there is insufficient aid for New Orleans.

Re:Is it going to be like the solder warnings?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love California to death,

From your mouth to God's ear.

Ignorance

[Mr EdgEy]

Of course, these stickers will still be ignored just like EULA's, software manuals, etc.

Re:Ignorance

[east coast]

Perhaps but a number of people at the facility I work at ask me about WEP on a regular basis. There are those who are interested but just don't know what it really is.

If it saves one PC it was worth the effort!

Re:Ignorance

[truthsearch]

Actually these stickers will be re-peeled.

(Sorry.)

Re:Ignorance

[Technician]

Of course, these stickers will still be ignored just like EULA's, software manuals, etc.

Just like the Linksys router I just bought. It had a sticker over the CAT5 jacks that said to install the software CD before connecting.

I had already set up the PC and just wished to use the web based configuration. I didn't install the software. I pointed my browser at the router default IP address and configured from there. Too many items sold assume a Windows only environment and do not list the other options for installing and configuring the hardware.

I never did break the seal on the Linksys CD.

Well..

[FunWithKnives]

I commend the effort to increase consumer awareness regarding wireless security, but am I the only one that thinks this won't make one iota of difference? I'm willing to bet that the majority of these warnings will end up in the trashcan without even a cursory glance; And as for including the warning in router setup, the majority will probably do the same thing they do with EULAs: click 'Accept/I Agree' without reading any of it, and promptly go on about their day. Nice attempt, though..

Re:Well..

[SSpade]

Once a few idiots whose insecure wireless access points are used to send spam, phish people or upload child porn get prosecuted and are unable to use the "I'm stupid, and I never knew that my access point was a attractive nuisance!" excuse it might start to have some effect.

Instructions

[Anonymous Coward]

"Instructions on how to pour piss from a boot shall be written upon the heel of said boot."

Here's your sign.

Manufacturers can solve this problem easily

[thesandbender]

Telling people how to do it is not going to solve the problem. When I headed up the IT department for my old company I established a program where people could fedex in their routers and we would secure them and fedex them back... at no cost to them (I successfully argued that the cost of next day air was less than the cost of a potential breach). One person out of a company of 300 took advantage of it. As much as I hate big government/big brother there are times when you have to overcome apathy but legislation. It sucks but it's true... and there is a simple solution to this problem. Almost every piece of commercial software you buy today includes a key that is, for practical purposes, unique. The technology to create, assign and distribute these keys exists and can be done at a price point low enough to pass on to the consumer without them caring (e.g. $5 a router, most of which pays for support and not the actual technology to do it). The legislation should not mandate that users are told *how* to secure the router. It should mandate that the routers are *shipped* secured, with a pseudo-random key pre-program and stuck on the outside of the router with a label. Just like the keys you get if you buy Windows. The problem is the support costs... but good documentation can take care of must of that, along with a little $ tacked onto the cost of the router.

Re:Manufacturers can solve this problem easily

[thegrassyknowl]

Mod Parent Up.

Just shipping all routers with a pseudo-random long WPA-PSK pre-loaded into each router and a sticker in the user guide telling what the PSK is will go a long way to securing routers.

Anyone who wants to change from WPA-PSK to something else should have the experience to understand the implications of doing that, and if they don't then well... let them suffer the consequences of their actions.

Re:Manufacturers can solve this problem easily

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Or have the WiFi equipment auto-configure.

There's supposed to be Vista support for WPS, WiFi Protected Setup, an attempt at cross-vendor automatic setup.

Re:Manufacturers can solve this problem easily

[harl]

No it won't. It will end up with a lot of returned routers. Are you going to include documentation for how to enter the key into the NIC? If these instructions don't include every single NIC and any driver revisions for those cards then they're useless. Oh and instructions on how to identify what brand and driver rev the user is using? Oh and they can't be on the web since this router very well may be their only means of net access.

The average home user will not be able to make this device function.

Re:Manufacturers can solve this problem easily

[b0s0z0ku]

Just shipping all routers with a pseudo-random long WPA-PSK pre-loaded into each router and a sticker in the user guide telling what the PSK is will go a long way to securing routers.

Some older cards and computers only do WEP.

-b.

Re:Manufacturers can solve this problem easily

[thegrassyknowl]

how to enter the key into the NIC?

You don't enter the key into the NIC - the OS and drivers takes care of that for you. If you're so crazy as to want to manually bash bits into your NIC be my guest. I have better things to do so I use the drivers supplied.

The average home user will not be able to make this device function.

The average home user uses Windows (or possibly Mac). There aren't too many who use something where configuring a WPA is a hassle. In Windows (and MacOS) adding a WPA key is identical to adding a WEP key. Windows tells you the network is there, you click it, it says "enter your key".

All the user guide needs to do is say that you should enter this key when prompted.

Another post suggested that older gear only supports WEP. I know all about that - my Palm only supports WEP. It's shit, they released a new driver for the lifedrive that does WPA but not for the Tungsten. All things considered I'd rather have my Palm off the network than use WEP. I don't think there is too much gear out there that only does WEP though. A lot of things can be made to do WPA (even if in the driver) by a driver upgrade.

Warnings? Make WEP default option

[postmortem]

Some manufacturers already put warnings and web interfaces that tell you whether your WiFi network is "secure".

Why they all can't just randomly generate WEP key, enable WEP, and explain user how to use it to authenticate to network. It is just one step more. Might be one that is most difficult, but it prevents unathorized access for common Windows user.

Re:Warnings? Make WEP default option

[Who235]

Plus, it will generate jobs when they have to open a giant call center to handle all the "My wireless is broken" calls.

The only access this will prevent is access by the common Windows user himself, not anyone who wants to get in.

Re:Warnings? Make WEP default option

[PsychoSlashDot]

Canadian ISP Sympatico actually distributes 802.11g routers to its customers who request them. Those routers run a customized firmware that steps the user through some basic settings. (Ie. what is your account name... what is your password...) It also mandatorily activates WEP during this process, so once you're done and the router goes fully live, you either must be using a wired connection or using the WEP key the router randomly assigns you. You can web in to the router's admin screens and disable WEP afterwards if you really desire to do so.

The intent of course is to protect against undesired casual use. Stop the punk next door from using 99% of your bandwidth doing bittorrent transfers day in and day out. I commend Sympatico for this effort. Sure, if someone REALLY wants in, they can get in. But there's no reason to make it any easier than you, the customer, intend it to be within the limits of the available technology.

Re:Warnings? Make WEP default option

[soft_guy]

Because WEP isn't all that secure. There are many standards you could use - WEP, WPA, WPA2, and others. and unless you know the requirements for the situation, you don't know which one people need.

Re:Warnings? Make WEP default option

[llyenn]

My inlaws have AT&T DSL and it included a 2Wire wireless gateway/modem...

I could not figure out what the WEP key was when I reformatted their machine. Finally got in and it had a nice diagram pointing me to the bottom of the router.

Is this the best idea in the world? No, but I think it is a start. I can still print to most printers in my neighborhood, so we have to start somewhere.

A sticker is just a dumb idea, and a waste of money.

Warning stickers soon to be mandated on locks...

[jordandeamattson]

Sacramento, CA (AP)
In a surprise move, the California Legislature passed and sent to the Governor that a bill which will require the placement of stickers on all locks throughout the state of California stating, "Hey, Stupid...if you don't use this thing correctly, someone can easily break into your house!"

* SARCASM OFF *
If the manufacturers of WiFi gear hadn't shipped things in an unsecured state, of course this wouldn't be necessary. My believe is that all hardware and software should be "locked down" out of the box and that softening things up should require a deliberate act on the part of the user. But I also do believe that people need to take responsibility for configuring their gear correctly.

Tha Nanny State

[mrsam]

The US is quickly turning into the Nanny State. We live in a dangeous world, folks, but -- have no fear -- the mighty government is here to protect you from yourself.

Next thing you know, they'll be telling you how much water you legally can use to flush your crap down the toilet. Oh, wait...

Re:Tha Nanny State

[Jeff Molby]

Next thing you know, they'll be telling you how much water you legally can use to flush your crap down the toilet. Oh, wait...

Yeah, it's a stupid law and I support its repeal, but I won't really start to protest until they mandate timers that prevent me from flushing twice in a row.

Re:Tha Nanny State

[evilviper]

Next thing you know, they'll be telling you how much water you legally can use to flush your crap down the toilet.

Yeah. The government sure is awful... Making rules about how much of a limited resource people can use. Or more specifically, making rules about the device which is the #1 consumer of a limited natural resource.

Next they'll be telling me I can't put as much toxic smoke into the air as I want to. Oh wait...

Re:Tha Nanny State

[Brandybuck]

Making rules about how much of a limited resource people can use.

Water isn't a limited resource as it is fully recyclable and have oceans and oceans of it. There's no such thing as "water shortages". However, it is seasonal. While low flow toilets make sense in Las Vegas, they make no sense in Seattle.

A far better solution than nanny laws is to have water meters and charge by the gallon. Some places in the country simply don't have water meters. Even some traditionally "dry" places don't have them. When you pay a flat fee no matter how much water you use, what's the point of conserving? But if it costs you $5 more a month to use the "high flow" toilet, you might consider replacing it to save money, or water the lawn less, or other conservation practices.

Re:Tha Nanny State

[evilviper]

Water isn't a limited resource as it is fully recyclable and have oceans and oceans of it.

Fresh water, is a limited resource.

The cost of desalination are extremely high, and therefore impractical. Give me enough energy, and I can make unlimited ammounts of petroleum too...

While low flow toilets make sense in Las Vegas, they make no sense in Seattle.

Instead of Washington, let me swap Colorado in there, for a more relevant example.

While CO may appear to have a significant supply of water, while NV does not, the situation isn't nearly as simple. Colorado, Nevada, and California all draw water from the Colorado River, in equal quantities. So, while Colorado may seem to have limitless water, it really doesn't have (or rather, isn't allowed to use) significantly more than Nevada. The issues is a bit more complicated by per-capita issues, but that's not important here.

But if it costs you $5 more a month to use the "high flow" toilet, you might consider replacing it to save money, or water the lawn less, or other conservation practices.

We have water meters here (CA), and you know something, economics isn't a big motivator... The cost of water is so low that buying a new toilet would take many, many years to pay off. What's more, raising the price for a gallon of water to alter the economics, to something that would impact those regularly flooding their lawns, would make water devastatingly expensive to those who aren't being wasteful.

Water is just the kind of limited resource that is incredibly cheap... right up until you run out of it. It, like gasoline, electricity, and many other limited resources, works infinitely better on an enforced ration system, than a supply/demand system.

Re:Tha Nanny State

[Brandybuck]

Fresh water, is a limited resource.

If it is, then so are all of the other "renewable" resources that depend on it. In economic terms all resources are limited. But in colloquial usage a "limited" resource is one that can't be renewed. Like petroleum, iron ore, or real estate.

Fresh water is seasonal. It comes back the next year. Really it does. Even if you have a drought, you still get back *some* water, and the drought won't last more than a few years. I'm not arguing you shouldn't conserve water, because it is still scarce (like all renewable resources are). I'm just saying it isn't limited in the ordinary sense of the word.

We have water meters here (CA), and you know something, economics isn't a big motivator.

Some places in California do not. Really! Fresno is one example. Every few years some councilman suggests water meters, but the citizens oppose it by a huge majority.

If the economics of of water meters isn't paying off, it's because the price of water is too low. Give people a "water voucher", or X number of free gallons per month, so the poor can get the water they need, then put the rest of it on the market system. Why should someone with five acres of lawn and two swimming pools pay the same $15 a month that a poor single mom does?

People do conserve electricity and gasoline, because those resources still have a significant market component to their pricing. If water was a market resource, people would be conserving it as well. And because we do have a very good idea of the water supply six months in advance, the market can price it accordingly. It's a specious argument to suggest we have to wait until the pipes are dry before we raise the price.

Re:Tha Nanny State

[Baloo Ursidae]

The US is quickly turning into the Nanny State.

The US is not equal to California unless you let it happen. That being said, never trust Californians, especially Californian politicians, unless you like a nanny state.

Re:Tha Nanny State

[Banner]

We have water meters here (CA),
Umm, I live in the central valley (Sacramento) and we don't have water meters here at all. We can use as much as we want and many people do without any care because all the water ends up back in the river where it get's taken out again by farmers and used again.

Re:Tha Nanny State

[treeves]

The cost of water is so low that. . .

I should consider moving to California. But I won't. Still, I'm surprised to hear that. Up here in Oregon where it rains more, water is not cheap, IMO. And our water rates (not for the state of course, but for the local area where I live), I've just been informed are about to go up almost 50%.
While in South Africa last month, I noticed that the toilets there use a lot more water to flush than do the toilets here. Probably less water available there, but it's not a priority when crime, unemployment, HIV/AIDS etc. are bigger issues.

Re:Tha Nanny State

[evilviper]

a "limited" resource is one that can't be renewed. Like petroleum, iron ore, or real estate.

Petroleum is only a limited resource, because we use it so much faster than it is produced. Biological matter is still dying, and decaying underground.

People do conserve electricity and gasoline, because those resources still have a significant market component to their pricing.

Both electricity and gasoline are barely being affected by market forces. Despite dramatic increases in the cost of electricity in CA, and dramatic increases in gasoline prices, neither has significantly reduced demand. Now, demand might be reduced by the higher price, over the course of several decades, but that kind of practically fixed demand isn't what capitalism is good at.

It's a specious argument to suggest we have to wait until the pipes are dry before we raise the price.

No, it's not. We don't know when it's going to rain next, we don't know how much snowfall there is going to be, etc. Running a dam, and the like, is a fixed cost, right up until the instant it looks like the rain isn't going to come soon enough. Then, suddenly, the need to significantly reduce water output appears. It doesn't cost them any more to run the dam at 100% full, or at 50% full. It's only when it gets down to the quota, that suddenly, the price changes. It's not a smooth curve, it's not a situation where people paying more allows the company to go out and purchase more expensive sources of water, etc. It's a very, very sharp cut-off.

Electricity, at least has some semblance of supply/demand economics, as more demand means buying more fuel, and incentive for building more plants. Though there, like water, once everyone is maxed-out, the price goes from dirt cheap, to infinitely expensive, in an instant.

Re:Tha Nanny State

[Brandybuck]

No, it's not. We don't know when it's going to rain next.

We do know what the snowpack in the Sierras is, so we will know how much water will be available for central valley agriculture. We also know the water level in dams, so we have a good idea of the water situation for the next six months.

Besides, if we can't tell what the water supply is going to be like with the snowpack or reservoir levels, then neither will a bureaucrat. Your argument that the market can't work is also an argument against state agencies rationing out water. Because they won't know how MUCH to ration out! If we're all doomed to die of thirst, then I would at least like to die of thirst a free man, instead of a slave to the nanny state. ...once everyone is maxed-out, the price goes from dirt cheap, to infinitely expensive, in an instant.

Please show me one example of an "infinitely expensive" price. When you do I will bow to your superior economic wisdom.

*sigh*

[Lord Prox]

politicians writing laws on technology are about as helpful as looking for a gas leak with a candle.
What exactly is this law supposed to do. You can't legislate away ignorance or apathy, already we have "warning: contents may be hot after heating" or a cup of steaming coffee with "Warning: Hot beverage may be hot" and the hair dryer with the warning "Do not use in shower". May I suggest the following on the next election ballot... "Warning: Political canidates may be morons if elected"

I'm telling you the days of the fireproof match are comming fast.

Place a curse on RIAA/MPAA/SCO/Microsoft

Re:*sigh*

[OECD]

politicians writing laws on technology are about as helpful as looking for a gas leak with a candle.

You've never had a gas leak. That's exactly how it's done. (Well, usually with a Bic. But the idea's the same.) I agree with your point, but the analogy is bad.

Re:*sigh*

[chmod a x mojo]

Hmmm, if i have a gas leak in my house go ahead and use your candle. i will be FAR FAR FAR away. In my weldshop on the other hand it depends on what is leaking, cutting torch fuel gas... see above, welding sheilding gas i would help out with (since it is non volitile).

Re:*sigh*

[soft_guy]

You are actually supposed to turn the gas off and then put a mixture of water and soap on the pipes, then turn the gas back on and look for bubbles.

Setup software...

[daranz]

I recall that my Belkin router came with about 40 stickers on it, each one of them telling me to use the enclosed CD-Rom before using the router. Except that you don't actually have to use the CD to setup the router - it's only there to help users set up the router correctly via a wizard, as opposed to setting it up via the web interface.

I do hope that this won't mean that ap/router manufacturers will actually start forcing people to pop those useless cds in and then read through several screens of EULAs and warnings before letting them use the device.

Re:Setup software...

[Volante3192]

I've dealt with those too, but on the other hand, how many common folk will go straight to 192.168.0.1 in their browser? Users need their hands held. If the sticker says Use the CD, by gosh, they'll Use the CD.

When I'm supporting people, sometimes I'll get to a point where they have to install something with the defaults.

I'll go "ok, you'll have about 5 - 6 screens, just agree to everything it gives you" and use the time to start working on typing up the incident...and it NEVER fails that every screen they'll say "It says 'ok, cancel' now" "Click OK" "And now..." "CLICK OK" I said agree to everything the damn program said already, why do you need a second and third confirmation?! WHY ARE YOU CALLING?!

Then I wish we could drink on the job...

Re:Setup software...

[b0s0z0ku]

I do hope that this won't mean that ap/router manufacturers will actually start forcing people to pop those useless cds in and then read through several screens of EULAs and warnings before letting them use the device.

Why would they? The Web interface could also post a warning the first time that it was used. For that matter, it could even ask users what level of security they want outright. Either: (a) pick a WPA key (b) pick a WEP key (c) firewall the unencrypted wireless off from the rest of the 'net (for shared wireless) (d) no security -b.

That's less than half the problem

[elronxenu]

They should put the stickers on computers too.

Computers need to be secured too!

Re:That's less than half the problem

[guruevi]

Hmm... guess what it will read: The state of California does not recommend using Windows XP on this computer. Please contact your local dealer for a Linux distribution.

Better Yet

[Jesus IS the Devil]

Let's just require everyone to get a license before being allowed to go online. And once you get this license you are financially liable for any damagers caused, whether inadvertently or not, by your direct/indirect actions. These actions would include things like getting your computer hacked and becoming part of a botnet, not cleaning up trojans on your computer, allowing your PC to become an infectious node, constantly falling victim to scams, phishes, etc.

If there's one type of person worse than the black hats, it's these incompetent users who not only don't know, but actively REFUSE to care. They are the enablers.

keep it open and smart

[Anonymous Coward]

How about warning people to breath because otherwise they might die? How stupid has the general US population become? And how about encouraging those who want to share their access point for others to use? I am leaving my access point open just as I am grateful when I found an open one when I am on the road.

A much better solution is to encourage people to use software encryption e.g. GnuPG and anonymizers e.g. tor rather than polluting the airwaves with closed access points and worthless WEP.

shipped secure???

[www.sorehands.com]

You mean secure such as having an admin password as "pass" ?

If it is configured with encryption on, what would the password be? 1234? If that is so, inform President Skroob so he can change his luggage combination. It won't be any more secure than no password since anyone can guess the password.

Re:shipped secure???

[reaktor]

How about making the password some part of the unique serial number? Something. Anything but admin and 'password.'

Moo

[Chacham]

Candidates for the new warnings.

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Internet Usage Causes Predators, And May Cause Pregnancy.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting Internet Usage Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Privacy.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Internet Usage By Women May Result in Fatal Injury and Unexpected Birth.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Internet Usage Contains things Harmful To Minors.

Re:Moo

[Alsee]

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Warning sticker adhesives may be carcinogenic.

-

Re:Receive? No!

[SmoothTom]

As you said,

...having laws regarding technology made by people who don't really know the technology involved seems like a bad idea.

From the ariicle:

'From 1 October 2007, manufacturers must place warning labels on all equipment capable of receiving Wi-Fi signals, according to the new state law.'

This also shows how having articles made by people who don't really know the technology involved seems like a bad idea.

The actual law (link to the law text attached to the article) this has no statement that even hints at that. Instead, it clearly and plainly defines those items that will require the warning, and those definitions are not only correct, but quite adequate.

Nice to know that the writers of the law did a better job than the writers of the article.

Also nice to know that my little 'Canary' WiFi detector will continue to be quite legit, and not covered by the law, at all.

--
Tomas

Warning sticker to be posted a WiFi hotspots

[sjonke]

WARNING: If a stranger asks you to plug their USB WiFi adapter into your MacBook, tell them, "no", and immediately contact the authorities, especially if they are saying, "Mac? Fuck! Fuck Mac! Mac Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck!"

Sticker ideas...

[Saeger]

Let us count thee ways that a notification sticker MUST be removed before the router can be used:

1. Print a EULA on the sticker that reads: "By removing (or even not removing) this sticker, you agree to provide your neighbors with free wifi because you're a nice person; not because you're stupid."
2. Make the sticker conductive and place it over a waste-of-money-one-time-use-short-circuit.
3. Make it from a faraday cage-type material that's in the shape of a tube and initially installed over the antenna; market it as a security feature for tinfoil hat wearers.
   
4. or... the boring alternative: place it over the DC power input and ethernet ports (if any)

My money's on #1. :)

Re:Sticker ideas...

[klaun]

Make it from a faraday cage-type material that's in the shape of a tube and initially installed over the antenna;

a faraday cage-type material?? You mean like a, uh, conductor?

Re:Sticker ideas...

[RobertLTux]

what gets me is if you buy as linksys wifi router you will see

1 a black packet with an orange and white sticker that states "INSTALL ME FIRST"

2 a sticker on the net ports that states "INSTALL CD FIRST" and if you then run the cd (it actually only installs the norton stuff if you tell it to)
        the last set of things it does is run you past wifi setup (including security

and my netgear router has the beacon turned off unless you either run the wizard or click the correct bits in the setup (and you can't turn it on unles you do)

It is a bad idea.

[www.sorehands.com]

These nanny laws are a bad idea that are not thought through. If they required security turned on, what will they require for the password? They will assign a password like President Scroob's luggage combination.

I testified at the Texas Senate hearings that wanted to require internet filtering software included with each machine sold, saying that, "it is only $1 to add a disk." They forgot that some machines do not include an operating system, that some machines do not include an operating system, that some operating systems do not have filtering software available, and that filtering software costs more than $1 to license.

Unlicensed spectrum?

[gsfprez]

How do state mandated warning stickers, people going to jail, and other government intrusions = unlicensed and open spectrum?

Lord save us all the day that 2.4 GHz becomes licensed and regulated.

Re:Unlicensed spectrum?

[evilviper]

How do state mandated warning stickers, people going to jail, and other government intrusions = unlicensed and open spectrum?

Give me a break. Unlicensed spectrum already has numerous restrictions, such as transmit power and antenna gain. It's not electromagnetic anarchy in the 2.4GHz range.

Besides, I didn't see anything that explicitly singled-out 2.4GHz... This probably applies to consumer wireless networking equipment that uses FCC-licensed ranges as well.

Warning: This Router May Contain Peanuts

[CheeseburgerBrown]

This is a good thing. This law is not intended to protect the consumer -- it is intended to arm mild-mannered nerds such has ourselves when confronting people who claim nobody ever told them open meant open.

It is, in short, a reasonable excuse to handle oopsy-daisy! security victims with a socially acceptible level of contempt. "You say you just tore the sticker off without even reading it, ha? Well. Well, well, well."

This empowers geeks. It is a license to be snooty.

Re:Warning: This Router May Contain Peanuts

[Myself]

The question is: Does this mean that wireless networks set up after that date, and open, can be used freely under the assumption that the owner meant for them to be open, and permission is implied?

The stickers should really include a note about "If your intent is to provide open access, put )( in your SSID" or something like that.

Re:Warning: This Router May Contain Peanuts

[Gryle]

This empowers geeks. It is a license to be snooty.

Since when have we needed a licence?

Wireless security... oops

[Dryanta]

Well, it would be nice if all the stickers in the world could solve this problem, but the truth is they can't. Wireless security is HARD, which is why experts get paid a lot of money. Some of you might be saying, "Have the routers auto-configure wep keys, problem solved!" and wep is not really secure at all. WPA2 is getting there, but (good)support is lacking in many oses and many chipset firmwares. Not to mention it seems the manufacturers/ratifiers want to make this as hard as possible. WEP vs WPA. PSK, AES, TKIP, WPA Personal, WPA Enterprise, WPA2 Personal/Enterprise. Allowing RADIUS as an authentication method. Then, locking down by MAC address, and ensuring each machine on the network is secure or all of the transport layer encryption in the world is for naught. It's not an easy process for even the most grizzled unix-beards among us, let alone 'The Average Consumer' who hardly can operate a hair dryer if you believe product warnings. The bill could be federal and there could be twenty stickers and pages of EULA until the consumer actually uses the device, and it still will be worthless unless the wireless industry makes the whole process easier. You shouldn't need a freaking phd in cryptology to use a wireless router.

Re:Wireless security... oops

[guruevi]

You don't need a freaking PhD in anything to install a wireless router. What you need to do is read the freaking documentation and apply it. If people are too dumb to understand how to program a VCR, they're imho too dumb to own a computer or for that matter install and configure a WiFi access point and should be barred from the internet until they get some education. Until then (when security becomes more costly than the ad-revenue from home-based internet access) there will be no solution for this.

Effective as the Surgeon General...

[Anonymous Coward]

These will be just as effective as "The Surgeon General has determined that smoking causes cancer, small genitalia, projectile vomiting, rectal seepage, flatulence, halitosis, nasal polyps, ingrown toenails, and addiction to /. in small lab animals. But smoke up, anyway, you're not a lab animal"

WARNING!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The State of California advises you that posting on Slashdot is irreversible, and might result in undesirable flames, and posts from people who disagree with you. After clicking SUBMIT it is impossible to revert a post, regardless of how stupid it is. In order to avoid loss of KARMA POINTS as a result of moderation, the State of California advises you to click PREVIEW prior to clicking SUBMIT in order to preview the message, to verify that it will encourage desirable responses. Also, it might be advisable to select the CHECKBOX next to the text Post Anonymously in order to completly disavow the post. It is known to the State of California that posting on Slashdot may cause stress, anger, and loss in productivity.

proxies work for wireless too

[talledega500]

http://www.mysecureisp.com/

foolish law

[Anonymous Coward]

"One warning sticker must be positioned so that it must be removed by a consumer before the product can be used."

Those mini-pci cards are really going to be a pain to use. Getting that glue off the contacts ...

Warning text should be simple enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Warning! WiFi is not your conventional means of accessing the Internet; you're a lot more open to attack than you think! You see, normally, the Internet is like a series of tubes...

Neighbor's wi-fi

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm here reading these posts in the State of California using my neighbor's unsecured wireless gateway as my ISP went down about 20 minutes ago.

I let him know that he was unsecured last year. Must be OK by him. If I couldn't get through on his, then I have 2-3 more that I can choose from.

Are unsecured networks that bad?

[iammaxus]

Is it really so bad for home users to have unsecured wireless networks? Personally, I intentionally leave my network unsecured to allow neighbors and passerbys to share. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, no? Perhaps I'm missing something, but aren't the security risks of having an unsecured wireless network about the same as a computer directly connected to the network (not through a router)? You should be running a firewall on each computer. As for the threat of someone using your connection to do illegal things, that is valid, but I don't think the likelihood of that is great, and if it does happen, would I really get in trouble? I find it hard to believe that I could be thrown in jail for computer fraud or something that I absolutely did not commit.

I don't mind this law much. At worst, its misleading. I think the government is mostly concerned with the last issue with unsecured networks that I mentioned. They don't want to be wrongly accusing John Taxpayer of download child pornography.

Re:Are unsecured networks that bad?

[DaveJay]

I'll say yes.

1. Right now in my neighborhood, there are six wireless routers that I can reach from my living room, none of which I own or operate. They have SSIDs of "linksys" or "default", and of the six, only four are running WEP. All six of those routers are running on channel 6. So why is this bad?

1a. If I were feeling nosy, I could connect to two of my neighbor's routers and watch all of their web browsing, instant messaging, email, and so on (except where https is being used, which is likely rare). Since radio signals are directional, I could easily figure out which router belongs to which house, and so now I've got a lot of information about that person, and I know where they live. The possibilities of abuse are endless.

1b. Insecurity is part of it, but ignorance is another part, and all six of those people have poor wireless performance because they're all running on a different channel. I'll admit this: I logged into the admin console of one and switched it to channel 4, just to see if it made a difference. It did; the wireless signal almost doubled from where I was sitting.

2. It's one thing to share an internet connection with your neighbors, or with anyone who wanders by; however, you should be doing to voluntarily and with an awareness of the risks, not because you're ignorance of the circumstances. I share my internet connection with my neighbor via a WPA-PSK bridge, and in such a way that nobody can see what's going on. Equally important: my neighbor can't see what I'm doing, because he's on a completely different subnet with firewalls between; I can be a Nice Guy(tm) without having to trust anyone blindly. I can do the same thing with everyone who wanders by if I keep my wireless separate from my home network (as above) and don't use encryption on the access point, so they take the risk and I'm still being a Nice Guy(tm) almost risk-free.

2a. However, it's not entirely risk-free, because a person wandering by (or, let's face it, my neighbor) might do illegal things through my internet connection, and one day my computers might be seized because of it. So yeah, it's risky all right.

This is a bit more sinister...

[khair]

As noted in a previous article http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=102 624 This is not being done to educate; it is done to control. There are two groups this shafts: 1) The ignorant "sharer" who does not understand security and gets penalized by the government after "warnings" are done away with by the penal system 2) The intentional sharer who believes in free Interent access for all. Why this needs to be legislated? Who knows... Sad state of affairs when the government tells people who is allowed to come over for supper...

California... ugghhh

[Anonymous Coward]

I visited in and around the LA area last month and also a bit in Orange county.. Several stereotypes were broken, others upheld, but what struck me most of all was the realization that the state government is absolutely out of their mind. There is a cancer warning on EVERYTHING, Cal emission vehicles usually have a lower resale value or less performance if that's what you're into, and the real estate (back to the stereotype proving to be fact) is absurd! Ok they probably aren't directly responsible for the last one. But let's not forget LA county banning the use of "Master / Slave" in computer equipment. http://slashdot.org/articles/03/11/25/0014257.shtm l?tid=103&tid=133&tid=186&tid=99
After seeing a California vehicle title with it's rainbow of colors I had another realization. Everyone in the California government is gay! It makes so much sense now! Let the flames begin! (figuratively and literally!)
Beautiful countryside though.

no more open wifi

[gsn]

This will probaly lead to the criminalization of anonymous open wireless networks - it will start by simply making people legally responsible for any usage of their network even if they left it open. Dear old Tammy wouldn't get away from the RIAA by leaving her wireless network open. Oh and dearie me imagine some horrible old paedophile uses your open wireless network to find some kiddie porn and you being held responsible. If you left your network open you were not thinking about the children!!! Those anonymous open networks will go away very quickly.

Public networks - please create an account to login and oh please provide us with a valid credit card number for verification only - and please don't mind us while we log all your traffic. The NSA believes thats necessary to prevent terrorists. Its legal to right under the secret section of USA/PATRIOT that we can't tell you about... /tinfoil

I'm feeling cranky

[Eevee]

...and enable WPA.

Congrats. You've just given the wrong instructions for everyone with a Nintendo DS. Not to mention legacy gear with doesn't support WPA.

Choose a password...

Where's the explantion about using the password on devices trying to connect to the access point? Whoops, you mean the instructions need to cover software for Windows, MacOS, and Linux? How about people using multiple access points; where's the explanation about having seperate passwords for each AP?

Re:I'm feeling cranky

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your point. I bought a second AP for just that reason. My primary AP which is on my local network is WPA/TKIP with specific MAC access. It is a pain in the ass to keep changing network settings for friends relatives etc with non WPA devices like certain PSP games (oddly enough, even though the PSP support WPA, come games will not). So, i bought another AP (a Linksys WRT54G) and have that on a different network segment with internet access only and use plain old WEP and do not broadcast the SSID. Not as secure but if you hack in, you only have internet access that is filtered though my main router and the the two home network segments can not talk to each other at all.

About that WRT54G. The easy button they have on the device is VERY confusing for someone that knows how to setup wireless the normal way. I do not want software on a PC, I do not want to change my existing confguration so I can use the Linksys easy setup software. I finally got pissed off and reflashed the routers with the newest DD-WRT micro and was very happy with the options it allows, specially those for just using the device as an access point and not a router.

Bottom line, the software and insturctions Linksys provides to ensure security was of no help to me and made the whole process harder for me, someone that already knows how to configure and setup an AP.

My poor Mother

[ovapositor]

I am just amazed at how complicated life is getting. My mother is in her 70s and would have NO clue what the heck that warning even means. She did surprise me once by asking about a firewall!

Pretty soon you are going to need a staff of people in India to help you run your busy life in America.

THIS TAG MAY NOT BE REMOVED EXCEPT BY CONSUMER

[MillionthMonkey]

Hint: if it says "DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW" instead, it's more than 15 years old and may be a "refurbished" mattress. Every so often the mattress tag threat has to be phrased differently.

I'd imagine on wireless equipment there would be a sticker like this:

"WARNING: This box contains wireless electronic equipment known to the State of California to present a risk that you might inadvertently spread your ass cheeks wide open for the world to take advantage of you."

There will be costs but also benefits

[SachiCALaw]

Although that is true -- there will be a cost -- let's look at it realistically. It will be a small cost, because it will be very simple for a manufacturer to explain how to set up the product in a manner that will make it secure. And when that is done, there will also be benefits, which is (I suspect) what the law is really after. There have been some quite publicized instances of identity theft here in CA recently that have sensitized our legislators to the potential of theft via WiFi. By trying to address these possibilities through requiring warnings and instructions, the laws are trying to avoid problems down the line. That is a good thing, I think, even if it is not a libertarian ideal.

Re:There will be costs but also benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

yes!, you're on the path to socialism. Come join us. Don't be afraid. You'll get a free rice cooker with membership.

That actually does sound like a good law

[SCHecklerX]

It solves the problem of education while not trying to criminalize those of us who know what we aredoing. It makes sense, just like all of the stickers and warnings and such that come with car stereos you install yourself, TVs, Microwaves, Etc.

Coming to a milk carton near you...

[epp_b]

Lost: Common Sense.

He has been lost for about three years to date, but a few people are still maintaining hope. Police are continuing to investigate his kidnapping by Clueless Politicians and Thoughtless Laws. He was last seen in captivity in a few various places in the U.S., but has virtually vanished from North America. Some say that his attackers have taken him across the ocean to other continents, but sightings have still been becoming continually scarce.

If you know anything of his whereabouts, please spread the word to neighbors, friends and family. Citizens are asked to contact their political representitives if they have any information on Common Sense's kidnapping.

Idiot-proof security:

[megaditto]

I believe some newer linksys routers have a synch button you push to add a new device. They call it Secure Easy Setup and that sounds quite useful for customers (never tried that myself): http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/07/25/HNlinksy swlan_1.html

Re:Idiot-proof security:

[LordLucless]

From that article, it seems you need to push a button in the install software, then a button the physical router, and the router will send your computer the decryption keys. The most secure way I can think of it doing this is that both the router and the software have a standard key built into them at the manufacturing stage, and that they use this default key to encrypt the signal that transmits the real key. That's fairly secure, as only someone who is listening at the same moment, and knows the default key, could intercept the true key. I imagine that if the routers ship with such a default key, sooner or later the key will become known, meaning people who know to use it will be able to intercept the key transmission if they're in the right place at the right time.

Not as secure as entering in your keys manually, but a damn sight more secure than not having any encryption enabled, I guess. Of course, most of this is just speculation on my part, but if anyone knows a more secure way of exchanging keys in this scenario, feel free to chime in.

Re:Idiot-proof security:

[pv2b]

If that's the most secure way you can think of, you're obviously not a cryptographer. :-)

I'm definitely not a cryptographer myself, but from what I've heard, the Diffie-Hellman key exchange would be ideal for exactly this purpose.

I only know how it works vaguely, by analogy. The premise is that, if you want to send a key to a friend over an untrusted postal system, you'd put the key inside a box. You'd then lock the box by hanging on a padlock with a key only you have. You'd then send it to your friend, who would then proceed to hang another padlock on the box, meaning the box is still locked but with two keys. He would then send it back to you, and you'd then remove your padlock, and finally send it back to your friend who would remove his own padlock and get the key. Now, replace any references to locking with encryption, and you have the essence of a D-H Key Exchange. (Or so I have been told...)

Sure, a pure D-H key exchange can still be defeated by a man-in-the-middle attack, (imagine a guy in the middle pretending to be both you and your friend, performing seperate exchanges with you and your friend...) but that's not really the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the Secure Easy Setup, as described, will allow any clients within a certain timeframe to perform a key exchange. If that's how it works, you have bigger problems in your security architecture to worry about than a theoretical man-in-the-middle attack. :-)

Re:Idiot-proof security:

[Alsee]

You could have a unique key in each device, and have that same unique key recorded on the software media packaged with the device.

Things get either more complicated or less secure if you lose that software media that came with the device, but I think that method very easily provides all the security you're looking for for normal use. Tossing in some alternate setup avenue that can be used without the original media becomes pretty much an "implementation detail". Some increase in complexity and/or decrease in security is a perfectly acceptable tradeoff for an alternate setup method.

-

Not their job

[davmoo]

While I will agree that the general public needs to be educated about wi-fi security, at the same time I feel it is *not* the job of government to protect one from one's own stupidity. While there are still people going hungry, uneducated, unclothed, unsheltered, and without proper health care in this country, wi-fi security education should not even be on government radar, much less a priority.

Re:Not their job

[acherusia]

And on the day that there's no one uneducated, unclothed, unsheltered, and without proper health care in any country on the planet is the day that I'm desperately explaining to St. Peter that just because I laughed at Steve Irwin jokes doesn't mean I should be sent to hell. Because it's obviously Judgement Day.

I mean, I think this is as big a waste of time as anyone else. But get real.

Re:Not their job

[Todd Knarr]

The problem is, those unsecured access points cause problems for people other than the AP's owner. It's like the requirements for a driver's license: that test, and requiring you to pass it before you're allowed to drive, isn't there to insure you aren't a danger to yourself, it's there to insure you aren't a danger to everybody else on the road. Same thing here, the law's intended to eliminate the "But I didn't know!" defense when it comes to an outsider hijacking an open wireless connection.

Microwave Oven

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait to see one of these sitckers on a microwave oven door.

Company's goals are "easy"

[Kadin2048]

You're right, of course ... however, the manufacturers of computing equipment (and this can be extended to almost anything) have a vested interest in making their equipment as easy to use and approachable as possible, in order to sell it. Even if this means that the equipment is, in a way, too easy to use, or easy to use badly, they will do it, unless prompted otherwise by law.

Now in the case of WiFi setups, I'm not convinced that stickering is warranted. However, it's the nature of the companies selling the equipment to try and sell it to as wide a market as possible. After they've saturated the technically-literate market, they'll do whatever they have to do -- dumb the technology down, put it in plastic cases made in bright primary colors, etc. -- in order to sell it to a wider audience, even if the net result is that the technology is misused, or used obnoxiously/insecurely.

Thus you see a lot of technology which is very useful and handy when used by people who have a clue, which becomes destructive or even dangerous (or at least annoying) when it's put into wider circulation. The manufacturer will dumb it down, package it up with minimal instructions (so as not to scare off anyone), and cut whatever corners they can, so it can be easily mass-marketed.

Short of requiring some sort of test (a la amateur radio) before a person is allowed to buy some sort of externally-facing technology (modem, Wifi, cellphone), I don't see any easy solution to this problem.

Re:Company's goals are "easy"

[ObitMan]

Short of requiring some sort of test (a la amateur radio) before a person is allowed to buy

In the USA you can buy Amateur radio equipment without a license. you can build it without a licence.
You can transmit without a license but that would be Illegal.

Other nations have different laws though. Some even outlaw the consumer grade handheld walkie talkies that we take with us on our cruises.

Caveat emptor, my friend.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't there some responsiblity on the part of the manufacturers who are advertising to these ignorant mom and pops to educate them?

No. That's why we have the principle of Caveat emptor, often translated as "Let the buyer beware." Buyers are supposed to take the actions necessary to educate themselves about an item they wish to purchase.

You don't expect Ford or GM to teach you how to drive. It's your responsibility to learn how, as a purchaser of a car. You don't expect McDonalds to teach you how to eat a hamburger. It's your responsibility to learn how, as a purchaser of a hamburger.

This is a simple matter of people taking responsibility. No company is forcing them to use a wireless device. They could either use a typical wired router, or go without a network connection. If a consumer voluntarily buys a wireless router, it is up to them to learn the possible dangers of using it. That's not to say the manufacturer can't put out warnings, but it still remains up to the buyer to use the device they just bought in a responsible manner.

Re:Caveat emptor, my friend.

[elmarkitse]

I think part of my post got interpreted as some kind of socialist wishful thinking, the 'isn't is part of their responsiblity...

in fact the point I'm going towards is that the companies are going after the ignorant consumers, not the saavy ones. These products are in best buys and walmarts, not just techie computer stores / websites. For example, I have had a few linksys routers. They all come with some crappy 'wizard' software that tries to make everything work for me, but they do a terrible job and don't ultimately make my experience more secure.

If they're already droppping, say, somewhere between 20 and 100 thousand bucks on a fancy autorun installer / wizard application (i've build large scale distro cd-roms so I can vouch for that as a pretty solid entry level price) that has a bunch of talking heads, why not actually make it useful and have it configure things properly.

The us govt has gone so far as to mandate corporate responsibility beyond the 'throw them to the wolves buyer beware' free market 'if my product is too tough people will buy something else' mentality through things like the americans with disabilites act and other consumer warranty styled laws that require manufacturers to go beyond just the minimum.

Why again is this different? Why can't we expect our corporate citizens to take the same degree of responsibility towards educating their customers as you're suggesting be requisite of the customers themselves?

Further, as a shareholder of some of these companies, I would want to think that an extra 10 - 20k now during the development might save my investment in the company hundreds of thousands in unnecessary customer support time or other troubleshooting, and or possible litigation.

Just my several cents.

Network General

[Anonymous Coward]

NETWORK GENERAL'S WARNING: LACK OF ENCRYPTION CAN LEAD PEOPLE TO STEAL YOUR INTERNETS.

"please don't use so many cap's it's like yelling"

Thank you /. but I need to yell at the ID Base 10 T's because they don't seem to understand tubes.

Not every device understands WPA

[tepples]

Open the router's configuration page (found at x.x.x.x) and enable WPA. Choose a password that contains letters, numbers, and punctuation. Check the "enable firewall" box on this page, as well.

And have your Nintendo DS fail to connect to Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection because the DS only understands WEP.

WARNING: Contains Car Analogy

[Virtual_Raider]

I don't know and couldn't care less about the inner workings of a car. I insert the key, turn it around and it works. I know how to properly operate it, but I couldn't save my life by servicing it. The car comes with the dials and indicators I need to know everything is in order: I need to keep track of the oil, so my car has a motor-oil-level indicator. I need to keep track of the gas in the tank, so there is an indicator for that. There is an indicator that tells me that "something is seriously fcuked up with the engine" and then I call the mechanics to fix it. Some /.rs are pedantic enough to suggest that anyone that uses [name techdevice] should know how to service the device, when in fact all that is reasonable to ask of the consumer is that they learn to operate it. Operating a wifi technology should include things like knowing how to activate/deactivate the techlology, and how to add/remove their own devices to the net. Asking them to know how to shield the net from unauthorized access is asking them to be able to serice the technology and that's absurd. As may have already pointed out, what should be done is ship a secure in-a-sandbox technology. If companys market a product for mass-consumption it should be treated as any other non-tech mass-market item. If they want to ship open and unsecured products, they should market them at "expert users" who would know what to do with products in that state.

Re:WARNING: Contains Car Analogy

[epp_b]

Operating a wifi technology should include things like knowing how to activate/deactivate the techlology, and how to add/remove their own devices to the net. Asking them to know how to shield the net from unauthorized access is asking them to be able to serice the technology and that's absurd.

Mmm...yes, because following two or three detailed and clear steps in an instruction booklet is so much more difficult than becoming a certified mechanic.

Re:WARNING: Contains Car Analogy

[Virtual_Raider]

Maybe those clear and easy steps should be placed there for those who want to unsecure their network for whatever reason, but sitll have it WAP-protected right out of the box. Both 'sides' win.

Well, couple risks

[Sycraft-fu]

One is to your data. Most Windows firewalls when set to "easy" mode have a certain level of trust for the local network they don't for the Internet. This lets people do things like filesharing without having to know how to configure their firewall. Not as secure as it should be, but you can change it and they'd just turn if off if it stopped them from doing what they want. Well anyone who doesn't want to mess with their firewall t all probably has a poor understanding that other people who can freely connect to their wireless count as part of their network. So they may have things shared that are for their use only.

Another risk is what happens if people start doing illegal stuff with your network. Let's say I decide to hop on and do a shitload of filesharing and suddenly you've got a lawsuit from the RIAA. Sure you are innocent but now you've got to prove it. Maybe the courts decide you aren't innocent, since it was your choice to leave the network open. I mean if I leave my garage open and people are in there selling crack, maybe the cops arrest me too, even though I claim ignorance.

Finally it's a risk that your connection will be bogged down. You have wireless open, your neighbours are cheap moocher university students, suddenly your network is trying to do the work of 5 connections and it's all slow for you.

I don't think this law is useful, but there is real danger to leaving your network unsecured. Maybe you decide that the risks are acceptable, but it kinda sucks if you just aren't aware of them at all.

and some people

[Anonymous Coward]

and some people will still be unable to pour that piss out no matter how hard they try

California.....Stupidity As Usual.....

[IHC Navistar]

Ugh..... This is the kind of crap that I have to deal with living here in the People's Republik of Kalifornia..... People who are too stupid to be using Wi-Fi in the first place should be allowed to find out about the vulnerabilities on their own. Any one with half a walnut for a brain knows that their ARE vulnerabilities that can be exploited by using WiFi. If you are using something, ANYTHING to communicate, and you are the slightest bit smarter than a worm, then you would intuitively know that your system can be exploited.

I call it the Tobacco Effect. That effect is as follows:

People who believed the tobacco companies' claims that smoking was not hazardous to your health, and possibly, a benefit to your health. Yet, millions of idiots believed this, despite the fact that they KNEW THEY WERE INHALING *SMOKE*. Now, anybody who believs that inhaling smoke could in any way be healthful is just plain stupid, but, it is politically incorrect to say that someone is stupid, so we give them lots of money in a lawsuit.

How does the Tobacco Effect apply to this article? Simple: People who use a technology that they know nothing about and/or do not research it BEFORE using are asking for trouble. And, if you ask for trouble, and you get it, you should be the only one liable, responsible, and accountable for damages caused by *YOUR* failure to resonably understand the technology you were using.

I know this is troll bait, but here in California, idiots are never at fault for what they do.

-----

Sig Sauer

Impact on torts

[Infonaut]

In the long run this will benefit the tech industry. It is much more difficult to sue a manufacturer for a defect in the equipment or how the equipment functions if there is adequate warning. As long as the mythical "reasonable person" would see the warning and read it before using the equipment, nimwits whose unsecured wifi networks get hacked will not be able to sue.

Anticipating responses:

1. Yes, laywers will attempt to weasel around this, but it will be much more difficult.
2. Yes, it costs money to create and affix labels to equipment, but it's not going to spell the end of the computer industry any more than warning label requirements on microwave ovens have brought home appliance manufacturers to their knees.
3. Yes, people will ignore the labels, but over time it will seep into the larger population; just as we stopped hearing about cats in the microwave, unsecured private networks will become less prevalent.
4. Yes, it is absurd that the legislature had to weigh in on something like this, but just because Slashdotters have more tech affinity than most people doesn't mean that the population at large is retarded.
5. Yes, I'm a pompous ass.

wep hack in 10 minutes

[reaktor]

I guess you missed the round of stories on how to hack wep in 10 minutes.

Listen to Steve's podcasts on wireless security. Basically, WEP is horrible. And WPA2 is best.

Re:wep hack in 10 minutes

[wittington]

WPA-Enterprise is best

Thanks again California!

[Cutter7]

Oh thank God for California. //rant// Where would the world be without their smug condescension? Surely the Parthenon would be grander if those poor workers had All The Facts! And surely Michelangelo could have lived a longer more productive life, had there been warning labels on that marble he was sculpting, inhaling chemicals Known To The State Of California To Cause Cancer! I sincerely hope I live to see the big quake hit so I can enjoy the sight of heavy equipment and rescue vehicles being turned back at the border for failing to conform to California's emission requirements. //end rant// Seriously, does anyone (aside from the morons in the California Legislature) actually think that these stickers will prevent Joe/Jane consumer from just ripping the stickers out of the way and installing the router exactly the way he/she would have anyway(PlugandPlay, no pasword)?

Isnt WiFi an FCC regulated thing?

[opieum]

First the law at this point is only for manufacturers to put the warning on there. This is not a law (yet) for the user. People are misinterpreting this law. While it is possible it could lead to a law that screws the user for RIAA lawsuits (as that much is obvious here) that is not the case yet. Fact is it seems to me that the state is regulating something that falls under the dominion of the FCC. FCC controls broadcasts and how they are handled. So it should be them who make this happen not the state. These are my opinions on that anyway. I am not claiming to be an expert but these are certainly things to think about. This label is about as useful as the Cancer warning on US or even Canadian cigarrete (which are pretty graphic) boxes. If this label causes doubt in the consumer mind then it is likley that WiFi equipment sales will drop and pressure will rise to get rid of this law. Not necessarily but possible. But with my cigarrete box analogy it may not change. We will see.

Re:Isnt WiFi an FCC regulated thing?

[opieum]

Adding to my comments I would say that this A: an attempt for the RIAA to see if they can nail people with protected access points. This way they can say see you had an encrypted line. But then again you can always open it up and that excuse is junk... B: This protects people who do encrypt their wireless and can go after hackers who break it. So there are pros and cons to this.

No need for my tin foil hat this time, I'm ready..

[gimme_news]

No matter what happens, I still have my excuse ready: "No sir, I had no clue. Well, no, I didn't see the sticker. I bought it off ebay and it came in a shoe box. Not a sticker in sight!"

Encryption shouldn't be in hardware

[Myria]

I really think it's a bad idea to place encryption into hardware, such as WEP/WPA/WPA2 into wireless cards. It should be the operating system's responsibility.

A big reason that WPA2 is not taking over the market yet is because wireless cards do WEP encryption in firmware, and you can't upgrade them. A regular user cannot spend the time researching to find the exact firmware update needed for their particular wireless card. Compare with putting encryption into the operating system, where you could get WPA2 support the next second Tuesday.

Melissa

Labels should read:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Warning, by not securing your network you may be endangering the profits of telecommunications companies. Please enable WPA encryption to ensure your neighbours' continued donations, and to prevent serious-looking men with baseball bats from paying you a visit."

I run an open network, and when my brother wanted to connect his Windows laptop to it the configuration wizard for the Netgear card wouldn't make the "Continue" button clickable until an encryption key was entered, even though there wasn't one! In the end I just moved the routers next to the laptop and gave him a wire.

Best Warning Label Evar

[Baloo Ursidae]

WARNING: California contains people and ideas known to the State of Oregon to cause extreme stupidity, indecisiveness, selfishness and the inability to accept consequences for your own actions. Contact with California and it's inhabitants should be limited or eliminated if at all possible.

Re:Best Warning Label Evar

[imthesponge]

You may even have to pump your own gas!

In Short: Fuck Yes.

[CheeseburgerBrown]

The question is: Does this mean that wireless networks set up after that date, and open, can be used freely under the assumption that the owner meant for them to be open, and permission is implied?

My esteemed colleague makes quite a brilliant point.

Indeed, from henceforth we should be able to assume that open wireless networks are s'poseda be that way, because we can rest safe in our faith that everybody has read the sticker.

The sticker shall free us! The sticker shall be a symbol carried at the forefront of our armies!

"I'm telling your mom on you because this open wireless access point is by no means s'poseda be open!"

"Ah-ha: check, you foul neurotypical! If it wasn't supposed to be open you should've closed it."

"But I didn't know."

"Ah-ha: yes you did. You peeled off the sticker."

"I'm illiterate."

"That's not true. I saw you reading Maxim and overheard you telling your mom you buy it just for the articles. So which is it?"

"Uh -- er, well..."

"Ah-ha: check mate!"

"Curses! Foiled again."

Duck and cover!

[sharkey]

1. Crawl under table, desk or other solid object
2. Draw knees in and place both hands holding MacBook protectively behind head

Life causes cancer

[rolofft]

The problem, as I've heard it explained, is that "causes cancer" is not enough information to go on. You need to know the level of risk for the warning to be useful.

For example, what action should you take upon finding that naturally occuring aflatoxin in peanut butter is carcinogenic? Should you disavow Reese's Pieces and scorn the name of Jimmy Carter, or just worry about more important things.

Maybe the California cancer warnings should be color-coded like the Homeland Security warnings.

California?

[Bluesman]

Oh boy, I'll bet I know what form these warning stickers will take:


This product contains software known to the state of California to cause CANCER