Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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..
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
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...
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.
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.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
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.
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).
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
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).
The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.