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.'"
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)
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 . . .
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.
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.
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.
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.
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields
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.
Of course, these stickers will still be ignored just like EULA's, software manuals, etc.
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."
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.
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...
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.
Have you read my journal today?
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: 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!"
--- What?
My money's on #1.
Power to the Peaceful
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.
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
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.
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.
These stories are free but worth money.
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.
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.
"Oh no... he found the
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.
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...
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.
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
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
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.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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.
Mozy, free online backup service
--
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:
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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.
Help us build a better map!