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.'"
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.
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 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
Actually these stickers will be re-peeled.
(Sorry.)
Developers: We can use your help.