SCO Chairman Fights to Ban Open Wireless Networks

cachedout writes "SCO's Ralph Yarro had the floor yesterday at the Utah Technology Commission meeting in front of Utah lawmakers. Yarro proposed that free wireless sites and subscribers should be held responsible should any porn be delivered to minors because hotspots are apparently where kids go to watch porn all day long. Yarro told lawmakers that open wireless access points should be made a crime because we have an Internet out of control."

Comments

Re:Ah come on...

[fyngyrz]

I suspect there is an entire world of things out there you've never thought of. And public, unsecured networks intended for everyone's use are quite common -- and my ISP, a co-op BTW, is just fine with that. I'm in a hotel right now, using what? An open, unsecured network. I was at a coffee shop yesterday doing the same thing (City Brew.) So can the whole silly "you should be held liable" nonsense. No one with an IQ above room temperature should be spouting such poorly thought-out dreck.

There are problems a-plenty with this whole "require everyone to lock the doors" idea. First, we have a technology problem. With a linux laptop and a couple of readily available utilities, I can get into your "secure" network. Quickly and easily. So you can "protect" it all you want, and still, you're not actually protected. IOW, locks are for honest people.

Second, the idea that securing networks - if you could really secure them, which you can't - would stop access of porn (or anything else) is blatantly false. What you end up with then is (somewhat) secure access to porn (and anything else.) Encrypting a network (especially when done very poorly, as wireless is) in no way controls what type of data passes over it - the very idea is silly. So what actually happens is some dimwit in Washington (such as congress's head Internet guy, Ted "Tubes" Stevens) decides that now that your networks have to be "secure", it makes "sense" that you should be held liable for things other people might transfer over your network.

Third, the idea that information censorship of public data on public networks is OK is the fruit of a diseased mind. In the case of child porn or snuff, for instance, it is 100% sufficient that making the photos is illegal. Bump the penalty up to death (please!) but don't make laws where people can be made victims of those laws because some photo they probably are appalled by suddenly appeared in their mailbox.