Slashdot Mirror
Schneier Says 'Steal this Wi-Fi'
apolloose noted Bruce Schneier's latest entry on Wired where he talks about insecured wifi networks, and suggests that you
Steal this WiFi. Basically, since insecure WiFi is everywhere, why not? You're helping make the world a little better for someone else.
Why not? For one thing because it would pretty much guarantee total anonymity to everyone online.
If you want to commit a crime online, it's easy enough to drive your car to the next city, open you laptop and connect to a random open AP.
And if you were too lazy to do that, you can always say "It wasn't me, someone else connected through MY open AP!"
Why not just buy a wireless router instead of being an asshole?
how about just getting a wireless router, instead?
This is an ethics by analogy situation. Everyone arguing over whether it is right to use unsecured wi-fi connections bases their arguments on analogies, and depending on the analogy, reaches a different conclusion.
As I see it, if someone left their wi-fi open, then either it was intentional, or they're too clueless to notice (or care) that I'm reading my email.
I think it's more like bookcrossing You've already paid for it, now you're letting someone else use it. With books, publishers might not like it because they sell fewer books. With wifi, ISPs may sell fewer connections. Either way it's not stealing.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Everything Schneire says is true.. for Bruce Schneire. Not everyone is as adept as he is in configuring a computer to be secure. I'm OK, but I'm likely not vigilant enough to keep everything as secure as it should be (and thus I have WPA encryption on in my wireless network). The vast majority of the public is just plain terrible, and has no clue how to configure their computers to be secure in an open network.
Securing your wireless network with encryption isn't like flipping a switch, but it's a HELL of a lot easier and more accessible than knowing how to secure each and every device accessible on your network. Having ONE point of entry and configuring that properly is a lot easier to maintain than having multiple, different, changing points that take continued vigilance to remain secure. Is it better to keep each device secure on any network? Sure.. but how many people have the time, patience, knowledge, and ability to do that? Not many.
AccountKiller
"Can anyone point me to a simple tutorial on cracking a WEP password?"
1. Ask your neighbors for permission to connect to their WiFi.
2. If you get permission, use the password they give you.
3. If you don't get permission, don't be a dick.
If someone has their WiFi configured to allow public access, I don't see much problem in making limited (e.g. no hogging bandwidth, nothing that might get them in trouble) use of it. The internet is built on the idea that people set up unattended computers to give automatic electronic permission for total strangers to use them; Slashdot would suck if everyone had to call Rob before they felt they were allowed to use his web server. But finding a hole in someone's security isn't permission, it's just intrusion.
Even when you see an open access point asking permission isn't a bad idea. It shouldn't be a legal requirement, but it's a nice thing to do, despite involving the frightening prospects of going outside and meeting someone in real life.
That's just inviting trouble.
If "Something Bad" were to happen from your IP address, there -will- be a knock at your front door in the early morning. Trust me.
"Something" happened to my personal email server several years ago, and I had federal agents at my front door at 1am. I don't know what the heck happened - they wouldn't give me any details - but they seized my email server, and every computer in my household, even though their search warrant was only for the server. You don't tell them "no" - all that means is that they wait for the search warrant to be signed, and THEN they wreck your place searching. Much better for everyone involved to be cooperative.
Cost me thousands of dollars in a retainer fee to a lawyer, I had to take a polygraph exam, and it took almost 2 years to get all my "stuff" back. That was 2 years where I was fearful for my job, worried about keeping my family afloat, worried about just about everything. My wife lost ALL of her graduate school work, and had to re-do most of it to turn in her final portfolio. Talk about miserable.
And I STILL have no idea what that "Something Bad" was. And it didn't even happen at my house - it happened at my hosting ISP where the email server lived. It didn't matter that *I* didn't do it. I still had MY stuff taken from my, *I* still had to go take the polygraph exam, and *I* was still on the hook for 2 years.
So yeah - keeping an open wireless network is just ASKING for trouble. If you want to deal with federal agents in the middle of the night, well, be my guest. You can talk the talk about how you'd tell them to go away, and how they'd have no proof, etc. etc., but unless you've been there, you have no idea what you're in for.
Trust me.
Bruce mentions FON, which has dual capability APs - with both an open and a private net. With a proper IP scheme, you could even firewall the Internet upstream, to block P2P when the source is on the open net.
I have a similar setup - but I don't have FON APs. I run an open AP, with all of my machines and services on an internal VPN.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Well, the actual article is pretty silly. His response to "if you're accused of downloading child porn you're better off pleading that going to court?" Ya, just want I want to do, have that on my record.
No thanks, I'll lock down my network.
That said, IANAL but the ones that he apparently spoke to seem awfully cavalier about the situation. I would be extremely uncomfortable explaining to a judge that I:
1) Published an article stating that I knew that my wireless connection could be used by others to commit crimes.
2) Left my connection unsecured anyway.
3) Was arrested because of illegal traffic.
4) Expect to be excused.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Not only might you want to give away unused bandwidth, but look at the reasons people are telling us we should not give it away:
- You might be blamed for illegal file sharing or spamming
- You might be held legally responsible for what other do
- You might be the victim of malicious users
- You might.... nevermind, all the reasons are to protect you from people who would sue you. What does that say about the world?
Lets throw some other analogies out there:
You shouldn't stop to help a stranded motorist because they might attack you or kill you
You shouldn't give people advice because they might sue you for using it badly (lawyers & doctors)
You shouldn't leave objects in your lawn in case someone trips and sues you
you.... getting the picture?
You are NO LONGER free to do as you wish with what is yours because other people control what you do, either directly, or indirectly as a consequence of fear of what they MIGHT do. If gun makers are not responsible for what people do with the products they make, you should NOT be responsible for what people do with the bandwidth you gave them to use.
If we can be held responsible for what happens across our open APs, then the ISP can be held responsible for what goes across its network.
In the end, common sense and reasonable thought dictate that the person who does the spamming or file sharing is responsible. If you leave a gardening tool in your lawn, and a person trips on it and hurts themselves, who is at fault? If you put a bench in your yard where people can sit and rest and some kid pushes another who then falls and cuts his head on the bench, who is at fault?
I know those don't fit perfectly, but the point is that just because you helped to create something, you are NOT responsible for the use of it. Leaving your car unlocked is a good analogy: if someone takes it, they are stealing, and just because you did not do all that you could do to prevent them from taking it does not change the fact that they stole it.
In another thought, holding the AP owner responsible is like trying to treat them as network security experts under the law. Insurance companies, police departments, all sorts of people work to inform you how to stop someone from stealing your property but does anyone do public service announcements to tell you how to stop people from stealing your bandwidth? Can you get insurance to protect you from bandwidth theft? or to compensate you when the **AA are suing you?
Is a bus driver culpable if he drives the bus that a bank robber used to get to the bank he robbed?
This goes on and on, but the point of holding you responsible for what others do with something you gave them (without the intent of doing so for malicious or nefarious reasons) has been proven in court already. Gun makers are not responsible for any deaths that happen from use of their products. Game over.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
"Security is always a trade-off. I know people who rarely lock their front door, who drive in the rain (and, while using a cellphone) and who talk to strangers..."
/.)!
Plenty of people worried; "Oh someone might download kiddie porn and I would get blamed", "Oh, someone steals my information", "Oh, someone might download riaa music..."
If you walk around in fear of things that never happen to you, then by all means, lock your stuff down - even better, stay off the net entirely! Then maybe you'll feel safe. Oh wait, you don't want to feel safe, you want to be afraid and worry.
"This happens everywhere/all the time" - is a dangerous mindset when watching TV (or surfing
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
That said, IANAL but the ones that he apparently spoke to seem awfully cavalier about the situation. I would be extremely uncomfortable explaining to a judge that I:
But at least it offers a benefit to the rest of us. Justifying leaving the network open because a security expert recommended it makes it at least a slightly plausible defence.
jeez...security is great and all that but you sound paranoid as hell. does the word overkill mean anything to you?
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"If I enabled wireless security on my network and someone hacked it, I would have a far harder time proving my innocence"
His theory. I didn't hear him claim the lawyer told him that.
Like you, I'm pretty terrified of the accusation, so my network is locked down as tight as I can get it. I use WPA with a strong password, MAC address filtering, I renumbered the subnet from the default, I set a strong administrator password, and disabled DHCP... and if I can think of anything else I can do to lock it down, I'll probably do it, out of fear that somebody will do something nefarious with it.
No, from what I've seen in legal cases is that you have to at least show it was likely someone else used your property to commit the crime. It's not enough to say "someone else was driving my car" you have to explain who it could have been and know reasonably where it was.
If you really want to lock things down, no need to disable DHCP. Just setup a RADIUS server and get an AP that supports it. Breaking into your network requires two steps then; breaking the encryption, AND compromsing the RADIUS server.. both of which would need to be done to use the network in the first place.
On the other hand, if I do get hacked (somehow), all that work will probably hang me. Couple that with the fact that I have an advanced degree in computer science (which to the average slashdot reader seems to mean I now *nothing* about computers, but would surely impress a jury of my "peers" that I'm impervious to being hacked), and if my network is used against me, I'm getting the death penalty.
They'd have to prove more than just your network was used. They'd need to find it on one of your computers somewhere, which there shouldn't be, because you didn't do it. Also, keeping logs can help if you can find in the logs that something weird happened that looks like a security breach.
You mean the same ISP that agreed to give me unlimited downloads but cancels my service if I pass their secret limit? The same ISP that sold me unlimited high-speed but throttles it back for certain applications? Who is that needs the integrity?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
That's actually an erroneous legal idea....if in fact you have shown due diligence in trying to secure your network, and someone gets in, you are less likely to be found at fault. If however the courts can show that you knew the risks and consequences to having your network opened, and you had the means to do it, yet did not, you are much more likely to be held accountable.
If you request an IP and it's given to you, isn't that permission to use it?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The only effective measure there is the WPA. If a hacker gets through that (and that's *hard*) they can break through the others in a matter of seconds just by sniffing packets.
All he's doing is making life harder for himself.
SSL web proxies work well.. but if you want to belive that it's impossible to do, then go right ahead.. I could use some extra cash.
No, but if he gives me his keys when I ask for them, then it is permission. That's far more analogous to what's happening when you log into an open access point.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
"insecure" is bad. "open" is good. It's an "open wifi network" not an "insecure wifi network."
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
helmets and seatbelts you are placing the cost of your healthcare on the public. Hence you are harming someone. You can argue that you could be given the choice of not wearing a helmet or seatbelt with the understanding that you waive any right to care you can't pay for if you are injured in an accident.
Insider trading does harm others. You are very literally stealing money from other people.
C'mon, can't you come up with something better?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Bruce jumped the shark for me when in the comments section of his blog he dismissed state election voter ID requirements because voter fraud probably only accounts for a few percentage points here and there, as if that's not enough to sway an election.
If you don't know, this is the very issue that was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday (Indiana law requiring government issued photo ID to vote). I agree with Bruce's POV, but his argument is NOT STRONG ENOUGH.
In-person voter ID fraud doesn't "probably only account for a few percentage points here and there", but per the appellate arguments, there has not been one single identified case of in-person voter ID fraud in the history of Indiana. NOT ONE.
Great article on the subject posted on Tuesday, before the oral arguments. Written by Walter Dellinger, one of the premier Supreme Court appellate attorneys, who is representing Washington DC in its upcoming Supreme Court case regarding DC's gun control laws. The first such case in the last half-century.
---
"A law said to combat voting fraud by imposing the modest task of showing an ID may seem at first impression to be both sensible and fair. But this law is neither."
"First and foremost, Indiana's law is a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist. The voting fraud it purports to address is illusory. And the means it employs needlessly make it far more difficult for some citizens--especially those who are low-income, elderly, or lack easy access to transportation--to vote."
"Because a photo-ID requirement exists to prevent a type of fraud that appears to be imaginary, the requirement would be hard to justify even if it imposed only a minimal impact on legitimate voters. But a photo-ID law in fact imposes substantial burdens on the right to vote."
Compared to using a dictionary based attack on a WPA encrypted WLAN it is rather trivial to bypass this hurdle. In this light it seems much more reasonable to invest time in creating a non-trivial password for WPA than to turn on such "features".
The only downside is that it's quite annoying to dictate 16-char urandom passwords whenever some friend comes along and wants to connect. Plus all these non-geek people get assurance that I'm truly paranoid (heck, when 16 chars random becomes the standard I'll just move on to radius to convince these people
I don't read replies by ACs.