Open Wi-Fi May Become Illegal In India

chromoZ writes with word that because of the serial blasts in Indian cities (and terrorist outfits claiming responsibility via email, often sent via Cyber Cafes and open Wi-Fi spots), sharing unsecured wireless access may get much tougher in India: "The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) after studying open Wifi networks is coming up with a set of guidelines and recommendations to secure them. 'All ISPs may be instructed to ensure that their subscribers using wireless devices must use effective authentication mechanisms and permit access to internet to only authorised persons using wireless devices.' An open Wi-Fi could be as much as illegal in India after this."

Comments

Proxies

[Lucky75]

What about proxies or tunnels then?

mail box

[Anonymous Coward]

Wont they use the mail box down the street?.

Solution: authorize everyone

[noidentity]

All ISPs may be instructed to ensure that their subscribers using wireless devices must use effective authentication mechanisms and permit access to internet to only authorised persons using wireless devices.

Simple solution: authorize everyone with WiFi capability to access your network. The authentication is very strong, as anyone without WiFi capability will absolutely not be allowed to connect.

Re:Solution: authorize everyone

[idontgno]

That fails the "authenticate" requirement. In fact, it completely ignores that authentication (clearly and accurately ascertaining the identity of the connection user) is intended to be a mandatory precondition to access.

By analogy (not a car analogy, sorry), if you operate a liquor store and your local jurisdiction imposes an age-verification requirement (authenticate purchaser's age) before you can make a sale of an intoxicating controlled beverage (authorize the transaction), your solution is to ignore the "carding" requirement and sell to whomever you feel like. Which works great until the authorities haul you off to jail.

At best, you can argue that this is civil disobedience. More likely, it's just scoffing at the law. But it's not a solution.

Re:Solution: authorize everyone

[gnick]

Simple solution: authorize everyone with WiFi capability to access your network. The authentication is very strong, as anyone without WiFi capability will absolutely not be allowed to connect.

There's a problem there. TFS indicates that this is just a "set of guidelines and recommendations", but the title indicates that it's a potential law. If the law states that you must authorize people to use your network, it seems that they could hold you responsible for its misuse. So if somebody transmits terrorist instructions / P2Ps RIAA music / uploads kiddie porn (won't somebody think of the children!?!), they may drag you in. Even though you didn't commit the crime, you authorized somebody to use your equipment and helped facilitate the crime.

Of course, if I loan somebody my car and they run down their cheating GF, I'm probably safe unless they told me their intention ahead of time. But Internet laws are still so nebulous that the analogy may not carry over.

Re:Solution: authorize everyone

[digitig]

if I loan somebody my car and they run down their cheating GF, I'm probably safe unless they told me their intention ahead of time. But Internet laws are still so nebulous that the analogy may not carry over.

But it must! It's a car analogy!

Re:Solution: authorize everyone

[RiotingPacifist]

easier than that SSID:passwordispassword

Re:Solution: authorize everyone

[HungryHobo]

Another big problem with this is that it requires users to be security experts.
Will it be illegal to run a WEP network?
terrorists can use one almost as easily as an open network so for the stated purpose this law would fail unless WEP were banned.
WPA can be cracked too, it's just harder, takes longer and you have no certainty of success within minutes.

It's like making it a crime to not lock your mailbox because someone might send threatening letters from it.

It requires your average Joe to be a security expert who can lock down his network enough to make sure nobody can hack in.

Even then there's still a host of ways to be completely anonymous online. This will achieve nothing, absolutely nothing useful.

Re:Solution: authorize everyone

[NotQuiteReal]

If your car were an analogy, it would be a terrible conveyor of any meaning.

Re:Solution: authorize everyone

[HJED]

or your WAP key could be 0000 or AAAA

Re:Solution: authorize everyone

[NotQuiteReal]

But it must! It's a car analogy!

Of course, this does nothing

[rolfwind]

to stop the attacks in the first place. Lots of other ways to claim responsibility for attacks. As usual, it just makes the common man a criminal...

Re:Of course, this does nothing

[lysergic.acid]

yea, this is quite idiotic.

terrorists don't carry out attacks because they have open wi-fi access. they simply use open wi-fi because it's available and convenient--the same reason everyone else uses it.

if they can't access the internet via open wi-fi they'll just use other anonymous channels. what is the Indian government going to do, eliminate public computer terminals at schools and libraries? ban proxy servers? or simply outlaw anonymity altogether?

it would be just as easy to claim responsibility for a terrorist act by leaving an anonymous note or spraying graffiti onto the side of a public building at night. should all Indian citizens have to get GPS implants?

Re:Of course, this does nothing

[IcyHando'Death]

Quite true. Yet if India is anything like America, a thin layer of anti-terrorist wrapping paper is all that's needed to disguise even the most egregiously pro-corporate legislation. The telecoms want this change to reduce sharing of network connections, pure and simple.

Re:Of course, this does nothing

[arktemplar]

Fortunately, it's currently not that bad here (but maybe I'm mistaken). Though yes, the ignorance most people have with respect to technology is rather irritating. The point however is that this is just a reaction - due to recent bomb blasts through out the country - in most major cities. Any ways, wifi hasn't spread all that much so the people it would be affecting aren't large, but let's see. Personally I doubt if it will be a law all that easily, most prolly it'll get squashed as soon as a bill is introduced.

guidelines == law??

[Locklin]

Since when does disobeying "guidelines and recommendations" mean you are breaking the law?

Just set the ESSID to "You are authorized," then everyone using it is authorized.

Re:guidelines == law??

[tepples]

Since when does disobeying "guidelines and recommendations" mean you are breaking the law?

The law in a given jurisdiction may condition safe-harbor provisions on compliance with "guidelines and recommendations". For example, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, which has been law in the United States (home of Slashdot) for just shy of a decade, conditions a safe harbor for copyright infringement on a notice and takedown procedure.

Just set the ESSID to "You are authorized," then everyone using it is authorized.

But nobody is authenticated. The guideline appears to require both authentication and authorization.

Re:guidelines == law??

[wastedlife]

If authentication is a requirement, then WEP and even WPA/WPA2-PSK don't even meet the requirement. Have you ever walked an "Average Joe" user through configuring WEP or WPA-PSK? It can be a fucking nightmare. Having to walk people through configuring RADIUS would drastically increase the suicide rate among tech support and help desk employees.

anonymity

[EaglemanBSA]

This seems like an in-line move with the recent article about the international group working towards eliminating anonymity on the internet. How is this going to make things more secure? If I want to set off a bomb, I'm going to set off a bomb, with or without an open wireless router. Given the stated problem, this seems like an asinine response.

Re:anonymity

[I'm not really here]

In answer to your sig:

Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?

The answer is C.

Re:anonymity

[EaglemanBSA]

You're the first one to get that right in the several years it's been my sig! Other acceptable answers would have been 42, "Ni" or Bangkok, Thailand.

Re:anonymity

[I'm not really here]

My alternate answer was "Blue" but then I wasn't sure if it was "Red", so to save my life, I answered C, though 42 would definitely have been a good second choice.

What a pity

[the_other_chewey]

I recently toured Skandinavia. In every reasonably big city
(that means "more than 15 houses" over there), you can nearly
be sure to find some open access point. Of course, some of
those are cluess users using lousy default configs - but quite
a lot are deliberately open, with SSIDs like "welcome_to_stockholm".

One even ran a guestbook on the AP's port 80, accessible only
from the inside. Lots and lots of grateful people from all over
the world had left a message before mine :-)

That's the kind of culture I would like to see encouraged in
other places as well, not this "OMG terrorists" bullshit being
used as an excuse for more and more control in way too many
parts of the world.

Re:What a pity

[kypper]

I was just thinking the same. Seems to me that if you want anyone to be an 'authorized person', the above doesn't matter.

Re:What a pity

[genghisjahn]

Those policians are fast over there in India. Fixate on some issue that many in the population will have no strong feelings on one way or the other. No matter what position the politician takes, their approval is unaffected. All the while it appears that they're doing something. Holy cow, I just used there,their and they're in the same post. I also used "holy cow" in a post about India.

Re:What a pity

[swb]

That's the kind of culture I would like to see encouraged in
other places as well, not this "OMG terrorists" bullshit being
used as an excuse for more and more control in way too many
parts of the world.

Then vote for cultural homogeneity? There seldom seems to be OMG Terrorist! or repressive government problems when you have a homogeneous culture.

In places with highly diverse cultures, the tension and the government repression seem to get ratcheted up.

Re:What a pity

[cOdEgUru]

Last I checked, this is the overall tally

Number of lives lost in Scandinavia due to Terrorism: 0

Number of lives lost in India due to Terrorism: Atleast 635 people killed in Terrorism since 2001 (I think in reality its far more..)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_India

For all the people here, how would you start behaving the day after the first series of bomb blasts if they were to go off in major cities around US? How would your perspectives change, after the fiftieth one, and consider for a minute that the Govt is helpless to prevent it, that every other week there is one more idiot blowing up innocents. What would you do? Its easy to be far removed from all this ugliness and have an opinion.

I am not saying what they propose to ban Open networks to be valid. What I am saying is, seven years in to the stark reality posed by the threat of Islamic terrorism, I am surprised that India hasnt opted to carpet bomb Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

Re:What a pity

[Anonymous Coward]

cultural homogeneity like in Saudi Arabia?

Re:What a pity

[whyloginwhysubscribe]

I's like to do that myself - but how can I guarantee against illegal activities on my internet connection?

Re:What a pity

[Idiomatick]

Scandinavia is the least religious place in the world explaining well the lack of violence. Compare that to homogeneous places in africa where violent crime is incredibly high. Or compare that to Canada where we are very multi-cultural but have fairly low rates of crime. A country being homogeneous will i think lower crime but it is NOT a major factor. The places history, culture and religious fervor seems to set the pace.

Re:What a pity

[pacificleo]

"Lots and lots of grateful people from all over the world had left a message before mine :-)"

while that sounds good in theory try telling this to NSA who scan every email . shouldn't they send a "Thanks for riding on our bandwidth " email every time some outsider access internet from a Starbuck ?? having said that i don't see how this going to do anything to help govt to fight terror .I am an Indian living in Delhi and I survived the attack by a margin of 15 Min . Let me tell you that any Terrorist with a 1 Rupee coin can call from a unmonitored public telephone booth to inform or take responsibility or to ask his wife whats there for dinner. this is a typical Beating the Strawman reaction you expect from Govt Agencies in the aftermath of a BIG terrorist attack . two year back they banned all Blogging tool for the same reasons. only to lift the ban after few weeks .

Re:What a pity

[Hognoxious]

I am surprised that India hasnt opted to carpet bomb Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

Pakistan has nukes, and Indians aren't stupid.

Re:What a pity

[pacificleo]

"I am surprised that India hasnt opted to carpet bomb Pakistan occupied Kashmir." Very True. this is what i used to think . But looking at the result of US War in Afganistan i seriously don't think that a war is solution to terror . but ya sometime it helps

Re:What a pity

[TheRaven64]

You know, I'm sick of this kind of reasoning. I grew up in the UK during the Northern Ireland troubles, and terrorist bombs were a fairly regular news item. I didn't know anyone who had been killed in one, but my mother only missed one because the tube she was on was delayed. And yet, in spite of the fact we had terrorists recruiting and training a narrow strip of water away, we didn't feel the need to give up freedoms or think 'what would terrorists do with this kind of situation' before doing anything. It wasn't until America decided to go on a holy crusade that we started getting this kind of thing.

India is the second most populous country in the world. It has over a billion people. 635 people is under 0.007% of the annual death rate - since this figure is over 7 years, it's around 0.001% of annual deaths. The figures for (non-terrorism-related) murders are two orders of magnitude higher, and the figures from smoking-related cancers are a few more orders of magnitude higher still.

Re:What a pity

[the_other_chewey]

how can I guarantee against illegal activities on my internet connection?

You can't. The probability for it to happen is rather low though (especially if you are not
the only one doing it), and (IMHO) that risk is way outweighed by the advantages for the
commonality - and that's where the need for a sane political and legal environment comes in:
To protect the AP owner from being liable for everything that goes on over said AP.

Laws like that don't prevent anything, someone determined will still find a way to do whatever
would have been possible over an open AP via some other mean - but those laws make life less nice
for everybody.

Re:What a pity

[Idiomatick]

1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)

2. Vietnam

3. Denmark

4. Norway

5. Japan

6. Czech Republic

7. Finland

Do note numbers 1,3,4,7

Re:What a pity

[oldspewey]

seven years in to the stark reality posed by the threat of Islamic terrorism, I am surprised that India hasnt opted to carpet bomb Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

Seven years is the American viewpoint on that "stark reality" ... for Indians it's been a lot, lot longer.

Re:What a pity

[orzetto]

You are not looking for cultural homogeneity, you are looking for compatibility. In my work place (research institution in Germany) there are people from all over the world, only about half are German, and I still have to see any act of the slightest cultural embarrassment.

Of course, a lot of idiots are incompatible (not name-calling: look up the word "idiot") with other cultures, because they have been told their culture or race is superior, their god is the only true one, and that they should obey instead of thinking.

Anyway, history is full of counterexamples to your statement: most fascist states have been culturally very homogeneous (not that there was much choice in the matter). If anything, economical homogeneity is more important: look up the wealth distribution of Scandinavian countries, of the USA and other European countries, and plot against an indicator of social disarray. People generally don't really care if their neighbour has two wives (in fact few would mind if he's beating them or worse), but people will be much more pissed off if they have to live on the brink of existence and the main part of the value they create goes to some rich heir (or some foreign rich country) who does nothing for it, but gets to reap the profits.

Re:What a pity

[tomz16]

I was just thinking the same. Seems to me that if you want anyone to be an 'authorized person', the above doesn't matter.

That's cool... until one of your "authorized" persons threatens the president!

Re:What a pity

[warrior_s]

What I am saying is, seven years in to the stark reality posed by the threat of Islamic terrorism, I am surprised that India hasnt opted to carpet bomb Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

A correction, its not 7 years, its almost 20 years since islamic terrorism started in India.
This is the beginning I think, and the terrorists have never looked back.

Re:What a pity

[arktemplar]

I see, I never knew that CCTVs watching your every move were not an invasion into privacy etc. (not to flame but seriously ?)

And do look at it from the point of view of the Indians - bombings in major cities at random times - chosen for maximum disruption of normal life. The parliament was attacked, I'd like to see how the UK responds to terrorists after something like that.

Re:What a pity

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back another 5 years to Bombay.

Re:What a pity

[TheRaven64]

I see, I never knew that CCTVs watching your every move were not an invasion into privacy etc. (not to flame but seriously ?)

Firstly, around 90% of the CCTV cameras in the Daily Mail article that started this meme are in privately owned - most of the world had CCTV cameras in shops, it's not something specific to the UK, most of the remainder are traffic-monitoring cameras on motorways used to produce the traffic reports for motorists, and the rest are on public high streets where you have no expectation of privacy anyway. Secondly, most of the government-controlled ones, and all of the plans to link them together into a massive network were introduced after 2001 - after the USA stopped funding Irish terrorists (the mayor of NYC apparently realised that terrorism wasn't cool after September that year), which removed the support from the few who weren't involved in the peace process.

And do look at it from the point of view of the Indians - bombings in major cities at random times - chosen for maximum disruption of normal life.

So, exactly like the UK in the '80s then? Some examples here and a more complete list here - note how few there are since 2001 compared with pretty much any other 7-year period before 1996.

Re:What a pity

[soren100]

Then vote for cultural homogeneity? There seldom seems to be OMG Terrorist! or repressive government problems when you have a homogeneous culture.

That whole "cultural homogeneity" meme is just used as a dismissive tactic to avoid discussing the real reasons the Scandinavian cultures are so successful. Cultural homogeneiety is pretty prevalent in China, Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc., just as much as in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc, yet those countries don't get any awards for being great places to live.

The difference is that the Scandinavian cultures are highly progressive. Education is free to all, and the government will actually pay the students to go to school, so you end up with citizens that are educated on the issues, smart enough to vote for much better government candidates, and don't fall for the "tricks" that less educated voters fall for. So -- surprise -- they don't end up with repressive govnerments. Surprise! The tax money that is generated actually goes to services that are useful to the people that pay them. The citizens get free health care, housing help, and many other services that keep their society, happy, relaxed, and stable.

In America, our education is hugely expensive, so many people don't get educated. You end up with ignorant voters --> corrupt politicians, deregulation, failing banks, and the current "socialism for the rich", complete with massive government bailouts, but only for rich investors.

In other countries, with even less educated voters, you end up with worse conditions. It's not a mystery.

Re:What a pity

[bloobloo]

Well, when the IRA bombed Margaret Thatcher's hotel room and killed five people, they responded by getting a Marks and Spencers to open early to replace the lost clothes. Then continued as normal.

Re:What a pity

[st0rmshad0w]

They could just as easily make the same threat via postal mail. Actually now that I think about it, its EASIER to do so via postal mail.

Re:What a pity

[bhv]

That's funny stuff. The only thing I see our (Canada's) multi-cultural openness leading to is more Sharia-law.....yes more. Majority rules, it's only a matter of time.

Switzerland, the land of openness, is struggling to close the flood gates now. You would like to think our country could watch, learn and adjust. Alas, we are to passive about anything not having to do with hockey.

Re:What a pity

[arktemplar]

I guess I stand corrected.

Re:What a pity

[Foolicious]

First of all, you're kind of mixing crime and violence and religious violence, which are related, but different. Someone stealing a car is different than a person blowing up a car in the name of some god. For example, there's a high crime rate in the United States, a relatively "religious" country. And there's a high violent crime rate too. But there's not a lot of violence between religious groups like you'd see in some Islamic theocracies or predominantly Islamic countries. In fact, in the US the best example of "sectarian violence" is probably gang violence which could safely be considered irreligious. This distinction between, or clarification of, crime and violence is important, but further muddies the water when it comes to determining causation.

Speaking of which, I take issue with your use of "explaining well". In true slashdot fashion, I submit the standard "correlation != causation". There are too many factors involved in violence and crime (again two related, but very different things) to make a broad statement like that. Maybe violence brings people to religion (a sort of inverse relationship to your suggestion). Maybe it's an economic issue (broad economic divides, etc). Maybe it's a style of economy issue (pure capitalism vs. modified socialism, etc.). Maybe it's a cultural legacy of violence or crime. Maybe it's a combination of all of that. Who knows. But to make a statement like yours is simply not logically sound.

All that to say that I think you're dead wrong about the influence of homogeneousity. I understand that when people say homogeneous in the context of this discussion they probably mean skin color and nationality, but I'd submit that 85% of a population that shares a like view is, even if just in the context of that view, a pretty darn homogeneous population. In other words, if 85% of the people in Sweden shared the same belief in some god instead of that lack of belief in God, the crime and violence may be just as low as it is currently. You make the assumption that the "WHAT" in what they agree about is the main factor. Perhaps it's simply that they agree.

Re:What a pity

[nospam007]

>Cultural homogeneiety is pretty prevalent in China, Russia, ...

Seems like you were ill during geography lessons a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_China

1. Han (zh:; Traditional: ; Hàn Zú)
2. Zhuang (zh:; Traditional: ; Zhuàng Zú)
3. Manchu (zh:; Traditional: ; Mn Zú)
4. Hui (zh:; Huí Zú) (Also includes Utsuls of Hainan, descended from Cham refugees.)
5. Miao (zh:; Miáo Zú) (Hmong)
6. Uyghurs (zh:; Traditional: ; Wéiwúr Zú)
7. Yi (zh:; Yí Zú)
8. Tujia (zh:; Tji Zú)
9. Mongols (zh:; Mngg Zú)
10. Tibetan (zh:; Zàng Zú) (including Amdowa and Khampa)
11. Buyei (zh:; Bùy Zú)
12. Dong (zh:; Dòng Zú)
13. Yao (zh:; Traditional: ; Yáo Zú)
14. Korean (zh:; Traditional: ; Cháoxin Zú)
15. Bai (zh:; Bái Zú)
16. Hani (zh:; Hní Zú)
17. Li (zh:; Lí Zú)
18. Kazakh (zh:; ; Hsàkè Zú)
19. Dai (zh:; Di Zú, also called Dai Lue, one of the Tai ethnic groups)
20. She (zh:; Sh Zú)
21. Lisu (zh:; Lìsù Zú)
22. Gelao (zh:: Glo Zú)
23. Lahu (zh:; Lhù Zú)
24. Dongxiang (zh:; Traditional: ; Dngxing Zú)
25. Va (zh:: W Zú)
26. Sui (zh:: Shu Zú)
27. Nakhi (zh:; Traditional: ; Nàx Zú) (Also included are the zh:; Mósu))
28. Qiang (zh:: Qing Zú)
29. Tu (zh:: T Zú)
30. Xibe (zh:; Traditional: ; Xíbó Zú)
31. Mulao (zh:; Mùlo Zú)
32. Kyrgyz (zh:; Traditional: ; Krkèz Zú)
33. Daur (zh:; Traditional: ; Dáwòr Zú)
34. Jingpo (zh:; Traditional: ; Jngp Zú) (Known as Kachin in Myanmar.)
35. Salar (zh:; Slá Zú)
36. Blang (zh:; Bùlng Zú)
37. Maonan (zh:; Màonán Zú)
38. Tajik (zh:; Tjíkè Zú)
39. Pumi (zh:; Pm Zú)
40. Achang (zh:; chng Zú)
41. Nu (zh:; Nù Zú)
42. Ewenki (zh:; Èwnkè Zú)
43. Jing (zh:: Jng Zú) (The same group as Vietnamese or Kinh in Sino-Viet and historically referred to as Yuè, or Sino-Viet Vit. See Yue (peoples).)
44. Jino (zh:; Traditional: ; Jnuò Zú)
45. De'ang (zh:; Déáng Zú)
46. Uzbeks (zh:; Traditional: ; Wzbiékè Zú)
47. Russian (zh:; Traditional: ; Élus Zú)
48. Yugur (zh:; Yùgù Zú)
49. Bonan (zh:; Bon Zú)
50. Monba (zh:; Traditional: ; Ménb Zú)
51. Oroqen (zh:; Traditional: ; Èlúnchn Zú)
52. Derung (zh:; Traditional: ; Dúlóng Zú)
53. Tatars (zh:; Traditional: ; Ttr Zú)
54. Hezhen (zh:; Hèzhé Zú) (the same group as Nanai on the Russian side of the border)
55. Lhoba (zh:: Luòb Zú)
56. Gaoshan (zh:; Goshn Zú) (a collective name for all Taiwanese aborigine groups in Taiwan)

Re:What a pity

[ultranova]

That's cool... until one of your "authorized" persons threatens the president!

Being a president means being the nominal head of your country. That, in turn, means being the most obvious target for anyone who said country has managed to piss off. Living with the knowledge that there are people in this world who want to kill and might act upon that desire you is part of the job. If you flip out and bust someone simply because someone else used his equipment to send such a threat, you aren't fit for the job, IMHO.

Besides, I'd imagine that the people who are serious about killing a president - or anyone else for that matter - don't warn their victim beforehand, unless they're complete morons.

Re:What a pity

[Kjella]

Before we get too full of praise, let me give you a few pointers on scandinavia:

1. We have representative parliaments (or close to) which usually means 4-8 parties and typically coalitions. This leads to actual political choice but also a lot of political blameshifting and weak leadership. We are all constituionally monarchies but the royal families stay out of politics, but it does mean that in general we have a set of ministers with a prime minister which is a lot less powerful and not quite as person-dependant as the US presidential elections. The government always sits with backing of the parliament but since it's a coalition it typically sits uneasily, so it's not like the US where they're either both on the same team or completely against each other. Overall you do get more choices but a lot of promises get lost in compromises.

2. Education is in general free, you can go to private insitiutions though but most go to state-funded colleges and universities and the standard is in general good though it's rarely internationally recognized because there's a weak tradition of publishing and famous professors, though I never found those to be the best teachers anyway. The downside is that you get rather poorly paid for taking education, our countries have some of the most evenly distributed income in the world mostly due to the tax system. A very substantial amount is taking in through taxes and delivered out again as services, but with a very clear social profile. It's pretty much the anti-thesis of the american dream of getting filthy rich and keeping most of it. It keeps the general populace content but it also holds back the exceptional people that really could have done more and gotten better compensated for it.

3. As a follow up to the last point, many people recieve some sort of benefit from the state be it retirement benefits, disabilities benefits, unemployment benefits, they go to funded instiutions like colleges and universities, they work in the public sector earning money from the government or they other financial support for e.g. raising children. The upside is that we have a very good social system that let few fall really outside - poverty is certainly something that leads to a lot of crime. The downside is that politically, a lot of people are basicly allotting money to themselves and there's a constant fight between those that want better benefits and the reality that the value has to be produced somewhere as well. I think many americans would feel the death of a thousand needles here starting with the income tax, 25% VAT and all the other wierd taxes we pay.

4. As for religiousness, we're utterly strange. Here in Norway we have a state church, the christian cross is in our flag yet unlike the over-religious US that claims to keep a separation between church and state, we actually had an ordained priest as prime minister 1997-2000 and 2001-2005 but we keep a much stronger separation than most. Abortions have been permitted since 1978, gay sexuality since 1972, gay partnerships since 1993 and as of next year (already passed into law) gay couples may wed under the same law as heterosexual couples. Sweden and Denmark have in general been very liberal about sexuality and pornography, Norway was not but that finally changed in 2005 when the old pornography law was struck down, but premarital sex and contraception have not been big issues for a long time. Most of the religious focus has been on compassion, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." and similar leading to a lot of the social safety nets we have. I would at least say many have kept the values but lost the faith, so to speak.

5. To keep going on that note, tolerance and foregiveness has pretty good roots here. While we're not exactly saints I'd say the tension between scandinavians and other cultures is rather weak compared to other countries in Europe. What most people seem to be afraid of is that they're simply taking over in numbers because ethnic norwegians aren't having many enough kids. While n

Re:What a pity

[WNight]

I'd propose stupid laws that would do nothing. I'd support the jailing of innocents for questioning those laws. I'd support the dismantling of our entire justice system for questionable benefits.

No. Not really.

Re:What a pity

[oracle128]

Crime rates are a fallacious metric because they don't account for the fact that most of society would rather have 3 cases of shoplifting than 1 case of murder. Their only purpose is to provide a statistic to either prove or disprove an otherwise pre-conceived notion with a random set of numbers that has no substance.

And that's ignoring the fact that even if you DID consider "crime rate" as an accetable measure, you're flat out lying anyway, as overall crime rates in Canada have actually been lowering, not "rising rapidly" as you falsely assert; in fact 2006 was stated as having the lowest crime rate in 25 years. Sounds like somebody is just upset that they can no longer go to their local corner store and buy a machine gun with which to kill..."deer".

Re:What a pity

[Idiomatick]

Banning firearms had a fairly negligible effect on crime. Attempted murders continue to drop yearly and murders while having a slight increase in 2004 really it doesn't matter. Violent crime in 2007 reached a 30 year low... murders being even with what they were just before the gun laws were introduced.

Re:What a pity

[Idiomatick]

Well statistics prove that.... Look at a list of countries with high levels of religion and a population over 1million. You get a list of the countries worst plagued by violent crime and war. Many of them are in africa...Mauritania Somalia Sahara ...

Re:What a pity

[Idiomatick]

Erm i did say cultural heritage was a major factor... I can take out your assertion of the economic issue, countries with comparable wealth have more crime with more religion. Though as you said the inverse could be and i believe is true as well. Style of economy again you can disprove with stats using areas within a country to some degree. And i never said there was only one factor i'm sure there are many i just said that religion is a bigger indicator than homogeneous people.

Re:What a pity

[Draek]

One question: how exactly do you "vote for cultural homogeniety"? do you vote for a candidate that promises to kick anyone who doesn't fit your profile of a "culturally-homogenous" person from the country? because I remember last time something like that happened, and the results weren't nice.

Re:What a pity

[Hognoxious]

Don't try to make India look like some insane wartorn 2nd rate democracy.

I didn't do that, but if I want to, I will.

nutcase politicians just like your McCain and Palin

Out by several thousand km, I'm afraid. No H1B for you!

How?

[camperdave]

All ISPs may be instructed to ensure that their subscribers using wireless devices must use effective authentication mechanisms and permit access to internet to only authorised persons using wireless devices.

And just how are the ISPs supposed to be able to accomplish this? Are they going to have people wardriving all around India, sniffing out open wifi, then seeing if it traces back to one of their customers? Or is a strongly worded email sufficient?

Re:How?

[Rayeth]

I suppose they could require every wireless AP to authenticate its users to a RADIUS server. Of course that means strict control over all the types of APs used and no one really wants that, but that would certainly provided the authentication, albeit being a giant pain for the ISP and the customers.

The technologies exist, they just aren't cheap or very user friendly.

Re:How?

[clevelandguru]

Usually the ISP provides the WiFi device (DSL Modem/Router/WiFi all in a single box) and an ISP technician installs it for the user.

Re:How?

[schon]

How do you force the customer to use RADIUS on *their own gear*?

A Scenario: ISP sells an internet account to a client. They go to the client's house, and ensure that the DSL modem is plugged directly into a computer.

Client later goes to buy a wireless NIC for their computer, and turns the computer into an open AP.

How exactly does RADIUS prevent this?

How is the ISP supposed to know about this?

How is the ISP supposed to monitor for it?

How is the ISP supposed to prevent it?

Re:How?

[nasor]

Also, if I run a cafe or something and want to provide free wifi to attract customers, then aren't all those people "authorized users"?

Re:How?

[Rayeth]

Clearly in a scenario where the ISP is not involved RADIUS will do nothing. However many Wireless APs are installed along with the DSL modem by the ISP. In such cases RADIUS could ensure that authorized users are the only ones allowed.

Other situations you mentioned don't have a good solution because they are by definition outside of the ISP's control. I doubt this ruling could be enforced in a situation where the ISP did not install the AP, for the exact reasons you have stated.

Re:How?

[schon]

The quote is this:

All ISPs may be instructed to ensure that their subscribers using wireless devices must use effective authentication mechanisms

Note that it says "subscribers using wireless devices", not "subscribers using ISP-supplied wireless devices".

Clearly, they're implying that the ISP is responsible for everything that the subscriber connects. If you think about it, this is the only way the law would be effective - it makes no sense to force ISPs to provide secure wireless gear, when nobody else (retail stores, client's home-brew, etc.) would be required as well.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

[helgihg]

Even if this nonsense did anything at all to combat terrorism, which it doesn't, the idea of an personally identifiable internet connection is a pipe dream, not to mention that it's ethically preposterous. One of the greatest strengths about the internet is how easy it is to remain anonymous and that's a feature, not a bug.

Re:Dumb, dumb, dumb.

[oldspewey]

One of the greatest strengths about the internet is how easy it is to remain anonymous and that's a feature, not a bug.

If TFA had been about spam rather than a crackdown on terrorism, would you still make the same statement?

Re:Dumb, dumb, dumb.

[Locklin]

I believe that had the article been about spam. We would be reading that really annoying "form post" about how "your technical solution to this problem will not work because..."

In other words: Hurt the innocent, the bad guys won't even notice.

Prepaid SIM cards in India ...

[oldspewey]

Of all the countries I've traveled, India is far and away the biggest pain in the ass to get hold of a simple prepaid SIM to stick in your cellphone. Even a little hole-in-the-wall shop wants you to fill out a detailed form, provide identification to be photocopied, provide a valid address while staying in India ... all because they don't want terrorists to be able to use throwaway phones for planning and coordination of attacks.

I'm not at all surprised to see this mindset being extended into other wireless communications

One thing to keep in mind - while America received their "wake up call" in September 2001, there are other nations like India that have been battling terrorism on home soil for several decades. It's worth paying close attention to what these other nations are doing today, if you want clues to what America might be doing tomorrow.

Re:Prepaid SIM cards in India ...

[TheRaven64]

We were battling terrorism in the UK for decades, coming over from Ireland. Most of it was funded by the US. We pretty much ignored it - you'd get a short snipped on the news about it and then back to work. September 2001 was a wake-up call for our government too - they learned from the USA that they could use terrorism as a way of gaining more control over individual lives, rather than it just being a minor irritation.

Re:Prepaid SIM cards in India ...

[c]

> Even a little hole-in-the-wall shop wants you to fill out a detailed
> form, provide identification to be photocopied, provide a valid
> address while staying in India

Yes, but did you instead try:

1. slipping the shop $250 (or 250 euros) or some other reasonable multiple of a month/year salary?
2. use fake id/contact info
3. pull a gun and threaten to kill their entire extended family if the phone stopped working within days
4. ask your cousin behind the counter to stop screwing around and just give you the damned phone
5. stealing a phone long enough to make a call.

Because, realistically those are all standard terrorist tactics and asking for lots of ID wouldn't really block activity that well.

Sadly, you're right in that America might adopt the same broken policies anyways. It doesn't need to work, it just needs to produce a pretty paper trail.

Re:Prepaid SIM cards in India ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, anyone that has businesses or have lived a couple of months in India knows this "must be a registered user to get wifi" thing will be just BS. Basically, India is a shithole with 3/4 of their people eating their own dried shit to survive, they don't own a computer or have wifi.
The other 1/4, the guys that will use wifi, cell-phones, and answer your customer support call when you call your US telco hotline, those people are already registered wifi users. So, this is just stupid government propaganda. Harmless. There is no liberty and freedom fight in India. They fighting only to survive starvation...

Re:Prepaid SIM cards in India ...

[dwandy]

If there was ever a comment-set ( I see you've made similar comments to other posts) that needed a +6 and to be distributed around this is it.

"Terror" is not new. There are countries like Ireland, India, Isreal etc that have been dealing with this without loss of other rights.

But the US has shown that it's not about the war on terror: it's about making a swift grab of personal freedoms. It's only now with this new lesson in governmental control that other countries are changing how they "deal" with terrorism.

It's sad, really that people are so quickly willing to give up their rights for perceived security.

Re:Prepaid SIM cards in India ...

[rtechie]

Of all the countries I've traveled, India is far and away the biggest pain in the ass to get hold of a simple prepaid SIM to stick in your cellphone. Even a little hole-in-the-wall shop wants you to fill out a detailed form, provide identification to be photocopied, provide a valid address while staying in India ... all because they don't want terrorists to be able to use throwaway phones for planning and coordination of attacks.

Of course it doesn't work. At all. People who commit mass murder aren't intimidated by penalties for stealing cellphones. Hell, they don't have to steal them. Just tell the shop owner they'll burn his shop down, and him along with it, if they have to fill out the forms. The police can't keep the streets safe to terrorists, you think they can stop protection rackets?

It's more to the typical Indian attitude that there's no problem that can't be solved by filling out two additional forms.

Re:Prepaid SIM cards in India ...

[Angostura]

Yes and no. The "ring of steel" around the city, and the first surveillance cameras were in large part a response to Irish republican terrorism.

Re:Prepaid SIM cards in India ...

[Angostura]

... in my haste, I forgot internment and the Diplock courts.

Re:Prepaid SIM cards in India ...

[TheRaven64]

Ah yes, on atrocity justifies the next. What an excellent way to live.

For the record, my family comes from Ireland, but moved to England a few generations ago. I was not personally responsible for events that happened before I was born, and neither are my parents, but that didn't stop my mother only missing an IRA bomb because her tube was late.

When open wi-fi is outlawed...

[johnny cashed]

You know, only outlaws will open wi-fi. Seriously, terrorists will use cracking techniques to open "closed" wi-fi networks. From what I understand, wi-fi security is weak and easily cracked anyway.

Re:When open wi-fi is outlawed...

[Overzeetop]

Well, it is in the name of preventing the high crime of "taking credit for a terrorist act via email" (note that if it had been "...on the internet" it could have been patented).

Apparently, somebody got frustrated that they couldn't track down the low level flunkie who sent the message because it was done on an uncontrolled wifi connection. Apparently, while the terrorists are good at using anonymous email, they lack the skills to send a letter anonymously through physical post without leaving those key identifying marks which always lead investigators to get the bad guys (...in the movies).

Re:When open wi-fi is outlawed...

[pwizard2]

wi-fi security is weak and easily cracked anyway. That is only true for WEP, which has been next to useless for years. WPA/WPA2 was still decent the last time I checked.

Post-Fix

[aalu.paneer]

The current Indian government is the most ineffective and clueless one. The emails are sent after the bombs have gone off, after the victims are dead or injured. The damage is done. The terrorist will find another way of sending their message. Shutting down Open Wi-fi will achieve nothing!

Re:Post-Fix

[JSBiff]

While I tend to agree with the final conclusion, I would like to point one thing out - this doesn't appear to be about preventing the already occured terrorist attack, obviously, but about trying to get some way for law enforcement officials to try to track the sender of the email. Find the sender of the email, and you might be able to covertly spy on him, and figure out who he's working with. Honestly, I don't know if they'll ever really be able to track the emails back to a source anyhow - I'm not sure that making open wi-fi illegal will matter much - there must be a million ways around that. . .

* Check into a hotel with WiFi access, pay with cash, register under a fake identity

* Have someone send the email from another country

* break into a business or residence with Internet access and physically plug in to a network which does not require username/pass

* Kidnap someone and beat their username/password out of them with a rubber hose

That's a relief!

[roystgnr]

Traceroute tells me that it's 26 hops from me to the first computer in India I tried, and that looks like it's getting dangerously close to their default 30 hop max. Now, I don't know enough about network protocols to be sure of the best way to prune that route back if it grows to 27 hops, but I bet this new idea of singling out the guy running router number 26 and arresting him should work just fine. Clearly India's regulators know almost as much as I do about the Internets!

Is it worth it?

[expat.iain]

These knee-jerk reactions to anything terrorist related are going to continue to cost society dearly as a whole. Each time there is some attack the politicians leap forward with all kinds of measures to restrict our freedoms, instead of tackling the core issues.

We need to wake up and stop punishing our own communities for the actions of others.

Background.

[Vellmont]

For anyone wondering about the background to this move, you could start with the Wikipedia article"

Re:Background.

[Free the Cowards]

Did I miss the part where it explained how the terrorists in question used open wifi as part of their attacks, or are you just saying that it's another case of government using terrorism as an excuse to crack down on something?

Stinks of corruption.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is doing nothing to combat terrorism.

Sounds like the telecoms just want more people to go home and pay for badwith.

Re:Stinks of corruption.

[Spatial]

It could just as easily be abject stupidity or ignorance on the part of policy makers; the typical practise of taking action with no regard as to its effectiveness.

sounds hard to enforce

[poetmatt]

beyond this sounding odd from a US-perspective (even though this isn't a US thing), would this even be enforceable? I mean can you really force someone to not be able to just hid their SSID or mac filter or something?

I do understand that it would set a legal precedent over there, etc...but still.

Re:sounds hard to enforce

[tepples]

I mean can you really force someone to not be able to just hid their SSID or mac filter or something?

Anyone can crack the 26-digit WEP key in minutes. From there, you can pick up SSIDs from association requests and snoop on the MAC that sends and receives each packet. Still, the use of WEP, hidden SSIDs, and MAC filtering keeps casual leeches out and establishes an attacker's intent to enter the network.

Re:sounds hard to enforce

[poetmatt]

Well yes, you and I understand that, but I didn't think it was necessary to mention that all forms of protection are useless if someone intends to gain access to the router.

However, my question remained as to whether you can truly control whether someone can provide open access or not.

Mod parent up.

[TheLink]

Yeah exactly what I was thinking.

If they really want to catch terrorists, perhaps the government should secretly sponsor many free open wifi spots - fast access, no blocking etc.

And then log the traffic, mac addresses and rough physical locations (you can do triangulation to figure where the users are).

And also plant cameras in the vicinity.

So when the bombers log on to brag about it, there is a higher chance of the cops being able to pick them up for "investigation".

It's even great that they use email - you could automate stuff on receipt of the email.

Expensive? Yes. Effective? I don't know, but probably more effective than trying to discourage open wifi.

Mod parent up

[Chrisq]

Good pint, cultural homogeneity may or may not be necessary but it is certainly not sufficient.

What are you supposed to authenticate?

[Anonymous Coward]

With the drink, it's "authenticate the age".

With wifi, is it "authenticate they are not a terrorist"?

Re:What are you supposed to authenticate?

[idontgno]

With the drink, it's "authenticate how old they are."

With wifi, it's "authenticate who they are."

See, the parallel construction works just fine. It's not that much of a stretch.

Now, within the letter of this "law", you could still allow "anonymous" access:

WAP: "Who are you?"
User: "I'm A. Nony Mouse".
WAP, to himself: "Is 'A. Nony Mouse' allowed access? Since the authorized users list is the regular expression '.*', yes, he is authorized."
WAP: "Welcome, Mr. Mouse"

Perfect compliance with the stated guidelines. Note the absence of any requirement:

• to validate that an identity is genuine
• to log or retain the submitted identity
• to limit access in any fashion

Futility. It doesn't take that much cleverness to obey the guideline and still carry on as usual.

If the authorities are serious about stamping out WAP-based anonymity, they're gonna have to try harder.

Re:What are you supposed to authenticate?

[Venik]

With wifi, it's "authenticate who they are."

No, not really. With wifi you are not actually authenticating the identity of the person using the connection. Not unless you assign a police officer to stand guard next to every wifi NIC and check photo IDs. With wifi all you can hope to authenticate is the identity of the "user" - a mythical creature that exists only in the password file. This "user" is allowed to enter because he knows a secret handshake. But you still have no idea who he is.

Re:What are you supposed to authenticate?

[strjms72]

isn't this more of an authentification of the computer itself (the ip) than the person who's using it? there is no way of knowing for sure unless there's indeed a police officer next to the person who's using it

We will see it in the US

[mordred99]

Hell .. we will see this kind of policies from ISPs really soon once people start using the excuse "But my WAP was open and I don't know if someone used it for this criminal act." The *iaa will start sending their dogs down the path of forcing ISPs and their lapdogs in congress to make sure that we know exactly WHO is on WHAT IP address at all times so all actions can be accountable. Think I am being crazy? Just wait and see.

Re:We will see it in the US

[idontgno]

The *iaa will start sending their dogs down the path of forcing ISPs and their lapdogs in congress to make sure that we know exactly WHO is on WHAT IP address at all times so all actions can be accountable. Think I am being crazy?

Yes, I think you're crazy, but I also think you're right.

In India, ongoing murderous terrorist violence against innocent citizens provokes a government drive to suppress Internet anonymity. In the US, it seems quite likely that the impetus for the government to take comparable action would be media pigopolies continuing to "lose revenues to piracy".

Re:We will see it in the US

[mapsjanhere]

While being haunted by the MIAA might be annoying and/or costly, it can get really serious if someone gets into child porn using your IP. Since "attempted download" is enough to get you criminally prosecuted, and the FBI is using honeypots to draw people in, your open WAP IP address can become a serious source of pain. Even worse if you used some rudimentary but inefficient protection like WEP and you then try to explain "that you must have been hacked". What coincidentally is the reason I use wired networking ...

Re:We will see it in the US

[bendodge]

Just wait. IPv6 will make this much easier to enact. Much as I like IPv6 over 4, it has some very scary privacy implications.

Re:We will see it in the US

[mordred99]

There is always a bit of genius in insanity.

Re:We will see it in the US

[mordred99]

I am thinking that they will use the guise of kiddie porn and terrorism or (insert morally outrageous thing here) to try to make the internet as traceable as possible. There are two problems I see. One, they are trying to put the onus on the individual. Individuals are not tech savvy enough to know every which way they can be exploited to get a person to piggy back on their network. Two, people won't know the rules/laws. I mean I know all about "ignorance of the law is not excuse to break it" but have you seen the criminal laws in each state (on a shelf) plus, federal? What about regulations that are not even laws but you still have to follow them? People cannot be expected to follow every law out there. Everyone (even the President) breaks some law each day somehow, most probably without their knowledge. It is just tolerated. Tacitus (a Roman Senator said) "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." I see this every day. We will get to the point where no one will be able to do anything but stay at home so the government or someone else will be able to listen to what they said. Off the the mountains I go :)

Re:We will see it in the US

[mordred99]

Game over man .. Game over .. we are all screwed .. The man is going to find us. Not me man .. Hack the system ... Hack they sys*disconnected*

Re:We will see it in the US

[corsec67]

The *iaa will start sending their dogs down the path of forcing ISPs and their lapdogs in congress to make sure that we know exactly WHO is on WHAT IP address at all times so all actions can be accountable.

That would require some fundamental changes to how IP works.
Things like anycast mean that right now there are more than a few IP addresses that go to multiple computers.

OK, I "permit" everyone!

[microcars]

"...permit access to internet to only authorised persons using wireless devices."

If I own the "wireless device" can't I "authorise" EVERYONE and ANYONE who accesses it to "use" it?

Even if they ban Open WiFi,(which was alluded to in the article...) you could still throw up a splash page that welcomes them to your network and gives a username and password if they want to continue.
A number of hotels I have stayed at recently do this, the network is "closed" but all you do is open a web browser and click to agree to the TOS. Then you are good to go.

Re:OK, I "permit" everyone!

[shermo]

Most free wifi networks work like that. You have to agree not to look at porn while you're drinking your coffee.

Just put in a "I promise not to plan terrorist attacks" clause in there and I'm sure you'll be fine. It works for EULAs, right?

Wardriving cops

[tepples]

However, my question remained as to whether you can truly control whether someone can provide open access or not.

Have a police officer wardrive, and if he can associate to an AP without establishing intent, the owner of the house where the AP has the strongest signal doesn't enjoy the safe harbor protection.

Poor assumption

[PPH]

All of this assumes that terrorists can be tracked by monitoring on-line activity. Yes, they may now be using anonymous Internet access. But terrorist cells are small and can effectively organize by communicating face to face.

This is a symptom of lazy cops. Its easier to set up a system to comb through e-mail and IMs than it is to do community policing and gt to know who the troublemakers are.

Ignorant

[duggi]

Do you know how diverse and unorganised India is? Technology that connects people will also make terrorists job easier. And its not a once in a decade or millennium business, I call my friends in Bangalore asking were they OK, and they ask me the next day was I OK ( one month ago, and Im not talking about delhi blasts or jaipur blasts)!!
The government has too many troubles tracking explosives, naxalites, terrorists, riots, strikes and all that, the least Indians can do is give it a break. And if people know you well in your neighborhood, you dont need any of that stuff. I havent given this guy in ahmedabad my photo or anything, just told him Im studying at so and so place, and he trusts me.
Nobody is giving up liberties here, the government is trying to catch the unwanted(surplus) liberty from people who can afford it.
I know it is too easy to comment from far away, but a bit of research and contextual familiarity, your opinion might be considered. Or else you are just a westerner warming the chair and giving his opinion.

Re:Ignorant

[oldspewey]

Do you know how diverse and unorganised India is?

I'm going to go with "super diverse" and "painfully disorganized"

Re:What a consequence

[eosp]

In Sweden, it is common to either leave one's door unlocked so that passers-by can use the restroom, or have the house laid out such that a restroom is accessible from outside without passing through the house.

Effective Authentication?

[mweather]

Either they have a different definition of "effective authentication", or they're essentially banning WiFi.

Stupid idea!! Pain for everyone except the crooks

[gsgriffin]

Like a lot of laws that are drawn up to "stop the bad guys", this will do nothing to stop them and cause internet cops to run around looking for open wifi and causing the innocent newbies to do more work and call technical support more often. Let's be real. The bad guys will get on any way they like and using false names if they must. The good guys will be forced to do more and stop offering for free what they want. Isn't this in line with the "open wifi for everyone"? What happened to that vision?

mod parent up

[commodoresloat]

This is exactly correct. Centering everything on "cultural homogeneity" is ludicrous when there are so many other characteristics of the societies that play a much more obvious and direct role here. Particularly when you look at the history of truly culturally homogenous cultures over time.

Much saner approach

[cdrguru]

A much saner approach would simply to require ISPs to include in their terms of service and service contract a statement that says in signing up for service the account holder is responsible for all actions taken through use of the account.

I think you will likely find language like that already present in some, but not all service agreements today. It hasn't been enforced heavily, but it would eliminate a lot of silliness that exists today. You sign up for the account, you are responsible. Period.

Yes, this means that if you have an open WiFi service for your neighbors you take the heat for their downloading child porn, sending threatening letters to the President and so on. Unfortunately, from a law enforcement perspective there are few alternatives other than a camera that takes pictures every time the keyboard is used. And that isn't even a 100% solution, no matter how invasive it might seem.

The problem today is that for the most part, unless you brag, your exploits on the Internet cannot be tracked back to you. Sure, they have an IP address. But there is no connection between an IP address and a person. There isn't even a solid connection between an IP address and a computer. This means the Internet is a law-free zone today for people clever enough to contain their glee at describing their exploits in their personal crime blog.

Just like in the Wild West days, commerce eventually forced the elimination of widespread crime without law enforcement. Commerce and crime are pretty much polar opposites and if you are going to have one you cannot have the other - at least not in large quantities. The fact that I can steal your money, make purchases in your name, "borrow" anything digital that I want and never be held accountable is a problem. One solution is to simply enforce that the account holder is responsible for traffic on their account - certainly until proven otherwise.

There are plenty of examples of this type of accountability today.

Re:Much saner approach

[mordred99]

Great .. but there are two things that are holding this back. It has to be in written in plain English - I mean like 4th grade English. That way EVERYONE can figure it out. This means it has to be stated simply and absolutely. None of this lawyer speak many of us can understand, but the dude that left school in the 3rd grade 25 years ago can understand so he can get part of the universal internet.

Secondly .. hardware and computers have to be secure by default. I know how to configure firewalls, and make my networks secure, however my father doesn't. He has a MS in Mechanical Engineering and BS in Electrical Engineering. He is freaking smart, but cannot get nor comprehend a linksys router for his home and why he needs to secure it, or how to do it. My ex had a computer - and got a cable modem. Her PC was XP home, Gold (no SP) since the PC had not been turned on in 5 years, but it was free. The cable company came out, ran the cable, and hooked up her computer and left. 5 minutes later there were pop-ups and it was infected. I fixed it for her but even now - she has 8 toolbars installed and crap. Why? Because the computer tells her she has to to view the site. Again - Not educated in computers, just knows how to login to webmail and that is all.

Look - I am not trying to be a pessimist but I just see that we are all going to have to be security experts to understand what is going on in the cyber world, as well as lawyers to understand the laws in the real world, as well as chemists to understand our food ingredients. We do not have the education system for that. No one does.

Same shit happened in Egypt

[Amamdouh]

A few months ago it became illegal to offer free access wifi in cafes, users had to obtain scratch cards and verify them the first time through the mobile phone. This way supposedly the government could link traffic to identities. Then the scratch card became for money instead of free, only one company is offering this service which makes one wonder if security was the only motive. What these fuckers don't get is that a person with ill intentions can still bypass all these stupid systems.

Re:And of the cows and rats and

[Lucky75]

I was referring to the part where they say: "ll ISPs may be instructed to ensure that their subscribers using wireless devices must use effective authentication mechanisms" I figured that they were worried about tracking what people do on the internet, but this could be bypassed somewhat by tunneling through other computers or using proxies.

TRAI got slashdotted

[louzer]

TRAI website has shutdown due excessive traffic.

Congratulations India

[Deliveranc3]

Openness of ideas hits another hurdle.

Fail.

Re:What a consequence

[lyml]

As a swedish person I can attest to that simply not being true. Sure it's true in the northern cities with very low population numbers but in Stockholm or any other major city, that would be outright false.

Same in Italy

[lus89]

In Italy it's illegal to share your Internet connection with Anyone, even your neighbours, since 3-4 years, thanks to Mr Berlusconi and an Anti-Terror law by Mr Pisanu.

We should celebrate those people...

[st33med]

who use the essid 'linksys' on an open network.

Gun Control Means

[fast turtle]

Every American Citizen over the age of 16 be armed and dangerous with the government providing both the training and a standard format firearm (eg: 9mm or .45 ACP) based upon personal preferences. Throw out two thirds of the damn laws and make dueling legal with full rules and regulations/public referees to oversee such events. Hell even charge a damn fee for the privilege of dueling so that it's almost self supporting.

Now if we were to implement this simple change to our legal system, we could easily reduce the level of policing now required, criminal prosecution and jail costs by at least one half since most of the crooks would already be dead while ensuring that people are a whole lot more polite once again.

telco license

[neonsignal]

Isn't it illegal in most jurisdictions to provide third party access to wireless communications without a telco license? (not that I think it should be). It's just that many people are providing access by accident :-) Man, you used to have to study morse code just to even be allowed to say hello on CB radio.

Not possible without a warrant...

[freedom_india]

You have never been to india.
Stringent laws that prevent a cop from sampling anything without a warrant.
Just a few months ago a huge telco spying scandal resulted in ouster of a few ministers and a few top cops.
The Telco blew the whistle that it was approached by these jokers to spy on a few political opponents, without warrants.
The press had a field day tearing into cops.
TV hosts were joking that cops were trying to overhear talks between you and your GF.
Plus the Left parties threatened to bring the government down and impeach a few,
The Indian PATRIOT Act equivalent was repealed because of human rights violations. Only that act allowed warrantless spying.
With that gone, the cops have to get a court order for spying on anything. And courts here are known for their deliberate refusals. For fun.
I don't know whether to be happy or sad.

They'll call Surrey.

[delysid-x]

Half of India has moved to, or is planning to move to, Southwestern Canada. We have decent (though expensive) internet connectivity here, they could post their attack shit from here where we have at least one open wifi point per block.

What about my freedom?

[ashwin42]

which I will loose once a terrorist uses my open wifi to send a terror email.

Take the case of an American citizen Ken Haywood who literally high tailed it out of India with just his family and a few personal possessions when the police discovered that his ISP connection was used to send a terror email related to the recent bomb blasts here. It was later determined that his open wifi connection was used for this purpose. But he suffered nonetheless, he was questioned, had to undergo a lie detector test etc... He got away lightly because he was an American.

Indian citizens would be immediately arrested for the same mistake.

I believe in sharing and freedom of speech. However, when my own freedom is threatened because of an insecure network, I am not going to wait for the government to pass a law to start using WPA2.

People who dont understand this have not experienced Indian police stations.

And this is the reason behind it

[aloshbennett]

Indian police raided the Mumbai home of an American expatriate after someone used his open wireless network to send an email that took responsibility for a bomb blast that killed at least 42 people. http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/08/01/terrorist_email/