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."
What about proxies or tunnels then?
DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
Wont they use the mail box down the street?.
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.
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...
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.
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?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
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!
where did my sig go? where's my sig at?
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!
For anyone wondering about the background to this move, you could start with the Wikipedia article"
AccountKiller
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.
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.
Just wait. IPv6 will make this much easier to enact. Much as I like IPv6 over 4, it has some very scary privacy implications.
The government can't save you.
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:
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.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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.
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.