I agree with your evaluation of the iPhone. Remember, no matter what handset you're using, you can always bolt on point-to-point crypto if you're concerned about ensuring privacy in an unfriendly climate. It can actually be done fairly inexpensively.
Sort of an undercover, guerilla-style "TeleLeaks" operation. It has a certain appeal... not that I'm advocating illegally wiretapping anyone or anything.
If I could figure out how to motivate people to act on their beliefs like you do, this country would be a much better place.
Sadly, I'm shocked when someone knows who their representatives in government are, much less care enough to make their voice heard on important issues.
I wish you all the best with such efforts, but please remember that people don't buy the iPhone because it's better than competing devices. People buy the iPhone because marketing campaigns measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars and brand recognition works.
I care about this issue as much as you. Unfortunately, it's really hard to get people to care about things that (1) they don't think will happen to them, (2) they don't think will negatively impact their lives should it happen after all, and (3) they don't have a good understanding of, even when given the basic facts of the matter.
It's hard enough for me to find people who can tell me who the governor of their home state is, let alone folks who understand the idea that the Constitution enumerates inalienable rights. A lot of people honestly believe the government gives them their rights, and as such can take them away. Many people view government as a shadowy beast to be feared, and the idea that government officials work for them is completely alien.
In my experience, boycotts are a great way to apply local pressure on a business that's engaging in bad practices, but an ineffective means of changing the behavior of large corporations (unless the offense is immediately recognizable as severe to a large percentage of the public).
... if they get immunity and the public never finds out what happened, the only other logical next step is to convince everyone I know not to get an iPhone. Problems like this aren't limited to a single carrier. Boycotting Apple hardware isn't going to get you very far in the defense of civil liberties.
Once again, the basic foundation of law is simple: That which is not expressly forbidden is permitted. I do not require your consent to receive and transmit on radio frequencies emanating from your home with no authentication mechanism is between my computer and the public Internet. It's exactly as if you had a bunch of CAT-5 line running out to the street with connectors just waiting for someone to walk by.
It's clear from his actions that he understood what he was doing and whether he thought it was wrong or not. No argument there. The issue is the broader ramifications of laws against using open connections, such as innocent people going to jail for using a business owner or private person's connection when they have no objection to such behavior. It has happened.
One. Last. Time. I never made the assertion that Apple was warned. I noted that we don't have information either way from the source material (as in, Apple has not publicly stated that they weren't warned, nor have they acknowledged any sort of prior warning).
I'm sorry if you feel offended by Slashdot's editorial policies, but here's some harsh reality for you: I'm certain they don't give a flying fuck what you think.
Either you're completely incapable of reason, or you're a rather effective troll. Or both.
Maybe I'm on the wrong track here, but I guess I assumed that wiretapping now happened in secret rooms at the telco, and not by affixing something physically to a wire in your home, but I'll definitely be aware next time I hear a stranger breathing next time I'm stuck on hold. The type of surveillance you describe is indeed occuring, but it's not particularly selective in many cases. What's concerning is the fact that wiretapping occurs a lot more than people realize, for a variety of reasons, by private and public sector parties. As I'm sure you're aware, physical access is rarely required to accomplish the task these days.
If you know enough about technology to claim someone is stealing your wifi when it is completely open then you know enough how to make it NOT completely open and its your fault. That's the most awesome point I've seen in this entire discussion. Unfortunately, there have been cases where police officers have witnessed someone outside a business using a WiFi connection, and arrested the person for unlawful access, even though the connection's owner had no problem whatsoever with the act. This is why broad scope laws against such behavior are extremely dangerous; the prosecutor decides whether to pursue charges, and prosecutors are politicians.
"I was only protecting the citizens on this county from themselves!" I can see it now.
This is because you don't need permission to use things of other people. I know people think you do, but you really don't. It's only theft if you deprive people of the thing. It is not theft, or even criminal in way, if you sit on someone car, or pick up a book someone left laying around and read it. It's only theft if you remove the thing so they can't use it, or 'use up' or damage the thing so you can't give it back. You really ought to read my other posts on this story. I'm in agreement with you; I was merely addressing the question of whether a wireless networking router qualifies as a computer.
I'd make the case that with home routers left unsecured, the intent is also crystal clear. Every manual I've seen for such devices warns the consumer to set up WEP encryption at a minimum, and to change the default router admin password.
If the default behavior of the operating system is to connect to unadvertised access points, you're not at fault. In this case, it was a friend's machine; the ethical fault would lie with him if he configured the machine to act in this manner.
No, the SSID should be the sole indicator of whether access is permitted. However, common courtesy keeps me from walking through the unlocked front doors of strangers uninvited, laws against such behavior notwithstanding.
I've never done any of the things you describe, because I consider them to be highly unethical. In my mind, connecting to an unadvertised resource fails the ethics test because there's no way anyone could reasonably imply that consent was given.
Those who crack networks by breaking WEP, spoofing keys, or other measures should be held legally accountable. People who merely access an open, advertised resource shouldn't be at risk of going to prison.
It's a computer. Home networking appliances are simple devices compared to your desktop PC, but they're still computers. More sophisticated routers can be bought or built for cases where things like multiple authentication methods, traffic shaping, etc are needed. At the end of the day, they still perform the same basic functions as an el cheapo Linksys router.
Now, to make a simple analogy, if I leave a desktop computer running in the middle of the street, powered on and lacking any authentication mechanism, should I be able to throw a passerby in jail for using it to check his email?
Then, I have never stolen WiFi. I have never accessed without authorization; as I have never cracked a WEP or WPA password scheme. That's the key to the whole debate. I've had a WiFi router at my home and various offices for years. If I enable features designed to limit access (MAC address checking, WEP/WPA encryption, etc) and someone tries to spoof and/or brute force their way into my network, that's theft of service and unauthorized access. If my router is set up for wide open access, I'm granting permission for anyone to use it.
In general, laws are designed to work like this: that which is not expressly forbidden is permitted. We're talking about radio waves here; before anyone starts up with some dumb analogy to parked cars and leaving the keys in them, consider this: when you use a resource I have made freely available, you're not denying me access to it. Someone might make the argument that excessive use of my resource would degrade its usefulness to the primary (owning) party, but that's easily remedied using simple protection schemes (either block access entirely, or throttle access to unauthenticated clients). I've done exactly this in numerous cases, using various router packages.
Here's a sad, but interesting article: Man charged with wireless trespassing from July of 2005. To quote a section:
Wireless networks are becoming more prevalent with the spread of broadband Internet access, and many consumers are not aware of how to configure their networks to avoid unauthorized access. This man was charged with a felony because the owner of the connection failed to educate himself on how to use a point and click interface to secure a home wireless router. Was he up to no good? Maybe, but we don't know for sure, and it's beside the point. If someone were to use my connection for criminal activities, it becomes my problem to prove it was the third party's actions, and not my own that led to the violation of law. He's "innocent until proven guilty" the same as I am. This is why companies (at least ones that aren't interested in getting sued) track their network access and provide authentication schemes.
I did and you obviously don't have any information to dispute it. Didn't I just say that? I'm still waiting for you to cite evidence supporting your position that they weren't informed.
There's a huge difference between being notified on a security mailing list and having the information plastered on the front page of slashdot. A real professional would know that. Wow, what an insightful position. I guess the blackhats taking advantage of new exploits don't read security mailing lists.
A real professional would know that. I guess I'm not a real professional. Ten years of network administration in a variety of environments, code contributions to multiple rather well-known open source projects, and service in the Navy's submarine force... nah, I couldn't possibly know anything about security.
BTW, let's all thank Timothy, Pudge, and the rest of the/. gang for ensuring a fresh crop of zombie spambots, shall we? What happened to common courtesy? I thought etiquette dictated giving the manufacturer a heads up and a little time to fix their shit. I guess the ad dollars and attention whoring was just too much too resist. Enjoy your blood money fellas, the internet will suck just a little bit more thanks to you guys. Seeing as how your username is "MacDork" I've just gotta ask: would you feel the same way if this article described a Windows exploit?
Also, who says Apple wasn't notified of this problem in advance? I'm not saying they were or weren't, but I don't have data either way. This is the same community that loves to lambast Microsoft for their security issues (rightly so, in most cases), but fully supports immediate disclosure of exploits before patches are released by Microsoft (although MS has taken forever to fix many problems). As a network admin, I'm a fan of full disclosure, which gives the ability to do something about the issue until a patch is released. Others see things differently.
Let me reword your title: The more they slip through, the more the industry squeezes net rights. That's the issue here, unless someone comes along with an alternate Internet that's easily accessible to the masses but immune from **AA lobbyist influence.
Because I supply my own tools that I consider right for the job? No, because you're basing your worldview on the premise that lack of advanced IT skills makes someone unfit for any given job.
The phrase "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" comes to mind. Forensic analysis of the machine apparently showed it to be severely compromised by malware. Allow me to quote from one of TFAs:
"What I found is, he would log in to the state's Web site, he'd be on for five or 10 minutes and during the exact same time that he's filling out a form, an image shows up, out of nowhere. No typed [Uniform Resource Locator], no search, no Web site activity, just bam, a cached image shows up on his computer," Loehrs said. The offending images were located in the laptop's browser cache directory.
"He'd have 40 Web sites hitting his computer in a minute -- who's the IT guy who looked at this and said, "Wow, this guy is pretty active on the Internet?'" Loehrs said. "It's physically impossible!"
Loehrs found a script file that was set to go out and run its own searches on foreign Web sites, she said. "And once you get into some of these foreign sites, you'll get all kinds of stuff you don't want to see.
"Actually, the child pornography was just a very small portion of it. The majority was just bizarre porn. He was being hit with everything," she added. Are you still so certain of your position?
Such terms (such as "Linux Firewalls" â" with the quotes) have insufficient search volumes to display graphs according to the error message that Google Trends generates. Try Linux Firewall in quotes as the search term for some results.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your evaluation of the iPhone. Remember, no matter what handset you're using, you can always bolt on point-to-point crypto if you're concerned about ensuring privacy in an unfriendly climate. It can actually be done fairly inexpensively.
Sort of an undercover, guerilla-style "TeleLeaks" operation. It has a certain appeal... not that I'm advocating illegally wiretapping anyone or anything.
If I could figure out how to motivate people to act on their beliefs like you do, this country would be a much better place.
Sadly, I'm shocked when someone knows who their representatives in government are, much less care enough to make their voice heard on important issues.
I wish you all the best with such efforts, but please remember that people don't buy the iPhone because it's better than competing devices. People buy the iPhone because marketing campaigns measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars and brand recognition works.
I care about this issue as much as you. Unfortunately, it's really hard to get people to care about things that (1) they don't think will happen to them, (2) they don't think will negatively impact their lives should it happen after all, and (3) they don't have a good understanding of, even when given the basic facts of the matter.
It's hard enough for me to find people who can tell me who the governor of their home state is, let alone folks who understand the idea that the Constitution enumerates inalienable rights. A lot of people honestly believe the government gives them their rights, and as such can take them away. Many people view government as a shadowy beast to be feared, and the idea that government officials work for them is completely alien.
In my experience, boycotts are a great way to apply local pressure on a business that's engaging in bad practices, but an ineffective means of changing the behavior of large corporations (unless the offense is immediately recognizable as severe to a large percentage of the public).
That's what I'm babbling about.
- Slashdotters identify policitians who represent a clear danger to civil liberties.
- Slashdotters attempt to spread the word about these problems.
- The vast majority of the voting populace either doesn't hear the message, doesn't understand it, or doesn't care.
Generally, people only care about liberty when it's their own freedom being directly threatened.Once again, the basic foundation of law is simple: That which is not expressly forbidden is permitted. I do not require your consent to receive and transmit on radio frequencies emanating from your home with no authentication mechanism is between my computer and the public Internet. It's exactly as if you had a bunch of CAT-5 line running out to the street with connectors just waiting for someone to walk by.
One. Last. Time. I never made the assertion that Apple was warned. I noted that we don't have information either way from the source material (as in, Apple has not publicly stated that they weren't warned, nor have they acknowledged any sort of prior warning).
I'm sorry if you feel offended by Slashdot's editorial policies, but here's some harsh reality for you: I'm certain they don't give a flying fuck what you think.
Either you're completely incapable of reason, or you're a rather effective troll. Or both.
"I was only protecting the citizens on this county from themselves!" I can see it now.
I'd make the case that with home routers left unsecured, the intent is also crystal clear. Every manual I've seen for such devices warns the consumer to set up WEP encryption at a minimum, and to change the default router admin password.
If the default behavior of the operating system is to connect to unadvertised access points, you're not at fault. In this case, it was a friend's machine; the ethical fault would lie with him if he configured the machine to act in this manner.
No, the SSID should be the sole indicator of whether access is permitted. However, common courtesy keeps me from walking through the unlocked front doors of strangers uninvited, laws against such behavior notwithstanding.
I've never done any of the things you describe, because I consider them to be highly unethical. In my mind, connecting to an unadvertised resource fails the ethics test because there's no way anyone could reasonably imply that consent was given.
Those who crack networks by breaking WEP, spoofing keys, or other measures should be held legally accountable. People who merely access an open, advertised resource shouldn't be at risk of going to prison.
It's a computer. Home networking appliances are simple devices compared to your desktop PC, but they're still computers. More sophisticated routers can be bought or built for cases where things like multiple authentication methods, traffic shaping, etc are needed. At the end of the day, they still perform the same basic functions as an el cheapo Linksys router.
Now, to make a simple analogy, if I leave a desktop computer running in the middle of the street, powered on and lacking any authentication mechanism, should I be able to throw a passerby in jail for using it to check his email?
In general, laws are designed to work like this: that which is not expressly forbidden is permitted. We're talking about radio waves here; before anyone starts up with some dumb analogy to parked cars and leaving the keys in them, consider this: when you use a resource I have made freely available, you're not denying me access to it. Someone might make the argument that excessive use of my resource would degrade its usefulness to the primary (owning) party, but that's easily remedied using simple protection schemes (either block access entirely, or throttle access to unauthenticated clients). I've done exactly this in numerous cases, using various router packages.
Here's a sad, but interesting article: Man charged with wireless trespassing from July of 2005. To quote a section: Wireless networks are becoming more prevalent with the spread of broadband Internet access, and many consumers are not aware of how to configure their networks to avoid unauthorized access. This man was charged with a felony because the owner of the connection failed to educate himself on how to use a point and click interface to secure a home wireless router. Was he up to no good? Maybe, but we don't know for sure, and it's beside the point. If someone were to use my connection for criminal activities, it becomes my problem to prove it was the third party's actions, and not my own that led to the violation of law. He's "innocent until proven guilty" the same as I am. This is why companies (at least ones that aren't interested in getting sued) track their network access and provide authentication schemes.
Also, who says Apple wasn't notified of this problem in advance? I'm not saying they were or weren't, but I don't have data either way. This is the same community that loves to lambast Microsoft for their security issues (rightly so, in most cases), but fully supports immediate disclosure of exploits before patches are released by Microsoft (although MS has taken forever to fix many problems). As a network admin, I'm a fan of full disclosure, which gives the ability to do something about the issue until a patch is released. Others see things differently.
Let me reword your title: The more they slip through, the more the industry squeezes net rights. That's the issue here, unless someone comes along with an alternate Internet that's easily accessible to the masses but immune from **AA lobbyist influence.
"He'd have 40 Web sites hitting his computer in a minute -- who's the IT guy who looked at this and said, "Wow, this guy is pretty active on the Internet?'" Loehrs said. "It's physically impossible!"
Loehrs found a script file that was set to go out and run its own searches on foreign Web sites, she said. "And once you get into some of these foreign sites, you'll get all kinds of stuff you don't want to see.
"Actually, the child pornography was just a very small portion of it. The majority was just bizarre porn. He was being hit with everything," she added. Are you still so certain of your position?
From the Wikipedia entry on the definition:
Non sequitur (IPA:
- Non sequitur (logic), a logical fallacy (no fallacy here, just asking for citation of supporting evidence to back up your position)
- Non sequitur (humor), a comment that has no relation to the preceding comment or to an ongoing discussion or topic.(nope, definitely on-topic)
- Non Sequitur (comic strip), a comic strip by Wiley Miller (nope)
- "Non Sequitur" (Star Trek: Voyager), an episode of Star Trek: Voyager (doesn't match this one, either)
All fun aside, you seem a bit trigger happy and more than a tad arrogant. Perhaps you were having a bad day when you posted your reply.