For you to lock your car, do you need to read the manual? Absolutely not. Your car is opt-in (you have to attach the "borrow me!" sign), whereas the wireless connection is opt-out. We've all seen enough "Linksys", "D-Link", etc. SSIDs to know that not everyone opts out (whether willingly or not). The car will not take the initiative to whore itself out to anyone that takes a look, the unmodified AP will. Shall I go on?
Those are differences. I am both stupid and ignorant; it would be egotistical and blindingly unaware of myself to say otherwise. However, even with these flaws I can confidently say there is are obvious differences.
We can't attack issues like this by making analogies and sticking to ideologies that fit those analogies. We must not be lazy. We need to put original thought towards new problems that rise with technology spreading to even the most ignorant.
However, back to the original article I believe this law would both be unenforceable and horribly out of place. As others have mentioned one may accidentally connect to an unprotected network. I know that the nm-applet on many Linux distros will automatically connect to an SSID if it's connected before. Windows does the same. Additionally, connecting to a network alone does not pose much threat. The actions taken while on that network are the real problem, and are something more enforceable and logical.
Slashdot Mirror
Rover = Old Yeller? (Or zombie Yeller depending on future financing)
For you to lock your car, do you need to read the manual? Absolutely not. Your car is opt-in (you have to attach the "borrow me!" sign), whereas the wireless connection is opt-out. We've all seen enough "Linksys", "D-Link", etc. SSIDs to know that not everyone opts out (whether willingly or not). The car will not take the initiative to whore itself out to anyone that takes a look, the unmodified AP will. Shall I go on?
Those are differences. I am both stupid and ignorant; it would be egotistical and blindingly unaware of myself to say otherwise. However, even with these flaws I can confidently say there is are obvious differences.
We can't attack issues like this by making analogies and sticking to ideologies that fit those analogies. We must not be lazy. We need to put original thought towards new problems that rise with technology spreading to even the most ignorant.
However, back to the original article I believe this law would both be unenforceable and horribly out of place. As others have mentioned one may accidentally connect to an unprotected network. I know that the nm-applet on many Linux distros will automatically connect to an SSID if it's connected before. Windows does the same. Additionally, connecting to a network alone does not pose much threat. The actions taken while on that network are the real problem, and are something more enforceable and logical.
It's not a big truck, it's a series of tubes!