Absolutly correct. Every WiFi AP I have seen so far has a tab in the control interface that ways security. This is obvious enough even for the beginner. Go there and enable WEP. At this point you have closed the door to the house and locked the door knob. A security bolt is not yet in place but you have now indicated my house/network is now available to those that ask and I grant permission only. If I buy a house I am expected to protect it. If I set up a network I should also be expected to protect it. It is also true that computer stores do not give all the information to buyers because if they over inform they turn them off. They are not deceiving by doing this. Both situations come down to it being the network owners responsibility to be a good network citizen by closing his network if he does not want intrusion.
On the contrary, there a millions of laws set up to protect stupid people from other stupid people. There are also a few setup to protect stupid people for smart people. Both sets tend to only sort of work and cost many billions of dollars a year in the legal system for what a few 10 dollar locks properly used could have preventd. This law simply recognizes the fact that as an american citizen you also have the responsibility for not wasting public resources. After all thats what we have politicians for.
I am not disagreeing with you. It should not be an invitation. Be that as it may, the 802.11 specification is flawed in that it did not contain anyway to inidicate the network is not open except to at least use the WEP security. As I said before according to the technical specs the only way to indicate I am an open network is to simply leave security turned off. This is the way the technology works. If you do not use at lease the WEP security, which then needs to hacked even if it is easy you have indicated I am an open network. As I have also said I do not war drive, I pay for my internet connectivity, have an 802.11a/b network at home ahd have security in place. I take the responsibility of providing a reason for the authorities to react if something happens. Americans (yes I am an american) think that the laws are a free ride to be lazy and stupid. In this case they are simply either too lazy, stupid or cheap to actually protect themselves in any way. They have not only not locked the house but have opened the door placed the contents on the driveway and placed a big sign with "steal it, I dare you."
Actually this example has very well detailed the standards / specifications that control this technology. You did not need to physically go outside and invite others in. You technology has done it for you and in exactly the way the standars state it should be done. Hardware and software need to be explicitly told to control access. It is like a very young child. It does not know right from wrong and needs guidence. You need to tell it not to talk to strangers.
Again, I agree that this is stealing. But if you invest in a technology that can easily be abused (such as 802.11) and do not take the time to learn how to prevent basic intrusions you are asking for problems. If you are not willing to invest the time and money, should society be willing to invest the time and money in investigating problems with your network. This law is basically saying to wireless network owners "here is a potential problem do something about it or we will not help you".
I see other problems with not recognizing this situation. If a company, such as the CVS example in the article, is placing customer information on an open wireless network with no protections should they not be prosecuted for criminal neglegense?
Sorry making changing MAC addresses illegal is not feasable. There are valid reasons for doing this that are not forgery. Lots of them have to do with high availability concepts and will become more common in the future.
Actually I think we have. Open frequency, not WEP, no firewall/protection of any kind. This defaults to a standard. I do not get into these networks. Quite frankly I have better things to do. But progmatically speaking would be very difficult for you average detective to get anywhere with this case.
Yes it is the burglar's fault. But is also yours. Laws are set up to prosecute offenders but this takes money. Usually alot of money. Decent laws place responsibility on the owner to secure his residence or whatever he/she is expecting the law to defend for him. This is done for two reasons. One is to reduce the cost of enforcment on society and the other is to reduce the number of nusense problems blocking much more important problems. This is why the penalties for walking into an unlocked house are much less that breaking into a locked house. To equate this with the wireless network analogy, if you broadcast a wireless signal with no protections you have unlocked and opened the door and started a continous message saying "Hi I am not home right now so take something and I will ask the police to find you if they can".
Oops hit submit too early. His excuse was "it never did that before". Using the excuse of "well I did not know how to secure my network so the government should prosecute everybody how get in" is along the the same lines of reasoning. Live stupid, die stupid. We need protecting from them also.
God a law that makes sense. Many years ago while I went in to pay for gas at a 7/11 some numnuts in a hurry left his car running in the parking lot. A couple of minutes later it backed up right into the side of mine. Several thousands of dollars damage later his insurance wanted to total my car. At the time I was in school and broke and could not buy a depenable car for what they wanted to give me. People who leave there cars running are belching polution into the air for nothing but stupidity. Sounds like a good law to me.
Actually the RIAA is trying to reverse much of what has been considered "fair use" in the past by redefining the concept of ownership. With intellectual property ownership can mean many different things based on the patent and copyright laws. With wireless there is not physical connection. Could it be more related to IP issues than the old try and true "momy he toke my toy"?
My opinion is that yes it is theft. Laws are put in place to place known limits set by society on the actions of others. This puts the responsibiltiy for deciding and punishing guilt on society as a whole and removes it from one member of society.
The problem New Hampshire is trying to define is Americans lack of ability to take responsibility. Society (police and courts) should only be required to assume the costs of problems that cannot be solved by much easier and cheaper means.
This means the average person needs to be responsible enough not to leave his car ar house unlocked. He/She also needs to be responsible enough to use the basic protections built into the wireless equipement being used. Who in his right mind does not use a firewall to his or her DSL or Cable connection.
In the article the author stated he sometimes connected to the CVS drug stores wireless network. The fact that a commercial entity would not have secured its network with some kind of stong firewall and its patents perscription information could be hacked should be considered to be criminal neglegence. Where is the prosecution of these bastards.
The police and courts have there hands full handing the really bad people such as pot smokers. Why should they take your little problem seriously if you do not at lease enable WEP on your wireless network. And most of all why should my taxes pay to have somebody care about your stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutly correct. Every WiFi AP I have seen so far has a tab in the control interface that ways security. This is obvious enough even for the beginner. Go there and enable WEP. At this point you have closed the door to the house and locked the door knob. A security bolt is not yet in place but you have now indicated my house/network is now available to those that ask and I grant permission only. If I buy a house I am expected to protect it. If I set up a network I should also be expected to protect it. It is also true that computer stores do not give all the information to buyers because if they over inform they turn them off. They are not deceiving by doing this. Both situations come down to it being the network owners responsibility to be a good network citizen by closing his network if he does not want intrusion.
On the contrary, there a millions of laws set up to protect stupid people from other stupid people. There are also a few setup to protect stupid people for smart people. Both sets tend to only sort of work and cost many billions of dollars a year in the legal system for what a few 10 dollar locks properly used could have preventd. This law simply recognizes the fact that as an american citizen you also have the responsibility for not wasting public resources. After all thats what we have politicians for.
I am not disagreeing with you. It should not be an invitation. Be that as it may, the 802.11 specification is flawed in that it did not contain anyway to inidicate the network is not open except to at least use the WEP security. As I said before according to the technical specs the only way to indicate I am an open network is to simply leave security turned off. This is the way the technology works. If you do not use at lease the WEP security, which then needs to hacked even if it is easy you have indicated I am an open network. As I have also said I do not war drive, I pay for my internet connectivity, have an 802.11a/b network at home ahd have security in place. I take the responsibility of providing a reason for the authorities to react if something happens. Americans (yes I am an american) think that the laws are a free ride to be lazy and stupid. In this case they are simply either too lazy, stupid or cheap to actually protect themselves in any way. They have not only not locked the house but have opened the door placed the contents on the driveway and placed a big sign with "steal it, I dare you."
Actually this example has very well detailed the standards / specifications that control this technology. You did not need to physically go outside and invite others in. You technology has done it for you and in exactly the way the standars state it should be done. Hardware and software need to be explicitly told to control access. It is like a very young child. It does not know right from wrong and needs guidence. You need to tell it not to talk to strangers.
Again, I agree that this is stealing. But if you invest in a technology that can easily be abused (such as 802.11) and do not take the time to learn how to prevent basic intrusions you are asking for problems. If you are not willing to invest the time and money, should society be willing to invest the time and money in investigating problems with your network. This law is basically saying to wireless network owners "here is a potential problem do something about it or we will not help you". I see other problems with not recognizing this situation. If a company, such as the CVS example in the article, is placing customer information on an open wireless network with no protections should they not be prosecuted for criminal neglegense?
Sorry making changing MAC addresses illegal is not feasable. There are valid reasons for doing this that are not forgery. Lots of them have to do with high availability concepts and will become more common in the future.
I'm in. Can do a class action so the lawyers get plenty of cash and all the rest of us with AP's get $1.95 per person.
Actually I think we have. Open frequency, not WEP, no firewall/protection of any kind. This defaults to a standard. I do not get into these networks. Quite frankly I have better things to do. But progmatically speaking would be very difficult for you average detective to get anywhere with this case.
Yes it is the burglar's fault. But is also yours. Laws are set up to prosecute offenders but this takes money. Usually alot of money. Decent laws place responsibility on the owner to secure his residence or whatever he/she is expecting the law to defend for him. This is done for two reasons. One is to reduce the cost of enforcment on society and the other is to reduce the number of nusense problems blocking much more important problems. This is why the penalties for walking into an unlocked house are much less that breaking into a locked house. To equate this with the wireless network analogy, if you broadcast a wireless signal with no protections you have unlocked and opened the door and started a continous message saying "Hi I am not home right now so take something and I will ask the police to find you if they can".
Oops hit submit too early. His excuse was "it never did that before". Using the excuse of "well I did not know how to secure my network so the government should prosecute everybody how get in" is along the the same lines of reasoning. Live stupid, die stupid. We need protecting from them also.
God a law that makes sense. Many years ago while I went in to pay for gas at a 7/11 some numnuts in a hurry left his car running in the parking lot. A couple of minutes later it backed up right into the side of mine. Several thousands of dollars damage later his insurance wanted to total my car. At the time I was in school and broke and could not buy a depenable car for what they wanted to give me. People who leave there cars running are belching polution into the air for nothing but stupidity. Sounds like a good law to me.
Actually the RIAA is trying to reverse much of what has been considered "fair use" in the past by redefining the concept of ownership. With intellectual property ownership can mean many different things based on the patent and copyright laws. With wireless there is not physical connection. Could it be more related to IP issues than the old try and true "momy he toke my toy"?
My opinion is that yes it is theft. Laws are put in place to place known limits set by society on the actions of others. This puts the responsibiltiy for deciding and punishing guilt on society as a whole and removes it from one member of society. The problem New Hampshire is trying to define is Americans lack of ability to take responsibility. Society (police and courts) should only be required to assume the costs of problems that cannot be solved by much easier and cheaper means. This means the average person needs to be responsible enough not to leave his car ar house unlocked. He/She also needs to be responsible enough to use the basic protections built into the wireless equipement being used. Who in his right mind does not use a firewall to his or her DSL or Cable connection. In the article the author stated he sometimes connected to the CVS drug stores wireless network. The fact that a commercial entity would not have secured its network with some kind of stong firewall and its patents perscription information could be hacked should be considered to be criminal neglegence. Where is the prosecution of these bastards. The police and courts have there hands full handing the really bad people such as pot smokers. Why should they take your little problem seriously if you do not at lease enable WEP on your wireless network. And most of all why should my taxes pay to have somebody care about your stupidity.