Could That Be The Wireless Police Knocking? 322
netbuzz writes "Should private-property owners be required to practice safe wireless? Are the wireless police about to come a-knockin' on the front door of your castle? Network World reports on a condo complex in Arizona that will monitor your wireless signal for security. Is this the way all condos and apartment complexes should go?" From the article: "'We just kind of kicked it around the table and everybody said that's a helluva good idea, (mandatory encryption) ought to go in the declarations,' says Welch. However, a lawyer warned that wireless technology could quickly overrun any specific covenants they put to paper, 'so we decided that instead of recording (declarations) at the county that we would leave it up to the hotel manager to put it in their rules and regulations.' Why bother at all? 'We just don't want to see anybody hurt with their wireless system,' says Welch. 'If someone (unauthorized) were accessing it and an owner's information, there could be damage and a potential lawsuit.'"
paper tiger laws (Score:5, Insightful)
absolutely ridiculous. maybe they should start digging through our trash to make sure we've properly shredded our monthly bank statements too.
Furthermore, this rule would be a total paper tiger, as far as enforcement goes, since wep [which i do believe is the most common security protocol in use for wifi today] is widely known NOT to be secure [wikipedia.org]. It will be ironic when the first whitehat captures a few days worth of packets from outside that guy's home and then published the unencrypted contents of his web traffic.
Why single out wireless protection? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why single out wireless protection? (Score:5, Interesting)
It was on dumblaws.com (I can't find the link now) and its true that here in Victoria, Australia it is illegal to leave your car unattended with the keys in the ignition. I have an friend with OCD who loves to point that out to people.
Its stupid but it keeps the stupid people happy and gives them something to talk about.
Re:Why single out wireless protection? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why single out wireless protection? (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean it is a breach of contract to share your 'DSL' connection with your neighbours but I can see no reason why a group of people cannot share a wireless network... So if I move into one of these blocks and am friends with my neighbour and want to collaborate on a project the 'management will come and shut us down? What if I get a business DSL connection
Re:Why single out wireless protection? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they'll tell you to enable encryption, which you'll do, and you'll agree on a shared secret, and all will be well and you'll realise that the sky isn't falling after all. That's assuming that they have the right to impose such conditions in the first place; that'll depend on your local tenancy laws.
Re:Why single out wireless protection? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about systems that show you a gateway page unencrypted to help you gain encrypted access? Whould those be illegal?
How about you go to hell and stop telling me how to live my life. I love how people are all about civil liberties until it comes to something that they like, and then it's OK to force people to behave that way.
Here's another way for you to think about this: These rules are being put into place because the appartment complex is probably getting kickbacks from the local cable or DSL provider and they want to make sure they collect the maximum possible number of subscription fees. These rules are solely in place to protect the profits of the local monopoly. Congratulations on being a big business shill.
Re:Why single out wireless protection? (Score:4, Informative)
Regulation without enforcement is useless, and the ISPs can't enforce this. A landlord with a $14 keychain can.
It's the same reason why apartment complexs have and enforce policies against sharing cable. It's already against the cable company's rules, but the cable companies are powerless to stop it, or even tell that it's happening. That is why they either pay the complex for (illegal) sattelite dish restrictions and cable sharing restrictions. If they don't pay kickbacks, they threaten not to service the complex unless the restrictions are in place.
If you think tenancy laws matter one bit here, you've probably never lived in a very large complex. You talk about picking your battles... Lashing out against your argument is nothing. Try fighting every little breach of regulation by your landlord (or more likely: property manager). They know exactly how far they can go so that it isn't worth your time or money to take them to court, and they really push the limit.
Congratulations on being a typical over-reacting ad hominem throwing slashbot.
I feel my comment was appropriate in the context of the thread. If you chose to take it personally that's your problem. To a third party reading this story I think it accomplishes exactly what I intended.
Re:Why single out wireless protection? (Score:2)
Just like how leaving your keys in the ignition could help a criminal steal it and commit a crime, leaving your wireless internet open could let a criminal do anything they want on the internet without being traced (eg. child porn).
I know leaving the keys in the ignition of your car isn't a crime, but it's really stupid and reckless. Same with leaving your wireless network open. Most people aren't a
Re:Why single out wireless protection? (Score:2)
Like, how long does it take an expert to break into a car and steal it WITHOUT the keys, a couple of minutes?
Like, how long does it take an expert to break into your WEP secured access point these days, a couple of minutes?
Note also, that somebody who uses a public wireless
Re:Why single out wireless protection? (Score:3, Insightful)
The local hardware store sell crowbars. They ought to stop. Those crowbars could help a criminal commit a crime (eg, breaking & entering).
The real reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have an open connection then you can't be found guilty in court of any cybercrimes comitted via your Internet connection. The thought police can't bear the thought of that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is a key point... (Score:3, Interesting)
First, for the pedants, I recognize that open wireless does not necessarily imply that it's connected to the Internet.
Based on the assumption (valid for the vast majority of cases) that someone who has an open wireless network is effectively providing open Internet access through the condo-provided Internet access, then they are correct and fully within their rights in implementing rules to prevent this.
Fully open, public access = a simple entry point for
Re:paper tiger laws (Score:3, Funny)
I imagine the defense's case going something like this...
Lawyer "Mr. Doe, you set up your own independent wireless network on my client's premises, correct?"
Idiot "Yes."
Lawyer "Mr. Doe, you left the SSID or 'name' of the network at the default value and didn't add any encryption or security?"
Idiot "Yes."
Lawyer "What could my client have done to protect you from your own actions?"
Idiot "The
Re:paper tiger laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Some manufacturers of wireless equipment are just clueless and make it unnecessarily hard for people to do the right thing.
On my wireless router, there is a setup page with an html interface where all kinds of things can be changed. The problem is, it never tells you what these things are that you could change, and why you should change them, and what you could change them. One of the things to change was called "SSID" and the preset value was the name of the manufacturer.
Now how am I supposed to know what "SSID" means? If you apply logical thinking, since it is set to the name of the manufacturer, it is probably meant to be the name of the manufacturer. So the logical assumption would be that it is used to identify the make of the router, like a processor having an ID of "IntelInside" or "AMDSomething" so you know who made it, and the only reason to change it would be to pretend to be a router made by some other manufacturer.
If these idiots had set the preset field to "NameOfThisNetwork" or "TypeInNameOfTheNetworkHere" then it would have been much more obvious what SSID is for. One line change in the source code for the router software, and I guess 30 percent fewer people leaving the default name because they don't have a clue what SSID is supposed to mean.
Now that is just one minor point. But consider that there are about hundred settings, and ninetyfive of them will stop the router from working properly if I change them, so how is an end user who is not a computer expert supposed to get this right?
Re:paper tiger laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Just like any other field where you are clueless....You hire an expert. I wouldn't consider doing heart surgery on my brother who had a heart attack for the same reason.
B.
Re:paper tiger laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:paper tiger laws (Score:3, Insightful)
Experts (Score:5, Insightful)
"I wouldn't consider doing heart surgery on my brother who had a heart attack"
This is not heart surgery, it is a consumer product. It performs commonly used functions in a standard way, within standard capabilities. One should not need to hire an expert for common consumer grade functions (even when there is an incredible amount of technology 'under the covers').
In the early days of automobiles, it was necessary to hire a driver because driving was complicated and dangerous -- you could break your arm if you got it wrong starting it, and you had to manage spark advance and several other long-since-automated controls in addition to the throttle, brake and clutch. Now, hardly anyone even knows what is under the hood.
In early networking, there were many protocols, and IP addresses were set by hand. It is now approaching the point where it is a plug-and-play product, and this is GOOD.
Progress is not only making the previously impossible, possible -- progress is also making the previously difficult, easy.
Technologists who understand this will have more and happier customers. Technologists who don't are almost as bad as Luddites in holding back technology.
The GP post is absolutely right -- the top-level UI should hide functions that are not commonly changed, and make clear what should be changed ("YourNetworkNameHere" is a GREAT idea). Uncommon, expert level functions should be available, but only via deeper UI levels.
Not a law, it's a condo rule. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the owners decided to implement access point security and pool their resources to provide monitoring (I guess, the article isn't too clear on enforcement methodology). Why isn't the
Re:paper tiger laws (Score:2)
Re:paper tiger laws (Score:2)
Anyways, if it's a whole-building network, as some comments have implied (too lazy to RTFA) and they're not subnetting each user separately, the situation is exactly the same when Joe Moron plugs his PC directly in to the cable in their apartmentm just like what occured on older cable modem systems..
Re:paper tiger laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Step 1 : Type the name of your network here __________
Step 2 : This is the generated WPA key of your network write it down and enter it in the gadgets you want to talk to this AP, alternatively enter your own key
If you lose/forget the key, press the reset key on the AP and rerun the wizard.
There is a moderate risk in this if the random number generator creates predictable keys.
It's always seemed to me like a very simple way to solve the problem yet I've never seen a setup routine go that way.
oh thank you nanny state (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:oh thank you nanny state (Score:2)
Re:oh thank you nanny state (Score:2)
could you explain this one to me please
Re:oh thank you nanny state (Score:2)
The path of least resistance is usually the one taken.
Re:oh thank you nanny state (Score:2)
Your front door isn't very secure. It wouldn't take long to pick the lock, and even if you put a better lock on, it wouldn't take long to pop a bit of the framing off and saw through the bolt. However, the fact that it is actually locked is enough for most people to get the idea that you don't want just anybody wandering in off the street.
Potential lawsuit? (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, maybe some people don't care if they open up their internet connection! As long as they keep their PC(s) reasonably firewalled, and perhaps use an alternate form of encryption at a higher level, it's possible to open up one's internet connection without opening up one's internal network.
Re:Potential lawsuit? (Score:2)
If you want to share your internet connection, that's why you can give out your key to whoever you want to be able to use it.
Even assuming a person's computer is 100% protected, someone could still piggyback on their connection to do various illegal things involving the internet, as well as things that will get the **AA to drag YOU to court. Or they could always run p2p apps full blast and slow your connection to a crawl.
Re:Potential lawsuit? (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not you could say that I am responsible for what use people make of it is for the courts to decide.
Re:Potential lawsuit? (Score:3, Interesting)
The RIAA may be able to sue you for what someone else does; however, it does provide a certain level of plausable deniability when _you_ are the one doing it in the first place.
Re:Potential lawsuit? (Score:2)
But... If I let anyone use my access point, with no discrimination whatsoever, am I not a common carrier and thus not responsible for their actions ? And if not, then what additional steps would that require ?
Is that what this is really about - make sure that everyone uses the Internet f
Re:Potential lawsuit? (Score:2)
Re:Potential lawsuit? (Score:2)
I run an open AP in my house. There might be enough range for my neighbours on the west side to use it and thats fine with me. I have a 48G/month cable connection. Traffic between my nodes runs over SSH or a different SSL application.
These people should just get a wireless service for the entire complex and be done with it. Wireless access is rapidly becoming a free loss leader anyway.
go for it (Score:3, Informative)
Set the station address for the specified interface. The
mac_address is specified as a series of six hexadecimal values
separated by colons, e.g., ``00:60:1d:12:34:56''. This programs
the new address into the card and updates the interface as well.
Rediculous... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should any government, company or anyone else worry about someone else's network connection security -- unless they're being paid by that party to do so. And in the case of a government (city/state/local/federal) being responsible; don't make ME pay for it.
Xserv
People are not informed when buying (Score:2)
The fact is we have salesmen taking advantage of people who don't know any better buy offering them all of the glitz and not alerting them to any basic precautions they will take.
Some of my clients did not even know of the dang
Re:People are not informed when buying (Score:2)
Re:People are not informed when buying (Score:2)
Not on the same scale I know, but Cisco APs come with the radios disabled until you've set at least the ESSID.
Re:People are not informed when buying (Score:2)
Re:Rediculous... (Score:2)
Re:Rediculous... (Score:2)
Oddly enough, no, a question mark would fit much better there.
Re:Rediculous... (Score:2)
For instance, usb port in the wireless
router. Telnet to the device to configure, have all the
configuration data generated by the router written to a
USB drive in a ( hopefully standard ) way. Then walk
the drive over to each of the machines that you want to have
connected, and have an app on the machine that is installed
when you install the drivers suck the data off the drive
and configure the client. Key length would be less of an
issue. Key exchange would be e
should I... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or should I be blamed when Windows automatically connects me to open APs?
And...If we are going to go that far?
Why not get these people in trouble for using WEP to begin with?
Safe wireless? WEP is like using a condom that's been poked with holes.
Re:should I... (Score:2)
Re:should I... (Score:2)
I emphatically disagree. Using WEP is EXACTLY like closing your front door.
What most people don't realize is that the security measures to protect your house are largely social. A $70 battery-powered circular saw makes your front-door deadbolt meaningless in about 45 seconds. And usually, there are easier ways to enter your house.
What's not often considered is the considerable social expense paid when you break into somebody else's home.
no thanks (Score:3, Interesting)
Overall, I am worried that people these days consistently seem to say "I'm not in favor of too much regulation, but this specific piece seems pretty good."
Uh huh. You know the slippery slope has started to apply when people say that about such inane proposals as this one.
Re:no thanks (Score:2, Informative)
--> "I am generally opposed to government infringing on individual rights," offers Jim Albright. "I think Benjamin Franklin put it best when he said, 'Those who are willing to sacrifice essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.' That being said, I am absolutely in favor of regulation requiring not just business-installed but all wireless networks to be secure. It is a long-standing premise that the right
Re:no thanks (Score:2)
Not just sacrilege, you pinko commie subversive terrorist.
You are giving stuff away free and destroying legitimate opportunities for businesses to profit.
Re:no thanks (Score:2)
I don't lock my garage either, and there hasn't been a single orgy.
People too dumb to use computers (Score:2, Insightful)
Ludicrous (Score:5, Insightful)
I run mine wide open because that is they way I want it. I secure my machine of course, but if someone is within range and wants to use my connection, I don't have a problem with that. Hell, my SID is actually "WideOpen".
I used my neighbor's DSL for over a year, but I eventually got my own. There is no reason every house on a block should purchase their own Internet connection, and wireless network. Apartment buildings are in an even better situation. All that money that people are spending on individual connections could purchase a lot higher speed connection for everyone and still save money.
Re:Ludicrous (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no reason every house on a block should purchase their own Internet connection... Yeah, and maybe you should all share one cable TV hookup too.
The reason is because the providers of those services are selling them for use by one household per subscription.
Re:Ludicrous (Score:2, Insightful)
As a potential hacker I launched 4 viruses and downloaded 4 gigs of MP3's using your network.
All traceable back to you.
I spoofed my mac address
thank you.
Re:Ludicrous (Score:3, Interesting)
All traceable back to you.
I spoofed my mac address
So?
I did the same thing from the coffee shop that had a big sign out front that said "Free Wireless Internet!"
And I spoofed your mac address.
Re:When Leftists Attack!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
You say "nanny state" like it's a bad thing, but in fact, it describes exactly what our government was set up to do: promote the general welfare. People like you naively assume that all the government has to do in order to accomplish this is to get out of our collective way, and let the free market generate all the blessings of prosperity. There are times when this works, and times when it d
ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides this, do we mandate that folks lock their car and house doors? Are there laws against leaving a key under the rug, on the door frame, or below your car door?
Re:ridiculous (Score:2)
Actually, you could enforce the DMCA to protect your novel method of "secure access".
In other news. . . (Score:2, Insightful)
"Imagine what could happen. Someone could give someone some money, go home, and realize that they needed that money! Just imaging the potential lawsuits! Everyone is much better off this way."
FCC (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a spectrum issue.. (Score:2)
Sorry.
Re:Not a spectrum issue.. (Score:2)
What If... (Score:2)
I do find the whole concept of mandatory encryption rather ironic though. Would that it were the case for email, VOIP or Internet connections in
Here is what you should think about (Score:3, Insightful)
I would love to see you explain that away as an "oops, I forgot to turn encryption and
authentification on" to the police following the pervert. They will FIRST get you for
aiding and abetting the crime.
This stuff, security, only makes sense in today's world.
retard (Score:2)
leaving a wireless point unsecured has NEVER, NOT ONCE been treated as aiding and abetting, not even close.
Re:Here is what you should think about (Score:4, Informative)
So, the cops find child porn online - what happens? They contact the ISP, perhaps get a warrant for the DHCP logs.
The logs show it was your IP. This gives them... probable cause for a search warrant. You get a nice visit from the friendly police squad, and they take your PC(s) as evidence.
Upon looking through your PC, they find *gasp* all kinds of porn, just no kiddie porn. Guess what, they have no case. They either drop it (likely, especially if you can demonstrate you had an open AP), or you get to rely on a judge or jury to drop it for them.
Eventually, justice prevails (possibly after a couple appeals and a lot of money), you get your stuff back, and you aren't convicted of anything.
Does it suck? Sure. That doesn't change the fact that you are an idiot, and "aiding and abetting" requires, among other things, mens rea (criminal intent). In other words, they have to demonstrate that you intended to violate the law. (There are civil issues, but we're talking criminal here).
It may be _unpleasant_ when someone uses your connection for something illegal; however, that doesn't automatically mean you are liable. In fact, courts tend to be hesitant to assign liability to ISPs that do not knowingly facilitate crimes. Imagine if Cox/Comcast were responsible for every illegal action performed by their users online. It would be "death by lawyers" for the internet.
Re:Here is what you should think about (Score:2)
Re:Here is what you should think about (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here is what you should think about (Score:2)
You: "I deliberately leave my wireless network unsecured, but log all connection attempts"
Cops: "Oh righty, let's see those logs then... Well bugger me, that's the MAC address of the wifi card in our suspect's laptop!"
You: [burns CD of logs]
Sharing your wireless connection (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sharing your wireless connection (Score:2)
Friend's experience with guest access (Score:2)
In my building, there are at least two unencrypted wireless connections. One's mine; the other is a neighbor with a Belkin node. I can see 3-4 other encrypted connections. Occasionally something goes wrong with my con
Many Reasons... (Score:2, Flamebait)
You can't display a corpse, or a facsimile of a corpse in public in most US counties; uncontrolled internet access could be used to spam goatse.
It's also often illegal to leave your car keys in view in/around your car unattended; You have the responsablity to control your tools.
You can't wear a ski mask into a bank, no matter how cold it is; anonymous internet access could be us
NOT a big-government issue (Score:2, Insightful)
We may still not think it's a good idea, of course, but the fact that it's bein
Re:NOT a big-government issue (Score:2)
I'm more oppressed by private entities these days than by our (increasingly oppressive) government. Nosy employers, sinister, lying HMOs (the "M" stands for "denial"), unaccountable credit-rating agencies, telcos colluding with illegal eavesdropping. Not that the distinction between business and government is all that meaningful anymore.
I don't really care whether
Re:NOT a big-government issue (Score:2)
Won't anybody think of the users? (Score:5, Interesting)
My first reaction was "Good Lord, how stupid can people get?" - I mean, does this mean that if you set up a wireless network in accordance with their regulations, and it still gets abused (through WEP weaknesses or whatever), they have implicitly invited you to sue them?
But then I thought back to ohhh, yesterday, when I was wrapping up a work trip to Thailand. When I arrived I had bought a SIM card at a dusty little family shop and the cashier who installed it into my phone signed me up for a bunch of promo offers including the loathsome Calling Melody (which I never figured out how to disable) and 50 free hours of GPRS (pretty good considering the card cost me US$7.50).
My hotels had free wifi so I didn't end up using that much of the GPRS time. Yesterday, at the airport, I figured I might as well use some more of it up, so I popped open the trusty iBook and turned on internet sharing with SSID name "Free Internet!"
Within 15 minutes I had 5 or 6 people on it (must have been painfully slow for them). I was too tired to do anything useful, but just for the heck of it I started up ethereal to see to what ends my largesse was being used. It was remarkable how trusting (or probably ignorant) people were - as well as how many unencrypted port-80 webmail servers and office intranets there are out there.
So maybe the real value of the rule in TFA is to protect the users from themselves, rather than protecting the AP owners. When you connect to an unknown AP you never really know what could be going on with your traffic unless you encrypt and authenticate it.
What's the weakest link? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Could there be a darker design? (Score:2, Insightful)
OpenVPN (Score:2)
Great, so now if I'm disabling my wireless card's weak encryption, and instead using a proper firewall and OpenVPN connection behind the AP, the condo board is going to come after me because my "wireless" is allegedly insecure?
Seriously, if you don't at least know what indistinguishability under adaptive chosen-ciphertext attack is, you shouldn't be making security policy.
Re:OpenVPN (Score:2)
You, sir, are exactly the kind of person I was talking about. Do you know what IND-CCA2 is? I didn't think so.
My entire point is that I would disable the access point's crappy built-in security mechanism and use something that is actually strong. I actually did this for a number of years after the RC4 cryptanalysis.
Re:OpenVPN (Score:2)
His network would be secure. Note that ability to connect to the AP is not the same as being able to connect to the network.
My network's that way. The AP is completely open and all encryption is disabled. However, the APs (I have two, one for 802.11a, one for 802.11b/g) connect (through a dedicated switch) to their own interface port on the central router. That interface does not have routing rules set up for it so the whole wireless network can only talk to itself and the router, not the rest of the LAN.
I didn't expect... (Score:4, Funny)
How secure is "guest" access? (Score:2)
the hell with that (Score:2)
Come and git mehhhh! (Score:2)
Come and try to stop me from running my stupid piece of shit linksys wireless g router wide open!!!
I live in a boring residential neighbour hood in San Francisco, and all my neighbours have wireless too! And you know what? WE don't fuckin care! And anyone who parks on my hilly twisted street gets noticed right quick, and no fool is gonna drive up here lookin JUST LOOKIN for trouble.
So COME ON AND GET ME YOU FASCIST MOTHERFUCKERS!!!
RS
multi-million dollar condo without wireless? (Score:3, Interesting)
And how are they going to actually figure out which tennet is running a wireless AP? With just laptop, it's almost impossible to locate an AP without sophisticated antennas and equipment. I've scanned apartment complexes with my cellphone and I often find about 8 secured, and a couple unsecured nodes from the parking lot. Good luck trying locate them physically.
Also, you are not violating any laws according to the FCC. In fact, you could totally violate the IEEE802.11 protocol on the 2.4 GHz band to create as much interferance as possible as long as you are within the FCC gidelines for power.
I fear the government will try to step in and regulate these protocols, thus freezing them and preventing any future inovation.
Are you all criminals? (Score:4, Funny)
I don't get all this obsession with wifi security and encryption. I mean, why do we, as the average citizens, need encryption?
I mean, if we haven't done anything wrong, then we have nothing to hide, surely?
The only people who would want wifi encryption are criminals, because they have something they don't want the authorities to see.
Legal Clarification (Score:3, Informative)
A condiminium board is a completely different entity than a local government. They are not held to the same standard, as far as most things go (the fair housing act being a major exception), as a local government is. The developer buys and develops the property all at once, then sells it (again, all at once) to the original investors (who generally start the 'condominium board'). Since everything was transferred and later subdivided at once, any covenants and hinderances written into the original title deed (usually binding the owner to the rules and regulations of the condo board, a provision implemented through the condominium board act in that particular state) are enforceable against the owner. Another vehicle for this is that people do not actually own the entire condominium; they own the interior in fee simple, but the exterior is owned by the condominium board, so the board retains an interest in the property to create legal leverage.
This is actually one of the more sane things I've seen out of condominium boards. Compared to, say, barring pets, this is simple and actually serves a good purpose.
Some Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the article
In summary, the condo developers are providing the broadband connection and want to make sure that the condo owners secure their endpoints. Open access points have some risks that the developers are apparently not willing to accept. As a goodwill gesture they could retain a local networking firm to help owners set up their wireless networks properly though.Re:dumb (Score:2)
Condo Association != Government (Score:2)
While I agree completely with this statement, that's not what TFA is about. It's about a condo association trying to protect its members. That is a matter of private contracts between people who agree to restrain their own behavior in exchange for perceived benefits.
A condo association might legitimately go so far as to forbid individual residents from setting up wireless networks, and instead have the association itself set them up, imposing some par
Re:Open Nodes (Score:2)
Re:Open Nodes (Score:2)
The default for all cars, bicycles, jet aircraft and MRI machines should be to allow use by anyone, but to give the owner priority.
Re:Open Nodes (Score:2)
Re:this is absolutely necessary (Score:2)
If it were found that terrorists communicated using my wireless network, then the police could just call the manufacturer of my router, who would tell them that the terrorists must be within fifty or maybe hundred meters from my home. They should have no problem finding the terrorists.
Re:this is absolutely necessary (Score:4, Insightful)
Please say you're kidding. Cite any reliable source for this.
2. it is one of the ways terrorists can communicate safely without any chance of being tracked
Kind of true. But they can also do this with encryption, public payphones, prepaid cellphones, wireless networks with WEP-encryption, etc, etc.
3. unprotected wireless access is an open invitation to hackers to steal important personal information (including financial info)
Having sensitive personal info on your PC has always been an "invitation" for someone to steal it. Ever heard of malware? If you can't take care of your sensitive data, shame on you.
In this day and age, having unprotected wireless access is akin to having your home telephone line available to public. Imagine your surprise when police knocks on your door and tells you your home phone was used to call a remote cell phone to trigger a bomb and you please ignorance saying well it is available to everyone.
Again, you've gotta be braindead. Ever heard of "payphones"? Does it make the phone company liable?