At last the legislators are doing something right!
-
![]()
Now that I've thought about it a bit more, since my post is "going against the grain" here, I though I should add a bit more explanation as to WHY I oppose this kind of legislation.
Basically, because it opens a Pandora's box of now placing the blame on the victim instead of on the criminal. What you're saying is that its OK to rob me as long as I haven't taken the necessary precautions to prevent being robbed.
But, WHO decides what's "necessary"?
Suppose I use WEP on my network -- but then someone argues that WEP is not "really secure". So, it's OK to steal from me now?
Do I then have to use WPA instead? If that's not enough, what abojut WPA2? Do I then have to include Mac Address filtering?
To use the unlocked house analogy, so if I have a button lock and a deadbolt, and I leave BOTH unlocked, then it's OK to steal my stuff. What if I only lock the button and not the deabolt. Is it still OK? What if I also lock the deadbolt but have two and did not lock the second as well. Is it still OK? What if I also had a steel bar that I could lock to the floor and left that unlocked?
As I said earlier, how hard the victim makes it to steal from them should not enter into the decision regarding whether or not it's a crime.
I'd rather keep it as simple -- theft is theft.
-
-
What about WEP? I may be using WEP, but some rogues/ wardrivers around may easily sniff the key using easily available tools. How is it my responsibility then?
I know WEP is easily crackable but the Average Joe doesnt. Also, I think there are some old routers around which balk from WPA. Also lots of people think using WPA over WEP will slow down their network.
The Finnish Parliament should also take classes on WPA.
-
What about WEP? I may be using WEP, but some rogues/ wardrivers around may easily sniff the key using easily available tools. How is it my responsibility then?
I know WEP is easily crackable but the Average Joe doesnt...
Agreed ... and saying it's OK to steal from folks because they're technologically uninformed is, in essence, saying it's not a crime to steal when you do it from stupid people!
This is not like leaving your house unlocked, or leaving your keys in your car. That doesn't take any technological know-how to understand. But, the average Joe doesn't know ANYTHING about wireless security.
Looks like I should consider getting a Network +, or Security +, certification, because if this legislation takes on here, the demand for such folks will skyrocket!!
-
![]()
Looks like I should consider getting a Network +, or Security +, certification, because if this legislation takes on here, the demand for such folks will skyrocket!![/QUOTE]
I got Network+ and Security+ certs a few years ago, I am going after a wireless cert now since I have fixed over 100 wireless networks with security issues with small and large companies. I have also run into Tech who told the home client that their wireless was secure and remotely I was in the router and changing setting within 2 mins. She had a war driver that would take all the bandwidth and I had to secure the wireless since the tech didn't bother to even put a password to the router settings.
When it comes to the laws, I believe routers should keep a month long encrypted log of what computer connected to what and when. Then secure or not the evidence is avail for legal matters. I would also want a 3rd party with the only tools to read such a file and if these software tools leaked out they had to update the systems to keep it as secure and private as possible until needed.
if a wireless network is open and broadcasting then it should be free to use by anyone since there would be a log of the connections. If its secured by any means then by all means that's theft.
That's just my 2 cents having dealt with this issue on a personal, business and legal aspects of open wireless connections. New Hampshire has it right in my book if its open its free to use, use it for ill will and the charges are doubled.
I think its just wrong that people love using the open front door on a house, that's even legally different as theft of services and theft of property are covered by different laws and hold different penalties also. So we as a people should use a crime that more closely would resemble this type of crime which is NOT theft of tangible goods but theft of a service, or theft of intellectual property or third ID theft. All of these crimes can be committed over an open network without trespassing on the property which is needed to enter a home locked or unlocked.
If I accidentally connect to an open network and leave before using the services avail I most likely will never be charge with a crime. If I am walking up to your house and you come home you can have me charged with trespassing since i don't belong there.
-
-
I wonder if those if those who balk at securing their network, balk at securing their computers....I aint sayin, Im just sayin... 
-
I agree that you should protect your own network absolutly, but what about the not so computer savy people (i know a lot of them) that might not know how to go about it. This law makes them minoes in a shark tank and they are sol.
Someone should link this to the music and movie companies that wine about piracy, tell them if they dont want there stuff pirated... secure it!!!
-
Strange,i was sure stealing was a criminal offence?
Whether it be virtual or physical,if it belongs to a person then ,if without their leave,it is "used-borrowed-stolen" ..which i see the last 3 as the same in this instance,then it is a crime in my opinon.
No matter what way its looked at from a court point of view in the simple legal vs illegal it should be seen as illegall,to say otherwise would be a simple lie :)
-
-
-
Mark, borrowing your words, I though I should add a bit more explanation as to WHY I do not oppose this kind of legislation.
IMO, there's some similarity in software piracy and unauthorized use of WiFi. Whatever we do, however hard we try to protect, there are always going to be those who don't want to pay and try to crack it, whether DRM or license or your WiFi.
As software companies are working to find new ways to protect their intellectual rights, we consumers should IMO use at least some protection to secure our home networks. The legislators in my small native Finland are trying to tell us consumers, that if you are stupid enough to do nothing, you can only blame yourself. I think this sends the right message, teaching people to start using encryption, even hide their wireless networks.
Important thing to remember is that the owner would not be held liable even if he left network unprotected.
-
Kari:
I appreciate your taking the trouble to explain your position ... but I think that we're just going to "agree to disagree" on this issue.
While I don't actually disagree with the message -- folks SHOULD be encouraged to secure their wireless networks -- I do disagree with the method by which your government intends to enforce this.
Your government's "solution" to wireless service theft is to take the approach and say, OK, it's not considered illegal activity anymore. IF you redefine what constitutes criminal activity, that is certainly one way to lower the crime statistics. And, that is certainly the "right" of every government to do that.
But, in all fairness, if your government is now going to mandate that folks secure their wireless networks, they should at least provide FREE techincal assistance in carrying that out. Perhaps they will; time will tell.
Quote