What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers’ points of view on the headlines making news.
441 Comments
- dcharti, on 03/24/2008, -3/+262"Here's an idea: if you don't want people to access your WAP without permission, secure it."
Seriously. 10 freaking years in prison? Why are people who still seemingly have no clue about technology allowed to so much as submit bills like this? - grumpyrain, on 03/24/2008, -13/+107If failing to secure a router is such a terrible offense as to warrant prison time, then surely they should force hardware vendors to enable WPA with a random key printed on a sticker on the device.
- dattaway, on 03/24/2008, -0/+93Rape often doesn't get 10 years. Murder often gets 20. So stealing wifi is half as bad as killing someone?
- fkr3, on 03/24/2008, -19/+9710 years for being too dumb to secure a router is too much. The state should just send someone to secure it and invoice them for the serivce.
- RealmDown, on 03/24/2008, -4/+64We elected them.
- aigulf, on 03/24/2008, -1/+48I thought the 10 yrs was on a user that accesses the network, not on the unwitting host.
- darny, on 03/24/2008, -5/+46Why doesn't anyone seem to get it? You don't get 10 years for having a public wifi, you get 10 years for using someone's wifi without their permission.
- inactive, on 03/24/2008, -4/+42Can you sniff the Verizon $$$ in the pocket of Delegate LeRoy E. Myers, Jr, the pinhead that sponsored this idiotic legislation?
- purplehaze420, on 03/24/2008, -0/+34Yeah whoever's proposed Idea that was should get 10 years for wasting everyone's time.
- GibitStylin, on 03/24/2008, -0/+28but make sure you use WEP so i can still crack it!
- Spr0k3t, on 03/24/2008, -0/+27I buried your shameless plug.
- lnxfi, on 03/24/2008, -1/+27I'd probably get less than 10 years if I stole a car while I was high and ran over a crack whore with it.
Good god they need to rework crimes that don't hurt people. Make it a reasonable fine, not jail time. - vanguardanon, on 03/24/2008, -1/+27It's kind of like saying somebody stole from me because the read by my porch light. It's really not stealing to me.
- mcse2k3, on 03/24/2008, -1/+27You obviously haven't seen the gas prices....
- chedabob, on 03/24/2008, -0/+26What about people that want to run open networks though?
- vertinox, on 03/24/2008, -2/+27If you take that law literally, then you must ask every webmaster for permission to access their server on port 80.
- Loonacy, on 03/24/2008, -0/+23My friend bought a wireless router some time back. The guy at the store explained how to change the security settings through the web interface to keep people off the network. My friend got home, opened the box, logged on, changed the security settings, and started surfing the web. It was really easy. Unfortunately, nobody explained to him how to set up Windows to log on to his newly secured router, so his laptop was connected to his neighbor's open wifi. This bill would have made him a criminal.
- inactive, on 03/24/2008, -2/+25Here's what the law should be: leaving an access point unsecured constitutes giving permission to the public to use it.
- Monarch818, on 03/24/2008, -1/+19Hold on, if your wifi is not secured, you are sending my computer an invitation to be part of your network. Why, because it just offered me an IP address. That, in my opinion is permission to use it. You sent out an invitation saying open network, my computer got the invitation and said thanks, send me an IP address, your WAP sends my computer an IP address, my computer sends a thank you back acknowedging the IP address, and now I'm on the internet.
Your analogies of theft would have to include a broadcast or sign saying please feel free to enter the car and use it for it to even be closely resembling the same thing.
A better analogy would be having a sign in the front yard of your house saying "Open House" when you are selling your house. You are inviting people to come in and look at the house, but it is implied you will not steal any of the possessions while you are doing so. So it would be like going into someone's network but then hacking into their computers and taking information. You invited someone in, but implying that anything inside that is secured is not for the taking. - spyd3rweb, on 03/24/2008, -0/+18Warbicycling then?
- fani, on 03/24/2008, -2/+20a) Its my ***** router. I will open it or secure it however I please.
b) 10 years ? Who're the dumb idiots who come up with this ?
If they want security to be so important, force the HW vendors to have a default encryption turned on with a paper distributing the first random key instead of leaving the WiFi's open. My neighborhood still shows a few "Linksys", "Netgears".... - staeiou, on 03/24/2008, -0/+17I've said it before and I'll say it again. Your computer sends out a request for an IP address to a specific router. That router assigns your computer an IP address with which you can access the network (and usually, the Internet). That is effective consent. Here is an analogy: you walk up to an apartment that has one of those new electronic door systems. You ask the computer for access, and give it some information when requested (say, your name). It prints up a nametag for you to wear and unlocks the door. You put the nametag on, and walk in. Is this trespassing? The owner of the building never actually directly authorized you to come in, but there is a reasonable expectation that such a system was 1) installed with the owner's consent and 2) used to control access to the building on behalf of the owner. That's effective consent in my book. (but not a lawyer not not giving legal advice)
Now, I strongly believe that anyone who gains access to another person's network without their permission by cracking encryption or spoofing MAC addresses is a criminal and should be held responsible for that. But not open access networks - that is just absurd. - laserblazer, on 03/24/2008, -2/+18Broadcasting unsecured WiFi constitutes an Attractive Nuisance (Google it). Using unsecured WiFi is a victimless crime. Whoever suggested ten years imprisonment should be fired forthwith.
- blackinthmiddle, on 03/24/2008, -0/+15This is done simply to make it look as though the person submitting the bill is working hard for the people.
Never mind that no *real* problems get addressed. In the end, a senator can say, "I introduced 15 bills last year. I'm working hard for my constituents." - logiktrip, on 03/24/2008, -1/+16Everything can be used for mayhem and havoc in the right hands.
- vypergts, on 03/24/2008, -0/+14I guess you could always beat someone to death with their unsecured router...
- BRODEL, on 03/24/2008, -0/+14WEP isn't really troublesome anymore. That being said, WEP at least tells me that you don't want me on it, open access points tell me that you don't mind if I use it.
- RealmDown, on 03/24/2008, -2/+15"Community service" should be an intro to computer networking class at the local community college.
- afallucco, on 03/24/2008, -7/+20My thought is, if you get wireless in your house and don't do the very small amount of research about making it secure, you deserve to have others connect to it.
- inactive, on 03/24/2008, -0/+13No, so I can blame others when I am doing all that through my open wifi connection. "Must have been a wardriver, officer."
- antdude, on 03/24/2008, -0/+13Heh, so he is paying for his Internet that he doesn't even use.
- RealmDown, on 03/24/2008, -0/+13Actually, now that I think about it, rape *IS* breaking and entering.......
- credential101, on 03/24/2008, -1/+13Write to all of the sponsors and voice your displeasure. It's time for them to be held accountable for what they do, or what they attempt to do.
leroy.myers@house.state.md.us, Wendell.Beitzel@house.state.md.us, Donald.Elliott@house.state.md.us, JB.Jennings@house.state.md.us, Tanya.Shewell@house.state.md.us,Donna.Stifler@house.state.md.us - Ph34rb0t, on 03/24/2008, -2/+14The Bill was wiped because he shouted LEEEEROYYYY, ran around punching people in the face and drew too much agro.
- Kenzan, on 03/24/2008, -2/+14Once again, The American Government rewarding the public for being lazy and ignorant, and punishing those of us who actually take the time and effort to RTFM.
- blackinthmiddle, on 03/24/2008, -2/+13You're right, it is that way.
This bill is obviously dumb for so many reasons. With Windows XP, it often finds the open network with the strongest signal and auto-connects to it. So imagine the scenario. You go to your friend's house and open up your laptop. It autoconnects to your friend's neighbor's wifi and your IM client starts up. Under this bill, you've just broken the law! That'll protect the citizens all right! - RealmDown, on 03/24/2008, -1/+12If someone wants onto your network, it's not much of a problem.
Locks are to keep honest people out. - waydee, on 03/24/2008, -1/+12By not securing your network you are saying it is open and available to use, whether you mean to share it or not is irrelevant. It is not theft, it's not a case of stealing anything, it's making use of a provided service. If you lock your network, the message I get is that you don't want to provide a service or share with anonymous users - thats fine, thats responsible, thats perfectly within your rights and recommended but don't suggest that hopping on an open network is tantamount to theft when it simply isn't, even if the only reason you can do so is lack of knowledge or laziness on the owners part.
- RustyJ, on 03/24/2008, -2/+12i must've racked up like 30 years just trying to get onto google maps.
- dext3r, on 03/24/2008, -2/+12You need the key to start it. Hotwiring would be destroying it. Failed analogy.
- ubuwalker31, on 03/24/2008, -0/+10If preventing people from committing illegal activities on unsecured wi-fi is the problem, then this proposed solution is too overbroad. "Bad Things" are already illegal...why do we need to create another crime?
- jeremyduffy, on 03/24/2008, -3/+13I think the idea behind the bill is that criminals are able to use unsecured wireless to do bad things. Or someone who does bad things can use the "they surfed my net" as a defense. Still stupid, but not unexpected coming from Maryland. It seems like I can't go a month without being raped by some weird law or fee for this or that.
- hlcno, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1110 years? wtf.. this is what im waiting for next.
Congress acted today for the saftey of children by making it illegal to have any hard surface where a child could fall. Everyone must comply with the new standards by applying Nerf to all surfaces including public and private roads where kids may play. - Loonacy, on 03/24/2008, -1/+11Greeting reed311. It has recently come to our attention that you have accessed digg.com on port 80 over the internet. Just because it allowed you to connect, replied when you requested a web page, and didn't give any indication you weren't allowed on, you still didn't get permission before connecting. Stealing our bandwidth is a very serious offense. You'll be hearing from our lawyers. Have a nice day.
- LanceHardenburg, on 03/24/2008, -1/+10Hooray for the battle of analogies.
- PRlME, on 03/24/2008, -2/+11I got a Hotbrick load balancing router, 2 incomming cable lines (soon to be 1 Verizon Fioz and 1 Cable), 1 AP on top my house broadcasting SSID "FreeNET Use me for free". If you happen to live on my block your hooked up! ever since AOL I thought the internet should be free. But then again some ones got to pay for the lines to your house -=/
PS Hotbrick routers are good and cheap - Monarch818, on 03/24/2008, -0/+9Hold on, if your wifi is not secured, you are sending my computer an invitation to be part of your network. Why, because it just offered me an IP address. That, in my opinion is permission to use it. You sent out an invitation saying open network, my computer got the invitation and said thanks, send me an IP address, your WAP sends my computer an IP address, my computer sends a thank you back acknowedging the IP address, and now I'm on the internet.
Your analogies of theft would have to include a broadcast or sign saying please feel free to enter the car and use it for it to even be closely resembling the same thing.
A better analogy would be having a sign in the front yard of your house saying "Open House" when you are selling your house. You are inviting people to come in and look at the house, but it is implied you will not steal any of the possessions while you are doing so. So it would be like going into someone's network but then hacking into their computers and taking information. You invited someone in, but implying that anything inside that is secured is not for the taking. - phybere, on 03/24/2008, -0/+9Modern phones use encryption (trunking, actually) so that you can't use/listen in on someones phone, very similar to how modern WAP's use encryption...
- nylrym, on 03/24/2008, -0/+9The owner of a Wireless Access point is BROADCASTING data. You are not stealing it, you are simply receiving what they chose to send into public airspace, If you want to be that stupidly literal about it. Learn about a subject before you mouth off.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 447 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is