No they did not need to make this into a bill, but with the poor usage of Wi-Fi security these days, it needed to be done in some way that would impact residents.
People are so lax when setting up these connections that information is getting stolen left and right through unsecure connections. So the options are simple, secure your wireless connection or secure the rest of your data on your laptop. <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.essentialsecurity.com/howitworks_laptop.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.essentialsecurity.com/howitworks_laptop.htm</a>
This law comes from the same California legislature that posts signs at the edge of cliffs warning "Danger. Cliff". When I moved to the state 20+ years ago, it was assumed that Californians were intelligent and had common sense. Since that time there has been a steady dumbing down, a testament to what a liberal Democratically controlled legislature foists on the public. Prop 65 signs warning of hazardous substances now adorn virtually every commercial building, making the warning itself meaningless.
My second point is that the 2004 survey data regarding the number of open wireless networks is now considerably out of date. Two years is an eternity in tech. Over the past year or so I have seen a steady decrease of the number of open wireless networks in a given area. In many neighborhoods there is not a single unprotected network. Vendors like Linksys include automatic security setup wizards in their wireless routers like the popular WRT54G. California legislators are wasting time and money solving yesterday's problems, while truly pressing problems, such as closure of hospital emergency rooms due to out of control immigration are conveniently ignored. God forbid you ever need to go to the emergency room. But if you do, be assured that you will be greeted with plentiful "Hazardous Substance" and "Cliff Warning" placards.
What do wireless routers, hazardous waste and emergency rooms have in common? Nothing! Will that stop a right-wing fascist from using them to obfuscate the issue at hand? Not a chance.
The plain truth is that most users have no idea that wireless has security issues. Most don't even know if they're using Windows or that there are more secure alternatives! They're just using a computer that is somehow connected to the internet, and that's good enough to get their email and browse the web. If these people are going to buy wireless routers, they need to be warned of any significant problems, like any other product.
Just another stupid sticker in our litigious society
It seems to me the trial lawyers would be interested in passing this legislation. I bet within a few months they will be able to round up enough dumb people who experienced security breaches because they chose not to secure their wireless networks. I'm sure the lawyers will argue that the warnings on the routers were too small, difficult to understand, et cetera and they'll win their money. This of course will lead to another sticker for stupid people to look at but not understand.
I'm a product manager at a company that makes email encryption software (<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.essentialsecurity.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.essentialsecurity.com</a>), and user education is critical to our market success. However, getting people to change thier habits, even slightly, is a tremendous challenge. Unfortunately, people in general are reactive rather than proactive and it often takes a hit in the pocketbook before people change.
It does take "a hit in the pocketbook" or effective advertising
Advertising motivates people to buy 5,000 lb gas guzzlers in-spite of the fact that oil reserves are dwindling and gas prices are sure to rise well above $3/gallon in the coming years. Why not use that power to push people towards something good for them, like securing their routers? It's just a simple notice on the packaging, but it could do a lot of good. I don't see why anyone could complain about it.
I'm surprised LInksys would support this kind of legislation. Turning on the security features of wireless networking often diminshes the capability of the network and disappoints the consumer. It can also be complicating to set up between the router and the laptop in some cases, even when the antenna is built in to the laptop.
When will there be a warning sticker that no matter what flavour of WEP, WPA, WPA2, WAPI, etc you choose, all of your communication is still being intercepted by the Bush administration at a data center near you?
Every time a bill like this is passed, its one more step away from the true notion of self-government. It shows that those in office think YOU ARE TOO STUPID to take responsibility for your own life, so you need to be treated like a Serf. Why do you keep voting for people like that?
Even with cigarette warnings for the last thirty something years, approximately 20% of the population smokes today. That means that at least 1 in 5 is too stupid to take responsibility for their own life, even with multiple warnings! Without a warning, as the article points out, more than 2 out of 3 wireless users hadn't secured their wireless routers in 2004. While those numbers may have improved, there's no reason to think that they've gotten as good as the smoking stats. They might even be worse than 2 out of 3!
Both smoking and unsecured wireless affect the rest of us negatively. Second hand smoke kills, and open wireless allows all sorts of crimes to be committed while increasing our internet connection costs. The TOO STUPID amoung us need to be regulated to protect the rest of us. It wouldn't be smart to do otherwise.
Regulation is the name of the game with socialistic minded governments, and California is no exception. They ought to work on reducing taxes and inducing business or commerce instead of inventing more rules and regulations. They just can't help themselves. How pitiful.
The open access on WiFi connections is clearly advantageous for many laptop users. Obviously private/corporate WiFi network operators need the ability to protect themselves against hackers and the like.
I suggest that the WiFi hardware manufactors produce equipment with dual channels, one can be encrypted and the other be kept 'public', i.e. available for other users in the area. Encourage and support free information access - reject enforced 'secure' WiFi!
The open access on WiFi connections is clearly advantageous for many laptop users. Obviously private/corporate WiFi network operators need the ability to protect themselves against hackers and the like.
I suggest that the WiFi hardware manufactors produce equipment with dual channels, one can be encrypted and the other be kept 'public', i.e. available for other users in the area. Encourage and support free information access - reject enforced 'secure' WiFi!
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
Customizable PACS solution from CDW
this really going to do?
People are so lax when setting up these connections that information is getting stolen left and right through unsecure connections. So the options are simple, secure your wireless connection or secure the rest of your data on your laptop.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.essentialsecurity.com/howitworks_laptop.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.essentialsecurity.com/howitworks_laptop.htm</a>
My second point is that the 2004 survey data regarding the number of open wireless networks is now considerably out of date. Two years is an eternity in tech. Over the past year or so I have seen a steady decrease of the number of open wireless networks in a given area. In many neighborhoods there is not a single unprotected network. Vendors like Linksys include automatic security setup wizards in their wireless routers like the popular WRT54G. California legislators are wasting time and money solving yesterday's problems, while truly pressing problems, such as closure of hospital emergency rooms due to out of control immigration are conveniently ignored. God forbid you ever need to go to the emergency room. But if you do, be assured that you will be greeted with plentiful "Hazardous Substance" and "Cliff Warning" placards.
rooms have in common? Nothing! Will that stop a right-wing
fascist from using them to obfuscate the issue at hand? Not a
chance.
The plain truth is that most users have no idea that wireless has
security issues. Most don't even know if they're using Windows
or that there are more secure alternatives! They're just using a
computer that is somehow connected to the internet, and that's
good enough to get their email and browse the web. If these
people are going to buy wireless routers, they need to be
warned of any significant problems, like any other product.
I'm a product manager at a company that makes email encryption software (<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.essentialsecurity.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.essentialsecurity.com</a>), and user education is critical to our market success. However, getting people to change thier habits, even slightly, is a tremendous challenge. Unfortunately, people in general are reactive rather than proactive and it often takes a hit in the pocketbook before people change.
of the fact that oil reserves are dwindling and gas prices are sure to
rise well above $3/gallon in the coming years. Why not use that
power to push people towards something good for them, like
securing their routers? It's just a simple notice on the packaging,
but it could do a lot of good. I don't see why anyone could
complain about it.
approximately 20% of the population smokes today. That means
that at least 1 in 5 is too stupid to take responsibility for their
own life, even with multiple warnings! Without a warning, as the
article points out, more than 2 out of 3 wireless users hadn't
secured their wireless routers in 2004. While those numbers may
have improved, there's no reason to think that they've gotten as
good as the smoking stats. They might even be worse than 2 out
of 3!
Both smoking and unsecured wireless affect the rest of us
negatively. Second hand smoke kills, and open wireless allows
all sorts of crimes to be committed while increasing our internet
connection costs. The TOO STUPID amoung us need to be
regulated to protect the rest of us. It wouldn't be smart to do
otherwise.
The government is promoting a level of data privacy?
What a revolutionary concept!!!!
It may not be a great idea, but it could start something better.
The problem is illiterate users to begin with. Stooping to their level does not make them literate.
The problem is still that the users are illiterate and thus training is the only away around that... NOT dumbing down the products.
Dumbing down products only makes for a dumber user!!! (* LOL *) The more you try to idiot proof something... the bigger the idiots become!
It's just like putting a label on the side of a Microwave oven saying not to dry your pets in there!
The only way to smarten up dumb people is to properly train them.
Walt
bill does.
If they don't know their brand new wireless router has security
issues, they're not going to go looking through the manual to find
out.
degrades to the point, the unsecured user calls his ISP for advice.
The biggest danger is a visitor logging on to a a WI-PHI site. An open access point that collects passwords and other data.
I suggest that the WiFi hardware manufactors produce equipment with dual channels, one can be encrypted and the other be kept 'public', i.e. available for other users in the area. Encourage and support free information access - reject enforced 'secure' WiFi!
I suggest that the WiFi hardware manufactors produce equipment with dual channels, one can be encrypted and the other be kept 'public', i.e. available for other users in the area. Encourage and support free information access - reject enforced 'secure' WiFi!