MD Bill Would Criminalize Theft of Wireless Access 764
Pickens writes "A bill presented by Delegate LeRoy E. Myers Jr. to the Maryland House of Delegates would criminalize purposely surfing the Internet on someone else's wireless connection. The bill would make intentional unauthorized access to another person's computer, network, database, or software a misdemeanor with a penalty up to three years imprisonment and a fine of up to $1,000. The Maryland public defender's office has submitted written testimony opposing the specific ban and penalty suggested in Myers' bill. Noting that wireless connections are becoming common in neighborhoods, the written testimony says: 'A more effective way to prevent unauthorized access would be for owners to secure their wireless networks with assistance where necessary from Internet service providers or vendors.'"
come here, sweetheart (Score:5, Funny)
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:5, Insightful)
Now the owner of that router might say, "But I didn't know it was doing that on my behalf!" I suppose it's a little like coming home to find that your kid has been inviting people into your house who you'd rather not have there. But that's an issue to be settled between you and your errant kid, isn't it? Law enforcement generally isn't interested.
Since there is no groundswell of outrage from people who are providing bandwidth to their neighbors - unwittingly or not - you have to assume that the "victims" here are the ISPs: Comcast, Time-Warner and the like. That guy who checks his email or the weather using "free" wireless is, in their eyes, $50 a month in lost revenue. Not that they could possibly influence legislators in a state like Maryland, of course...
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:5, Insightful)
I will never, EVER understand how the following counts as "stealing wireless access":
1) I broadcast my SSID. (Here's a wireless connection world! LOOK OVER HERE FOR IT!!!)
2) User asks, "Can I connect?" (IP address requested.)
3) I say, "Sure you can connect." (IP address loaned.)
4) YOU STEAL MY WIRELESS!!!!!!!
Ok, I guess I should do it as a car analogy:
1) I put out a sign, "I will let you borrow my car."
2) You ask, "Can I borrow your car?"
3) I say, "Yes, and here are the keys."
4) YOU STOLE MY CAR!!!!!
There is no difference. If you think there is a difference, you are either stupid or ignorant, or trying to apologize for someone else who is either stupid or ignorant.
If someone hacked into my wireless and used it, that's a crime. If someone stole my car, that's a crime. If someone asked to borrow my wireless and I let them, or my car and I let them, that's not a crime. If I'm either so socially ignorant or technically ignorant that I don't understand what I'm doing, then I need to suck it up when people do what I am INVITING them to do. And the rest of society should backhand me for complaining about it.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:4, Informative)
This man's life is now ruined because of an asshole cop in Sparta, Michigan is so much of a useless jerk he pushed the issue hard. The mans was sitting in his car in front of a coffee shop wher ethe sign in the window said "FREE WIFI" the state court ruled he ony is allowed to get the free WIFI if he went inside.
Anyone that does not fight this kind of law tooth and nail, and then does not try to burn the asshat that introduced it on a stake in the front of the capitol building deserved everything they get. The law is only there to protect cable, telco, and cellular company profits. it has no other use.
Honestly the politicians at the local, state, and federal level need to be scared to hell of the populace. Because only then will they do the right thing instead of bending over and passing laws for the companies that pay them to do so.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not trespassing.
What if I want people to be able access my network? Should I give them double secret permission?
As the ISPs are the only ones (potentially) harmed by a random person checking their email or surfing the web on an open wireless network, and this bill is clearly designed to protect them from perceived loss of revenue, perhaps the bill should create civil or criminal penalties for violating an ISP's terms of service. This would place the burden on people running open networks, which is, I
Re:Or maybe... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nah, just mandate that configuration is done through Ethernet or serial connection.
My Phillips wireless router came default with the wireless functionality switched off. That is also a good solution: You have to access the router to enable it, and the wizards you go through can advise you to turn on security.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Somebody comes into your home and their defense is "Your dog invited me in!"
Well, if my dog could do that, I suppose I might worry!
The router is not sentient. It has no ability to judge, and despite the fact that it may invite some people in does not mean it is entitled to do so or that they are entitled to enter.
It's the job of the router to grant or deny permission to connect to the network. That's precisely what it's designed to do, and an entire protocol exists just for that purpose. When my laptop asks for permission to connect to your network and your router says, "Sure! Let me help you with that," how am I supposed to know (or even ask) your true feelings about it? Your router is your authorized agent in that case. It's not a difficult thing to choose a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your router's job is suc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your logic seems odd given it is in plain sight. When the user goes to connect to his AP and he did not have to authenticate, this is very much a "plain sight" issue. Furthermore, some computers will simply use the nearest, open AP, which means it will automatically
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:4, Funny)
Your router is constantly saying "Here I am! Connect to me! I am OPEN! I am AVAILABLE!"
This attempt at legislation actually goes against the default router settings provided by every single manufacturer. It attempts to genuinely legislate that up is down, that open is closed. That something similar passed in the UK only shows us that fools are not limited to our shores.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason I shied away from using children as an example is that they often maintain a different relationship in law with regard to trespassing than do adults.
(I am also unable to find any case-law dealing with invitations issued by individuals who have no authority to do so, and in any case, this case is not really comparable to trespassing for a variety of reasons.)
However, the issue basically, in my mind, b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, did you ask CmdrTaco if you're allowed to access his webserver? You didn't? How come you're posting? From a technological perspective, a web server responding to anonymous requests with data is the same as a router responding to anonymous requests with a connection. They are designed to operate that way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple. You ASK the owner of the wireless network.
Respect? When I choose to set my router in a way that allows net access to the people using the chairs and tables in the courtyard, I don't want them knocking on my door all the time asking me if they really are allowed to do that, especially at times when I'm already asleep or busy doing something else. That would be very disrespectfully.
The SSID IS the "sign" of the network. The only sign on a wireless network that has any chance of working can be a wireless signal on the network itself.
The only solution
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:5, Insightful)
I go visit my next door neighbor and he says "Yeah, I have an unsecured Linksys router. Go ahead and use it, that's what it's there for!" How do I tell which one of those 3 I have permission for? Again, if I pick the wrong one do I really need to go to jail?
Let's simplify. There is only one Linksys AP. I have permission from the owner. A 2nd person sets up an AP the same way - my computer will automatically connect, and will look the same to me. I will have absolutely no idea I'm using one I don't have permission to use. Do I now go to jail? For something someone else did?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:5, Informative)
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:4, Insightful)
If the guy doesn't want you to breath clean air, or teach illegal immigrants (after all, being literate obviously wouldn't help them at all..), then this seems pretty much par for the course.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's your first problem. They should NOT be in the state anyway. And as for evidence, do a quick search. There are umpteen studies on the matter and government officials (like the ones in Texas) have even been caught trying to doctor data.
Start here [fairus.org] and move forward.
Re:Stupid question time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened to American independence? A few generations ago, people would rather live on beans and potatoes than accept money from the government. John Maynard Keynes and FDR have ruined the federal government. It happened to Rome, and it will happen to us. When people believe there is such thing as a free government lunch, we are ruined.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um. Ok. So, the government can't save you, but the government's public education campaign can?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:4, Insightful)
I partially agree with your statement, that it should be the responsibility of the wireless AP manufacturers to enable some security by default, even if it is only WEP. You should make the user have to disable WEP, if they want an open network.
The manufacturer's argument to that, would be that the common user probably does not know how to use WEP. This would therefore cause an increase in support calls when their new wireless router does not work. The manufacturer should have to deal with that, or make it extremely simple and obvious to the user how to use the security features.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:5, Insightful)
adding any CRIMINAL or CIVIL law for someone connecting to your UNENCRYPTED access point only encourages stupidity, lack of reponsibility and negligence. If you left a hose running plugged into your house that extended to the driveway, and i was running by and was thirsty, I'd pick it up turn on the spiggot and drink some... if you dont want me to then do one of three things: turn the damn thing off at the end of your house; put the hose away; or waste money on some crazy lock on it lol. Suggesting that the government take on the problem is an exercise in futility; it will only waste our time and money and rights.
Furthermore suggesting that the "makers of the devices" do anything differently has a similar net result. It is not their problem; it is yours. Do with it what you want. If you are too unintelligent to push the "EZ Security" (re crappy unadjustable settings" button on a linksys; or follow the extremely basic guide in the instructions, and are also too unintelligent to either ask a friend for help, call tech support, or find help elsewhere then you have to deal with the consequences. There are a lot of reasons you probably dont want wep or name your security method enabled by default; namely setting the damn thing up. What do you do when your device is having a problem or you forget the password?
There are other interesting a better ways to go about the problem. MAC address filtering can work well, as can limiting the number of leases allowed.
The bottom line is that this is an area that the government has absolutely no business talking about, getting involved with, or passing laws regarding. Especially the federal government. They've got plenty of important things to waste their time on that ACTUALLY matter and should be decided by them. Lastly, how is being fined or sent to jail even remotely not get categorized as excessive punishment worse than the crime? If you pay anything at most it should be some factor of the cost of the fee for internet service paid by the place you stole it from.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, no doubt. Just yesterday, in fact, I unplugged my router for a sec to let it reboot and forgotten to plug it back in. I started my laptop (in the other room), started using the internet, and *boom!* there I was, "maliciously stealing" somebody else's wireless bandwidth because my computer automatically connected to their unsecured router!
OK, so I didn't read TFA. So I'm probably completely off base here. I mean, I get the idea behind the law - internet access is like any other consumable utility (gas, water, electric). But to contrast how different this is from that, when's the last time you turned on the shower and accidentally stolen water from your neighbor's water pipes?
This bill is specifically to exempt that behavior (Score:4, Informative)
Don't waste time reading the article, which is completely misleading. Instead, read the actual bill. [state.md.us]
You don't at all get the idea behind the law. This bill is SPECIFICALLY designed to address what happened to you - when someone connects to a network without authorization, and without knowing that they were unauthorized. Ignore the /. groupthink, and read my other comment [slashdot.org] that explains the bill in detail. Ignore the summary, and the title. THEY ARE ALL WRONG. Unauthorized access to a network is ALREADY ILLEGAL, and this bill simply tries to add an exception for when that happens without you realizing that it is unauthorized.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not for me, I actually like and trust my neighbors. As long as they don't do p2p and keep the load light, I'm fine with sharing my connection, it's a fixed cost for me anyway. Sometimes, when I need my full bandwidth, I close it down completely as a precautionary measure, but most of the time I keep my connection open and unencrypted.
I don't like that word "purposely" in there... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, who it going to determine whether the access was on purpose, or the more likely alternative, accidental?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ask for permission (DHCP Request) and the equipment says (to paraphrase) "absolutley, come on 0:0c:fa:a8:gc:bb hear is where I keep the gateway to the internet, I will make sure to send you data that comes for you, and direct any data you send to the correct place.", than absolutely the have permission.
If you have to monkey around setting up static addressing, or finding keys or what not, than it enters a gray area.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That analogy is flawed since electricity is metered and most internet access in the US (at least at the consumer level which this would affect the most) is not. Most "normal" internet usage such as checking email and browsing some websites would NOT
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, who it going to determine whether the access was on purpose, or the more likely alternative, accidental?
That would be a judge. I could think of some reasonable criteria: For example, if you have bought a wireless router at your home, then it is quite reasonable to think that you intended to use your router, and if you happened to use your neighbours router then this was likely to be by accident.
On the other hand, if you are fifty miles away from home in your car with your laptop, and you connect to some wireless network without having anyone's permission, then we can assume that you intentionally accessed
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Read the summary - misdemeanor. In other words, if the prosecdution decides to ask for no more than 6 months jail time, or just for a fine, no right to a jury trial for you!
Re:I don't like that word "purposely" in there... (Score:5, Informative)
How many people will be so intimidated by the whole process that they'll just accept whatever plea is offered?
Ditto those who don't have the several thousand dollars to hire a lawyer?
Ditto those who don't have the courage to tell the prosecutor "go fuck yourself - see you in court, numnuts - and you'd better have LOTS of proof ..."
Ditto those who don't want to "rock the boat"
Ditto those who can't afford to take time off work.
When a case goes to trial, even when you win, you usually end up losing. Its not like the other side has any "skin in the game." They still get paid, win or lose. Justice? Not for us.
Re:I don't like that word "purposely" in there... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why cannot I use services, which you make freely available to me?
If I use my computer in a coffee shop, every time I turn it on, I should make sure
I don't accidentally connect to your wireless router?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't like that word "purposely" in there... (Score:5, Insightful)
While not the easiest solution to implement, the most logical solution would be to simply require AP manufacturers to default routers to a closed network. Either using a default WEP/WPA/Etc. key, or with a mandatory setup upon installation (a la the runonce screen you get in IE the first time you open it). This takes the ambiguity out of the equation and allows all users who do not want their networks open to lock them down, even in the face of computer illiteracy. Then, if a network is open, it is set that way by choice, and conversely, if a user logs on to a closed network without authorization, there is a clear intent to trespass.
Re:I don't like that word "purposely" in there... (Score:5, Insightful)
I try to write letters to my elected officials any time something like this comes up for a vote. I've even made some phone calls when it's either highly technical or highly important.
A solution (Score:3, Informative)
Possibly slightly insecure if you forget you did it, but it is a quick setup.
abra-ca-de-ridiculous! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we pay for the internet, but if you don't secure your network, and the pedestrian use doesn't impair your surfing experience... no harm, no foul. At least, thats what I think - but I'm still not running the world *sigh*
Re:abra-ca-de-ridiculous! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:abra-ca-de-ridiculous! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is called trespassing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I pay for and use my bandwidth. If you start stealing it, you would certainly inconvenience me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I pay for and use my bandwidth. If you start stealing it, you would certainly inconvenience me.
You're almost certainly paying a fixed rate for that internet and the amount you pay will be the same regardless of whether I plug into it or not. Neither of the analogies work well because they've each got a point. However, if you don't take a few trivial steps to secure your internet from illicit use, it's a very reasonable assumption for me to make that you're okay with me using it.
I suppose that plugging my A/C into my neighbor's outdoor electrical outlet should be criminalized too? After all, he didn't put a lock-box over it.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind if my neighbor used my electrical outlet as long as he wasn't using heavily and constantly. I
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, and I suppose that sitting in someone else's light, or perhaps walking on their lawn should be criminalized too?
How about listening to someone else's radio? I'm sure you could get the RIAA behind that one. And the MPAA for watching someone's Pay-Per-View movie through a window.
They seem to go after the emitter if it can be received unaided but after the receiver if they have to take steps to see something invisible. You wear see-through clothing in public, you're arrested for indecent exposure. You use a night-vision camera to see through otherwise opaque clothing, you're arrested for being a peeping tom.
So the poin
Re:abra-ca-de-ridiculous! (Score:4, Informative)
My guess is, most people wouldn't care whether you shared their internet access or not. Not unless you ran so much traffic over it 24/7 that you caused their access to be degraded. At that point I'd think they might want to kick you off.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupid rednecks! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stupid rednecks! (Score:4, Funny)
>Really, what this law is is an attempt to criminalize a culture of sharing.
Yeah, its a big conspiracy d00d! The other day I tried to give someone a hoho and a police man shot at me!
Re:Stupid rednecks! (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you sure that it isn't? Ask yourself, why did the Maryland government feel a need to address this issue at all? Because they had been flooded by emails from constituents who were furious over their stolen bandwidth? Or because telcos/cablecos/ISPs realized how easy wireless makes it to share a connection with your neighbor? I can't say for sure either way, but I know which of the two groups has more pull with most politicians.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This also m
Unsecured networks get connected to by default (Score:4, Informative)
Yey, my OS breaks the law for me!
Re:Unsecured networks get connected to by default (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like DHCP?
Look, it's really simple. If you don't want other people using your wireless network, don't disable the encryption. Notice I said "don't disable". Most access points these days are shipping with encryption on by default, so the trend is moving towards the point where we'll be able to automatically assume that every unencrypted point was intentionally set that way. In ten years, the proposed law will be completely unnecessary and will just be a broken relic of days gone by.
Laws like this annoy the heck out of me, as they are caused by technological neanderthals trying to come up with ways to appear that they are doing something useful, all while creating a body of unnecessary laws that bog down the legal system. In any case, I can say right now that I won't be traveling to Maryland if this happens. Life's too short to put up with getting arrested for sitting in your car outside a hotel checking your email for a couple of minutes. The law is a blatant abuse of power, and ultimately, the FCC needs to put a stop to this by creating policy that trumps it. Unencrypted Wi-Fi should be considered free for public use, period, at least until the owner explicitly asks you to stop.
Non sequitur (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeesh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i agree with the public defender (Score:5, Insightful)
Draco would be proud (Score:2)
"Purposely" is the key (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever tagged this humor... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is outrageous.
Xohm? (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.xohm.com/ [xohm.com]
Cheers!
Sounds reasonable (Score:5, Funny)
Ridiculous bill (Score:4, Informative)
Proportional punishment to the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
what about my network? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:what about my network? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what about my network? (Score:5, Insightful)
This'll be great fun with my home webserver (Score:2)
This Is Rapidly Becoming Less And Less Of An Issue (Score:5, Informative)
Once everyone is using WPA, this is a non-issue. Even if an exploit is discovered that makes cracking WPA trivial, breaking encryption on someone else's network is clearly illegal, and it will be safe to assume that any unencrypted network is intended for public access.
I, for one, will not mourn the passing of a thousand light/water/keyhole/car-left-with-keys-in-ignition/radio/tv-through-window analogies.
Anyone but government officials and their lackeys (Score:4, Insightful)
And it is also okay if a private company did something like this if government directed, too, right?
MS to Fix (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft is fixing unsecured wireless access just like they did viruses and spam.
Thank you
Criminalizing benefits big Telco's (Score:4, Insightful)
This benefits the very people who are demanding retroactive immunity for illegal domestic spying.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad someone gets it (Score:5, Insightful)
Actual text of the bill (Score:4, Informative)
"A person may not intentionally, willfully, and without
authorization access, attempt to access, cause to be accessed, or exceed the person's
authorized access to all or part of a computer network, computer control language,
computer, computer software, computer system, computer services OTHER THAN
WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE, or computer database."
"A PERSON MAY NOT INTENTIONALLY, WILLFULLY, AND
WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION ACCESS, ATTEMPT TO ACCESS, CAUSE TO BE
ACCESSED, OR EXCEED THE PERSON'S AUTHORIZED ACCESS TO WIRELESS
INTERNET SERVICE WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ACCESS IS UNAUTHORIZED
AND PROHIBITED BY LAW."
As I'm reading this, it seems like the most reasonable interpretation of the bill is: 1. You need authorization EXCEPT for wireless internet service, 2. When using wireless internet service, you may not access the service if you know that it's unauthorized and prohibited by law. It doesn't actually prohibit the access itself, it provides the fines for doing so if another law has made that access illegal.
Can any lawyers comment on this reading? Because it seems actually to be somewhat counter to the headline and summary, and actually somewhat benign.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It seems to me that the second bolded portion "with knowledge..." requires what is known as specific knowledge. In this case what it means is not that you have to know you are accessing another persons wireless internet even though you are unauthorized, but you also have to know that it is illegal to do so. This would require actual knowledge of the law, and not constructive knowledge. Since actual knowledge is pretty damn hard to prove I would guess th
MOD PARENT UP: READ BILL & BEAT the GROUPTHINK (Score:4, Informative)
IANAL, but I have been looking at this bill I have just come to the same realization that you have. Practically every post in this discussion has COMPLETELY misunderstood the bill.
First, people need to read the actual proposed bill, which they can do here (NB: PDF). [state.md.us] Note that the CAPITAL parts are being ADDED to the existing law.
Next, people need to understand that under existing Maryland law unauthorized access to a computer network is already illegal. This clearly includes wireless networks. This means that your iPhone / XP / Vista / whatever that automatically connects to an insecure network is technically breaking EXISTING law. The current law reads:
This delegate wants to amend that section to exclude wireless internet access. It would instead read:
This would mean that your device that automatically connects to an insecure network would no longer be breaking the law. But in order to keep purposeful, intentional access to a wireless network (or "wireless internet service") illegal, they have added this section to the bill:
THIS PROPOSED BILL MAKES FEWER THINGS ILLEGAL. Now I know a lot of people think that unauthorized access to an insecure network, even when purposeful and intentional, shouldn't be illegal, but it already is. This bill would simply decriminalize unintentional unauthorized access.
PLEASE, SOMEONE BEAT THE /. GROUPTHINK AND MOD THE PARENT POST UP, OR THIS ONE.
The story from MI is far scarier (Score:3, Insightful)
A Fox News story says the man parked his truck in front of the shop during lunch breaks and checked his e-mail on his laptop computer.
When a nearby business owner got suspicious, police talked to the man and ruled out that he was spying or stalking someone. However, a prosecutor filed the charge of stealing the wireless connection, the story says.
The charge was a felony punishable by up to five years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000.
His other choice was a jail diversion program, which involved paying a $400 fine, doing 40 hours of community service and being on probation for six months.
Combining idiotic laws with the proliferation of access points, how can I prove that I'm using the (paid for) T-mobile access point at the Starbucks and not the business next door? The guy in the article may have admitted using the coffee shops inet access, but that doesn't show that there's not a bigger problem with laws like this.
Before my laptop self destructed (heat issue), I had a Verizon phone card that I used all the time. In fact a few times when on-call, I would pull in to the nearest parking lot and do what I needed to do.
If I had chosen to park in the parking lot near a coffee shop like this and the owner called the cops, how can I prove that I was using my own internet connection and not hijacking his? The few people who saw my Verizon card assumed it was a wifi card and had to be explained in depth how this wasn't wifi and would generally operate anywhere you could get a cell phone signal. I can only imagine explaining this to a cop.
The Locked Door Test (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, if the door is open, it's reasonable to expect that perhaps the general public was invited in.
If the door is closed, but not locked, it's still possible that the general public is invited in, they're just trying to keep the heat in or the flies out.
If the door is closed and locked, clearly the general public is not invited in.
As for the "default router settings are open" argument, that's kind of like saying "newly installed doors are unlocked." As for the "flashing 12:00:00" argument, if you aren't competent to lock your front door, there's a problem. Manufacturers of wireless equipment need to do a better job of explaining this. They need a BIG RED PAGE when you open the box, explaining how to do the basic security, and how if you don't, you could have legal problems because you're responsible for ALL access through that wireless connection. As far as I can see, the directions are very little past, "insert the Windows driver disk."
By the way, so the instructions tell you as a minimum key to use your name, address, and phone number, and the street address for the SSID. Ain't much of a lock, is it? But it's is still most definitely a lock, and it takes deliberate action to open. No default-configured computer from anywhere will automatically crack even a trivial key and automatically make a connection.
Everyone with an iPhone would be a criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
My wireless is free to anyone... is that illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)
That being said, how will the end users know which networks are free to use, and which are ignorant people who can't configure technology (that they should know how to configure if they're going to try to use it)?
This sounds more like large ISP's paying someone kickbacks to the people in charge to prevent people from using 'free' internet, than it does protecting the children.
THEFT of Wireless (Score:3, Insightful)
Accidental? (Score:5, Insightful)
This bill turns people into unwitting criminals because some people are idiotic enough not to protect their router, and Vista will automatically connect to these routers without asking. So, if it gets passed, the one question here is: if Vista forces me to break the law by automatically "hijacking" an unsecured wireless network, can Steve Ballmer be charged as an accessory to the crime?
Tresspassing signal! (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is fixing itself (Score:3, Interesting)
open routers authorize (Score:4, Insightful)