how-to block ads
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| Municipal Directive on Open WiFi Networks
I was wondering if there is sufficient interest to spark a conversation in which your local municipality would begin an endeavor to observe, target, identify, and cite households with wireless LANs that are completely open.
I would think of this much like I would the mechanical violation citation that my former municipality endeavored into. If the police felt the missing tail light was a safety physical concern, then why not virtual concern in this manner?
And much like resolving those mechanical violation citations, you would have to get a 3rd party to endorse that your wireless network is now protected to get a silly rubber stamp for you to remit back to the municipality before the citation becomes a monetary fine. | |
Col Klink
join:2001-01-16
Stalag 13
| Interesting question, but, to oversimplify an unsecured wifi network, would it not be akin to leaving the front door unlocked? Its potentially harmful to the operator, and potentially harmful to others, but can you insist someone act in a manner that you prefer?
The taillight is a safety concern that springs from physical harm, ie: an accident could occur that endangers life &/or property. I can't see the connection to a unsecured wireless network. | |
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| reply to GhostDoggy
I'm not sure how leaving a front door unlock allows others to be burden unless you are looking at it from a burglary & insurance industry burden. How does the neighborhood become affected by my home, for instance, being burglarized? Do it raise their insurance rates because of a neighborhood classification, because of common insurance carriers, etc.? | |
Col Klink
join:2001-01-16
Stalag 13
| I think we're wondering off-topic, but yes, insurance is a part of it. More houses robbed in an area, more the rates increase, but also if things are taken from a house it could effect others - guns, for example, or I have a key to 2 of my neighbors houses & they have one for mine (in case of a lockout or to check on the heat during vacations, etc.)
I'd also encourage you to hit reply to my post (rather than to the topic) so I could have seen this sooner & responded sooner.
--
Dismissed! | |
ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
| reply to GhostDoggy
said by GhostDoggy  :I was wondering if there is sufficient interest to spark a conversation in which your local municipality would begin an endeavor to observe, target, identify, and cite households with wireless LANs that are completely open. I would think of this much like I would the mechanical violation citation that my former municipality endeavored into. If the police felt the missing tail light was a safety physical concern, then why not virtual concern in this manner? And much like resolving those mechanical violation citations, you would have to get a 3rd party to endorse that your wireless network is now protected to get a silly rubber stamp for you to remit back to the municipality before the citation becomes a monetary fine. Since nobody else has been brave enough to ask, I will. Do you just have to much free time on your hands, or are you one of those mental defectives who feel an irresistible urge compulsion to meddle in the affairs, and delineate permissible conduct, of others?
My answer to you is, NO, NO, NO! What I do with my wireless LAN is my business. I don't see a compelling reason to give the local authority, or any other for that matter, a reason to monitor the status of my wireless LAN, open or not. Especially one that includes an economic incentive to invade my privacy, charge me unnecessary fees, or curtail my freedoms. If I choose to leave my wireless LAN accessible, or merely forget to secure it, it is nobody's business other than my own. I don't, but that is also my private business, and nobody else's.
Altogether, your proposition sounds like a colossal turd of an idea to me... | |
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| said by ross :said by GhostDoggy :I was wondering if there is sufficient interest to spark a conversation in which your local municipality would begin an endeavor to observe, target, identify, and cite households with wireless LANs that are completely open. I would think of this much like I would the mechanical violation citation that my former municipality endeavored into. If the police felt the missing tail light was a safety physical concern, then why not virtual concern in this manner? And much like resolving those mechanical violation citations, you would have to get a 3rd party to endorse that your wireless network is now protected to get a silly rubber stamp for you to remit back to the municipality before the citation becomes a monetary fine. Since nobody else has been brave enough to ask, I will. Do you just have to much free time on your hands, or are you one of those mental defectives who feel an irresistible urge compulsion to meddle in the affairs, and delineate permissible conduct, of others? My answer to you is, NO, NO, NO! What I do with my wireless LAN is my business. I don't see a compelling reason to give the local authority, or any other for that matter, a reason to monitor the status of my wireless LAN, open or not. Especially one that includes an economic incentive to invade my privacy, charge me unnecessary fees, or curtail my freedoms. If I choose to leave my wireless LAN accessible, or merely forget to secure it, it is nobody's business other than my own. I don't, but that is also my private business, and nobody else's. Altogether, your proposition sounds like a colossal turd of an idea to me... Wow, your position is based on personally attacking me? Where do you live? Maybe your local sheriff needs to have a look at your open wireless network.  | |
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| said by GhostDoggy :Wow, your position is based on personally attacking me? Where do you live? Maybe your local sheriff needs to have a look at your open wireless network. No, I gave my reasons for thinking (you should try it) your idea was not only worthless, but dangerous to my civil rights and liberties. That you repeatedly come up with, or support, such drivel is testament to the probabilities I suggested for your proclivity to form such ill-conceived and poorly thought through "ideas". Your last comment is representative of the mentality necessary to conjure up these little fascist solutions to non-existent problems, and a good example of why your original idea is dangerous. So, give everyone a break and go back to silent reverie, self-pleasuring, and picking your nose in private. please consider the full ramifications of your "proposals", before you allow them to run around in the daylight of public discourse. | |
DigitalXeron
There is a lack of sanity
join:2003-12-17
Hamilton, ON
 ·Cogeco Cable
·Bell Sympatico
edit:
May 18th, @02:56PM
| reply to GhostDoggy
said by GhostDoggy :I was wondering if there is sufficient interest to spark a conversation in which your local municipality would begin an endeavor to observe, target, identify, and cite households with wireless LANs that are completely open. I would think of this much like I would the mechanical violation citation that my former municipality endeavored into. If the police felt the missing tail light was a safety physical concern, then why not virtual concern in this manner? And much like resolving those mechanical violation citations, you would have to get a 3rd party to endorse that your wireless network is now protected to get a silly rubber stamp for you to remit back to the municipality before the citation becomes a monetary fine. Consider the following with that same attitude:
Do you intend to also have governments monitor people's personal computers to check:
... for antivirus?
(never know, people may have viruses on their computer)
... for a firewall?
(never know, someone from the internet could be trying to access the system)
... for antispyware?
(never know, people may be transmitting credit card numbers around)
... if their computers are overclocked?
(never know, the computer could turn into a fire hazard)
... what people send via email..chat?
(never know, there could be terrorist stuff being transmitted)
... to see what ports they have open?
(never know, they may have a trojan)
... to see what documents are written..what pictures are on people's hard disks?
(never know, people may be writing about something that's illegal)
then proceed to fine people if they are not up to a certain "specification"?
Now, to break from that attitude as it's giving me a headache...
I'm a security advocate myself, however, taking it to the level that governments (municipal, provincial/state, or federal) have control over people's personal systems is just another progression toward totalitarianism and progression away from democracy.
Where do you set the limits as to where governments have control to fine people for misuse of technology?
I know there should be more responsibility, however, it should be ISPs that hold their users responsible, not the tax-dollar driven municipalities.
--
--Kradorex Xeron
| |
|
