[geeks] Unsecured Wifi connections now illegal in part of India.

[Lionel Peterson]

On Jan 13, 2009, at 2:31 AM, "Jonathan C. Patschke"  
<jp at celestrion.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Lionel Peterson wrote:
>
>> How is this harassing people? The Gov't is requiring folks with  
>> wireless
>> access points to set them to be secure.
>
> What if the owners of those access points don't want them to have a
> password?  I didn't have one on mine for the longest because I don't  
> mind
> sharing my connection.  It's not like I can save up the bandwidth  
> when I'm
> not home so that I can use it later.

I assume that this regulation will mirror similar laws here in the US  
- seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws. Driving/riding without either a  
seatbelt or helmet makes you a criminal in most states. These laws are  
similar in that are remove personal choice for some greater good. They  
may or may not be effective.

>> It is a zero-cost effort.  You and I may bristle at the  
>> requirement, but
>> we both live in the USA, not Mumbai, and all those wonderful
>> constitutional protections we have here don't really apply there.
>
> I don't recall making any reference to the US constitution.

I was attempting to underscore that the citizens of Mumbai live under  
different laws than we do here - I should have more clearly pointed  
that out without appearing to put words in your mouth.

>  It seems like
> a pretty impotent document to me.  It's either permitted all the
> government encroachment US citizens live under all the expansions of
> executive and legislative power we've seen in the last several  
> decades,
> and all the recent terror witch-hunting nonsense, or it has been  
> powerless
> to prevent it.

The Constitution clearly defines which rights we the people give  
Gov't, and notes that the states and/or citizens retain all the rest.  
That the people (through our representatives and courts) have given  
many of those rights up to the Gov't doesn't make it a weak document,  
it underscores our own weaknesses as a people.

>> The Gov't wants to make it harder to transmit data annonymously from
>> random points in the city.
>
> And that will stop nothing.  It's just yet another government doing
> "something" to look like they have some modicum of control over the
> situation.  And, whom are they exerting this control against?   
> Terrorists?
> No, regular folks who didn't do anything wrong.  Just like usual.

The law is being applied equally against both terrorists and law- 
abiding citizens. What if the law simply said if we can prove a  
terrorist used your unprotected "hot spot" than you are considered an  
accomplice, just as if the plotters met in your house or you hid the  
terrorists from the law after their attack? That, I believe is what  
the law is hoping for.

>> They didn't outlaw WiFi, and they didn't say you can't share the
>> password/code.
>
> They've effectively outlawed WiFi unless the access point is run in a
> manner the government approves.

See seatbelt and helmet comment above. Many things are "outlawed" if  
not done as the Gov't deems proper, but you can still choose to break  
the law. A lot depends on the penalty imposed, and if simply having an  
open WiFi portal is a primary or secondary offense.

>>> If all the wireless network devices in India had spontaneously self-
>>> destructed before the Mumbai attack had occurred, the terrorists
>>> wouldn't have said "Oh, shit. To bad we can't figure out how to
>>> communicate and blow stuff up without WiFi. Let's go home for tea,
>>> instead."
>>
>> No, but they likely would have used a form of communication that  
>> gov't
>> has hooks into and can monitor looking for suspect activity (rather
>> than fish through exabytes of wireless data per year)
>
> Do you really think that governments are effective at stopping any  
> but the
> most bumbling of terrorists, despite all the evidence to the contrary?
> America's own State Department can't even run an internal email  
> service
> that can shrug off a few bureaucrats clicking "Reply to All".

Don't confuse the perfect storm of ignorant users and an undersized/ 
improperly implemented email infrastructure as proof of anything more  
than proof that Gov't IT workers failed to defensively design their  
email system to protect it from abusive workers.

>  You think
> that India, with four times the population, some incredible level of
> population density, and probably nowhere near the snooping  
> infrastructure
> of the US can keep tabs on everyone?

I think the US is willing to help (Project Echelon?) countries like  
India keep tabs on their citizens, and I'm not sure how we would ever  
know if it is or isn't effective.

>>> People will do bad things. This alone is insufficient cause to  
>>> harass
>>> people who are not doing bad things.
>>
>> Securing a WiFi access point is far from harassment.
>
> It depends on what the "or else" is.  If there's an "or else",  
> wouldn't
> you consider that harassment?

Agreed (see above), but every law has an "or else" if it didn't, it  
would cease being a law and would become moe like a suggestion or a  
commandment...

> If there's no "or else", it depends on how often people will be  
> reminded
> to password-protect their equipment.  If the owner of the access point
> gets to look forward to a friendly reminder about his insecure network
> every couple of days, wouldn't you consider that harassment?

"Or else we'll send you reminders" is an or else.

I'd consider it a waste of taxpayer money long before I'd consider  
those toothless reminders as "harassment".

>> A few years ago, several folks took over some jumbo jets and did some
>> bad things with them, as a response to that, the federal government  
>> in
>> the US (and others I suppose) required commercial airliners to have
>> secure cockpit doors. That wasn't considered harassment as I recall.
>
> The commercial airlines take government payouts.  They've sold  
> themselves
> into whatever asinine regulations the government feels like laying on
> them.

The airlines wanted the regulations to restore traveller confidence in  
flying. The reason the hijackers succeeded in 2001 was because airline  
passengers have been told repeatedly by the Gov't and the airlines to  
acquiesce to hijacker demands, since the hijackers aren't interested  
in the passengers, they either want money or to effect some political  
outcome. I agree, after that day in September passengers would react  
differently than they did on that day. That was proven over a field in  
Western PA that very same day.

> That said, after that day in 2001, they could've put shower curtains  
> up
> instead of reinforced doors, and I don't there'd be a single  
> passenger who
> would let anyone up to the cockpit who looked like he was trying to  
> start
> trouble.

That shower curtain you offer as an alternative wouldn't delay an  
attacker long enough for the passengers to react to what was happening.

>> they are requiring citizens to not make it easy for folks to have
>> "secret" communications from "annonymous" locations.
>
> In a city as large as Mumbai, that's something of a laughable goal.   
> It's
> very easy to be anonymous in a crowd.

The law is designed (in my opinion) not to make it impossible to have  
annonymous, untraceable conversations, it is to make it a bit harder.  
I haven't seen anyone assert that this law will prevent terrorist  
attacks, it instead makes it a little bit harder to plan them.

Your argument is that this won't prevent terrorist attacks and is a  
form of harassment against otherwise law-abiding citizens, correct? I  
contend that no one said it would "prevent" an attack, and that it  
isn't harassment - it is likely a simple over-reaction that may or may  
not make a difference, we may never know. This is neither the first  
nor the last law that may not have the desired effect, but I don't  
think it rises to the level of harassment.

In Canada (I understand - der Mouse please correct me if i'm wrong) it  
is against the law to operate a motor vehicle with the headlights off,  
even during the day. The Gov't has gone so far as to require car Mfg.  
to pre-wire the lights to always be on. Will it save human lives? Who  
knows? But it makes it illegal to drive with your headlights off, is  
that a form of harassment, since police are supposed to stop a car  
with the headlights off and issue a summons/impose a fine/penalty?

Lionel