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

[Lionel Peterson]

On Jan 13, 2009, at 10:35 PM, "Jonathan C. Patschke"  
<jp at celestrion.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Lionel Peterson wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> "Governments get away with it elsewhere" also isn't a reasonable
> justification for more pointless laws.

I would argue that this law has a point, albeit a small point. It will  
likely have the effect of raising the technical requirements and a few  
(like a handful) low-level "bad guys" might get caught... Maybe. But  
that number is slightly bigger than the number that would be caught  
without this law...

>> The law is being applied equally against both terrorists and law- 
>> abiding citizens.
>
> Because terrorists obey the law, right?

No, my point was that non-terrorists weren't the only group being  
impacted by this law.

>> 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.
>
> That's not being an accomplice anymore than the man who built the  
> roads
> they used is being an accomplice.

Note my use of the word IF, and that my second sentence said "I  
believe".

With this law, they become accomplices. Without this law I would agree  
with you.

>> See seatbelt and helmet comment above. Many things are "outlawed"  
>> if not
>> done as the Gov't deems proper,
>
> That still makes it neither -right- nor effective, which was my  
> initial
> jab.  If something A) doesn't solve the problem and B) isn't  
> inherently a
> good thing, why the hell do it?

A) it solves a small part of a perceived problem the Mumbai gov't  
feels it is facing - it is a partial solution. Sometimes a partial  
solution is the best you can do.

B) almost everything I read about setting up a WiFi access point  
strongly encourages the reader to secure their wireless network - I'd  
argue that securing your home network is a commonly-held "good thing".

>> 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.
>
> The fact they the government cannot show that it is effective is proof
> enough.  "Trust us, we can't tell you" wouldn't work for anyone  
> else; why
> should it be good enough for government?
>
>> 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...
>
> And would become inherently more honorable.

Honorable actions by lawmakers... Interesting idea.

>> The airlines wanted the regulations to restore traveller confidence  
>> in
>> flying.
>
> This would happen on its own, and likely happened more in spite of
> incompetent government regulation than because of it.
>
>> 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.
>
> It does nothing more than restore terrorists to the same set of  
> tools they
> had before they had access to wireless networks.  Terrorism was just  
> as
> effective back then.

A setback is motion in the right direction, IMHO.

>> I haven't seen anyone assert that this law will prevent terrorist
>> attacks, it instead makes it a little bit harder to plan them.
>
> So, possibly making attacks harder to plan, when the attacks  
> themselves
> aren't very common, and the planning of them is a miniscule amount  
> of  the
> overall wireless traffic is a good justification for getting cops to
> threaten people to set up their wireless networks a certain way?

One attack can really mess up your day.

The volume of WiFi traffic doesn't enter into it.

>> 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
>
> Of course it's harassment.  If I were to nag my next-door neighbor  
> about
> that sort of thing until he changed his behavior, any reasonable  
> person
> would consider that harassment.  Here, the police are doing the same
> thing, but they're adding threats to the suggestion ("Do this, or  
> else").
> How is harassment with the threat of harm not still harassment?

You say harrassment, I say greater good.

>> 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?
>
> If the police are stealing money from people who have not harmed  
> anyone,
> or if they are even wasting the time of people who have not harmed  
> anyone,
> I'd certainly call that harassment in the least.

You equate a policeman enforcing the law with a "bad cop" stealing  
from innocent people - I don't. Enforcing laws as written is their  
job, not a crime.

Lionel