more on Unsecured Wi-Fi would be outlawed by N.Y. county

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Date: November 5, 2005 8:21:13 PM EST
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Unsecured Wi-Fi would be outlawed by N.Y.  
county
Reply-To: dewayne () warpspeed com

[Note:  This comment comes from reader Thomas Leavitt.  DLH]

> From: Thomas Leavitt <thomas () thomasleavitt org>
> Date: November 5, 2005 4:48:56 PM PST
> To: dewayne () warpspeed com
> Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] Unsecured Wi-Fi would be outlawed by  
> N.Y. county
>
> Gah. Next, they'll make it illegal to leave your door unlocked.
>
> We need a Constitutional amendment along the lines of "Congress shall
> make no law regarding technology without having a clue."
>
> Or perhaps a law requiring that an appropriate private sector  
> standards
> body should vet all laws related to the Internet prior to
> introduction...
>
> With regards to this particular example of stupidity: people should be
> free to implement the security measures they feel are appropriate - a
> firewall may or may not be necessary (although I certainly would  
> rather
> be running one).
>
> Tort liability for negligent administration of confidential personal
> information is the proper means of addressing the problem.
>
> Mandating that people install a "network gateway server" equipped  
> with a
> "firewall" is stupid, on many levels - technically, the presence of a
> "firewall" means little or nothing, passage of such a law will  
> encourage
> the that folks have taken care of potential security problems by
> installing one. A firewall is useless if it isn't configured properly,
> and often requires holes be punched in it for the network to be  
> useable
> (which defeats much of the original purpose of installing one).
>
> Furthermore, there are security models that don't put a "network  
> gateway
> server" and a "firewall" on the same box... are companies that have
> implemented such going to have to throw away thousands of dollars  
> worth
> of equipment because it is in technical non-compliance? What about  
> folks
> who run firewalls on individual servers without a centralized  
> firewall?
> Or who run ZoneAlarm on their PCs? Does a Windows box running Windows
> Firewall and offering Internet Connection Sharing qualify? How do you
> define "firewall" anyway? Is a NAT box a "firewall"?
>
> Further, it doesn't serve the end it is intended to: the vast majority
> of security breaches and privacy protection violations occur *behind*
> the firewall (or where a firewall might be).
>
> And the idea that people would have to put up signs saying,  
> essentially:
> "we've put a security precaution in place, but it may very well be
> utterly pointless, so please be careful" is hilarious... although the
> idea of having to "register" Internet connections with the  
> government is
> NOT funny at all.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Leavitt

Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/