Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government Networking Security News

Mumbai Police To Enforce Wi-Fi Security 134

Posted by Soulskill
from the taking-a-stand-against-e-loitering dept.
caffeinemessiah writes "In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, the local police are going to be sniffing out unsecured wi-fi access points and ordering the owners to secure them. The article notes that 'terror mails were sent through unsecured Wi-Fi connections' before bomb blasts in other Indian cities. No word on if they'll be walking around using Kismet, or if people who use pathetically weak WEP encryption will be ordered to switch to more advanced protocols. Unfortunately, a gesture like this does not take into account the insidious scenario of walking into a cafe, buying a coffee and then (legally) using the cafe's wi-fi. Or the fact that terrorists might actually be able to pay to use a cybercafe, and know what VPNs are." On the other hand, the Mumbai police may still be keeping track of the mandatory keyloggers that went into the area's cybercafes in 2007.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mumbai Police To Enforce Wi-Fi Security

Comments Filter:
  • Not enough (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rite_m (787216) on Saturday January 10, 2009 @02:31PM (#26400037)

    Unless this policy is applied throughout the country, the city of Mumbai getting rid of unsecured wifi access points will not solve much. A terrorist can take a 3 hour bus ride to Pune to get unsecured wifi access. Mumbai itself is too big, are they talking about only the city or the whole suburbia included? Thane? New Mumbai?

    Sounds like a scare tactic to me. A publicity stunt to make people more aware of consequences of unsecured wifi.

    • Re:Not enough (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dbolger (161340) on Saturday January 10, 2009 @02:40PM (#26400127) Homepage

      Calling it a "scare tactic" is a bit harsh. I'd say its more the police wanting something to point to when their bosses ask what they've done to "make Mumbai safe from this happening again".

      • Calling it a "scare tactic" is a bit harsh. I'd say its more the police wanting something to point to when their bosses ask what they've done to "make Mumbai safe from this happening again".

        Big brother waltzes in, and you think he's just there for show?

        I'm not saying this will have any terror-reducing qualities as ascribed to them by the official channel, but it's not just song and dance like the water bottle thing, it's another way of removing anonymity. Making sure that all ctivity can be monitored, all citizens controlled...

        • "it's another way of removing anonymity"

          Please explain, in a way that those of us who aren't completely wrapped in tin-foil from head to toe, can understand.

          As I see it, a secured access point is no lees anonymous than an unsecured access point.

          • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

            by gnupun (752725)

            Please explain, in a way that those of us who aren't completely wrapped in tin-foil from head to toe, can understand.

            Well, an unsecured point means big brother can't track who exactly is using it -- relatively anonymous. Since 9/11, big brother (in many countries) has become obsessed with tracking everything everyone is doing under the guise of security. That kind of power can be easily abused and there are no laws preventing the abuse.

            • by GuloGulo (959533)

              "Well, an unsecured point means big brother can't track who exactly is using it "

              SO does a secured access point.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kindaian (577374)

        It's very easy to make Mumbai safe from a repetition...

        The problem is making it safe from the next DIFERENT thing.

        And a small detail, the city must be kept working...

    • by dmomo (256005) on Saturday January 10, 2009 @02:40PM (#26400131) Homepage

      3 hour bus ride? That's a lot of time taken out of a terrorist plot. Do you have any idea how much evil can HAPPEN in three hours? Hot dang. That's a whole 8th of a season. Just ask Jack Bauer.

      • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by Chris Burke (6130)

        3 hour bus ride? That's a lot of time taken out of a terrorist plot. Do you have any idea how much evil can HAPPEN in three hours? Hot dang. That's a whole 8th of a season. Just ask Jack Bauer.

        True, but that could be a great trick to get an uninteresting subplot out of the way and off the screen for a few episodes. Hazid and Bazid take a bus to another city to send the evil terrorist message via unsecured wifi. Don't worry about them for a while, back to Jack!

        They could show it instead in a kind of specia

    • by WindBourne (631190) on Saturday January 10, 2009 @05:29PM (#26401629) Journal
      They want ppl to feel like they are doing something to help the nation. It is no different than when W has been saying that American airports, ports and harbors are secure. They are not. It is more work, but it is still possible to smuggle weapons on-board aircraft (in fact, far too easy). The same is true of Mumbai. Assume that these guys want to attack again. So what? They simply rig an encrypted wifi close by and then use it for themselves. VERY easy to do. In fact, they can even set up some systems where they are 5KM away and use an antenna to beam to the top of the hotel. From there, plug in various antenna's just prior to the attack. It is that simple.
    • Unless this policy is applied throughout the country, the city of Mumbai getting rid of unsecured wifi access points will not solve much. A terrorist can take a 3 hour bus ride to Pune to get unsecured wifi access.

      Excellent! Now what used to take a terrorist planner a few moments takes him 6 hours (round trip), making his life that much more difficult. From a security point of view, that's a win.

      That's what many folks here don't seem to understand; the idea isn't to stop the terrorist cold, but to

    • But surely, if it raises awareness of the dangers of insecure wi-fi, it's a good thing?
  • Don't use keys. Copying and pasting messages, usernames, and passwords from a USB stick would work perfectly well for a terrorist at a cybercafe.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      It is as easy to capture the data from a Copy and paste as it is from key-input.

      Heck, that text file used to copy and paste could just as easily be e-mailed and then you lose all your passwords at once.

    • by 1s44c (552956) on Saturday January 10, 2009 @03:13PM (#26400437)

      Don't use keys. Copying and pasting messages, usernames, and passwords from a USB stick would work perfectly well for a terrorist at a cybercafe.

      Thats just silly. The real answer is one time passwords.

      However you really can't do much with a computer you mistrust, they know everything that happens in your session and they might be able to remote control it in the middle of your session.

    • by Kindaian (577374)

      The best keyloggers take not only keys, but screenshots, clicks and the clipboard...

      Naturally no keylogger resists a memory reset...

      But, if the keylogger is HARDWARE based, you don't even manage to detect it, because, if done correctly, it isn't even on the computer...

      Alas...

  • by dmomo (256005) on Saturday January 10, 2009 @02:32PM (#26400059) Homepage

    I honestly don't know. If this were in effect before the attack, what difference would it have made? I can't help but think "not a heck of a lot". Terror has a way of routing itself around obstacles. While it's good to have a secure network, should it be mandated?

    Is a network "unsecure" if you intentionally keep it open? Does this outlaw sharing access then?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by internewt (640704)

      The joke of an article simply refers to "terror mails" sent before the bombings. Are they saying that the bombings were planned via email through these open APs?

      If so, then I feel that the police's actions give insight as to their real drives: get a conviction, secure that pay-rise and promotion. If an AP is open it gives a pretty good defence to the owner, but if it is secure then that defence may not fly. The police get a successful conviction, even though it might be totally the wrong person.

      If you don't

  • by oojimaflib (1077261) on Saturday January 10, 2009 @02:40PM (#26400125)

    the insidious scenario of walking into a cafe, buying a coffee and then (legally) using the cafe's wi-fi

    This is the first (and I hope the last) time I have heard such a scenario described as "insidious".

    • by cffrost (885375)

      This is the first (and I hope the last) time I have heard such a scenario described as "insidious".

      Agreed. Overuse of this word occurs in a seemingly benign, yet harmfully annoying manner.

  • Lame (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Idiomatick (976696) on Saturday January 10, 2009 @02:40PM (#26400129)

    Unless i'm at university I always leave my network unsecured. My neighbors use it on occasion (i check logs). And I use theirs on occasion, with us being on separate ISPs we get at least 5 9s of uptime. It frustrates me that secured is become standard or in this case enforced. It was much better a few years ago when i could get wireless access in most places to check emails and such. Why do have to have such a community of locked doors? If someone has a laptop they likely have their own wireless internet which you could use, it is a perfectly fair deal. If my neighbours did a few gigs a day i'd stop it but it never went over a few megs.
    Standard security should not allow access to lan. It should be allowed to set limits for outsiders and should have a message redirect when you first open FF/IE/Opera saying the rules and so forth. Thats it. Making sharing and redundancy illegal is ridiculous and as the summary suggests it doesn't help anything.

    • Well I don't want people on my network as yet another layer to prevent access to data shared on my network between the three computers I have on the network.

      Or am I missing something here? and I mean that sincerely. If there is something I'm missing about protecting your data and the openness of my network please tell me.

      • by pegdhcp (1158827)
        You are both right and wrong. Your computer's security should be at a level that is designed agains a punched thru firewall anyway. So while you are right that it is more secure when you keep people out of your home network, the security of your home computers should not rely on the assumption that there is no foreign objects on the network.
        I guess the most dangerous thing that can happen that, if somebody has unauthorized access to your network and that they can do something illegal like child porn and le
        • That is why I've referred to layers. It is just one layer of defense to try to keep people off the network to start. And not just layers, but also protection against a specific attack vector ... hopping on my network via wifi access vice punching through my firewall, or rooting my kit.

        • Mmm... yeah. If I could just get rid of NFS, I'd be able to open up my wifi.

          Anyone know how to replicate a no_root_squash NFS environment with Samba and Linux CIFS clients? I need a Samba share to retain the uid and gid of the process that creates a file or directory, rather than setting the uid and gid to those of the CIFS user whose credentials were used to mount the share.

    • Making sharing and redundancy illegal is ridiculous and as the summary suggests it doesn't help anything.

      It helps the government keep an eye on everyone.

      "Who said that about the justice minister?"
      "That guy, we'll go fuck his life up now..."

      But, you know, think of the children, if you don't give the gvmnt all they want, terrorist will kill jesus (or Rama, depending on what gets people emotional where it's being said)!

      • "It helps the government keep an eye on everyone."

        HOW? This is the second time you've made that bullshit claim, and the second time I've called you on it.

        Take your meds guy.

        • He is referring to india's mandatory key logging program in net cafe. There is a growing concern in india that this will spread to modems or routers. As evidenced by government being comfortable to set rules with how you use your home internet (enforced wpa)....

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Belial6 (794905)
          Your kidding right? The whole point and stated goal of mandating secure wifi is to stop anonymous communication. Did you not read the article? This isn't a case of the government claiming to do something different. This is a case of the government saying "we need to be able to keep eye on everyone." Did you read something else into the plan to require secured wifi?
        • "It helps the government keep an eye on everyone."

          HOW? This is the second time you've made that bullshit claim, and the second time I've called you on it.

          Take your meds guy.

          I ignored you the first time because you're an asshole, but since you insist: Anyone who's not retarded knows that you have to LOG IN to a secured access point, dumbass.
          STFU and do a minor amount of thinking.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by interiot (50685)
      Two problems:
      1. Wifi uses a shared-communications medium, so various attacks like DNS spoofing, TCP hijacking, etc. that people have stopped studying because they "went away" once everyone replaced their hubs with switches... Surprise! They're back. It's trivial to spoof DNS over wifi, which means it's trivial to do HTTPS man-in-the-middle attacks. This is the very reason that Firefox tightened up their self-signed SSL certificate behavior recently.
      2. Most home gateways have a layer2 bridge between the wi
  • by yelvington (8169) on Saturday January 10, 2009 @02:46PM (#26400177) Homepage

    Unfortunately, a gesture like this does not take into account the insidious scenario of walking into a cafe, buying a coffee and then (legally) using the cafe's wi-fi.

    Wrong. You can't just walk into a cafe in Mumbai and use the wifi. You have to show a government ID (such as a passport), which is recorded, before you even get access credentials.

    The point of this exercise is to shut down anonymous Internet access, which is illegal in India.

    Similarly, you can't legally buy a SIM card for a mobile phone in India without providing identity credentials to the seller, who is responsible for recording the information for possible police followup.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nurb432 (527695)

      Yup, gotta keep those citizens down, or they might rise up and blow something up in protest...

      On a more serious note, since they are so against anonymity do they also outlaw personal use of encryption technologies?

    • by Scrameustache (459504) on Saturday January 10, 2009 @03:12PM (#26400419) Homepage Journal

      You can't just walk into a cafe in Mumbai and use the wifi. You have to show a government ID (such as a passport), which is recorded, before you even get access credentials.

      Exact. And since terrorists would NEVER steal a passport, it means that this will keep the children safe, and not at all only serve to mess with regular citizens while being a mere inconvenience for true criminal intents.

      *sigh*

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 10, 2009 @05:47PM (#26401807)

        You're right. Nobody should ever check IDs for anything because they can all be faked.

        In fact, why even have laws? Terrorists can just go around shooting everybody anyway.

        • by Tsagadai (922574)

          You're right. Nobody should ever check IDs for anything because they can all be faked.

          In fact, why even have laws? Terrorists can just go around shooting everybody anyway.

          For an anonymous coward you raise an insightful point.

    • by yams (637038)

      Well, these people are terrorists - they don't need to legally do anything. They don't even need to provide a good fake document - I know how diligent the SIM card dealers are. The terrorist can show a torn up copy of a fake ration card and walk out with a SIM card in 5 minutes. Some of these SIM card dealers themselves are very shady.

      I doubt that any of these regulations will prevent good old me from getting a fake SIM card, let alone a well trained terrorist. I think we need to review our very approach to

    • by argiedot (1035754)

      Similarly, you can't legally buy a SIM card for a mobile phone in India without providing identity credentials to the seller, who is responsible for recording the information for possible police followup.

      It's funny though, it's illegal enough if you don't do this, but easy enough to get away with. Even today.

    • by Kindaian (577374) on Saturday January 10, 2009 @04:57PM (#26401371) Homepage

      Okie... so...

      1. Terrorists don't use satellite phones,
      2. They don't use any kind of walkies-talkies,
      3. And specially, they abide by ALL laws!

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by westlake (615356)
        3. And specially, they abide by ALL laws!

        The smart ones do. The less attention you draw to yourself the better.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by schamarty (942187)

        I have a job that sometimes involves talking about security in some general terms.

        One thing I always say (and I'm not very popular for saying it) is that most security -- information or otherwise -- is more about the job security of the person in charge of the security. He has to keep doing *something*. As long as no bad stuff happens, he gets to say "see, we did all of this, so nothing happened". If something bad happens, he says "look we did **ALL** of this, and still something happened; how could I ha

    • by mdmkolbe (944892)

      anonymous Internet access, which is illegal in India.

      Thank you, that explains a lot. But now I wonder how on earth they made anonymous Internet access illegal. I mean really; are they also going to make snail-mail with no return address illegal?

    • by IronChef (164482)

      I've been worried that the US would begin looking at similar policies for a long time. I haven't caught a whiff of it yet though.

      After the anthrax hoo-hah I was sure that we'd begin to see TSA-like procedures for the mail. Aside from mail to government offices being delayed for X-rays, though, nothing seemed to materialize. I can still put a package in the mail anonymously, which somehow surprises me.

      Maybe we're not as dumb as I am afraid of.

      Oops, I bet I just jinxed myself!

  • by Jumperalex (185007) on Saturday January 10, 2009 @02:56PM (#26400259)

    Yes there are still going to be other ways for baddies to use the inter-tubes without being tracked, but limiting those access points can help. Instead of having a nearly limitless, and randomly distributed, source of connections they will now be funneled into a small set of access point which are also KNOWN access points.

    Does this mean I agree ... I don't know yet ... but as with all security measures (both cyber and safety related) there is no such thing as a 100% solution. But we all know defense should be in depth, and each layer should be effective in accomplishing what it is meant to do. In many cases we all read about here, the proposed solution is nothing more than security theater, but shutting down the plethora of open wifi access points IS an effective way to limit the ability of bad actors (terrorists, kid-touchers, black-hats, etc) to access the internet at will; not a solution, but a factor.

    As for law abiding citizens, since most of us use our own account anyway or walk into a cyber-cafe, and I assume few bother trying to use an insecure wifi, it really doesn't impact that much (well except when I'm at my sister's place and she has inexplicably jacked her wifi router forcing me to use someone else's wifi :O ).

    I'm still not thrilled with the idea of the gov riding around with netstumbler looking for open wifi and then knocking on my door, but the idea of wanting to limit open-wifi is, imo, a good one. The execution is another issue entirely.

    Now if you REALLY want to have fun thinking about it ... consider an area with known terrorists / suspects, you make sure all open wifi points are closed ... then you open your own as a honeypot ... BAM you get to see all their traffic ... well anything that isn't encrypted beyond the wifi encryption. It is a very effective technique to shut down all method of comms except one in an effort to intercept all comms.

    • by wjh31 (1372867)
      if all this means is you now have to pay a couple of roupees (or whatever it would be) for a coffee to get access, then it hardly limits the access points
      • Sure it does ... now instead of having the option either 1 free open anonymous wifi or a coffee house you only have the coffee house. A place that is KNOWN, and not exactly anonymous. Clearly this is not a 100% solution, but nothing is. The point here is to make it harder for baddies to get access without being noticed, tracked, or snooped. If you were law enforcement would you want to worry about a million access point, that you don't even know where they all are? or a few thousand/tens of thousands a

  • Unfortunately, a gesture like this does not take into account the insidious scenario of walking into a cafe, buying a coffee and then (legally) using the cafe's wi-fi.

    No, but it would help to narrow down the places from where potential terrorists could anonymously communicate to a number of places that might be manageable -- which is closer to what they want. If most access points were secured, it'd be that much harder to find an unsecured access point in a place unlikely to be covered by police or cameras.

    • by Vellmont (569020)


      the police are trying to make things harder for terrorists so they can't just do whatever they want to do with total simplicity.

      You seem to have a strange view of the problem. This kind of system is doomed to failure. Does anyone _really_ think this will do squat to stop "The Terrorists"? "The Terrorists" will simply pick another means of anonymous communication. There's hundreds of ways to do that, and you can't stop all of them.

      • by jesterzog (189797)

        Perhaps you could list a few alternatives that are easy for people who aren't technically inclined, which are generally foolproof, and which don't leave forensic traces that equipped police can follow.

        Of course it won't stop terrorism. It'll just force them to do something other than what they wanted, make anonymous communication harder, and raise the chance they'll make a mistake. It'll probably annoy some people who have legitimate uses for unsecured access points, too.

        • by Vellmont (569020)


          Perhaps you could list a few alternatives that are easy for people who aren't technically inclined, which are generally foolproof, and which don't leave forensic traces that equipped police can follow.

          How about just leaving printed out flyers in a restroom? Someone did that at a local University with a bomb threat. Are you really trying to tell me that electronic communication is the only means of anonymous communication?

          It'll just force them to do something other than what they wanted, make anonymous com

  • ...but it works.

    I have seen routers that support wpa but some devices (e.g. my macbook) will not stay connected with that encryption.

    I've seen this with other devices too, and other brand routers. Different implementations of a "standard" is a failure.

    • by wjh31 (1372867)
      i agree, i use WEP on an ad-hoc to share internet to my girlfriend in the flat, and i can monitor the traffic from the computer to make sure nothing is awry, i use it over WPA for the same reason you list, and my parents use WEP with their router, again because some computers still seem unable to play nicely with WEP.

      and to be honest, its not like WPA is uncrackable, and if someone knows how to get through WEP they can probably figure how to get through WPA in the end. I think that for most people, secur
      • and to be honest, its not like WPA is uncrackable, and if someone knows how to get through WEP they can probably figure how to get through WPA in the end.

        This is incorrect. WEP has a well-known attack that uses statistical properties of captured packets to limit the search space of the brute-force search. With enough captured packets, it takes under a few minutes to crack a WEP key. WPA does not have this vulnerability, although some variants of WPA are still less secure than other. In other words, all you have to do to crack WEP encryption is put most cheap $20 wireless cards into "monitor" mode, capture WEP encrypted packets and with enough packets, crack

      • i agree, i use WEP on an ad-hoc to share internet to my girlfriend in the flat, and i can monitor the traffic from the computer to make sure nothing is awry, i use it over WPA for the same reason you list, and my parents use WEP with their router, again because some computers still seem unable to play nicely with WEP. and to be honest, its not like WPA is uncrackable, and if someone knows how to get through WEP they can probably figure how to get through WPA in the end. I think that for most people, security on the home network its just to keep curious neighbours from stumbleing in, rather that over concern that some terrorist is going to be sitting in a van outside using their network to help execute their plans to destroy the world

        it might not be uncrackable, but if a guy on a laptop can't crack it in 5 minutes, then he is probably going to move on to a different target thats easier

  • by ldcroberts (747178) on Saturday January 10, 2009 @03:22PM (#26400511)
    Surely the fact terrorists have anonymous access to physical roads and footpaths is a bigger issue? If that was restricted it would make their intentions measurably harder to pursue.
  • This is Useless (Score:4, Interesting)

    by yams (637038) on Saturday January 10, 2009 @03:25PM (#26400541) Homepage Journal

    I think this is a big waste of time for the Mumbai police. If the terrorists can't send an e-mail with their threats, they will just send it by postal mail (just as they were doing before e-mail). Stopping them from sending anonymous e-mail won't stop the acts of terror. The Mumbai police should focus on investigating the actual attacks and preventing further attacks, rather than shooting the messenger.

    Some people think that this can prevent them from coordinating their attacks, but I don't think so. Their attacks can be coordinated using various other techniques that may even be illegal - won't mention them, use your imagination.

    Fundamentally, creating new rules will not stop terrorists - remember that there are already laws that prevent people from acquiring AK-47s & explosives. New rules will only inconvenience law abiding citizens - not terrorists.

    Also, on another note - I don't like Times of India because they selectively prevent some comments from being displayed. I specifically mentioned this point in their comments and they have not published it, even after 2 days.

  • What a non-sense again; now we limit wireless access, what about the 2G variant? Mobile telephones. Sorry this is a pathetic attempt that should be spoken out loud.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by blueg3 (192743)

      The point is to limit anonymous Internet access. Mobile phone communications are all tied to a particular mobile phone, which cannot be acquired anonymously in India (for appropriate definitions of "cannot").

  • by Adeptus_Luminati (634274) on Saturday January 10, 2009 @03:31PM (#26400593)

    Newsflash: Mumbai has 17 MILLION people. Granted at most 500,000 have computers.

    But still the level of computer literacy in Mumbai in police force is complete joke. Hey, their government offices don't even have computers.

    I think the most ridiculous thing is that there's countless MILLIONS starving on the streets and now they are going to equip police with laptops to chase after unprotected WiFi signals?

    Didn't they get the memo a few months ago that even WPA2 was cracked with Nvidia CPU/GPUs?

    What are they going to do, enforce people to implement breakable security? Where's the sense in that.

    Indian stock market is down over 60%, I think the police should be focusing their efforts on preventing civil unrest. And government spending their money far more wisely. People are starving everywhere you look in Mumbai, not to say the same thing in just about every other Indian city.

    But that's just my 2 cents.

  • I suppose that's easier and cheaper than replacing the Mumbai police's ancient Enfield rifles and providing adequate weapons training to the police force.

  • The messages can just come and go... and even if they are saved and stored... they will mean nothing... ..unless you are on the knowing of how the message is.

    Seams to me that people just don't know anything about cryptography...

    Alas...

  • You have a man with a rifle in his hands, two pistols in his pockets, and a backpack full of ammunition & explosives - and you want to cut off his internet access?

    Let me get back to you on this one...
  • Then only terrorists will use open WiFi.

    Nice try, Bombay police, but FAIL.

  • How do the keyloggers work via wifi when the terrorist brings along his own EEE or AAO, buys a cup of joe, pays for some wifi access, enters his passphrase to access his data partition, and proceeds to send out all the terror messages?

    • Well, the white hats wouldn't be able to decrypt the message (unless they get a shot of the screen via security cam) but the terrorist will show up on the camera buying his cup of joe, and unless they pay cash (for which they should be asked to show ID to get on the network) they'll be paying by a traceable credit card.

      Alone, it's a useless data point. But if they're already following the guy, score it as "terrorist chatter".

  • What do they mean by "terror mails?" Are these messages coordinating the attack? Or are they messages that provide warning of the attack? The police could by shooting themselves in the foot, nevermind that WEP is easy to hack.

    • by peater (1422239)
      With reference to this specific article, terror mails refer to the "threatening" mails sent to the media allegedly by the Indian Mujahideen which were followed by the terror attacks in Ahmedabad (a city in India) and similar attacks elsewhere in India. I guess the process of "tipping off" the media before the attack actually happens is for them to get maximum media coverage of their handiwork (sometimes as it happens). One person caught in connection with this was a principal software engineer at Yahoo, Pun
  • It's a simple theory. He who can be traced to who can't pass the investigation onto the next person in the chain must be the culprit. At McDonald's, you have to buy something to get access, and that means walking in front of the security camera at a minimum, and possibly even leaving a traceable credit card number.

    All forms of untraceable internet usage have lead to trouble. Come on people, secure your networks.

  • Its getting really shameful how stupid our Police & Politicians can be. Instead of working to avoid terror attacks they are spending time on this? WIFI was only used to CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ATTACKS. That could be done by post/note/phone or just telling the local news channel. This doesn't affect the bombs/guns at ALL. Main problem seems to be the dumb & out of work IT security advisors hired by the Police/Govt.
  • by DrSkwid (118965) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @05:06AM (#26406083) Homepage Journal

    The blatant power grab / security theatre is so funny it's untrue!

    The transcripts of the sodding terrorist cellphone calls are available online and on the news and *what* different did that make?

    So, how often is this supposed sweep going to take place? If you'd been to Mumbai you'd be laughing till your sides ache. Any sort of WiFi is very low on the list of things most of the people about, this is a place where people live next to open sewers and shit into newspaper and leave it on the pavement - and not just in some ghettoised area. You have to watch where you tread for most of your day.

    Where I'm living atm. (Goa) we're supposed to be on high terror alert. So it now costs Rs. 100 ($1) to cross the checkpoints unsearched instead of the normal Rs. 10. They claim pride in no terror attacks yet there are rapes every few days and unnaturally caused dead bodies found regularly. The driving test is driving 20 yards, going round a traffic island and coming back. Btw. if you do get raped here you will be told it is your own fault and the best thing you can do is to go back to where you came from (if you can find a police station that will listen to your story).

    The biggest threat to your safety here as a local are the govt. officials. They are likely to be known murderers or their children can rape and murder with almost impunity a couple of times.

    India likes to project an image of a wonderful progressive country but it will remain mostly a third world corruption riddled shit hole for my lifetime. Esp. as the GDP growth is about to end and they already spend minimal amounts on the welfare of the people (less than 2% of GDP on healthcare) 25% of whom are illiterate.

  • "terror mails" Geez... i'm so tired of this "TERROR" thing being attached to everything some extremist group does... NOT EVERY BOMBING HAS A TERRORIST OBJECTIVE! (IE: If I blow GWB into pieces, it's not because i want to generate terror or destroy someone's "Way of life" (which btw it's a FAT LAME excuse), just quite the oposite, see?...)
  • Here in Britain, all the open WiFi access points seem to have disappeared over the past year or so (other than the odd residential "NETGEAR"). Even the cafes and bars that had it are putting passwords on it. It wouldn't surprise me if the surveillance-happy New Labour government had passed a law banning open WiFi, or making the owners liable for any paedoterrorist activity on it.

A Fortran compiler is the hobgoblin of little minis.

Working...