Open Wi-Fi May Become Illegal In India 179
chromoZ writes with word that because of the serial blasts in Indian cities (and terrorist outfits claiming responsibility via email, often sent via Cyber Cafes and open Wi-Fi spots), sharing unsecured wireless access may get much tougher in India: "The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) after studying open Wifi networks is coming up with a set of guidelines and recommendations to secure them. 'All ISPs may be instructed to ensure that their subscribers using wireless devices must use effective authentication mechanisms and permit access to internet to only authorised persons using wireless devices.' An open Wi-Fi could be as much as illegal in India after this."
Proxies (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh noes!!! (Score:1, Troll)
mail box (Score:3, Insightful)
Wont they use the mail box down the street?.
Solution: authorize everyone (Score:5, Funny)
Simple solution: authorize everyone with WiFi capability to access your network. The authentication is very strong, as anyone without WiFi capability will absolutely not be allowed to connect.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That fails the "authenticate" requirement. In fact, it completely ignores that authentication (clearly and accurately ascertaining the identity of the connection user) is intended to be a mandatory precondition to access.
By analogy (not a car analogy, sorry), if you operate a liquor store and your local jurisdiction imposes an age-verification requirement (authenticate purchaser's age) before you can make a sale of an intoxicating controlled beverage (authorize the transaction), your solution is to ignore t
Re: (Score:2)
Another big problem with this is that it requires users to be security experts.
Will it be illegal to run a WEP network?
terrorists can use one almost as easily as an open network so for the stated purpose this law would fail unless WEP were banned.
WPA can be cracked too, it's just harder, takes longer and you have no certainty of success within minutes.
It's like making it a crime to not lock your mailbox because someone might send threatening letters from it.
It requires your average Joe to be a security expe
Re:What are you supposed to authenticate? (Score:5, Insightful)
With the drink, it's "authenticate how old they are."
With wifi, it's "authenticate who they are."
See, the parallel construction works just fine. It's not that much of a stretch.
Now, within the letter of this "law", you could still allow "anonymous" access:
WAP: "Who are you?"
User: "I'm A. Nony Mouse".
WAP, to himself: "Is 'A. Nony Mouse' allowed access? Since the authorized users list is the regular expression '.*', yes, he is authorized."
WAP: "Welcome, Mr. Mouse"
Perfect compliance with the stated guidelines. Note the absence of any requirement:
Futility. It doesn't take that much cleverness to obey the guideline and still carry on as usual.
If the authorities are serious about stamping out WAP-based anonymity, they're gonna have to try harder.
Re:What are you supposed to authenticate? (Score:5, Insightful)
With wifi, it's "authenticate who they are."
No, not really. With wifi you are not actually authenticating the identity of the person using the connection. Not unless you assign a police officer to stand guard next to every wifi NIC and check photo IDs. With wifi all you can hope to authenticate is the identity of the "user" - a mythical creature that exists only in the password file. This "user" is allowed to enter because he knows a secret handshake. But you still have no idea who he is.
Re:Solution: authorize everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple solution: authorize everyone with WiFi capability to access your network. The authentication is very strong, as anyone without WiFi capability will absolutely not be allowed to connect.
There's a problem there. TFS indicates that this is just a "set of guidelines and recommendations", but the title indicates that it's a potential law. If the law states that you must authorize people to use your network, it seems that they could hold you responsible for its misuse. So if somebody transmits terrorist instructions / P2Ps RIAA music / uploads kiddie porn (won't somebody think of the children!?!), they may drag you in. Even though you didn't commit the crime, you authorized somebody to use your equipment and helped facilitate the crime.
Of course, if I loan somebody my car and they run down their cheating GF, I'm probably safe unless they told me their intention ahead of time. But Internet laws are still so nebulous that the analogy may not carry over.
Re:Solution: authorize everyone (Score:5, Funny)
if I loan somebody my car and they run down their cheating GF, I'm probably safe unless they told me their intention ahead of time. But Internet laws are still so nebulous that the analogy may not carry over.
But it must! It's a car analogy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
easier than that SSID:passwordispassword
Of course, this does nothing (Score:5, Informative)
to stop the attacks in the first place. Lots of other ways to claim responsibility for attacks. As usual, it just makes the common man a criminal...
Re:Of course, this does nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
yea, this is quite idiotic.
terrorists don't carry out attacks because they have open wi-fi access. they simply use open wi-fi because it's available and convenient--the same reason everyone else uses it.
if they can't access the internet via open wi-fi they'll just use other anonymous channels. what is the Indian government going to do, eliminate public computer terminals at schools and libraries? ban proxy servers? or simply outlaw anonymity altogether?
it would be just as easy to claim responsibility for a terrorist act by leaving an anonymous note or spraying graffiti onto the side of a public building at night. should all Indian citizens have to get GPS implants?
Re:Of course, this does nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite true. Yet if India is anything like America, a thin layer of anti-terrorist wrapping paper is all that's needed to disguise even the most egregiously pro-corporate legislation. The telecoms want this change to reduce sharing of network connections, pure and simple.
guidelines == law?? (Score:2)
Since when does disobeying "guidelines and recommendations" mean you are breaking the law?
Just set the ESSID to "You are authorized," then everyone using it is authorized.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since when does disobeying "guidelines and recommendations" mean you are breaking the law?
The law in a given jurisdiction may condition safe-harbor provisions on compliance with "guidelines and recommendations". For example, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, which has been law in the United States (home of Slashdot) for just shy of a decade, conditions a safe harbor for copyright infringement on a notice and takedown procedure.
Just set the ESSID to "You are authorized," then everyone using it is authorized.
But nobody is authenticated. The guideline appears to require both authentication and authorization.
anonymity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What a pity (Score:5, Interesting)
I recently toured Skandinavia. In every reasonably big city
(that means "more than 15 houses" over there), you can nearly
be sure to find some open access point. Of course, some of
those are cluess users using lousy default configs - but quite
a lot are deliberately open, with SSIDs like "welcome_to_stockholm".
One even ran a guestbook on the AP's port 80, accessible only :-)
from the inside. Lots and lots of grateful people from all over
the world had left a message before mine
That's the kind of culture I would like to see encouraged in
other places as well, not this "OMG terrorists" bullshit being
used as an excuse for more and more control in way too many
parts of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just thinking the same. Seems to me that if you want anyone to be an 'authorized person', the above doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was just thinking the same. Seems to me that if you want anyone to be an 'authorized person', the above doesn't matter.
That's cool... until one of your "authorized" persons threatens the president!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being a president means being the nominal head of your country. That, in turn, means being the most obvious target for anyone who said country has managed to piss off. Living with the knowledge that there are people in this world who want to kill and might act upon that desire you is part of the job. If you flip out and bust someone simply because someone else used his equipment to send such a threat, you aren't fit for the job,
Re: (Score:1)
Re:What a pity (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the kind of culture I would like to see encouraged in
other places as well, not this "OMG terrorists" bullshit being
used as an excuse for more and more control in way too many
parts of the world.
Then vote for cultural homogeneity? There seldom seems to be OMG Terrorist! or repressive government problems when you have a homogeneous culture.
In places with highly diverse cultures, the tension and the government repression seem to get ratcheted up.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re:What a pity (Score:4, Interesting)
Scandinavia is the least religious place in the world explaining well the lack of violence. Compare that to homogeneous places in africa where violent crime is incredibly high. Or compare that to Canada where we are very multi-cultural but have fairly low rates of crime. A country being homogeneous will i think lower crime but it is NOT a major factor. The places history, culture and religious fervor seems to set the pace.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's funny stuff. The only thing I see our (Canada's) multi-cultural openness leading to is more Sharia-law.....yes more. Majority rules, it's only a matter of time.
Switzerland, the land of openness, is struggling to close the flood gates now. You would like to think our country could watch, learn and adjust. Alas, we are to passive about anything not having to do with hockey.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, you're kind of mixing crime and violence and religious violence, which are related, but different. Someone stealing a car is different than a person blowing up a car in the name of some god. For example, there's a high crime rate in the United States, a relatively "religious" country. And there's a high violent crime rate too. But there's not a lot of violence between religious groups like you'd see in some Islamic theocracies or predominantly Islamic countries. In fact, in the US the best
Re: (Score:2)
Erm i did say cultural heritage was a major factor... I can take out your assertion of the economic issue, countries with comparable wealth have more crime with more religion. Though as you said the inverse could be and i believe is true as well. Style of economy again you can disprove with stats using areas within a country to some degree. And i never said there was only one factor i'm sure there are many i just said that religion is a bigger indicator than homogeneous people.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
Do note numbers 1,3,4,7
Re: (Score:2)
Banning firearms had a fairly negligible effect on crime. Attempted murders continue to drop yearly and murders while having a slight increase in 2004 really it doesn't matter. Violent crime in 2007 reached a 30 year low... murders being even with what they were just before the gun laws were introduced.
Re: (Score:2)
Well statistics prove that.... Look at a list of countries with high levels of religion and a population over 1million. You get a list of the countries worst plagued by violent crime and war. Many of them are in africa...Mauritania Somalia Sahara ...
Re: (Score:2)
You are not looking for cultural homogeneity, you are looking for compatibility. In my work place (research institution in Germany) there are people from all over the world, only about half are German, and I still have to see any act of the slightest cultural embarrassment.
Of course, a lot of idiots are incompatible (not name-calling: look up the word "idiot") with other cultures, because they have been told their culture or race is superior, their god is the only true one, and that they should obey instead
Re:What a pity (Score:5, Insightful)
Then vote for cultural homogeneity? There seldom seems to be OMG Terrorist! or repressive government problems when you have a homogeneous culture.
That whole "cultural homogeneity" meme is just used as a dismissive tactic to avoid discussing the real reasons the Scandinavian cultures are so successful. Cultural homogeneiety is pretty prevalent in China, Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc., just as much as in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc, yet those countries don't get any awards for being great places to live.
The difference is that the Scandinavian cultures are highly progressive. Education is free to all, and the government will actually pay the students to go to school, so you end up with citizens that are educated on the issues, smart enough to vote for much better government candidates, and don't fall for the "tricks" that less educated voters fall for. So -- surprise -- they don't end up with repressive govnerments. Surprise! The tax money that is generated actually goes to services that are useful to the people that pay them. The citizens get free health care, housing help, and many other services that keep their society, happy, relaxed, and stable.
In America, our education is hugely expensive, so many people don't get educated. You end up with ignorant voters --> corrupt politicians, deregulation, failing banks, and the current "socialism for the rich", complete with massive government bailouts, but only for rich investors.
In other countries, with even less educated voters, you end up with worse conditions. It's not a mystery.
mod parent up (Score:2)
This is exactly correct. Centering everything on "cultural homogeneity" is ludicrous when there are so many other characteristics of the societies that play a much more obvious and direct role here. Particularly when you look at the history of truly culturally homogenous cultures over time.
Re: (Score:2)
>Cultural homogeneiety is pretty prevalent in China, Russia, ...
Seems like you were ill during geography lessons a lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_China [wikipedia.org]
1. Han (zh:; Traditional: ; Hàn Zú)
2. Zhuang (zh:; Traditional: ; Zhuàng Zú)
3. Manchu (zh:; Traditional: ; Mn Zú)
4. Hui (zh:; Huí Zú) (Also includes Utsuls of Hainan, descended from Cham refugees.)
Re: (Score:2)
Before we get too full of praise, let me give you a few pointers on scandinavia:
1. We have representative parliaments (or close to) which usually means 4-8 parties and typically coalitions. This leads to actual political choice but also a lot of political blameshifting and weak leadership. We are all constituionally monarchies but the royal families stay out of politics, but it does mean that in general we have a set of ministers with a prime minister which is a lot less powerful and not quite as person-dep
Re: (Score:2)
One question: how exactly do you "vote for cultural homogeniety"? do you vote for a candidate that promises to kick anyone who doesn't fit your profile of a "culturally-homogenous" person from the country? because I remember last time something like that happened, and the results weren't nice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Last I checked, this is the overall tally
Number of lives lost in Scandinavia due to Terrorism: 0
Number of lives lost in India due to Terrorism: Atleast 635 people killed in Terrorism since 2001 (I think in reality its far more..)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_India [wikipedia.org]
For all the people here, how would you start behaving the day after the first series of bomb blasts if they were to go off in major cities around US? How would your perspectives change, after the fiftieth one, and consider for a minute
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pakistan has nukes, and Indians aren't stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't do that, but if I want to, I will.
Out by several thousand km, I'm afraid. No H1B for you!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I'm sick of this kind of reasoning. I grew up in the UK during the Northern Ireland troubles, and terrorist bombs were a fairly regular news item. I didn't know anyone who had been killed in one, but my mother only missed one because the tube she was on was delayed. And yet, in spite of the fact we had terrorists recruiting and training a narrow strip of water away, we didn't feel the need to give up freedoms or think 'what would terrorists do with this kind of situation' before doing anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I see, I never knew that CCTVs watching your every move were not an invasion into privacy etc. (not to flame but seriously ?)
Firstly, around 90% of the CCTV cameras in the Daily Mail article that started this meme are in privately owned - most of the world had CCTV cameras in shops, it's not something specific to the UK, most of the remainder are traffic-monitoring cameras on motorways used to produce the traffic reports for motorists, and the rest are on public high streets where you have no expectation of privacy anyway. Secondly, most of the government-controlled ones, and all of the plans to link them together into a massive
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when the IRA bombed Margaret Thatcher's hotel room and killed five people, they responded by getting a Marks and Spencers to open early to replace the lost clothes. Then continued as normal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
seven years in to the stark reality posed by the threat of Islamic terrorism, I am surprised that India hasnt opted to carpet bomb Pakistan occupied Kashmir.
Seven years is the American viewpoint on that "stark reality" ... for Indians it's been a lot, lot longer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What I am saying is, seven years in to the stark reality posed by the threat of Islamic terrorism, I am surprised that India hasnt opted to carpet bomb Pakistan occupied Kashmir.
A correction, its not 7 years, its almost 20 years since islamic terrorism started in India.
This [wikipedia.org] is the beginning I think, and the terrorists have never looked back.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd propose stupid laws that would do nothing. I'd support the jailing of innocents for questioning those laws. I'd support the dismantling of our entire justice system for questionable benefits.
No. Not really.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
how can I guarantee against illegal activities on my internet connection?
You can't. The probability for it to happen is rather low though (especially if you are not
the only one doing it), and (IMHO) that risk is way outweighed by the advantages for the
commonality - and that's where the need for a sane political and legal environment comes in:
To protect the AP owner from being liable for everything that goes on over said AP.
Laws like that don't prevent anything, someone determined will still find a way to do whatever
would have been possible over an open AP via some other m
Re: (Score:1)
while that sounds good in theory try telling this to NSA who scan every email . shouldn't they send a "Thanks for riding on our bandwidth " email every time some outsider access internet from a Starbuck ?? having said that i don't see how this going to do anything to help govt to fight terror .I am an Indian living in Delhi and I survived the attack by a margin of 15 Min .
Let me tell you that any Terrori
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How? (Score:5, Insightful)
And just how are the ISPs supposed to be able to accomplish this? Are they going to have people wardriving all around India, sniffing out open wifi, then seeing if it traces back to one of their customers? Or is a strongly worded email sufficient?
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose they could require every wireless AP to authenticate its users to a RADIUS server [wikipedia.org]. Of course that means strict control over all the types of APs used and no one really wants that, but that would certainly provided the authentication, albeit being a giant pain for the ISP and the customers.
The technologies exist, they just aren't cheap or very user friendly.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you force the customer to use RADIUS on *their own gear*?
A Scenario: ISP sells an internet account to a client. They go to the client's house, and ensure that the DSL modem is plugged directly into a computer.
Client later goes to buy a wireless NIC for their computer, and turns the computer into an open AP.
How exactly does RADIUS prevent this?
How is the ISP supposed to know about this?
How is the ISP supposed to monitor for it?
How is the ISP supposed to prevent it?
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly in a scenario where the ISP is not involved RADIUS will do nothing. However many Wireless APs are installed along with the DSL modem by the ISP. In such cases RADIUS could ensure that authorized users are the only ones allowed.
Other situations you mentioned don't have a good solution because they are by definition outside of the ISP's control. I doubt this ruling could be enforced in a situation where the ISP did not install the AP, for the exact reasons you have stated.
Re: (Score:2)
The quote is this:
All ISPs may be instructed to ensure that their subscribers using wireless devices must use effective authentication mechanisms
Note that it says "subscribers using wireless devices", not "subscribers using ISP-supplied wireless devices".
Clearly, they're implying that the ISP is responsible for everything that the subscriber connects. If you think about it, this is the only way the law would be effective - it makes no sense to force ISPs to provide secure wireless gear, when nobody else (retail stores, client's home-brew, etc.) would be required as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dumb, dumb, dumb. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the greatest strengths about the internet is how easy it is to remain anonymous and that's a feature, not a bug.
If TFA had been about spam rather than a crackdown on terrorism, would you still make the same statement?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that had the article been about spam. We would be reading that really annoying "form post" about how "your technical solution to this problem will not work because..."
In other words: Hurt the innocent, the bad guys won't even notice.
Prepaid SIM cards in India ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of all the countries I've traveled, India is far and away the biggest pain in the ass to get hold of a simple prepaid SIM to stick in your cellphone. Even a little hole-in-the-wall shop wants you to fill out a detailed form, provide identification to be photocopied, provide a valid address while staying in India ... all because they don't want terrorists to be able to use throwaway phones for planning and coordination of attacks.
I'm not at all surprised to see this mindset being extended into other wireless communications
One thing to keep in mind - while America received their "wake up call" in September 2001, there are other nations like India that have been battling terrorism on home soil for several decades. It's worth paying close attention to what these other nations are doing today, if you want clues to what America might be doing tomorrow.
Re:Prepaid SIM cards in India ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. The "ring of steel" around the city, and the first surveillance cameras were in large part a response to Irish republican terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
... in my haste, I forgot internment [bbc.co.uk] and the Diplock courts [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
For the record, my family comes from Ireland, but moved to England a few generations ago. I was not personally responsible for events that happened before I was born, and neither are my parents, but that didn't stop my mother only missing an IRA bomb because her tube was late.
Re: (Score:2)
> Even a little hole-in-the-wall shop wants you to fill out a detailed
> form, provide identification to be photocopied, provide a valid
> address while staying in India
Yes, but did you instead try:
1. slipping the shop $250 (or 250 euros) or some other reasonable multiple of a month/year salary?
2. use fake id/contact info
3. pull a gun and threaten to kill their entire extended family if the phone stopped working within days
4. ask your cousin behind the counter to stop screwing around and just give y
Re: (Score:2)
Of all the countries I've traveled, India is far and away the biggest pain in the ass to get hold of a simple prepaid SIM to stick in your cellphone. Even a little hole-in-the-wall shop wants you to fill out a detailed form, provide identification to be photocopied, provide a valid address while staying in India ... all because they don't want terrorists to be able to use throwaway phones for planning and coordination of attacks.
Of course it doesn't work. At all. People who commit mass murder aren't intimidated by penalties for stealing cellphones. Hell, they don't have to steal them. Just tell the shop owner they'll burn his shop down, and him along with it, if they have to fill out the forms. The police can't keep the streets safe to terrorists, you think they can stop protection rackets?
It's more to the typical Indian attitude that there's no problem that can't be solved by filling out two additional forms.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how diverse and unorganised India is?
I'm going to go with "super diverse" and "painfully disorganized"
When open wi-fi is outlawed... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is in the name of preventing the high crime of "taking credit for a terrorist act via email" (note that if it had been "...on the internet" it could have been patented).
Apparently, somebody got frustrated that they couldn't track down the low level flunkie who sent the message because it was done on an uncontrolled wifi connection. Apparently, while the terrorists are good at using anonymous email, they lack the skills to send a letter anonymously through physical post without leaving those key ide
Re: (Score:2)
Post-Fix (Score:2, Interesting)
Mod parent up. (Score:2)
If they really want to catch terrorists, perhaps the government should secretly sponsor many free open wifi spots - fast access, no blocking etc.
And then log the traffic, mac addresses and rough physical locations (you can do triangulation to figure where the users are).
And also plant cameras in the vicinity.
So when the bombers log on to brag about it, there is a higher chance of the cops being able to pick them up for "investigation".
It's even great that they use email - yo
Re: (Score:2)
While I tend to agree with the final conclusion, I would like to point one thing out - this doesn't appear to be about preventing the already occured terrorist attack, obviously, but about trying to get some way for law enforcement officials to try to track the sender of the email. Find the sender of the email, and you might be able to covertly spy on him, and figure out who he's working with. Honestly, I don't know if they'll ever really be able to track the emails back to a source anyhow - I'm not sure th
That's a relief! (Score:3, Funny)
Traceroute tells me that it's 26 hops from me to the first computer in India I tried, and that looks like it's getting dangerously close to their default 30 hop max. Now, I don't know enough about network protocols to be sure of the best way to prune that route back if it grows to 27 hops, but I bet this new idea of singling out the guy running router number 26 and arresting him should work just fine. Clearly India's regulators know almost as much as I do about the Internets!
Is it worth it? (Score:1)
These knee-jerk reactions to anything terrorist related are going to continue to cost society dearly as a whole. Each time there is some attack the politicians leap forward with all kinds of measures to restrict our freedoms, instead of tackling the core issues.
We need to wake up and stop punishing our own communities for the actions of others.
Background. (Score:3, Informative)
For anyone wondering about the background to this move, you could start with the Wikipedia article" [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Did I miss the part where it explained how the terrorists in question used open wifi as part of their attacks, or are you just saying that it's another case of government using terrorism as an excuse to crack down on something?
Stinks of corruption. (Score:1, Insightful)
Sounds like the telecoms just want more people to go home and pay for badwith.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
sounds hard to enforce (Score:2)
beyond this sounding odd from a US-perspective (even though this isn't a US thing), would this even be enforceable? I mean can you really force someone to not be able to just hid their SSID or mac filter or something?
I do understand that it would set a legal precedent over there, etc...but still.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean can you really force someone to not be able to just hid their SSID or mac filter or something?
Anyone can crack the 26-digit WEP key in minutes [theinquirer.net]. From there, you can pick up SSIDs from association requests [wi-fiplanet.com] and snoop on the MAC that sends and receives each packet. Still, the use of WEP, hidden SSIDs, and MAC filtering keeps casual leeches out and establishes an attacker's intent [wikipedia.org] to enter the network.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes, you and I understand that, but I didn't think it was necessary to mention that all forms of protection are useless if someone intends to gain access to the router.
However, my question remained as to whether you can truly control whether someone can provide open access or not.
Wardriving cops (Score:2)
However, my question remained as to whether you can truly control whether someone can provide open access or not.
Have a police officer wardrive, and if he can associate to an AP without establishing intent, the owner of the house where the AP has the strongest signal doesn't enjoy the safe harbor protection.
Not possible without a warrant... (Score:2)
You have never been to india.
Stringent laws that prevent a cop from sampling anything without a warrant.
Just a few months ago a huge telco spying scandal resulted in ouster of a few ministers and a few top cops.
The Telco blew the whistle that it was approached by these jokers to spy on a few political opponents, without warrants.
The press had a field day tearing into cops.
TV hosts were joking that cops were trying to overhear talks between you and your GF.
Plus the Left parties threatened to bring the govern
OK, I "permit" everyone! (Score:2)
If I own the "wireless device" can't I "authorise" EVERYONE and ANYONE who accesses it to "use" it?
Even if they ban Open WiFi,(which was alluded to in the article...) you could still throw up a splash page that welcomes them to your network and gives a username and password if they want to continue.
A number of hotels I have stayed at recently do this, the network is "closed" but all you do is open a web browser and click to
Poor assumption (Score:2)
All of this assumes that terrorists can be tracked by monitoring on-line activity. Yes, they may now be using anonymous Internet access. But terrorist cells are small and can effectively organize by communicating face to face.
This is a symptom of lazy cops. Its easier to set up a system to comb through e-mail and IMs than it is to do community policing and gt to know who the troublemakers are.
Effective Authentication? (Score:2)
Congratulations India (Score:2)
Fail.
Re: (Score:2)
The *iaa will start sending their dogs down the path of forcing ISPs and their lapdogs in congress to make sure that we know exactly WHO is on WHAT IP address at all times so all actions can be accountable. Think I am being crazy?
Yes, I think you're crazy, but I also think you're right.
In India, ongoing murderous terrorist violence against innocent citizens provokes a government drive to suppress Internet anonymity. In the US, it seems quite likely that the impetus for the government to take comparable a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just wait. IPv6 will make this much easier to enact. Much as I like IPv6 over 4, it has some very scary privacy implications.
Much saner approach (Score:2)
A much saner approach would simply to require ISPs to include in their terms of service and service contract a statement that says in signing up for service the account holder is responsible for all actions taken through use of the account.
I think you will likely find language like that already present in some, but not all service agreements today. It hasn't been enforced heavily, but it would eliminate a lot of silliness that exists today. You sign up for the account, you are responsible. Period.
Yes, th
Re: (Score:2)
That would require some fundamental changes to how IP works.
Things like anycast [wikipedia.org] mean that right now there are more than a few IP addresses that go to multiple computers.