Car 802.11b Where Are You?
from the on-the-WiFi-patrol dept
This one seems to be an offshoot of the typical local open WiFi fear mongering -- which often does include quotes from police officers. In Douglas County, Colorado, the Sheriff's department is now starting up the open WiFi patrol, where police cars will be equipped to war drive, and note down open WiFi access points, with the plan of alerting owners (if they can be found) that they should lock down their WiFi. What's not clear, however, is what they'll do if someone tells them that they left the network open on purpose.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wtf?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wtf?
as far as the threat, well it is not a threat to anyone person but, if someone makes threats from a hijcaked access, well it is the persons fault that allowed that to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wtf?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazing what people do eh :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Servants are serving the public
Second, wardriving can be done as part of a normal patrol. Give me a couple hours, I might be able to jury-rig a device that listens for unsecured WiFi, and when it finds one, it beeps or something. The police mark down where they are with a notepad, and mention it to the person later. Hell, you could probably rig a GPS in there too, so that it marks WiFi hotspots as you're out patrolling, and you can check it when you get back to the station.
Way to spin things, Mike. Police are doing the electronic equivalent of saying "Ma'am, are you aware that your garage door is open? We wouldn't want things to get stolen." and you turn it into 'Big Brother.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Servants are serving the public
I guess I can see both sides. There is another aspect to this as well, knowing where all your open WiFi spots in town are could help find criminals who do use them to commit crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public Servants are serving the public
They got camps for peopel like you!
Indiana or Utah--you pick!
MORON!
that is to say anyone who can really object to big brother being real
hasn't done a head count lately !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Servants are serving the public
Oh... wait... maybe it's already been done by several software packages for various operating systems...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Servants are serving the public
How much of a threat? In what way? To whom (your industry)? If in YOUR case in would be a considerable threat then you shouldn't leave YOURS open. Maybe you should never leave home either.
If you don't know what you are doing, then maybe you should hire someone who does. Or bother to learn. Don't beg the police to be everyone's net nanny or to spread your FUD for you.
They are intimidating people who run open WiFi access points. The police hate open WiFi because it can hamper surveilence. The Wireless ISP industry hates it because they see it as a threat to their business models.
I have never, ever heard of the police going around telling people to close their garage doors. Maybe they do in some places, but I don't think is very common. My house doesn't even have a garage door, yet the police have never come around telling me to install one. And my nearest neighbors don't even have a garage. Gee, maybe we an anti-auto-theft law making it illegal to park any auto outside of a "secured" garage and put the police on patrol to enforce it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public Servants are serving the public
*Disclaimer* I own a Wireless ISP.
The WISP industry, and ISP industry, in general, doesn't hate open wifi because it is a business threat, they dislike it because connection sharing is a violation of the AUP the customer agreed to when gettting service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Public Servants are serving the public
If it isn't a threat, then why is it prohibited in your AUP? I smell doublespeak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Servants are serving the pu
If an ISP pays $500/meg for it's bandwidth how do you suppose they can afford to sell it to their customers for $20/meg?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Servants are serving th
I have 2 wifi access points, one fully locked down & connected to my inner network, the other outside MY network and completely open & avalable. I _am_ running some dynamic bandwidth shaping to insure I get what I need but all the excess is avalable to my entire neighborhood.
I would suggest that any ISP that does is the very same kind that will oversell thier bandwidth and then punish thier customers for actually having the GALL to actually use all the bandwidth they pay for...
The obvious answer is to get a decent ISP and say "Thank you Officer, Feel free to check your Email sitting on my block, it makes me feel safer having you around"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Servants are serving th
Cable internet rates aren't based on "cost plus". They're unregulated and based on what the market will bear. Economics 101. The cable companies, despite what you would like us to believe, charge as much as they can get away with regardless of their costs. It is their corporate legal responsibility to maximize profits. Your industry threats of rate punishment ring hollow. All it does is spread fear.
That's a pretty big "if" there. You're obviously making stuff up as those are nowhere near typical ISP bandwidth costs. I know, I work with this stuff. An ISP paying the rates you quote probably *should* go out of business.
But so what? The story wasn't about ISP profits in the first place but about people operating open WiFi access points which don't necessarily have anything to do with ISP's, other than bypass them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public Servants are serving the public
Not a troll, just someone who's looking at a slightly larger picture.
"How much of a threat? In what way? To whom (your industry)? If in YOUR case in would be a considerable threat then you shouldn't leave YOURS open. Maybe you should never leave home either."
In the way that hacking someone's system is easier from the inside of the router, rather than the outside. Personally, I leave my WiFi open, and just lock down my computer, but it's still less secure than if I locked the router too.
"If you don't know what you are doing, then maybe you should hire someone who does. Or bother to learn. Don't beg the police to be everyone's net nanny or to spread your FUD for you."
Again, I know what I'm doing. Yes, telling people about potential threats is one of the police's jobs. If they come to your door and tell you that an escaped murderer has been seen in your area, so please keep your doors and windows locked for your own safety, are you going to start shouting about 'Big Brother' trying to force you to not leave your house?
"They are intimidating people who run open WiFi access points. The police hate open WiFi because it can hamper surveilence. The Wireless ISP industry hates it because they see it as a threat to their business models."
How the hell does open WiFi hamper surveillence? If anything, it makes it easier. If WiFi is open, the police could probably sit out on the street and watch the output without having to get a warrant or worry about wiretapping laws. WISP's are allowed to dislike open WiFi, and one could make the case that it's akin to sharing protected content: someone's getting something for free, based on the fact that someone else paid for it.
"I have never, ever heard of the police going around telling people to close their garage doors. Maybe they do in some places, but I don't think is very common. My house doesn't even have a garage door, yet the police have never come around telling me to install one. And my nearest neighbors don't even have a garage. Gee, maybe we an anti-auto-theft law making it illegal to park any auto outside of a "secured" garage and put the police on patrol to enforce it."
Are you being willfully obtuse? I said informing you that your garage door is open, not telling you to close it. If someone steals from you, that's your problem. They are just doing you a favor by mentioning it.
How is it that people will see a new public service, that they don't have to pay extra for, and start decrying it as the work of 'Big Brother'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Public Servants are serving the public
This flip-flop brought to you by some who just previously posted "If I leave my WiFi unsecured, it poses a threat to me."
Who's shouting "Big Brother", other than you? But to answer: Probably not. That would be an exceptional circumstance. I also would not object if they prevented someone from shooting me. So what? But if they start pulling me over in my car after dark to give me little "friendly warnings" to stay at home at night, then yes, I would object. Although not to their face, but anonymously if I could. Perhaps through open WiFi. Oops. I see your problem.
That you would seriously pose that question speaks volumes about you. Thank you for the expose.
Who said they weren't?
Bull. You don't own my network. If I want to provide open access to it, I will. If I don't want to charge for it, I won't. You're starting to sound like SCO or M$ claiming Linux should be illegal because people don't have to pay for it.
When the government starts sending the police or other armed forces around to give people a little friendly advice regarding their activities, most people recognize the implied threat involved. One has to be "obtuse" not to.
Enough with the apologetics already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let them target me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can the police enter your garage if the garage door is left open?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't be mad, be thankful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Home sweet home
What do you all think ... should I simply set my SSID as my address (to make sure that I get the letter) or should I spice it up with something to really make them wonder? Suggestions will be considered :)
Hell, I just got a letter from my homeowners association about a dead spot of grass in my yard (we're in a drought), so between the two of them I guess this will make me public enemy #1!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Home sweet home
*Sniff* *Sniff* I smell bacon
Here, piggy piggy piggy
Sueee
Free Doughnuts
I grow marijuana
Anarchists Open Wireless Haven of Immorallity
Fuck the Police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is nothing sacred?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.blackalchemy.to/project/fakeap/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For example, check out this Nokia phone
http://gearlog.com/blogs/gearlog/archive/2006/02/13/5906.aspx
> "The 6136 will make calls from your home or hotspot and roam seamelessly onto GSM networks... "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come on folks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fine
BUT COME ON
get police to do the job they are meant to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lighten up
You know how they say the cops can't do anything until a crime has actually been prevented? Well, if they see a citizen doing (or failing to do) something that can make them a crime victim, or an unwitting accomplice to a crime, they'll usually speak up. That's all this is doing. It's the hi-tech version of the beat cop walking down the street checking all the doors to be sure they're locked. Part of their job, really.
It's like, say, that beat cop finds a shop owner that left his door open who says "Who cares, officer - nobody's ever been burglarized here before!" That cop can then reply that a known burglar ring has targetted the town, and the shop owner should take precautions. These guys are doing the same thing - notifying owners of "unlocked doors" (open wifi points) that there are people who can and will take advantage of the open doors.
It is complicated by the fact that these open doors do not necessarily leave the wifi owner himself vulnerable - but it DOES leave the public vulnerable - to those that will use the anonymity of that open wifi point as a way to victimize others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lighten up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA now wants to remove lighters off of the list so they can focus on more important items. To get this removed now, it will require an act of congress.
So how much it is going to cost to support such a programme?
Let's play devil's advocate here, for a moment, and assume the WiFi Patrol didn't find your Grandma's open AP. If something horrible did happen, and someone was downloading illicit content, on the wifi connection, one would have to conclude that the department may be liable for not enforcing their programme. Some times good intentions need to be balanced with common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Threat vs. Cost vs. Freedom
- illicit activity from unmonitored access point
- higher bandwidth utilization on fewer access points, each on a static per month fee to upstream provider (i.e., ISP makes less money)
Solutions:
- give better tools for monitoring
- pay for bandwidth instead of connection
- have police patrol for open wifi systems
Problems with last solution
- police have better things to do
- expensive in equipment, training, and salary
- can easily lead to legal issues where police have yet another way of entering your house without a warrent due to "suspecion of open wifi".
Conclusion:
- The threat is minimal in scope and impact
- The costs are not worth the benefit
- Can/Will lead to further degradation of libery, specifically: unwarrented search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought we'd covered this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad cop, no doughnut
War driving is NOT a crime. And it is NOT a crime to leave a WiFi network that you PAID FOR and are maintaining open to public use. That's called generousity.
As someone who does have a WiFi network that is partially open on purpose, I am abhored that the police are knocking on our doors and telling us to close our networks.
The whole purpose of this is to prevent people from having free alternatives to paying for Internet access. It's really just another violation of anti-trust laws. If I want to allow a stranger to use some of my overflowing bandwidth, I should be allowed to do it. I'm not sharing content; I'm sharing a pipeline. It's no different than allowing someone to make a call using your phone. I guess that will be illegal next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I thought we'd covered this
Good point. I would still prefer our neighbors to point these things out than the police. (Not invalidating your point)
I forsee legistlation that would have minimal requirements on AP security. I believe there was a proposal (in Britian?) that mandated that the default SSID must be changed which would not improve security. I don't know what to expect from US legistlators, but it's advisable to stay alert and do not allow them to use some emotional issue (e.g., child pornography) to lead you to freedom limiting laws.
I still think my point about the benefits vs. costs is still valid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I thought we'd covered this
I lived in an urban boro that bordered a reasonably sized city. The
local police officer would drive down the street every evening, and
the kids would wave, and sometimes the car would stop and the kids
would go over and talk to the officer. It wasn't just one particular
officer either - but the kids knew the cops as friendly, and the cops
knew the neighbors and the neighborhood.
One day I had a really bad day, and I left my car door open (with the
dome light on). The cops ran my plate, and since my phone number is
unlisted, they rang my front doorbell to tell me that I'd left my door
open. The kids might have done the same, but this was after dark, and
the kids were in for the evening.
But, no - they wouldn't have gone thru that trouble if I'd merely
left the windows rolled down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this is good
I put this in the same category.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think this is good
Thought so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that would be cool.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Warchalking.png
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]