Paper Suggests Letting The Government Use Your Router In An Emergency
from the not-as-crazy-as-it-sounds dept
Jon Brodkin, over at Ars Technica, has an interesting discussion about a paper from some researchers suggesting that we could augment first responder communications efforts by letting them make use of the public's WiFi routers. Basically, if I understand the proposal correctly, if turned on, it would make use of your router to try to form an ad hoc mesh network with other, similar routers in the area that, in theory would only be used by those public safety first responders. It's no secret that there are efforts underway to make sure that emergency personnel have better access to communications spectrum, and this is, at the very least, a creative way of attacking the problem.The theory is that this doesn't impinge on anyone's security, because it would effectively carve out a separate service on the router, not unlike home WiFi routers that offer up different logins for residents and "guests." Of course, theory and reality aren't always one and the same, and Brodkin reached out to Bruce Schneier who raised his concerns:
“The problems are the same,” Schneier told Ars. “Once you build such a system, you have to build the security to ensure that only the good guys use it. And that's not an easy task. It is far more secure not to have the capabilities in the first place.”That said, if such a system were purely voluntary, and individuals were able to offer up such connectivity for first responders (or even for anyone else), would that necessarily be so bad? I've been skeptical in the past of attempts to create truly comprehensive mesh networks building on people's home WiFi routers, and there hasn't been much success there. But, perhaps there's something interesting in special use cases, such as one involving first responders. I agree with Schneier that there could be some risks, but I'm not sure how they would be much different than running a basic guest access WiFi network that doesn't involve a password. As long as you're not using that network for sensitive and unencrypted info, it seems like a similar level of risk.
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
Filed Under: first responders, government, mesh networks, privacy, routers, security, sharing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The only downside I could see is the potential for someone to hi-jack the system to direct emergency services incorrectly (to waste resources or even delay aid). Even that would be difficult/impractical if the system were only in use for full blown emergencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This looks more like an excuse than an honest proposal. How hard is it to solve the problem and how is this the best solution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, that's true when you're running a WAP right now anyway, so perhaps the risk isn't much greater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't imagine it working
Second someone would make use of it to distribute some porn or malware and then it would make the old routers unstable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
802.11u
It is not like a normal "open" guest network. It is more like Hotspot 2.0 (no surprise, since both use the same standard). I did not find it on a quick read of the 802.11u standard, but the emergency responders would probably be authenticated by a remote server via EAP-TLS, be restricted to accessing a few specific networks, or both.
The 802.11u standard also has provisions for an emergency alert service, similar to the U.S. national public warning system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Schneier
BT already has a system whereby any BT ISP user can user any other user's wifi via their home login - Surely Schneier would have been consulted about this one.
Is this also the same Bruce Schneier who keeps (kept until recently?) his home wifi open to anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who are the 'bad guys' again?
And who are the bad guys again? Oh right, the bad guys are those people that download illegal content through an unsecured wi-fi connection. We certainly can't let those public service connections happen. We can't upset the MAFIAA, can we? Not for something as mundane as emergency services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who are the 'bad guys' again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who are the 'bad guys' again?
So as public WiFi guest accounts idea fails, we still have ways to set the router to allow them specific access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who are the 'bad guys' again?
I'm sure there are some, but the vast majority are the latter case. But to the MAFIAA one use is no [criminally] different then the other, hence my point. They're the only thing really standing in the way of a general government statement of position that we can leave our wifi open and not be held personally liable for civil misuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a second ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a second ...
Scenario 1: Disaster happens, a child dies, and emergency communications fail because the nearest router (yours) doesn't support the feature or you chose to disable it (It's voluntary, remember?). Parents of the dead child sue you, the owner of the router. You might prevail, but it would suck to be you.
Scenario 2: same as above, but rather than suing, the parents instead lobby Congress that a law is required, in the child's name of course, to make the Emergency Communication feature mandatory on all routers so this tragedy "will never happens again" (Think of the Children, Key to the Constitution, and all that). This would make all non-compliant routers illegal.
If home router manufacturers begin providing the capability to support Emergency Responders I see the probability of both scenarios occuring. I see Scenario 2 being more likely after a large disaster or if several children are affected.
If the general public is to provide and support any Emergency Response communications I see potential problems without strict liability protections in place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a second ...
For example, a fire at a transformer recycling plant is unlikely to cause any power outage, but is certainly an emergency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a second ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Setting Up
I think I have a solution to the issue of someone using your network outside your house. You can allow them to set your router to assign specific MAC addresses to access your network as they pass by. That way it automatically connects the first responders.
The first responders would have a totally different network space and only would be allowed guest access.
There are two things I see that would concern me. Viruses getting into the network from the people running them. The other is people being able to hack police records.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Setting Up
But you'd have to know the MAC addresses they use in advance.
Personally, I run my wifi open anyway, specifically so that random strangers can use my internet feed, but have a fancy firewall to segregate that traffic out from my personal LAN traffic (and to let me blacklist machines if needed).
If you set this up right (it's not hard), then this can't happen as you won't be sharing traffic between the public and private sides at all.
That's an interesting thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't see the point
Can we agree that maybe it be a good idea for small towns and cities , but not largely populated areas, to have people living in the town to mesh the network?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't see the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't see the point
It is absolutely a great idea. It is the same for Columbus as well now that I think of it. You nailed it completely with
"One of these device in every apartment and business in NYC, each with a battery to last between six and 24 hours, and you would have an awesome network."
You are right. Some major cities technically already have it. Now the problem lays within small rural cities or towns. The logistics could turn out to be a nightmare for setting it up for residents in small towns. But you do raise a good point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't see the point
I kind of agree with meddle. Having a battery-backup powered router in the town hall and maybe a few businesses around the area to help cover the cell network's dead zones seems to be the best idea. With most ISP's now considering download limits, I'm in no way even considering opening my wifi network for "guest" access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't see the point
But the part I like best about your proposal is that participation is optional. I would also gladly opt to enable a feature like this on my router, provided I could weigh the pros and cons of doing so. But to have a back-door forced on me by the government seems unacceptable.
I may not like it, but my car may be commandeered in an emergency. That is different than preparing in advance for the action by distributing copies of my key to all emergency personnel. The latter effects my security, the operation of my property, and exposes me to more potential abuse of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't see the point
But the part I like best about your proposal is that participation is optional. I would also gladly opt to enable a feature like this on my router, provided I could weigh the pros and cons of doing so. But to have a back-door forced on me by the government seems unacceptable.
I may not like it, but my car may be commandeered in an emergency. That is different than preparing in advance for the action by distributing copies of my key to all emergency personnel. The latter effects my security, the operation of my property, and exposes me to more potential abuse of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Glad to help :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(they must be infringin' or sumpin'! ! !)
2. um, don't 'emergency responders' already have these new-fangled wireless-radio thingies ? ? ? *what* is wrong with them ?
3. again, as many posters have pointed out: 90% of the 'disasters' we have are where the power goes out (kinda what makes a disaster a disaster); what will this do ?
am i supposed to hook up my little hand-cranked generator radio to power my router ?
4. further, as others have said, don't trust either the gummint (or their overpaid subcontractors) to 'do this right', and only think they will make my system LESS secure, and MORE vulnerable...
DO.NOT.TRUST.THE.BASTARDS.
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't they already do this?
1. This device cannot be rigged to cause harmful interferance
2. This device must accept any harmful intereferance, even if it causes undesired operation
I figured that was the government catch-all "I need to appropriate your electrons for a minute" coverage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't they already do this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here in the USA, we no longer have a government 'of the people, for the people and by the people'. We have a government that is trying as hard as possible to suppress our freedoms and to limit our constitutional rights.
When the revolution comes and the people of the United States try to take back the government and restore our constitutional rights, the first thing to go will be communications.
The administration will use 'emergency powers' to cut off all traditional, cell phone and internet communication. At that point, a mesh network will allow 'we the people' to communicate and organize an effort to restore our constitutional rights. If using the excuse of 'emergency responders' to get the mesh network up and running works, then I’m all for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No....
Would they reimburse people on data caps? Sorry there is an emergency, but ever since some companies started charging $10 per GB overages, I think people better be reimbursed.
And of course there is the untrustworthy government issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not as bad as police, but still...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it can be made it can be hacked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A prelude to further intrusion
But I'm afraid it is a prelude to building in access for any agency with any vaguely defined national security/cyberthreat/copyright infringement etc. etc. agenda. In other words I'm afraid it will be expanded and abused, and I'm speaking more from a public policy and legal perspective, although the technical and hardware aspects are also relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay me...
That said, if my city offered me amnesty on that portion of my router and some form of relief on my yearly property tax then I'd happy install whatever router mod they had (obviously I'd install another router for myself).
Actually, would make more sense if they simply gave me a generic router than I plug into my network but I can't access — I would still want amnesty on whatever the hell goes through it though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First responder WiFi
The big question that is unanswered is how do we know to switch to it? With our that it is useless at best and at worst will get someone killed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]