From: "Andy Willis" Received: from mxout3.mailhop.org ([63.208.196.167] verified) by 2rosenthals.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.3) with ESMTP id 703005 for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:50:00 -0500 Received: from mxin1.mailhop.org ([63.208.196.175]) by mxout3.mailhop.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H5m4q-000LSn-Q9 for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:49:59 -0500 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.233]) by mxin1.mailhop.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H5m4q-000AVX-G3 for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:49:56 -0500 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i26so1190407wxd for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:49:53 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=E5KAHNoSQPw9CUQF69WNIZPe7tQQCTK5t0JgSTol8MYF5XVk+GQ4HikWAV5qf6dkIYEiZFDtPYTtPqUI2T0v/KRtH7Fmta0sDZnAQwm9WsOW1GdMKrm1aTTJ58ixPnk4Axmi739bS22lAj+RHnq7PV80YCs7bTrJvNwu3ZF90cs= Received: by 10.90.52.2 with SMTP id z2mr1498916agz.1168706993483; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:49:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.1.88? ( [32.97.110.142]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 14sm7008159wrl.2007.01.13.08.49.52; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:49:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <45A90DAF.5010601@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 09:49:51 -0700 Reply-To: abwillis1@gmail.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:1.9a2pre) Gecko/20070111 SeaMonkey/1.5a MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OS/2 Wireless Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [OS2Wireless]Re: David Pogue wakes up about WIFI encryption References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 66.249.82.233 X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) Lewis G Rosenthal wrote: > On 01/11/07 11:36 am, Doug LaRue thus wrote : >> ** Reply to message from "Carl Gehr" >> on Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:37:02 >> -0500 (EST) >> >> >> >>> Here's a very timely article on this topic. It should generate some >>> interesting discussion... >>> >>> Carl >>> >>> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 07:23:27 -0500, Computerworld First Look wrote: >>> >>> >>>> * Wi-Fi concerns prompt new security laws >>>> http://cwflyris.computerworld.com/t/1179890/44248198/46688/2/ >>>> >> >> Once again the laws miss the mark since what is needed to be protected is >> consumers/customer data and information. We need laws to start protecting >> OUR data from careless corporate security practices and enable monetary >> damage rewards for those harmed. Only then will businesses start >> thinking >> more about what is the right thing to do instead of just doing what >> ´everyone >> else is doing´. >> >> Forcing EVERYONE to close their wireless network sounds more like the >> laws >> were promoted by the cable and ISDN networks or just plain ignorance at >> the law making level. >> >> > Doug, I finally took the time to *read* this article (though I have not > as yet read the laws discussed). Your point is well-taken. I got a > distinct chuckle out of the mention that the equipment manufacturers be > required to provide warning stickers about Wi-Fi security. This is like > Smith & Wesson providing a sticker which says that guns can be used as > lethal weapons (I'm an NRA member). I fear for this country when everyone has to be protected (from themselves). Personal responsibility is a thing of the past it seems. > > The fact that the Westchester County IT department is war driving is > another hoot. Talk about taxpayer dollars (not) at work... > > Again, much of this comes down to the mistaken impression that consumers > have a right of privacy. There's no such mention in the Constitution; we > are all the gatekeepers of our own privacy. Security-lax businesses > should indeed be held to account in civil court, and should it be proven > that the individual (the plaintiff in such cases, one would assume) was > negligent in using http vs https, for example, the case should be thrown > out. > Just about every "right" that is protected now days are any but the rights that _were_ clearly outlined in the constitution. > I can use the electrical current in my house to jolt my neighbor, but I > wouldn't expect the Long Island Power Authority to drive by and make > sure that I didn;t have any extension cords in my garage long enough to > reach across my proprty line. :-) > Lewis, don't give them any ideas :P > >> "Excuse me: Can you tell me the IP address of this cable?" >> - Actual question from a MCSE! >> >> > Priceless... > I get pestered from time to time that I should get MCSE certified. I have had to logon to a webpage and set a user's password for them because all of their MCSE training did not teach them how to change an expired password.