[geeks] Unsecured Wifi connections now illegal in part of India.

[Jonathan C. Patschke]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Lionel Peterson wrote:

> I assume that this regulation will mirror similar laws here in the US - 
> seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws. Driving/riding without either a seatbelt 
> or helmet makes you a criminal in most states. These laws are similar in that 
> are remove personal choice for some greater good. They may or may not be 
> effective.

"Governments get away with it elsewhere" also isn't a reasonable
justification for more pointless laws.

> The law is being applied equally against both terrorists and law-abiding 
> citizens.

Because terrorists obey the law, right?

> What if the law simply said if we can prove a terrorist used your
> unprotected "hot spot" than you are considered an accomplice, just as if
> the plotters met in your house or you hid the terrorists from the law
> after their attack? That, I believe is what the law is hoping for.

That's not being an accomplice anymore than the man who built the roads
they used is being an accomplice.

> See seatbelt and helmet comment above. Many things are "outlawed" if not
> done as the Gov't deems proper,

That still makes it neither -right- nor effective, which was my initial
jab.  If something A) doesn't solve the problem and B) isn't inherently a
good thing, why the hell do it?

> I think the US is willing to help (Project Echelon?) countries like
> India keep tabs on their citizens, and I'm not sure how we would ever
> know if it is or isn't effective.

The fact they the government cannot show that it is effective is proof
enough.  "Trust us, we can't tell you" wouldn't work for anyone else; why
should it be good enough for government?

> Agreed (see above), but every law has an "or else" if it didn't, it
> would cease being a law and would become moe like a suggestion or a
> commandment...

And would become inherently more honorable.

> The airlines wanted the regulations to restore traveller confidence in
> flying.

This would happen on its own, and likely happened more in spite of
incompetent government regulation than because of it.

> The law is designed (in my opinion) not to make it impossible to have
> annonymous, untraceable conversations, it is to make it a bit harder.

It does nothing more than restore terrorists to the same set of tools they
had before they had access to wireless networks.  Terrorism was just as
effective back then.

> I haven't seen anyone assert that this law will prevent terrorist
> attacks, it instead makes it a little bit harder to plan them.

So, possibly making attacks harder to plan, when the attacks themselves
aren't very common, and the planning of them is a miniscule amount of  the
overall wireless traffic is a good justification for getting cops to
threaten people to set up their wireless networks a certain way?

> Your argument is that this won't prevent terrorist attacks and is a form
> of harassment against otherwise law-abiding citizens, correct? I contend
> that no one said it would "prevent" an attack, and that it isn't
> harassment - it is likely a simple over-reaction

Of course it's harassment.  If I were to nag my next-door neighbor about
that sort of thing until he changed his behavior, any reasonable person
would consider that harassment.  Here, the police are doing the same
thing, but they're adding threats to the suggestion ("Do this, or else").
How is harassment with the threat of harm not still harassment?

> In Canada (I understand - der Mouse please correct me if i'm wrong) it
> is against the law to operate a motor vehicle with the headlights off,
> even during the day. The Gov't has gone so far as to require car Mfg. to
> pre-wire the lights to always be on. Will it save human lives? Who
> knows? But it makes it illegal to drive with your headlights off, is
> that a form of harassment, since police are supposed to stop a car with
> the headlights off and issue a summons/impose a fine/penalty?

If the police are stealing money from people who have not harmed anyone,
or if they are even wasting the time of people who have not harmed anyone,
I'd certainly call that harassment in the least.

-- 
Jonathan Patschke ( "I'll be long gone before some smart person ever
Elgin, TX         (  figures out what happened inside this Oval Office."
USA               (                                     --George W. Bush