Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jeruselem

Watch Qlders! Lock up your unsecured wireless!

Recommended Posts

I think it's a great idea, as Police (and probably ACA) are the only people that have the powers to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone has the knowledge to secure their wireless network. A lot of people know that it needs to be done but not how to do it. Like I said, don't confuse stupidity with a lack of knowledge.

Once again, I'm not.

 

If someone does not have the knowledge to secure their network, they can pay for someone to do it.

 

Otherwise, most of the user guides are written in a very simple way, and the security step is often nothing more than entering in a passphrase and clicking next.

 

 

A large portion of my clients are surprised to find out their email accounts have passwords because it was entered once when their mail client was set up and they've never had to enter it since then.

 

These are people who are very bright.

 

I know it's not your strong suit, but just try to understand that to some people securing your wireless network is the realm of technical wizardry simply because they don't know what it is, how it works, or how to turn it on.

I find this amusing, giving how you talk of the importance of understanding other peoples points of view.

 

I understand that people are not stupid because they don't understand the technical side of things. As 1shot says, a lack of knowledge if not the same as stupidity.

 

However, if people know that there can be negative consequences of operating a wifi network(which is a reasonable assumption), and continue to do so, then this is stupidity, not a lack of knowledge. Especially considering, as I pointed out, that all too often the security process is a very simple step or will be automatic, meaning it must be explicitly disabled or configured as a mandatory step.

 

So you don't know that it's legal.

The more important question is, is it illegal?

Edited by TheSecret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a great idea, as Police (and probably ACA) are the only people that have the powers to do this.

I'm sure crooks would like to get a hold of this map!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was federal. Computer Crimes Act 2001, but having trouble locating it. CBF atm.

So you don't know that it's legal.

 

 

For a pedant, you sure make some basic comprehension mistakes.

 

As best as I've been able to determine - yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, the Qld police have nothing to do?

My thought, precisely.

 

We've got a burglary a night in my suburb, fix that first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, the Qld police have nothing to do?

My thought, precisely.

 

We've got a burglary a night in my suburb, fix that first.

 

I think police these days want to taser drunk people, collect graft money, get traffic fines and drive around. Chasing criminals might get them hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a pedant, you sure make some basic comprehension mistakes.

Right, my apologies. I thought there for a bit that you thought it legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this amusing, giving how you talk of the importance of understanding other peoples points of view.

 

I understand that people are not stupid because they don't understand the technical side of things. As 1shot says, a lack of knowledge if not the same as stupidity.

 

However, if people know that there can be negative consequences of operating a wifi network(which is a reasonable assumption), and continue to do so, then this is stupidity, not a lack of knowledge. Especially considering, as I pointed out, that all too often the security process is a very simple step or will be automatic, meaning it must be explicitly disabled or configured as a mandatory step.

*sigh*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

often times when i parked my car at a certain carpark, I would return to find a note on the windscreen from the local police to say they'd checked that the car was secure.

 

doesn't help that my car had been broken into on several occasions when parked there though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh*

Tantryl, you appear to be pretending to be someone daft, but I'm not sure as to why....

 

I'm going to dumb things down a bit, so you can actually get what I'm saying while you are playing this role....

 

 

I do not consider people stupid due to a lack of knowledge. I consider people stupid if they make a stupid decision, consciously.

 

 

As an example analogy, I know absolutely nothing about maintaining or looking after cars. I have never owned one, and would not know how to fix it. I do know some very basic things, because certain basic information is incredibly hard to miss. Such as the fact that cars need oil changes, the correct type of petrol etc. If my car has a problem, and I did not now how to fix it, I would take it to a mechanic. If I ignored a serious problem and I was aware that it was a serious problem, then this would be stupid.

 

Likewise, if someone is privy to the information that not securing your wifi network has negative consequences, which is available from several sources, such as from:

 

  • TV shows, such as Today/tonight, 60 minutes etc
  • Magazines, including many non tech magazines
  • Various websites, including many non tech websites, ala nineMSN news
  • Your operating system, such as Windows giving you warnings
  • Any user guides in very, very, simple to understand language
  • Warning stickers on the box
  • Probably quite a few other avenues as well

If someone was privy to this information, which would be exceptionally hard to miss in the last 5 years, and they decide to operate their network unsecured(often as a result of deliberately disabling or choosing not to enable security), then yes, I would consider that to be a stupid decision.

 

geddit?

Edited by TheSecret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, *sigh*

 

Still completely missing the point, but utterly convinced you've got it nailed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're so sure that I am missing your point, why not lay it out for me? Oh.., I see. All your talk of understanding and considering peoples points of view was actually complete crap.

 

Either that, or you're just overly hypocritical.

Edited by TheSecret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[*]Your operating system, such as Windows giving you warnings

My OS (Windows) doesn't tell me that my wireless network is unsecured.

 

Back on topic. If having an unsecured network is not illegal or if wardriving is not illegal, WTF has it got to do with the coppers?

Edited by 1shot1kill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because every time I lay something out for you, you go out of your way to make it fit what you've decided I'm trying to say. So all I have left is a loud, exasperated *sigh*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My OS (Windows) doesn't tell me that my wireless network is unsecured.

 

Back on topic. If having an unsecured network is not illegal or if wardriving is not illegal, WTF has it got to do with the coppers?

Which version of Windows are you running? XO and up will let you know if your wifi network is not secure.

 

The police are doing this as it helps the community, and can reduce crimes that can happen as a result of wardriving.

 

 

Because every time I lay something out for you, you go out of your way to make it fit what you've decided I'm trying to say. So all I have left is a loud, exasperated *sigh*.

I seem to recall most of your posts as being commentary unrelated to the thread at hand, and not bothering to actually explain yourself, such as in this thread.

 

The only time, in maybe the last six months that you even made any attempt was in the Alan Ralsky thread, and you gave up because you believed I was just playing devils advocate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because every time I lay something out for you, you go out of your way to make it fit what you've decided I'm trying to say. So all I have left is a loud, exasperated *sigh*.

I seem to recall most of your posts as being commentary unrelated to the thread at hand, and not bothering to actually explain yourself, such as in this thread.

 

The only time, in maybe the last six months that you even made any attempt was in the Alan Ralsky thread, and you gave up because you believed I was just playing devils advocate.

 

I apologise. I didn't mean to express that I'm the only person you do it to. You do it to everyone. And since I spend far too much of my time on this website, I see it regularly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which version of Windows are you running? XO and up will let you know if your wifi network is not secure.

XP. I've not got the funds for XO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McAfee's Strategic Summit in Sydney

You mean that's already been on? Jeez I thought I was still getting invites to it - they must not have sold out as I got something like 10 invites to it in the last 2 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologise. I didn't mean to express that I'm the only person you do it to. You do it to everyone. And since I spend far too much of my time on this website, I see it regularly.

OK. Do what to everyone?

 

I do make an effort to consider other peoples views. If I think they are wrong, I will state why, and try and explain why as clearly as possible. I do miss things, and if I come accross as missing a point, it is not my intention.

 

All I see you do, in regards to me however, is generally make negative posts about my inability to do this, which are often unrelated to the thread. It seems you can'T get over your ideas of me. If you would take the time to explain things to me, that I apparently obviously do not get, the most I will do is thankyou, and give an opinion on the new information made available to me.

 

 

I've not got the funds for XO.

I thought it was clear that I meant XP....

 

 

How?

Like this:

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

Edited by TheSecret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But my OS doesn't even know that I've got a wireless network, how does it know that it's unsecured?

Wow, I should have expected this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My OS (Windows) doesn't tell me that my wireless network is unsecured.

im pretty sure all three of mine (xp, server 2008, vista) do. but only if its using an internal networking card, which means it has to be an ad-hoc network.

 

for once (and i feel slightly dirty saying this) i agree with TheSecret.

 

for the last several years, there have been a number of very obvious sources (such as the aforementioned todaytonight) who have been educating people on the need to secure their wireless networks. its not news.

 

i sell wireless routers to people all day, its my job. i always tell them to secure their wireless networks. most people go glassy eyed as soon as i say the word "secure". i just know that no matter what i tell these people, there is going to be a new SSID called "D-Link" floating around in about 2 hours without a padlock.

 

some people, however, argue with me.

 

"im dumb at computers".

"i dont get this tech shit"

"i dont understand any of this though"

 

when i say to them "well, do you know anyone who is good with computers", they all go "well, i know bob, he likes computers".

 

so i say "well, why dont you give bob a ring, and ask him to step you though it?". you can practically see the lightbulb popping into existance over their heads.

 

everyone knows someone who is good with computers. everyone knows someone who can take the 5 mins to step them though setting up a secure network.

 

there is no excuse. it is pure stupidity. if you dont know how to do it yourself, and dont have enough lateral thinking capacity to think of calling someone who does, you deserve everything you get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I understand your points TheSecret, I would say there would be a large number of home environments where it would get too complicated for the average Joe to set up an encrypted network.

 

Consider the parents who bought their kids a PS3, or have a Blackberry. Once you start adding multiple devices with different operating environments which support different levels encryption, I can understand why a large number of people would put it in the too hard basket.

 

I wouldn't say that's stupidity. Perhaps laziness, or ignorance in a lot of cases.

 

People would take a car with a fault to a mechanic if they have identified there's a problem. I think society don't consider unencrypted networks to be 'faulty' in that sense, which is an education thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But my OS doesn't even know that I've got a wireless network, how does it know that it's unsecured?

Wow, I should have expected this.

 

Haha. Yes you really should've. =p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×