|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 06:52 AM EDT |
Mainly that mandating something that in principle is impossible is not a good
policy, nevertheless it is loved by American politicians.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 08:39 AM EDT |
While my WiFi is secured with WPA2, there's plenty of intentionally open WiFi in
the area. There are some restaurants, including McDonalds, in the plaza across
the street that have open WiFi, as does the city in libraries and community
centres, the local shopping mall and more. Are they all supposed to be liable
for a users actions?
---
The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:47 PM EDT |
IMO I like the decision. It's a good idea to secure your AP, just to keep
stuff you don't know about off your network, but you shouldn't have a duty to
someone else to secure your network. It's similar to real property: it might
be a good idea for me to have fences and gates so random strangers don't go
wandering around my property, but I have no duty to the guy who lives behind me
to fence off my property so people can't go wandering through it onto his. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
