12-17-2002, 07:01 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
Military Seeks Restrictions on Wi-Fi
(link requires registration) This was bound to happen in the interest of "national security": the US military is worried that consumer Wi-Fi technologies will interfere with their own radio and radar infrastructure, and is particularly looking to delay the opening of additional 5-GHz radio spectrum. They're especially concerned about the new frequency-hopping technologies to be established in those bands.
Sigh. :? Where do I start with this? First, this would be a major blow to the wireless and technology industries in the US - the future is wireless. Second, the military can only regulate US airspace. It's not like European airspace, or even Canadian/South American airspace, is under jurisdiction, so by restricting use they're only going to stifle US innovation and communication, while getting only very limited benefits. Third, if anything, potential "enemies" would be smart enough to fly "under the radar", restrictions or not. Fourth, are they just restricting as much as they can in the name of national security, or is it legitimate? For what it's worth, the article says there have been no reported conflicts so far.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-17-2002, 07:16 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 252
|
|
Sadaam has been seen trying to buy a load of wireless gear, pcs and copies of UT2003.
He's having a LAN Party to ensure that in the event of an invasion the US forces can't speak to each other. :P
Feels like the airlines saying that my $100 cell phone can me their $40m plane fall out of the sky. Worrying.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-17-2002, 07:31 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 390
|
|
I've heard the Japanese airwave is even more crowded. the WiFi can only get several channels over there.
how do they managed it in Japan with the a version? I would imagine that frequency is full already.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-17-2002, 07:42 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 34
|
|
All of these panic statements regarding wi-fi are quite rediculous. I read a post earlier with one person ranting how wi-fi is now labled a "terrorist tool," and going on about removal of rights ect ect ect.
Give me a break. The government is being extremely sensible in this matter. They KNOW wi-fi is the future otherwise there'd be nothing done about it. What is generally being done by the secret service, is that they are testing wi-fi networks and looking for potential openings. You have to be extra cautious with wi-fi to make sure there aren't security holes. Everyone is yelling 'foul' over the gov. trying to make sure wi-fi will be under control in the future. There is no conspircy to put government restrictions on wi-fi.
Educate yourself and stop panic ranting.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-17-2002, 07:50 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jdavis
What is generally being done by the secret service, is that they are testing wi-fi networks and looking for potential openings. You have to be extra cautious with wi-fi to make sure there aren't security holes.
|
Explain to me how an open, consumer Wi-Fi network is a terrorist security hole. It's one thing if the Pentagon has open AP's. But how is a consumer Wi-Fi connection different from, say, walking into a university and plugging into one of their Ethernet ports? So their own machine is compromisable. Big deal -- it's a bad thing for the consumer, but it's not like the terrorist is gaining anything.
In any case, this article, which is completely different, is no panic ranting. It's real. The military wants the FCC to slow down the opening of spectrum. Spectrum is what we need for the next generation of Wi-Fi and 3G.
--janak
|
| |
|
|
|
12-17-2002, 07:54 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,329
|
|
If the gov would get their collectives heads together and implement spread spectrum across the US this would be a non issue. :?
|
| |
|
|
|
12-17-2002, 07:59 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 111
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jdavis
All of these panic statements regarding wi-fi are quite rediculous. I read a post earlier with one person ranting how wi-fi is now labled a "terrorist tool," and going on about removal of rights ect ect ect.
|
That's pretty funny considering I work for a government/military contractor and have worked on wireless projects (involving Pocket PCs too) and most times they specifically want to use 802.11b.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-17-2002, 08:06 PM
|
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 574
|
|
The thing that worries me is that people are unaware of the side-effects of technology they use:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dochall
Feels like the airlines saying that my $100 cell phone can me their $40m plane fall out of the sky. Worrying.
|
I worked in the airline industry: a cell phone can crash a plane. A cell phone creates enough interference on the data-wires (there are hunderds of kilometers of cable in a plane, basically being an huge antenna for YOUR cel phone) to distort every major circuit in the plane enough to get it into trouble. If you ever saw the effect on data-transmission on one cable alone, you're cured from this idea forgood. Although shielding helps, it may not be relied on: one crack in the shielding suffices to disturb all transmission.
A good pilot knows how to deal with it just in time to stop it from crashing, but i would not take that chance if i was you.
Jaap
|
| |
|
|
|
12-17-2002, 08:09 PM
|
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 495
|
|
When the avalanche starts, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
It isn't panic when things keep getting more restricted in a country which labels itself the most free and democratic.
They should change the inscription on the statue of liberty to "Welcome to the Federal Republic of America. You are being watched."
|
| |
|
|
|
12-17-2002, 08:14 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,329
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Janak Parekh
Explain to me how an open, consumer Wi-Fi network is a terrorist security hole. It's one thing if the Pentagon has open AP's. But how is a consumer Wi-Fi connection different from, say, walking into a university and plugging into one of their Ethernet ports? So their own machine is compromisable. Big deal -- it's a bad thing for the consumer, but it's not like the terrorist is gaining anything.
--janak
|
The diff Janak is that you have to be physically located in the building to access an actual computer terminal. With WIFI you could be sitting across the parking lot, street, or even the city in your car while you attempt a hack. Heck a persistent hacker/cracker could run around town mapping out vulnerable AP's and then jump from one AP to another while continuing to attempt a hack. This makes it more difficult then even trying to trace a cell phone modem connection since you don't know where he/she/they are going to show up next.
But this isn't the fault of wireless. It�s the fault of the person who should be doing something to secure:
-The network the hacker/cracker is trying to break into.
-The network the hacker/cracker has hijacked.
There should be a bit of due-diligence when it comes to setting up a wireless AP. And there should be accountability. If it�s found that a hacker has damaged or penetrated someone�s network/server/computer/etc from your home network and you didn�t bother to implement even the most rudimentary of security you deserve to be fined and punished. Personally I don�t think people should have to have RADIUS authentication on each network and have to have security anally tight but there should be some measures taken.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
