Finland to Decriminalize Open Wi-Fi Networks
Finland to Decriminalize Open Wi-Fi Networks
Posted 06/11/2010 at 5:46pm
| by Ryan Whitwam
11
Comments
Print
A few years ago in Finland, a case of white collar crime was perpetrated. This in and of itself is not unusual, but the resulting legislation was. It turns out a bank employee used an open Wi-Fi access point to electronically transfer some money that wasn't his. So, clearly the best way to make sure people don't steal is to outlaw open Wi-Fi. That's just what Finland did. But now they're looking back with the benefit of hindsight and realizing they might have overreacted a little bit.
The Finnish Justice Ministry is planning to officially decriminalize unprotected Wi-Fi hotspots. Let's be clear though, this is not an invitation for people to leave the wireless networks unprotected. Individuals should probably protect their networks, unless they really feel like sharing with the neighborhood. This change will be great for businesses that had no choice but to lock down their Wi-Fi networks, causing inconvenience for customers.
It's nice to see a European nation being realistic about wireless networks. Germany recently instituted rules similar to the Finnish ones. We just don't quite see the argument. Do you think everyone should be legally required to lock down their Wi-Fi?
More like this
11
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
Blues22475
June 14, 2010 at 7:57am
I don't think people have to lock down their wifi just as people aren't technically required to lock their doors and secure their houses when they leave. I mean, if you don't secure your wifi, you're just asking to have issues. If you leave your house unsecured, whose fault is that (yeah bad analogy but you get the idea)? Anyway, a good networking structure would provide unsecured wifi for customers while having a secured site for the business anyway. So I find "locking down" unsecured wifi unnecessary. Yes I do know that folks don't always follow good networking procedure, but I don't see that as an excuse (because there are resources for that subject).
-----------------------------------------
Ignorance is man's greatest enemy.
tkid124
June 14, 2010 at 6:36am
This wasn’t about someone having access to private information because of an unsecured Wi-Fi access point. The guy worked for a bank, the bank wasn’t allowing the information to be sent over the Wi-Fi signal. The guy already had access to the funds he just happened to use a Wi-Fi signal to commit the crime, the resulting law makes as much sense as outlawing fruits because someone used a banana in the pocket claiming it was a gun to commit a robbery. It wasn’t the banana, it was the guy robbing the place.
aviaggio
June 12, 2010 at 11:09am
Wasn't there a court ruling in the US recently where a guy was found guilty of copyright infringement because he left his wifi unencrypted? Another person was using his connection for bittorrent and the court ruled he was culpable because it was his duty to ensure his connection was not used for unlawful purposes, something like that. Pretty damned retarded if you ask me.
Makes me wonder what they'd do if it was a legitimate hotspot. How the hell could a business ever provide one if they have to be responsible for what others do on the network. Wasn't this whole line of thinking already shot down in the courts ages ago, that you couldn't be held responsible for what others do?
zNelson24
June 11, 2010 at 10:23pm
I believe conventional unprotected Wi-Fi should be legal, but organazations who must keep information about others secret are obligated to use protected Wi-Fi or none at all. Government shouldn't be allowed to judge residental networks, but the security of a bank's network (or similar organization) should come under scrutiny.
Daemon
June 12, 2010 at 1:00am
I agree, residental users shouldn't have to lock up tight; but the business, industrial, and corporate sectors should by reason of common sense since they do handle sensitive information.
jlh304
June 12, 2010 at 8:05am
In the USA business do have to secure info if they fall under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), Health Insurance Portability and Accountabililty Act (HIPAA), Payment Card Industry (PCI) Standard. Granted most of them say WEP is just fine so take it with a grain of salt.
whr4usa
June 12, 2010 at 1:00pm
as long as the internal network the WiFi is broadcasted from is physically (or atleast virtually) seperate from the internal network important financial or medical data is stored upon then I don't see a problem even if the incoming Internet connection is shared but WEP should never be used & WiFi should ideally be avoided as a primary business networking media
Mark17
June 11, 2010 at 6:30pm
I think everyone should be legally required to do whatever they want.
bmomjian
June 11, 2010 at 6:11pm
Hey, let's ask a stupid question at the end of all our news stories and hopefully people will comment. Look, I just did.
mesiah
June 11, 2010 at 8:50pm
Hey, lets see if I can find a douchebag comment after every news story. Look, I just did.
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Original RickRoll Video Returns to YouTube After 24-Hour Copyright Hiatus http://t.co/MaH9Sxyy1 day 9 hours ago
- maximumpc: Corsair has decided not to go forward with its $78 million IPO, citing weak equity market conditions http://t.co/A5a4DAzj1 day 9 hours ago
- maximumpc: Want to work at Maximum PC? Our Online Managing Editor, Alex, is moving away, so we need a new one. http://t.co/9Z7JCh0E3 days 7 hours ago
