Re: Oops, it doesn't look like the link is there anymore.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 04:56:20 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:13:34 +0100, Mark McIntyre
><markmcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:42:40 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , Jeff
>>Liebermann <jeffl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>Define "reasonable" and what construes due diligence in this case?
>
>>Depends on the person, their skill levels, and the role they have. A
>>computer admin could be reasonably expected to have a certain level of
>>skill. A mentally impaired person a different one.
>
>I meant the legal definition, not the functional definition. The way
>I under stand it, "reasonable" means average, typical, normal, and
>common as in a non-expert in the field. Where this will eventually
>cause trouble is defining what are "reasonable expectations" for a
>wireless router. For example, the advertising material and package
>for wireless routers all proclaim and substantial number of security
>features. Everything from encryption to stateful packet inspection.
>Would a *REASONABLE* person (i.e. not a computer admin) expect these
>features to be functional by default? I think so, and I suspect a
>judge would also agree. A reasonable person purchases a vehicle with
>anti-lock brakes, said reasonable person would normally expect those
>brakes to be functional on delivery. You can walk through an
>electronics store and read box and box of advertised features, all of
>which are enabled out of the box. The one exception are wireless
>routers security features. A liability and assignment of blame tends
>to drift toward the culprit with the deepest pockets, I suspect there
>will trouble ahead for the manufactories. Also, if they claim that it
>can't be done economically, there's always 2Wire.com, which has been
>shipping secure by default wireless routers for years.
>
>>>Is the owner and operator of the wireless contrivance totally
>>>responsible for its operation?
>
Yes, how much common sense are we obliged to use?

A Maasachusetts lady bought a new house next to the ninth hole a few
years ago. She sued the golf course for balls hitting her house, car,
etc. (Her landscape crew wears helmets:)

Superior Court found against her.

Appeals Court just overturned, saying she was entitled to relief!

Hey, you buy a beach house, ypu should know you risk waves!
>>Yes. At least in the US, and until a successful suit shows
>>otherwise...
>
>It's rather common for class action suits to revolve around advertised
>features which are disabled or missing. Verizon's crippling of the
>Motorola V710 cell phone has already precipitated such a suit. How
>long will it be before some attorney decides that the non-activation
>of security features by default constitutes negligence and false
>advertising on the part of the manufactory?
>
>As for responsibility, I somewhat follow product liability legislation
>and decisions. I consider many of the suits and decisions to be great
>entertainment value. It's very common for the "victim" to prove that
>he was not properly informed or warned of what constitutes proper
>operation and is therefore not responsible for consequential damages.
>By default, that means the manufacturer is responsible. That's what's
>driving the current generation of instruction booklets, that are
>mostly legal repudiations of responsibilities and attempts to inform
>the buyer of their allegedly very limited rights. Same with the
>useless warning labels and drug disclosure documentation. A friend
>just bought a new Toyota Prius. Before being allowed to drive the
>vehicle, the LCD panel presents a stupid repudiation of responsibility
>declaration and demands that the driver hit "ok" to agree to the
>terms. I'm rather surprised that Microsoft hasn't done something
>similar when Windoze first boots.
>
>>>Personally, I would like to see all unsecured access points have port
>>>80 redirected to an initial splash page that says:
>>>
>>> You are a clueless idiot for operating this router without any
>>> encryption. Click here to indemnify the manufacture from any
>>> responsibility and damages resulting from your ineptitude.
>>> [ OK ]
>
>>hear hear. Though I'd much prefer routers to be shipped with a
>>firmware that would not operate till it had run through the minimum
>>security configuration, and compelled the user to enter a new SSID,
>>and turn on some sort of encryption.
>
>Well, the old Cayman 3220h routers would not function until you
>assigned a non-default password. I think the later Netopia models are
>similar. The firmware mods to do this are trivial. Perhaps the right
>approach would be to convince the Sveasoft people that their
>alternative firmware for the WRT54G might benefit from being secure on
>installation, or at least demand some level of security on initial
>setup as you suggested.

.

Relevant Pages