William Warren (william_warren_nonoise@speakeasy.net) Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:59:55 -0400

Review Index Sorted By: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: The Chief Instigator: "Re: When Did 2L-5N Become Required in Los Angeles?" Previous message: Michael D. Sullivan: "Re: Number Portability: POTS, VoIP, and Cellular" May be in reply to: Danny Burstein: "Westchester (NYC Suburb) and 802.11 Safety" TELECOM Digest: Home Page

Danny Burstein wrote: > [ excerpts ] > April 20, 2006 > COUNTY TO REQUIRE BUSINESSES TO SECURE WIRELESS NETWORKS > Law signed by Spano is first of its kind in the U.S. > A groundbreaking proposal requiring local businesses to secure their > wireless networks to protect their customers against identity theft > and other computer fraud has just become law. > County Executive Andy Spano signed a bill into law today that mandates > commercial businesses that offer public Internet access and/or > maintain personal information on a wireless network to take "minimum > security measures." [1] [snip] This smells like a lobbyist-written law: the obvious beneficiaries of reduced wireless access are the cellular, DSL, and Cable companies, all of whom stand to lose money if wireless access points aren't "protected". I bet the FCC will strike it down: IANALB, not only is it an obvious usurpation of federal proragatives, but the feds can smell a cut-rate competitor a mile away, and county governments can be had for a pittance compared to the license fees the feds extort from users. William Warren (Filter noise from my address for direct replies)

Post Followup Article	Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: The Chief Instigator: "Re: When Did 2L-5N Become Required in Los Angeles?"
Go to Previous message: Michael D. Sullivan: "Re: Number Portability: POTS, VoIP, and Cellular"
May be in reply to: Danny Burstein: "Westchester (NYC Suburb) and 802.11 Safety"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page