On TV.com: BATTLESTAR Galactica Maxim Photoshoot
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 3 of 15:
Next »
« Previous
I disagree
You can't hold someone criminally liable unless there is a law against their actions already instated. As long as the user isn't required by law to activate the security, the user has the opportunity to claim in court that he was hijacked. Hackers have already gotten off on this defense in the past. Two things need to happen, better security and mandatory activation of the security.

Until then, I think I'll avoid using wireless.
Posted by: master of illusion   Posted on: 11/28/03 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

That's it!  GRindinAxTaRupy | 11/28/03
Thats not it  crocd | 11/28/03
I disagree  master of illusion | 11/28/03
Wi-Fi security...  MalumRegnat | 11/28/03
Oh my goodness, is that Redhat box vulnerable too  FilledOut | 11/29/03
Nahhh  FilledOut | 12/01/03
but! but! but!  nite_w0lf | 12/01/03
Yep, yep  FilledOut | 12/01/03
Yep, yep  FilledOut | 12/01/03
Wireless security is possible, but . . .  Eqwatz | 12/01/03
There also appears to be a lack  Eqwatz | 12/01/03
If I'm not in a rush or such . . .  FilledOut | 12/02/03
Wi-Fi home users and security  gardoglee | 01/12/04
Most Users Know JACK  b_t_f@... | 07/24/05
Linux isn't as secure as you think?  asha57 | 07/17/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

SmartPlanet

Click Here