Hasta la vista piggee bachers

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060831...s_060831112707

Philip <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060831...s_060831112707
>

I love it:
The proposed law would require makers of wireless equipment such
as laptop computers and Internet routers to include warning
labels with product packaging or pre-install safeguards.

How about this warning label?

State of California Burro of Wireless Security
WARNING !
The State of California had determined that using wireless in the
default manner delivered by the clueless manufacturer may
compromise your data security and ruin your day. To be somewhat
secure, you are expected to follow a poorly documented and
convoluted ordeal process because the manufacturer didn't see fit
to deliver a product that is secure by default.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

I'll be back!!


"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Philip <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060831...s_060831112707
>>
>
> I love it:
> The proposed law would require makers of wireless equipment such
> as laptop computers and Internet routers to include warning
> labels with product packaging or pre-install safeguards.
>
> How about this warning label?
>
> State of California Burro of Wireless Security
> WARNING !
> The State of California had determined that using wireless in the
> default manner delivered by the clueless manufacturer may
> compromise your data security and ruin your day. To be somewhat
> secure, you are expected to follow a poorly documented and
> convoluted ordeal process because the manufacturer didn't see fit
> to deliver a product that is secure by default.
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I love it:
> The proposed law would require makers of wireless equipment such
> as laptop computers and Internet routers to include warning
> labels with product packaging or pre-install safeguards.

> How about this warning label?

I really expected to see a "Prop 65" label, as your posting ;-)

A parking garage is required to post a prop 65 hazardous chemical notice
because of the dribbles of oil where cars park, and oil is known to the
state of California to cause cancer.

So many labels, you don't know what's toxic.

The only reasonable label as a result of this is one telling the consumer
what the default WEP/WPA code is that is turned on at the factory, like
2wire does.

And California needs another law for that?

No wonder people move to Montana.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:45:27 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>How about this warning label?
>
> State of California Burro of Wireless Security

Do you really think they will put a burro in charge of that department?
Well, maybe. They have asses in charge of most other government offices.

(E-Mail Removed) hath wroth:

>So many labels, you don't know what's toxic.

Ingesting or sniffing the glue used to attach the labels is known to
be carcinogenic, hallucinogenic, and kinda sticky.

>The only reasonable label as a result of this is one telling the consumer
>what the default WEP/WPA code is that is turned on at the factory, like
>2wire does.

2wire sets the router password, WEP/WPA key, and creates a unique
SSID. I wanna go a step further and disable the wireless section
until all of these security measures are accomplished. I've posted
previous rants on the subject. Search alt.internet.wireless with
Google Groups for "secure by default". There should be about 5 of my
rants on the subject. For example:
| http://groups.google.com/group/alt.i...29d2674dfc4d9f

>And California needs another law for that?

Perhaps. The law is for the benifit of router manufacturers that
insist on shipping allegedly secure routers that are not secure by
default.

>No wonder people move to Montana.

I live in Santa Cruz Calif and am thinking that Hawaii might be a
closer approximation of paradise.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

Text of the AB2415 bill:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/a...ended_sen.html

(C) Requires an affirmative action by the consumer prior to
allowing use of the product.

I like it.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>
> Text of the AB2415 bill:
>
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/a...ended_sen.html
>
> (C) Requires an affirmative action by the consumer prior to
> allowing use of the product.
>
> I like it.
>
Another way to get more money from the customer.

Kevin Weaver <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>>
>> Text of the AB2415 bill:
>>
>> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/a...ended_sen.html
>>
>> (C) Requires an affirmative action by the consumer prior to
>> allowing use of the product.
>>
>> I like it.

I forgot to include the main URL for tracking the progress of AB2415:
| http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...B&author=nunez

>Another way to get more money from the customer.

I think the "requires affirmative action" means that the customer gets
a warning screen full of legalese and must click OK on initial setup.
That's common on automotive navigation systems and some automobiles
(Prius). I don't know where you think money is involved. Insert your
credit card in the slot to "activate" or something?

The real fun will be if the State decides to enforce this law.
Anything made after Oct 1, 2007 will need to comply which might result
in a substantial number of products labeled "Not for sale in
California". Kinda like specially formulated gasoline for California
which costs more. At best, the web sites will have a special version
of the firmware for sale in California.

Maybe I don't like it so much. At least the manufacturers might get a
clue from the law. My guess(tm) is that it will pass, but not be
enforced. Maybe passed, but declared unenforceable because it
tramples on FCC turf.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Kevin Weaver <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>
>> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>>>
>>> Text of the AB2415 bill:
>>>
>>> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/a...ended_sen.html
>>>
>>> (C) Requires an affirmative action by the consumer prior to
>>> allowing use of the product.
>>>
>>> I like it.
>
> I forgot to include the main URL for tracking the progress of AB2415:
> | http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...B&author=nunez
>
>> Another way to get more money from the customer.
>
> I think the "requires affirmative action" means that the customer gets
> a warning screen full of legalese and must click OK on initial setup.
> That's common on automotive navigation systems and some automobiles
> (Prius). I don't know where you think money is involved. Insert your
> credit card in the slot to "activate" or something?
>
> The real fun will be if the State decides to enforce this law.
> Anything made after Oct 1, 2007 will need to comply which might result
> in a substantial number of products labeled "Not for sale in
> California". Kinda like specially formulated gasoline for California
> which costs more. At best, the web sites will have a special version
> of the firmware for sale in California.
>
> Maybe I don't like it so much. At least the manufacturers might get a
> clue from the law. My guess(tm) is that it will pass, but not be
> enforced. Maybe passed, but declared unenforceable because it
> tramples on FCC turf.
>
Anytime they add something to it, it's going to raise the price.
Stickers, They don't come free. and then the price to peal and stick on
unit. Another cost.

Nothing is free.
I would say the sticker would be approx 5 cents then to have it stuck on
by someone is another person on the line. If it cuts into the profit per
unit, They raise the price to the buyer.

Maybe they will have to have one on the outside of the box as well.
Another cost. Change the print on the outside the box without the
sticker. That would be a plate change for the printer. Another cost.
Change the wording in the manual, Another cost.

If they add the warning to the opening screen. Another cost. People
don't read the manual.