Broadband Tech > Security > Security > Would you give the govt remote control over your router?

Would you give the govt remote control over your router?

quote:

---

Well-meaning proposals sometimes have a way of raising troubling questions. Case in point: A team of wireless researchers in Germany proposed a way to improve the communications abilities of first responders, the brave people who rush into disastrous situations to help save the victims.

But the proposal hinges on something many private citizens and privacy or security advocates will likely find uncomfortable: creating an “emergency switch” that lets government employees disable the security mechanisms in the wireless routers people have set up in their own homes. This would allow first responders to use all the routers within range to enhance the capabilities of the mesh networks that allow them to communicate with each other. In a mesh network, each node or device can route traffic to the other devices on the network through a series of hops. Adding devices (in this case wireless routers) thus improves the network's stability and performance.

The residents' wireless traffic would still remain private, in theory. Wireless routers already support a technology that might make the idea feasible—the creation of guest networks that home owners can use to grant visitors access to the Internet. But the proposal—laid out in a new paper in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Mobile Network Design and Innovation—suggests allowing public safety officials the right to remotely activate an emergency mode making similar guest access available to them.... more ...

---

What a dumb idea! Including from the technical point, and ending with inevitable big privacy concerns. And why government should be allowed to do everything it wants. Where does this come from?
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...

reply to goalieskates
/sarcasm on

"It's all for the children emergency workers" so it must be a good idea.

/sarcasm off
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!

reply to goalieskates
That's kind of akin to the email I received from FPL letting me know that I could reduce my electric bill if I give them the ability to turn off appliances/devices when they deem necessary.

They sent that email to the wrong person.
--
"I do not believe in a fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls on them unless they act." --- G. K. Chesterton

reply to goalieskates
Mesh based networks are always an interesting idea, but in a disaster situation what are the chances that homes would have power to operate their routers? If power was available why not just use cell towers and their signal as it has a longer range etc.

Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool

reply to wxboss

Re: Utility appliance control

reply to goalieskates

Re: Would you give the govt remote control over your router?

reply to wxboss

Re: Utility appliance control

said by wxboss
I won't give my money to a company that wants to (at their discretion) usurp the very services that I'm paying them for - discount or no discount.

Not trying to be hostile, but I am not one for giving away the few liberties that I have left in this world.

A line must be drawn somewhere, and it damn sure starts outside my front door.
[/BQUOTE :

No problem, I'm not feeling any hostility towards me

The similar Florida Power and Light program is called "On-Call Savings" where you are paid up front to allow them to control devices such as Central A/C, Electric Water Heating, Central Heating, and pool pump for in-ground pools

»www.fpl.com/residential/energy_s···ll.shtml

Like the programs I mentioned previously, if you don't sign up and give permission, the utility will not turn off the specified electrical devices.

This all part of the USA electrical utilities trying to smooth out the peaks and valleys in kWh usage so that expensive new generation capacity doesn't have to be built just to handle extreme conditions, i.e. summer A/C loads.

And with Isaac, stay dry my friend!!

reply to Link Logger

Re: Would you give the govt remote control over your router?

reply to goalieskates
To add:

Safety communication protocols are in place where "silence" is required over the communication channels for the obvious reasons of allowing the emergency services the channel to communicate, and there is hefty fines for abusing the specific channels in question. I could not see this be any different, if they cut you off while in an emergency, theoretically it could end up with you being fined for using your own router, or are we really talking about modems here?

Either way, it breaches way too far on my home, and this sort of requirement needs specific channels to communicate, I can not see this required in the life time of me or my kids, but in 100 yrs time, who knows?
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke

reply to goalieskates
I would remind everyone that, by definition, the government controls the public airwaves, so if they (for example) had a legitimate reason for shutting down wireless routers and/or commandeering one or more of those channels for other uses, then it's already well within their powers to do so (AFAIK). That said, and since I don't really have a problem with routers having a "Guest" network capability, then by extension an "Emergency" network capability is no big deal either, as long as these are kept logically and legally separate from my private network. Nor do I have any real problems with them temporarily using a healthy chunk of my bandwidth (not necessarily all of it, though), but I would want some measure of control over that chunk. I do, however, have a big problem with a "disable security" switch. I haven't read the Ars Technica article yet, so I don't know all of the details, but my initial response to such an idea is a definite "NO!"

reply to wxboss

reply to scross

reply to goalieskates
There are differences but the end game sounds similar to the current first responder network access for cellular networks already in place in the US.
"Welcome to the Wireless Priority Service (WPS) Website!
»wps.ncs.gov/

reply to goalieskates
That is easy to solve and the solution is far more healthy. Don't use wireless. Use a wired router or just connect one computer directly by modem. Besides, wireless I was just reading recently how dangerous, health wise, such a setup is in your home. I have a wired router (two of them). When I get a new router, someday, it will be wireless because it is not easy to find wired routers now and they cost a lot more too these days than wireless ones. But I will turn off wireless and use the router wired.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson

reply to goalieskates
I don't think it could be done securely (where only emergency crews could use it) and even if it could, I'd still worry about abuse.

So, most likely, no.

Maybe if it came with 100% guaranteed immunity from prosecution for anything that crosses my network, originates or terminates from my IP, or resides on any computer connected to my network. Then maybe. But probably not even then. Wouldn't trust them to hold up their end of the bargain.
--
Think Outside the Fox.

reply to scross