suspicious mugs iphone case
suspicious mugs iphone case
Nearly three years ago, 3Com ceded the large corporate networking equipment industry to rival Cisco Systems, which in the last two years has continued to dominate the market, shipping 2 million Internet phones. 3Com said it's making the move back into the market because spending by communications providers, some of its biggest customers, continues to be slow. Be respectful, keep it civil and stay on topic. We delete comments that violate our policy, which we encourage you to read. Discussion threads can be closed at any time at our discretion.
Although Wi-Fi law is still largely suspicious mugs iphone case unsettled in the United States and Canada, people who run open Wi-Fi hubs could conceivably be held accountable for activities carried out on their networks by unauthorized users, according to Joseph Burton, an attorney with law firm Duane Morris, "Is it possible a home owner can be liable for a lack of security on a wireless network? Yes, if they are negligent in setting up security," Burton said, Security experts have long known that unauthorized users could hijack open wireless Internet connections in order to mask their online activities, with some offering dire warnings that open Wi-Fi hot spots could abet terrorism, So far, there's little evidence to show how much and what kind of abuse is taking place, But security experts say a surprisingly high number of consumers choose not to activate security protocols on their wireless networks, meaning the opportunity clearly exists..
That could pose a legal risk if someone were to suffer damages as a result of activities conducted on an open Wi-Fi hub, Burton said. Individuals that gain unauthorized access to a wireless network that's providing a broadband connection can not only download illegal material, but they could also use a hijacked network to launch spam, distribute a virus or steal data from resources on the network. In all these case, it would look like the owner of the connection had performed the acts. That may not be enough to trigger liability, counter other legal experts, who note that the law is still largely unformed. Internet service providers in the United States have long enjoyed some protection from lawsuits related to the activities of their customers, and courts might extend that same principle to cover Wi-Fi providers. Still, the providers might find themselves on the wrong side of the law in some cases--for example, if they refuse to secure their network after repeated attacks.
According to research by the WorldWide WarDrive, more than two-thirds of the roughly 88,100 access points found by war drivers around the globe this year did not have basic security settings activated, Wi-Fi users need to do more than simply turn on their security settings to protect themselves, Wi-Fi uses Wired Equivalent Privacy as its default security protocol, WEP is widely recognized as being easily broken, leading industry groups to develop alternatives, A new security standard known as 802.11i is expected to suspicious mugs iphone case be finalized around the middle of next year, bringing stronger encryption to keep eavesdroppers from snagging passwords and other sensitive data exchanged between a remote computer and a Wi-Fi base station..
In the meantime, standards groups are backing an interim security protocol known as Wi-Fi Protected Access to replace WEP, offering improved encryption and authentication. Since September, products certified by the Wi-Fi Alliance for interoperability must include WPA, and so far 80 products have been certified. Upgrades for products already in homes are available from most manufacturers' Web sites. Who's liable?Beefing up Wi-Fi security is a top priority for the industry. Wi-Fi case law is not developed enough to clearly support negligence claims, according to Burton, but businesses are already bracing for a day when they might be found liable for Wi-Fi security breaches.