[IP] more on Unsecured Wi-Fi would be outlawed by N.Y. county
Begin forwarded message:
From: Johan Ovlinger <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: November 6, 2005 9:04:40 PM EST
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Unsecured Wi-Fi would be outlawed by N.Y.
county
Dave, I'd appreciate it if you were to fwd this to your list, if you
deem it worthwhile.
Thanks
David Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: November 5, 2005 8:21:13 PM EST
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Unsecured Wi-Fi would be outlawed by
N.Y. county
Reply-To: dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Note: This comment comes from reader Thomas Leavitt. DLH]
Tort liability for negligent administration of confidential personal
information is the proper means of addressing the problem.
Perhaps the more legislativly savvy among the IP readership can
explain this to me; I've long wondered why most laws specify
mechanism, rather than result. As a non-internet example, leash-laws
are obviously meant to control the dog, but since neither the weight
of the leash-holder nor the strength of the leash is specified,
whether the dog is actually controlled or not is a bit of a gamble.
In constrast, my last dog (sadly dead more than a decade ago) needed
no leash to be controlled.
Why is this?
Why not just propose laws that mandate that private information not
be disclosed or made vunerable, and let the individuals choose how to
implement that requirement?
I really don't mean to preach; the point of this query is
specifically to delve into why laws are drafted in the way they are,
rather than to ridicule existing ones.
Johan
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/