[IP] more on Unsecured Wi-Fi would be outlawed by N.Y. county

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Johan Ovlinger <johan@ccs.neu.edu>
Date: November 6, 2005 9:04:40 PM EST
To: dave@farber.net
Cc: ip@v2.listbox.com
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@warpspeed.com>
> Date: November 5, 2005 8:21:13 PM EST
> To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net@warpspeed.com>
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Unsecured Wi-Fi would be outlawed by  
> N.Y.  county
> Reply-To: dewayne@warpspeed.com
> [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

-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/