Queensland Police to Look For Unsecured WiFi Spots 255
OzPeter writes "As a part of National Consumer Fraud week, the Queensland Police are going war driving in order to identify insecure WiFi setups. From the press release: 'The War Driving Project involves police conducting proactive patrols of residential and commercial areas to identify unprotected connections. Police will follow this up with a letterbox drop in the targeted area with information on how to effectively secure your connection.' While some people may like having an open WiFi AP its interesting to see that the Police also feel that 'Having WEP encryption is like using a closed screen door as your sole means of security at home. The WPA or WPA2 security encryption is certainly what we would recommend as it offers a high degree of protection.'"
Just incase you want to jump on board. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
and like their burgers, it's crap!
How times have changed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How times have changed (Score:4, Insightful)
Being able to flash a badge lets you get away with murder...why would wardriving be on the do-not-do list?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder why you got downmodded? It's a true statement. In fact, sometimes you don't even need a badge, just be on the neighborhood watch. [go.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit.
Even in the Old West, the law was basically that you couldn't shoot an unarmed man, period. If he was unarmed and you shot him, you were hanged. There was only justification for deadly force if the other party had the capacity to also use deadly force.
According to your moronic logic, all I need to do is go find some guy walking down the street I don't like, walk up to him, shoot him in the head, and then claim that he "attacked" me. As long as there's no witnesses to deny my story, I get to walk
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How times have changed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's Basic Infrastructure (Score:5, Interesting)
I have an open Wifi setup. My attitude is that connectivity has become basic infrastructure, and all "lock it down" freaks have just bought into the agenda of ISPs who don't want us to share bandwidth to boost their own profits.
If you're a guest in my home, you're welcome to use the bandwidth, along with the lights and water. Can you imagine visitig a friend only to be told, "Look, here's the PIN code to unlock the lights, and here's the key in case you want to wash your hands." Ridiculous. I accept that there's a risk of someone lurking in their car outside the property boundary to leech off my internet connection, but there's a risk of someone stealing water from my outside, unprotected taps, too. OTOH, if bandwidth were shared freely everywhere there'd be no need to sneak around "stealing" it, would there?
It's the 21st Century, man. Get over it!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be more worried about an identity thief stealing data than a passerby leeching bandwidth. Easier to just wall it off. FWIW, we just post the password on the fridge, so our actual guests can use it if they want.
Re:It's Basic Infrastructure (Score:5, Interesting)
My attitude is that if I'm out and about and want to get WIFI, I'd like other people to provide open guest networks, so it makes sense for me to provide one for other people to use.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
it was nice though to use two separate networks for torrents.
Re:It's Basic Infrastructure (Score:5, Informative)
A linux box, iptables experience and a couple of WiFi cards/AP would be ideal, however there is an easier way..
Your ADSL/Cable router plugged into your ISP offers unprotected WiFi.
Buy another cable router and plug it into the above router offering protected WiFi behind its own NAT/Firewall.
Internet <--> ROUTER <--> ROUTER <--> LAN
Do what I did (Score:3)
and buy a router with the a guest network capability. One device that offers dual AP - protected full speed for the home - un/protected guest ap that's restricted to 1/10 network bandwidth and isolated from the lan. Cost was $45 at Walmart
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's 4th and 5th gen Airport Extreme routers also have this. Pretty much all of the higher-performance dual band routers include it now.
The saucer-shaped Linksys ones also offer it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's Basic Infrastructure (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, this scenario may or may not be likely, but you do have to ask yourself if it's worth it to have an open connection.
Re: (Score:3)
I have an open Wifi setup. My attitude is that connectivity has become basic infrastructure, and all "lock it down" freaks have just bought into the agenda of ISPs who don't want us to share bandwidth to boost their own profits.
that's the problem when the wide area wireless isp's and local cabled isp's are the same entity.
Re:It's Basic Infrastructure (Score:4, Interesting)
My attitude is that connectivity has become basic infrastructure
I concur. I would like to see connections open everywhere with the option of limited surfing as Guest (should the host feel generous) or having to authenticate to my ISP (or the NBN or some central authority/network) through this random open connection, and have all usage billed to my account.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Me too. And that's why I think what the Queensland police is doing is sort of OK. I don't want to use someone's Wifi if the they don't mean to leave it open. My stance is that an open network is open to everyone, practically, legally and morally, because it uses a public resource, advertises itself as open and in no way gives any indication that it is not meant to be open, even though that is trivially easy to do. People who don't want strangers on their Wifi should turn on encryption, and if that's what th
Re: (Score:2)
... and have all usage billed to my account.
I believe that the 802.11ai working group is working towards that goal.
Re: (Score:3)
I do like this idea, but I worry that it'll breed a whole new vector for phishing. Put up a wifi spot with a fake login page, and collect the accounts of "roaming wifi" users. Then use their airtime elsewhere, or worse-- make it seem like they've connected OK, but keep a MITM to sniff all their traffic.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately the ISP cartel in Australia charge like wounded bulls and most (all?) plans are capped, so if your neighbour decides they like your connection you can burn your plan with ease.
Guests in my home are also welcome to use my WiFi - let me type the password in for you.....In the same way I give them the spare key and travel pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly!
Mine is encrypted though with 'acomplicatedpassword' which is very easy to type so I never get the odd looks I get whenever someone asks me for the passphrase.
Re:It's Basic Infrastructure (Score:4, Funny)
"is your password a complicated password?" ...
"no its simple"
"what is it"
"acomplicatedpassword"
"i thought you it was simple"
Re:It's Basic Infrastructure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's Basic Infrastructure (Score:4, Insightful)
By everyone locking down their wifi you provide credibility to the claim that an IP equals a perpetrator.
If I were to say, brute force your WPA2 using my graphics card, you would have a harder time making your case than if your wifi was open and it could have been anyone.
I care more about protecting the innocent than persecuting criminals I guess.
Pure Paranoia (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Would keeping logs of the MACs that connect to your open wifi help? (" ____ is not my laptop, nor my pc, nor my refrigerator, nor any of our phones.")
Re:It's Basic Infrastructure (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. People seem to think that leaving it open will be sufficient defense -- either glossing over or ignoring the fact that their equipment will be seized under warrant well before the authorities start asking questions that might reveal this defense. Ultimately the lack of offending content will be what saves them - not the fact that their APs are open.
Re:It's Basic Infrastructure (Score:5, Interesting)
I have an open Wifi setup. My attitude is that connectivity has become basic infrastructure, and all "lock it down" freaks have just bought into the agenda of ISPs who don't want us to share bandwidth to boost their own profits.
Screw the ISP I don't want my cheap-ass neighbors slowing my Netflix down to a crawl while they download 10 seasons of some anime shit.
If we all "had internet" and people stuck to HTTP web traffic I wouldn't care. But I've had roomates before--hell I have myself as a roomate and I know that my internet is not big enough for the both of me from time-to-time let alone neighbors.
If I had a gig-e pipe they could be free to do as they please but I don't pay for my apartment building's electric bill, I pay for mine. And based on the fact that I can't even leave my laundry detergent on my little spot of shelf in my apartment building without it being used up in a couple weeks (and 2 loads of laundry from me) I know if they could secretly plug their water into my tap they would.
If I'm playing TF2 I expect there to be 0 torrenting and streaming on my connection so that my pings stay reasonable. It's bad enough knowing if one of my computers found an 'interesting' RSS feed let alone having two moochie neighbors.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I have an open Wifi setup
I have a SSL Strip and other ARP Poisoning MITM Attacks. What's your home address?
Do you ever buy anything online? Would you like any script-kiddie to see AND MANIPULATE everything you do online?
Here's some advice for you ignorant folk who insist on leaving their WIFI insecure: Turn on WPA. This defeats ARP Poisoning via per client encryption keys. WAIT! Hold your uneducated retorts for just a second: Set the password to "Welcome" and the SSID to "Password is Welcome". You can stencil "Our WIFI p
Re: (Score:2)
Not that i've rtfad or anything but i think isps in au and nz have metered charge systems. so if a neighbor uses your bw, you pay. They have every incentive to use your bw instead of their own (raising your bill).
Here in usa, i have no security on my wifi either, but it only grants access to my lan. To use the internet, openvpn is required. I usually relax that for guests as i cannot support every client.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're right.
The ISP model is based on net scarcity, isn't it? We're talking about the internet, something which many people today might just take for granted in that it has not always existed.
The relative scarcity of ways to get online was, at one point in time, a profitable market. You could take advantage of that scarcity and charge people to get online.
But it's a corrupted and oppressed market, much like the diamond trade. Consider the whole DSL thing. The phone companies didn't win the war agai
Re: (Score:3)
A guest in your home is fine. Of course, even with WPA2, as a guest you can give them the password. Then again, you take responsibility for a guest in your home. What if your neighbor's kid uses your intentionally free access to do something illegal, like child porn. Are you not then contributing to the activity? In addition, the authorities are going to come after you, because it is your IP address they will have.
Now one may argue that they were not a party to the activity, just like an ISP is not a p
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fon router project allows this.
you share 10% of your bandwidth on the open guest SSID, which is on a separate WLAN from yours.
Good if you have couch surfers stay allot too.
I agree that everyone locking down their wifi is just get sucked into the fear mentality. If all routers shared a small amount of their bandwidth you would not need to use GSM, and could make calls from almost anywhere using Viber for example or another SIP like service.
The mobile phone companies would also be forced to provide a better s
Re:It's Basic Infrastructure (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt this i see them just making it easier to make calls off wifi and claiming its a cool new feature.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be worried more about the fact everything you send over wireless may not be encrypted...
But all the important stuff is over SSL/TLS anyway
Re:It's Basic Infrastructure (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I refuse to bow down to the idea that an IP address resolves to a person. If you've got a log somewhere with an IP address and some "illegal" file, you've got to prove that it was me. It's easy to fake logs and typically ISPs don't perform security checks on their workers. If you accept that
Re: (Score:3)
and if there's even the hint of CP being involved, you will be convicted by the newspaper and your neighbors with yours and your families lives possibly threatened. Sorry but it's a witch hunt out there and "We wont stop until sombody gets burned" (Petra - Witchhunt) and that's why you need to secure you wifi. If everyone had open wifi throughout the country, we'd all have a plausible defense but they've already won that battle because people are running scared and now that the ISP's will become Copyright c
Re: (Score:3)
If people are happy to share the remaining bandwidth then I'm quite happy for them to drop their service. I've already paid for my agreed bandwidth, so I'm not cheating the ISP out of anything. If their business model relies on re-selling the bandwidth that I've alread
Accountability (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, it's easier for them to book you for thought crimes they catch you committing via their IP taps. They'll have none of that "but my wifi is open -- it could have been anyone" defense. That won't work for you, sir, you'll be held accountable for whatever flows through your pipes!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Gosh is that Simpsons thing a joke?
No joke. Photos of small-breasted woman, regardless of age, is also considered child-porn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was another Conroy (Australian Communications Minister) brainfart that luckily never made it into law.
/me breathes a sigh of relief
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. [somebodyth...ildren.com]
As to the actual story, the police already wander around public car parks checking to see if you've secured your car, and leave a flyer under the wiper. If the car is secure they tick the "Congratulations!" box; if not, they tick a box describing why your car is insecure. A quick Google tells me that this is also fairly common in the Good Ol' US of A.
Don't see anybody complaining about that, though. Apparent
Re: (Score:2)
I bloody well would. I often leave my car unlocked. I don't pay my bloody taxes to have them give me a score out of ten for how paranoid I am.
If they did their bloody jobs properly no-one would need to lock their cars.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Uh no, it doesn't work that way. If your government does its job properly then no-one needs to lock their cars, and you hardly need cops.
Only if you're deluded.
Crime is part of the human condition, even in a mythical perfect communist state there would still be outliers who steal shit. That is just a foolish line of thought because it is foisting responsibility of protecting your property from casual small scale crime on to society just because you're too god damn lazy to lock your doors. The GP's offered social environment is basically a monoculture and, like crop monocultures, it is highly vulnerable to disease wiping out the lot — i
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, if this is indeed true that cops walk around checking for locked cars; what a spectacular way to waste police resources.
If you are stupid enough to leave your car unlocked in this day and age, you deserve to have your stuff stolen.
Re: (Score:3)
If you lock the doors they break a window, and steal your stuff. If you don't lock the doors you tend to not leave anything in your car for them to steal, and your window doesn't get broken.
My car doesn't even have door locks. I would say 3 or 4 times a year I get back to me car after work and I can tell someone has gone through my car. (I park in a very high vehicle crime area.)
I do put the club on the steering wheel though, and have a hidden kill
Re: (Score:2)
australian Accountability (Score:4, Interesting)
thats exactly it !
realistically hacking a wpa setup by a person with no experience is pretty unsecured
(do you really want to know how many people have password1 or changeme...)
have a look at this:
http://open.youyuxi.com/
australia is censored beyond what I certainly expected...
regards
John Jones
Google (Score:5, Interesting)
This looks like a money grab from this years' budget
The QPS is always complaining that they do not have enough funding to pay their staff. Now they are wasting precious manhours to mine data that they could easily purchase (or even receive for free) from Google.
Finaly! (Score:3)
Finaly an actual initiative to protect and serve the people! A little faith in government restored.
I wonder what they will say (Score:5, Funny)
NSW police may be interested in my wifi ssid "Police_Surveillance_Van_71A"
Re:I wonder what they will say (Score:5, Funny)
I name mine "Warning: Virus Detected!"
Possible Abuse (Score:4, Interesting)
I find it odd that QPS Media has failed to supply the public with any technical information on what tools they are using and the scope of the exercise
Are they simply searching for wireless networks? Or going as far as trying default passwords?
Are they geocaching MAC Addresses and SSIDs that will be used in other investigations?
Are they sniffing traffic? Are they collecting any personally identifiable information?
While this is a nice service, I do think this does not fall under the purview of the state police
If this is simply a SIGINT operation in disguise, it is better left to the DSD or ASIO
If this is simply a community service, the state governement should use grants to coerce the industry to extend their voluntary code of practice so that ISP's are responsible for making their customers aware of the risks as part of the signup process.
Re: (Score:2)
If your chatting with Africa, Asia or the Middle East- your on a list shared with the UK, NSA ect..
As for sniffing traffic, they would do that as a drift net - all flagged p2p files, forums, chatrooms - going after the person and ip.
MAC Addresses and SSIDs that will be used in other investigations would really be long term with unmarked vans/cars.
It sounds like a simple tool that shows a pad lock or no padlock
Re: (Score:3)
While this is a nice service, I do think this does not fall under the purview of the state police
Why not? The police are in the business of crime prevention as well as catching criminals.
Breaking into someone's house and stealing their stuff is a crime. If you do it, the police will (hopefully) come after you and lock you up. The police also have programmes whereby they will tour the neighbourhoods and if they spot some bit of bad security they will knock on the door and tell you about it so you can fix it *before* someone takes advantage of it.
Breaking into someone's network is a crime*. If you do
Re: (Score:2)
While this is a nice service, I do think this does not fall under the purview of the state police
Why not?
The Commonwealth Criminal Code completely covers all aspects of unauthorised access. Computer crime has always been a federal crime. The federal police have the experience and resources to deal with this. In the past, I had reported (read: attempted to report but was refused) several minor computer crimes that involved my network or my workplaces. Usually theft of services/data. The state police had ZERO understanding. I realise that QPS have, for almost a decade, really focused on strengthening their tech
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic, it's reasonable to assume anyone without a fence and locked door is inviting me in for dinner.
Re: (Score:3)
By your logic, it's reasonable to assume anyone without a fence and locked door is inviting me in for dinner.
No. Public areas (parks, etc) are usually clearly marked as such - it is pretty easy to tell the deifference between a park and someone's unfenced garden.
On the other hand, wifi has a flag in the protocol explicitly to tell you if it is public or private and there is no other sensible way to tell this. Unfortunately, access points that are accidentally left open will also be broadcasting an "I am a public hotspot" flag, even though the owner didn't intend to do this.
As an example, if you go for a coffee i
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty east to tell which wifi hotspots are setup for "public use" as well - assuming you're being honest with yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be _reasonable_ to assume it's only meant for customers. Just like it's _reasonable_ to assume those newspapers and magazines lying around are for customers and not random passers-by.
Did you read what I wrote or did you just read the first few words and make the rest up? I never said anything about non-customers, the choices I offered were:
1. it is intended to be used by customers of Bob's Caf'e
2. it is Bob's personal wifi network that has been accidentally left open and no one except Bob himself should be using it
I've never seen an ISP-provided wifi kit that didn't uniquely identify itself somehow. Usually with a MAC address, or something other random-but-unique number in the SSID.
And yet I have. It is less common now, but it certainly used to happen a lot. Also, access points with the manufacturer's name and no uniqueness are still pretty common (Li
Re: (Score:2)
The internet ? I thought we were talking about wifi access points ?
You make a reasonable assumption. If you're being honest with yourself, it's rarely difficult to tell whether or not someone has setup their wifi point for open access.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it odd that QPS Media has failed to supply the public with any technical information on what tools they are using and the scope of the exercise
Also, why are they limiting themselves to wifi only? Unsecured trash cans, unsecured cable boxes, and cheap mailboxes can be another way for people to steal your data. And in bad neighborhoods, unsecured backyards, unsecured windows, and easy to break doors, are a boon for criminals. If they're going to have someone driving around inspecting security issues, they might has well give that person multiple things to look for -- to save on gas.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a fine here for having breakable glass windows. This encourages crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, why are they limiting themselves to wifi only? Unsecured trash cans, unsecured cable boxes, and cheap mailboxes can be another way for people to steal your data.
This is one of the reasons I suspect this may be a SIGINT operation by the state police so they don't have to keep giving up jurisdiction or credit to the feds.
Safe wi-fi spot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone has a secure wi-fi spot, will the "I did not download that file, someone did by accessing my wi-fi" excuse remain valid?
If your WiFi is secured, then you don't need the defense because nobody will use your WiFi to download files.
Re: (Score:3)
If your WiFi is secured, then you don't need the defense because only those who really want to will use your WiFi to download files.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone has a secure wi-fi spot, will the "I did not download that file, someone did by accessing my wi-fi" excuse remain valid?
If your WiFi is secured, then you don't need the defense because nobody will use your WiFi to download files.
If your WiFi is secured and someone, through luck or through skill, manages to identify with your AP and use your connection for nefarious deeds, you no longer have that defence. I always keep an open but isolated, bandwidth-limited channel. I use a secure channel for myself and my guests.
Money must grow on trees in Queensland (Score:3)
to pay for this crap
Why bother? (Score:2)
I broadcast about 120 open AP's (Score:5, Funny)
All of them named Linksys, Dlink, Wireless, etc... and all to a single router that is connected to nothing at all.
It significantly reduces the volume of idiot neighbors that do not configure their new wireless as many times they will connect to me instead.
Works great, when I shut it off, I see no more default router names.
It also screws with the wardrivers, I look at some of the maps every few months and see my location with a giant pile of AP names around my building.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a terrible idea. The channels overlap somewhat.
The *proper* solution... (Score:3)
Re:wifi security (Score:5, Interesting)
Insecure WiFi != Insecure network.
At home I have two WiFi network over the same AP, one is open an the other use WPA2, they are in independent networks and with a firewall between both, plus the open is capped to use at max 2mbps.
Re: (Score:2)
yes thats a very decent way to do things however in australia we have cap's so I would not want to give away my allowance...
living in other places I was unlimited and had no problem doing exactly what you do and giving away a portion of my bandwidth to those in need
maybe someone would help me out one day...
regards
John Jones
Re: (Score:2)
it's still illegal to break it.
unless, of course, it seems if you're a cop.
Re: (Score:2)
it's still illegal to break it.
unless, of course, it seems if you're a cop.
The police aren't breaking anything, AFAICT they are just listening to the beacon from the access points and seeing if it is flagged as encrypted.
Re: (Score:3)
google got a lot of trouble for doing so. because its inevitable they capture some actual content of connections on insecure wlans.
Google got into trouble for _storing_ that data, not capturing it.
(IMHO they shouldn't have got into trouble for any of it anyway, if you broadcast something into a public space you should have no expectation of it not being captured, stored, analysed, etc.)
Incidentally, why did the law enforcement authorities complain about Google storing data (which could have been analysed later, even though Google said they weren't going to do this), whilst shopping centres are starting to get away with capturing cellph
Re:Broken security (Score:5, Informative)
As far as I know WPA/WPA2 isn't broken, only WPS's PIN mode (enter an easy 8 digit number instead of a complicated alphanumeric passphrase). Granted you can still bruteforce the PSK itself instead of the PIN but then you've just got the same problem of weak passwords that many other things do.
Re: (Score:2)
If you use a password that is not breakable easily using a dictionary-based guessing system, it would take a LONG, LONG time to break the password for something like the 16 alphanumeric character long password I used on my Wi-Fi router.
Re:Broken security (Score:5, Informative)
WPA and WPA2 isn't broken. There's only a configuration problem in WPS (a system designed to bypass having to enter a WPA key, who thought that was a good idea anyway?). Even that isn't broken as such. The effect is that the brute force attack has been simplified to the point where it is achievable to actually perform rather than having to brute force the entire array of usable keys. A simple configuration change that either fixes the problem or better yet limits the number of tries or the rate of tries for connecting using WPS would instantly make it secure again.
The irony? Older access points which support WPA and WPA2 but don't support WPS are quite secure.
The double irony? I have never had WPS actually work on my access point even when the PIN is known, so I'm amazed that this is a suitable attack vector in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
WPA and WPA2 isn't broken.
WPA w/TKIP isn't 'broken' in the strictest sense of the word, but is considered insecure enough that there is no good reason to use it if all your hardware supports WPA2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Protected_Access#Security [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So in conclusion: attacker gets all your outbound traffic in 20 minutes (and gets all your inbound traffic too if you use QoS). But somehow that's not "broken?"
Either you've just got your head in the sand, or you're a black hat trying to convince potential marks to keep using WPA-TPIK.
I did say use WPA2 if you have it available, but the threat isn't as significant as you make out. Anything serious (eg passwords) would be secured by SSL or TLS, so what are you going to sniff? You certainly can't get hold of anything that you couldn't just as easily get hold of via intercepting the cable/dsl/fibre. A guy with a high visibility vest and a clipboard fiddling around in your comms pit is much less noticeable than someone parked in your street with a laptop for 20 minutes.
And the threat TFA is
Re: (Score:3)
police going around to everyone's door trying to open it?
Some police beats in shopping centres check parked cars and leave a nice little letter with a nice big fine if they find one unlocked.
Re:what's next (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
and why is it illegal to leave your car unlocked ?
It is illegal as it encourages opportunistic crime resulting in more paperwork for the old bill.
It is quite difficult to type up reports when your fingers are all sticky from doughnut icing.
Re: (Score:2)
I once purchased a new Jeep Wrangler softtop.
Being a new car, I was being very careful ensuring that the car was always locked and parked under a streetlight at night.
Didn't help. Had the window panels slashed on 2 occasions in the first month of ownership. Once for some pocket change, and another for a work uniform.
Replacement panels are $1,200 a pop. I resorted to ALWAYS leaving the car unlocked to prevent this kind of vandalism. Never had a problem again.
Over the next 2 years, I only received a sing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They NEVER leave a Fine on a car for being unlocked.
Never [sunshineco...ily.com.au] Say [brisbanetimes.com.au] Never [whirlpool.net.au]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That law is ridiculous, i've had several locked cars broken into and the damage due to breaking in has always cost more than anything stolen. Generally the only thing of value is a couple of euro and the radio which although it has bluetooth, mp3 cd cost 56 euro a new door or window costs a lot more to fix than replacing the radio.
The engine immobiliser still works you need a proper coded key for the ignition to work, you might still steal the car but the door locks are not going to be much of a barrier hon
Re: (Score:2)
I had a WEP SSID for my daughters Nintendo DS, but had it locked down to the point that a hacker without a DS wouldn't be able to do much with it.