ILNews

Start Page: Not so wonderful wireless comes with hitches

Kim Brand
September 11, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Kim BrandThe last personal computer you bought probably wasn’t a PC. It was a ‘mobile’ device – a tablet or laptop or smartphone. The common denominator of these devices is their dependence on wireless connectivity to your local area network and/or the Internet. The ‘jack’ is gone.

Wireless Fidelity, or WiFi, has become an expectation at coffee shops, car dealers and college campuses. The modern law office too. But the technology invented in 1999 has succeeded beyond its inventors’ expectations. So like our phone system, nobody was quite prepared for the uses to which it has been put.

A marvel of technology, the radios in almost every device seem to auto-magically connect to networks wherever you may roam. Once you connect, they remember your logon information and make your laptop, tablet or smartphone a part of your host’s network. This is a great convenience if you need to check your email, browse the Internet or update your Facebook page, but as with most digital conveniences today you bear the risk of use.
 

wifi.jpg The ubiquitous logo of the Wi-Fi Alliance: http://www.wi-fi.org/

Some WiFi providers offer Internet as an amenity. It would be odd to walk into a Starbucks today and observe the majority of their guests actually talking with one another. Mobile devices demand connectivity and WiFi is the way that is done. The service is offered on an ‘as-is’ basis and the vendor is usually unwilling or unable to offer tech support, so the typical wireless configuration is ‘Open.’ That means there is no password required and no encryption enabled. Basically, anyone sharing the same connection can snoop on what you send and receive over the host network. As an attorney this should give you pause if you are doing anything other than ordering another pair of shoes from Zappos.

The thing to know about Internet service offered as an amenity is there can be no assurance that anything you do is private. The opportunity for the host to monitor your traffic is obvious – they control the network and may have a duty to prevent certain types of activities: browsing pornography, conducting illicit hacking, spewing SPAM across the Internet, to name a few. Indeed, operators of open wireless networks have been charged with the acts of unscrupulous users. That’s why you often see ‘Terms of Service’ pages that you must click through. It gives the operator cover in the event the FBI shows up to investigate who may have a predilection for illicit materials.

The first layer of security offered by the IEEE 802.11 standard developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers applied a fairly rudimentary encryption algorithm to the information you pass over the wireless connection called WEP: Wireless Equivalent Privacy. It wasn’t. The standard (since 2003) has become WPA2: Wireless Protected Access II. This allows connected devices to encrypt data in a far more secure way. This method introduced more robust passwords and more secure networks. You should still be concerned.

Most law firms want to offer wireless access to their staff and guests. This demands a more complex configuration than simply plugging in a WiFi router from Fry’s. The best systems employ login names and passwords that are managed by your server – but these are expensive. The advantage of this system is that an individual user can be ‘deauthorized’ without everyone else suffering the need to change their credentials. The minimum standard is to isolate the private from the public network by providing a different password to staff than you do to your guests. You should change the guest password frequently.

Another problem with WiFi is coverage. A small office may be well served by a single Wireless Access Point. But a firm with 10 or more offices will almost certainly need two or more. Larger networks require ‘Mesh’ technologies that operate like cell phone towers and hand off users from one WAP to another and share the load. More WAPs can produce congested radio traffic which is hard to mitigate. It gets very complicated very quickly.

WiFi was designed to use standard radio frequencies. The problem with that is that many other devices do too. Cordless phones, motion detectors, microwave ovens and remote control toys all play a part in the general noise within these radio frequency bands. If your WiFi connection always fails around lunch time, ask your colleagues to stop using the microwave. If your wireless network is in an area with lots of other WiFi networks (say an office building) expect the clutter to produce interference too.

Adding ‘bandwidth limiting’ features to prevent ‘WiFi hogs’ from consuming your Internet access is becoming a modern necessity. In today’s world you can never get enough Internet.•

__________

Kim Brand is a technology expert and president of Computer Experts, Inc. in Indianapolis. He is the inventor of FileSafe, the only on-premises file server priced like a cloud service. He is also an adjunct professor of legal informatics at IUPUI. Contact Kim at info@ComputerExpertsIndy.com or call 317-833-3000. Opinions expressed are those of the author.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT