[OpenWireless Tech] The police came to the AP owner first, then sniffed the air to find real culprit

[Guy Jarvis]

This link caught my eye

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/24/unsecured-wifi-child-pornography-innocent_n_852996.html

My sense is that the push-back against fear of sharing wifi is both
technical eg VPN/VLAN and evidential, by which I mean if we can get to a
state whereby IP address is considered as an indicator of further interest
and not automatically proof of guilt then that offers an altogether more
easy/effective/comfortable proposition for mass adoption and availability
of openwireless.

Guy

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Natanael <natanael.l at gmail.com> wrote:

> CJDNS is not designed for these purposes. It is not like I2P or Tor, only
> routing is "dynamic". You'd need a VPN in place already or some kind of
> Dynamic DNS to create a link between the laptop/phone node and the home
> router node. It also don't provide internet access sharing on it's own, in
> this way ut resemble I2P.
> Den 27 nov 2012 11:09 skrev "Christian Huldt" <christian at solvare.se>:
>
> Maybe we should take a look at cjdns?
>> Someone here knows something about it?
>> I'm not that well-informed, but it seems it should be able to deal with a
>> few of those issues...
>>
>> And I quite recently stumbled upon the term "WPA guest access", I think
>> in was in relation to coovaChilli...
>>
>>
>> http://cjdns.info/
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Cjdns <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cjdns>
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/**darknetplan/<http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan/>
>>
>> Andy Green skrev 2012-11-27 08:24:
>>
>>> Hi -
>>>
>>> Sure, if you're able to flat out run open APs more power to your elbow.
>>>
>>> Most people sitting on a personal internet connection aren't in that
>>> situation and need something else to happen if they will participate. In
>>> terms of reach, it's those guys that are all around us and could make a
>>> huge difference.
>>>
>>> Calling normal people making rational decisions faced with legal facts
>>> in their locality 'cowards' as some are doing is not the right
>>> 'something else' to unstick them. If people have a more convincing idea
>>> for those people than what's being discussed about vpn, I'm certainly
>>> interested to hear it.
>>>
>>> -Andy
>>>
>>> Brad Knowles <brad at shub-internet.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On Nov 26, 2012, at 8:22 PM, Andy Green (林安廸) <andy at warmcat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         But you're right, it adds a hurdle compared to just sitting
>>>         there with an unencrypted AP. But for consumers, the truly open
>>>         AP ship has sailed a while ago, they will no longer do it.
>>>
>>>
>>>     I think that there may be some places left in this world where we
>>> could have truly open APs, but they are certainly few and far between.
>>>  Nevertheless, I'm not willing to give up on that possibility.
>>>
>>>     OTOH, I do think that the majority of people will either refuse to
>>> run an OpenWireless site at all, or they will insist that it allow only
>>> VPN-secured connections.  These people might be in countries like Germany
>>> where there is clearly a very real legal threat, or
>>>       in
>>>     places where the threat is less well-defined.  But the fear of what
>>> might happen would still keep the bulk of the potential participants away.
>>>
>>>     I see no reason why we should treat these two solutions as mutually
>>> exclusive.
>>>
>>>
>>>     HTTP is not XOR with HTTPS.  Some sites will support one or the
>>> other but not both, but most sites either allow both or already use some
>>> mixture of both.
>>>
>>>     Yes, this can complicate things in the context of serving web sites,
>>> but I don't think that necessarily has to be a problem for us.  There are
>>> additional design considerations that need to be taken into account, but I
>>> think we can handle that.
>>>
>>>
>>>     I should be able to provide a free entry point
>>> forvpn-required.openwireless.**org<http://forvpn-required.openwireless.org> <
>>> http://vpn-required.**openwireless.org<http://vpn-required.openwireless.org>>
>>>  and anyone who wants to connect to that network using a VPN-enabled client
>>> should be able to do so.  But if you don't have a VPN-enabled client, you
>>> would not be able to use my netwo
>>>       rk
>>>     connection.
>>>
>>>     If my neighbor wants to provide a free entry point
>>> forunencrypted.openwireless.**org<http://forunencrypted.openwireless.org> <
>>> http://unencrypted.**openwireless.org<http://unencrypted.openwireless.org>>
>>>  and take some extra risk (perhaps minimal, or maybe real), then they
>>> should be able to do that, too.
>>>
>>>     --
>>>     Brad Knowles <brad at shub-internet.org>
>>>     LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu>;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> Tech mailing list
>>> Tech at srv1.openwireless.org
>>> https://srv1.openwireless.org/**mailman/listinfo/tech<https://srv1.openwireless.org/mailman/listinfo/tech>
>>>
>>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Tech mailing list
>> Tech at srv1.openwireless.org
>> https://srv1.openwireless.org/**mailman/listinfo/tech<https://srv1.openwireless.org/mailman/listinfo/tech>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tech mailing list
> Tech at srv1.openwireless.org
> https://srv1.openwireless.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20121229/942090fa/attachment.html>