[OpenWireless Tech] A small question about tracking

[Todd]

How is what you mentioned any different then already existing projects,
like fon, which btw also does not use VPNs.

So far you have suggested that this become massive enough to include
hardware manufactures and for it to be world-wide but at the same time
said these systems would not scale to city sizes.

Most importantly however is the fact that it makes no effort what so
ever to change any portion of the existing internet, only the way in
which people connect to it. It also does not it in any way impact
internet freedoms, instead it just shuffles around responsibility.

So I ask again, why should anyone give a crap if all you are doing is
trying to copy already existing and mature commercial offerings, and
making it more complicated and slow with throwing on some VPN crap ?


On 11/06/2012 05:46 AM, "Andy Green (林安廸)" wrote:
> On 11/06/12 19:37, the mail apparently from Todd included:
>
>> Why should anyone feel responsible for giving anyone else internet, when
>> they are paying for out of their own pocket for it?
>> What do they get in return ?
>
> Well, the VPN thing is to try to reduce the "responsibility" to zero
> and eliminate that downside.
>
> They can throttle the leechers how they like as well, and / or QoS
> them down so the real user never even notices them.
>
> I guess it boils down to if they contribute, and there's a useful
> critical mass, then they are free to "be the leecher" when they need
> it.  For example, if you visit other countries, roaming rates make it
> insane to casually use Internet on your SIM.
>
> This way, you might get a reasonable facsimile of continuous internet
> connection for receiving email etc as you walk around a city.  Or if
> you are stuck in a hotel with expensive Internet, if there are other
> APs nearby you will be able to get by.
>
> Actually those are quite nice benefits that could appear worldwide if
> this scheme took off.  For that, it would be ideal if AP manufacturers
> included the support and enabled it by default alongside the regular
> WPA network so the AP owner's own traffic remains safe.
>
> And again the other part is that APs should be ready to be the VPN
> server for the owner when he is roaming.
>
> -Andy
>
>>> On 11/06/12 19:29, the mail apparently from Todd included:
>>>> On 11/06/2012 05:20 AM, "Andy Green (林安廸)" wrote:
>>>>> On 11/06/12 18:53, the mail apparently from Christian Huldt included:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012-11-06 kl. 11:10 skrev Todd:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One thing note here is, most of the responses have been solely
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> "protecting the router owner" via throwing on varying levels of
>>>>>>> VPN. As
>>>>>>> far as I can tell,  the average member of this list is more worried
>>>>>>> about their continued ability to pirate then providing ubiquitous
>>>>>>> wifi
>>>>>>> which is very disheartening.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I beg to disagree, IMHO this is about being able to convince your
>>>>>> neighbor that
>>>>>> he/she can also share wifi without any immediate risks - which there
>>>>>> are, at least in Germany.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly, same in UK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the VPN story includes trying to get the client's home AP as
>>>>> the
>>>>> server, going out on the internet with the IP in the client's name,
>>>>> this has nothing whatsoever to do with 'piracy'.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can see for yourself that the very few open personal APs left
>>>>> seem
>>>>> to mainly be so by accident (SSID of "Netgear", etc), at least
>>>>> where I
>>>>> live and travel your average router owner "knows" that unencrypted is
>>>>> dangerous even if he couldn't explain it in terms of his traffic
>>>>> being
>>>>> sniffable, he could tell you it's dangerous due to possibility of
>>>>> other people exploiting it to his detriment.
>>>>>
>>>>> To get people to make the other decision, to offer anonymous
>>>>> access on
>>>>> their IP again, there has to be a story that definitively counters
>>>>> this perception, a reason why something changed and it is now safe to
>>>>> do so, and we might see (VPN-only) open APs become normal again.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only story I know that would convince me is VPN-only, since it
>>>>> directly counters the "but the bad guy might use my IP" concern.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Andy
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The "bad guy might use my IP" argument is completely irrelevant if the
>>>> IPs are not being assigned by the large ISP (IE.. comcast, att,
>>>> verizon,
>>>> etc..)
>>>
>>> I am not sure what scenario you are imagining, but the guys on the
>>> ground with compatible APs all around are exactly customers of these
>>> kind of ISPs.  If you look at your scan list you will likely see loads
>>> of WPA-protected private APs right now.
>>>
>>> If most of those normal people opened their APs for VPN-only, because
>>> it was built-in to their APs, you could pretty much bank on getting
>>> service whereever there was habitation, without any special
>>> provisioning activity.
>>>
>>> They already power their AP, have a live internet connection, are
>>> close by, etc...
>>>
>>> -Andy
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tech mailing list
>> Tech at srv1.openwireless.org
>> https://srv1.openwireless.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
>>
>