[OpenWireless Tech] A small question about tracking

["Andy Green (林安廸)"]

On 11/06/12 19:55, the mail apparently from Todd included:
> 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.

Hm?  I never said anything about scale problems, this will scale how you 
like.  There's millions of APs out there with monstrous aggregate bandwidth.

> Most importantly however is the fact that it makes no effort what so

It's easier if you say the most important thing first ^^

> 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 ?

Todd, calling something names isn't an argument.

-Andy

> 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
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tech mailing list
> Tech at srv1.openwireless.org
> https://srv1.openwireless.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
>