[OpenWireless Tech] A small question about tracking

Tue Nov 6 04:14:27 PST 2012

What do you suggest then? Can you start going constructive here?

VPN:s will NOT increase the total traffic on the routers as such. Moot
point. VPN:s to the home will only at most double the user's traffic use,
and that is just one of the options.

Fon already use VPN:s too, and how on earth do you suggest we incentivize
router owners to open their WiFi if they are liable for what the users does?

We NEED these:

Freedom from liability for router owners
Easy access
Widespread access
Zero setup for usera, minimal for router owners
Den 6 nov 2012 13:06 skrev "Todd" <Todd at chiwifi.net>:

> What name did I call you ?
>
> Monster aggregate bandwith is meaningless if by design you double the
> traffic required because of a series of criss-crossing VPN tunnels.
>
> Also it completely ignores the useability of the network in the face of
> not only very small upstream caps but also monthly bandwidth limits
> imposed by ISPs.
>
> Also I would prefer if you answer my questions instead of deflecting
> them by claiming I am name-calling.
>
> So I ask again, why should anyone give a damn 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 ?
>
>
> Also my mistake about the scale issue, I was thinking of the mesh
> networking discussion. These conversations seem to constantly get
> diverted in random directions.
>
> On 11/06/2012 05:59 AM, "Andy Green (林安廸)" wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121106/ed5b7b10/attachment.html>