[OpenWireless Tech] A small question about tracking

Tue Nov 6 04:15:08 PST 2012

I don't see what plausible alternatives have been described there.
Den 6 nov 2012 13:07 skrev "Natanael" <natanael.l at gmail.com>:

> Besides the point. How do we otherwise create a global standardized system?
> Den 6 nov 2012 13:02 skrev "Todd" <Todd at chiwifi.net>:
>
>>  Typical end user does not care if the service they are using is not
>> open.
>>
>>
>> On 11/06/2012 06:00 AM, Natanael wrote:
>>
>> Where are the commercial offerings that provide open source standardized
>> platforms for automatic detection of and connection to free WiFi that also
>> provides freedom of liability for the router owner?
>>
>> IIRC, Fon also uses VPN:s/tunnels for the secondary users that connect.
>> But the platform ain't open, right?
>> Den 6 nov 2012 12:55 skrev "Todd" <Todd at chiwifi.net>:
>>
>>> 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
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20121106/876abbed/attachment.html>