[OpenWireless Tech] A small question about tracking
Todd
Todd at chiwifi.net
Tue Nov 6 04:25:29 PST 2012
What do you think is more sustainable in the long run for world-wide
free wifi:
A) everyone is beholden to current ISP monopolies and politicians whim,
as well as throttling, lets we forget comcast and sandvines, and assume
they wont apply that to VPNs for some reason, and just use technology in
innovative ways to dodge the grey areas of the law.
B) create an open source, turn-key WISP that can be deployed for any
size organization, and because its based on standards, if there are
multiple networks in an area, they can merge users easily. Which also
means that each org must be democratic or the users would just leave for
one that is.
Which in-turn makes last mile ISPs like comcat and att and verison and
everyone else, obsolete.
A) is the status quo, and already has tons of commercial competition
B) does not exist yet.
side note, unless you are planning to have the router owners pay for VPN
end points, or are expecting the open wireless project to pay for all
the VPN end points, then the only option that actually exists is VPNs to
home.
VPNs are not free, someone has to pay, the only question is, are you
paying once or twice for that bandwidth.
My incentivization scheeme does not have VPNs in it, so I do not need to
worry about getting people to use them.
It also does not expose the people who host the wifi antennas to any
risk. In-fact it makes all users, including the tower owners, anonymous
by default. Did I mention the free wifi part ?
My plan has many incentives built in.
On 11/06/2012 06:14 AM, Natanael wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:Tech at srv1.openwireless.org>
> >>>> https://srv1.openwireless.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Tech mailing list
> >> Tech at srv1.openwireless.org <mailto:Tech at srv1.openwireless.org>
> >> https://srv1.openwireless.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tech mailing list
> Tech at srv1.openwireless.org <mailto: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/20121106/84dd941d/attachment.html>
More information about the Tech
mailing list