[OpenWireless Tech] A small question about tracking
Todd
Todd at chiwifi.net
Tue Nov 6 04:26:25 PST 2012
Can you describe in any detail the plan I laid out in that thread ?
On 11/06/2012 06:15 AM, Natanael wrote:
>
> I don't see what plausible alternatives have been described there.
>
> Den 6 nov 2012 13:07 skrev "Natanael" <natanael.l at gmail.com
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <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/20121106/1d4162fd/attachment.html>
More information about the Tech
mailing list