[OpenWireless Tech] A small question about tracking
Todd
Todd at chiwifi.net
Tue Nov 6 07:04:59 PST 2012
I am ignoring the fact that you answer only half of my questions at best
while ignoring the others,
And you are constantly contradicting yourself, You just listed
preconfiguring and fully automatic in the same email.
They cannot be fully automatic and require configuration at the same time.
You have not given a single technical detail as to how anything is
supposed to work, all I keep hearing is "VPN,VPN,VPN,VPN" although you
do seem to like the word "federation" as well. With no concept of how
current authentication systems that are more complex then wpa2-personal
work.
Internet peering is not competition.
Name one example of a secure fully automatic device.
I am not even going to touch your paragraph on incentives, it
*COMPLETELY IGNORES *everything I have said.
and are you fucking kidding me ? A VPN can assign any IP address ? Let
me just go ahead and bind the IP for google to my VPN so all internet
traffic for google goes to my VPN.
Nothing in your email has contributed anything to this conversation.
Who runs this mailing list ?
On 11/06/2012 08:52 AM, Natanael wrote:
> WiFi Direct? Have you read my suggestions on how that would work?
> You'd preconfigure the device to use a certain VPN or similiar. It
> then autoconnects to all WiFi networks that support the protocol and
> provides free access. Whenever paid access is the only option, the
> user can configure an account on the device with one of these
> providers that handle federation (the same way cell phone roaming works).
>
> Politics about which regions to prioritize for capacity, if anything
> should be blocked or not, etc...
>
> "Why would any last-mile ISP get onboard with their direct competition"
>
> They already are. Look into how internet routing works, such as
> peering. They already do these things, just not for WiFi.
>
> "No config needed devices" can be way more secure than configuration
> needed devices. It's all about secure protocols and smart defaults. If
> we make WiFi Direct enabled devices that can do this and set them to
> only use VPN:s, then how would one hack them?
>
> "This incentive system is pretty vague, first why does it need to be
> 100% automatic ? Even normal open wifi requires you to click on it.
> More to the point, it would be trivial to create fake hotspots in a
> fully automatic system and negate all security. Without the end user
> even having a clue, and even technically savvy users wouldn't be
> aware, because everything is automatic."
>
> I don't see your incentive system providing any advantages over mine.
> Sure, you'd have a local organization that builds infrastructure for
> an entire area. There's nothing different from my system there! My
> system even allows much easier cooperation between several local
> organizations providing infrastructure. Using WiFi Direct and custom
> secure protocols, the clients would automatically DENY connections to
> wireless networks that don't let them connect to a trusted VPN, and
> just try another network. No security loss!
> All you'll need to know is that if you configured your client to only
> permit secure connections, all connections WILL be secure!
>
> How does your system provide IP address management? A VPN can let an
> authenticated user use any IP for internet access that the VPN service
> has in their IP range. Using federation and all this, I don't see what
> the downside would be. Anything your system can do, mine can too.
>
> --- If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking //
> Stupidity is a renewable resource
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Todd <Todd at chiwifi.net
> <mailto:Todd at chiwifi.net>> wrote:
>
> On 11/06/2012 08:03 AM, Natanael wrote:
>> I am saying that there will probably be too many of these portal
>> thingies and that tourists wants none of it (I'd like them to see
>> everything in their own language). Also, these portals are often
>> incompatible with a wide array of devices. And just consider
>> anything without a screen.
>>
> I am not aware of any common user devices that do not support
> getting online via the captive portal method, yes, it requires you
> have the ability to type words in, I don't know how you are going
> to browse the internet without the ability o do that.
>
> For any devices without a screen, you obviously would need to
> configure it before hand, which means you can create the account
> for it before hand as well.
>
>> So what about local politics? Don't think that would make it
>> harder for local cooperation in many places? Again, "simple"
>> federating protocols could be used, where it isn't the local
>> organization that have to care about that. For home users, it
>> could even be a part of their ISP service. Their new(ly flashed)
>> router just tells the ISP it's a OpenWireless router, and then
>> the home user don't have to do *anything at all whatsoever* about
>> it. Other customers at that ISP are automatically given access,
>> and the rest would be given access through federation (they
>> identify through their own ISP like with OpenID), and the rest
>> could be given limited free access.
>
> What about the local politics ? This is a pretty vague question in
> of itself, but I am going to assume you mean liability for the IP
> space ? If so, easy, just explain the structure of the network and
> end with "so we don't have that info" when replying to DMCAs, or
> are there different local politics you are talking about ?
> lastly, how would any of that be any different when using VPNs ?
>
>>
>> Same for businesses like shops (I didn't actually mean that tech
>> shops could reflash routers - but hey, why not?). If we get the
>> ISP:s on board, then NO configuration would be needed. Just plug
>> it in! Otherwise, the router owner only have to pick a local
>> organization that is managing federation like this (maybe a
>> different ISP? the local community?) and register the router with
>> it. Router upgrades? The router owner could allow the ISP or
>> other federating VPN provider manage the router automatically.
> Why would any last-mile ISP get onboard with their direct
> competition ?
> Once again, "no config needed" devices are prone to getting hacked
> like noones business. Lets not do that.
> Other then the fact its an incredibly complicated and mostly
> unnecessary process. Some configuration is inevitable for
> anything more complicated then an standard client device (laptop)
> its foolhardy to assume that can be relied on end users for. Or
> expect them to take their internet offline untill they take it to
> the tech shop to get it upgraded. Org running the WISP will need
> to come to them. Or do advance replacement.
>
>>
>> My proposed system is set up so that the user sees nothing but
>> already automatically connected internet access or a notification
>> that there's a WiFi nearby that offer internet with certain terms
>> (which is when the user would register with one of these VPN:s or
>> local communities).
>>
>> Again - whenever there is poor connectivity in an area, my system
>> would also provide incentives to build infrastructure there. Just
>> enable paid access on the routers there and very limited free
>> access (but don't scare the users away with the prices), and the
>> router owners would get the investments back. Then when the
>> investments are paid back, free access could be expanded (higher
>> bandwidth and caps?).
>>
> This incentive system is pretty vague, first why does it need to
> be 100% automatic ? Even normal open wifi requires you to click on
> it. More to the point, it would be trivial to create fake hotspots
> in a fully automatic system and negate all security. Without the
> end user even having a clue, and even technically savvy users
> wouldn't be aware, because everything is automatic.
>
>
>> "Also IP addressing is a huge issue when working with anything
>> larger then home user. It is a bad idea to ignore the business
>> market."
>>
>> And VPN:s could easily solve that. I don't see how your proposed
>> solution provides additional advantage regarding that.
>>
> How do VPNs solve IP addressing ? All it does is move IP addressing.
>
>> --- If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking
>> // Stupidity is a renewable resource
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Todd <Todd at chiwifi.net
>> <mailto:Todd at chiwifi.net>> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/06/2012 07:05 AM, Natanael wrote:
>>> 1: What about the free and open WiFi part? What about the
>>> "instant free connectivity" part? Seriously, there are
>>> people who can't figure out how to turn a computer on. The
>>> intent here is to enable simplified internet access for
>>> everybody.
>>
>> Are you saying that getting on the internet at starbucks, is
>> just too hard ?
>> I think teaching people how to use a simple webpage to get
>> access the the internet should be the bottom rung, if you
>> can't figure that out, the internet is better off without
>> you. Think of it as a way to curb the extreme stupidity on
>> the internet, BONUS!
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 2: So how WOULD one switch easily between these WISP:s?
>>> Wouldn't we replicate the issue with many carrier networks
>>> where we have 10 crappy networks with poor coverage on the
>>> same spot? Let ALL the routers always act together as one
>>> network, and that issue goes away.
>> The WISPs would not be a block size thing, you would
>> literally have to leave the city to run into that issue, also
>> by setting it up so that large sections of the wireless
>> bandwidth are used by individual orgs, you can have people
>> actually work together and communicate, and not all use the
>> same wireless band. So using this system there is no reason
>> to duplicate efforts, if someone has setup this system
>> already in the area, then join it. If not, the only other
>> networks to compete with are closed home wifi's. Mine is also
>> designed so that while the end user always sees wireless
>> a,b,g,n the backbone can by any wireless band, thus
>> sidestepping the bandwidth issue.
>>
>> If you want the system to be widely adopted, you will have to
>> design it in a way that makes it ok for anything larger then
>> a home users to run it. It is impossible to run a large
>> network where every admin, is a home user. What happens when
>> you need to upgrade a router but no way to contact the router
>> owners ?
>>
>> Also IP addressing is a huge issue when working with anything
>> larger then home user. It is a bad idea to ignore the
>> business market.
>>
>>>
>>> 3: Reflashing some routers and buying just a few new ones is
>>> easily done by shops and other companies. If all they have
>>> to do is set the routers to allow VPN only, then anybody can
>>> provide these VPN:s. If there's no coverage in certain
>>> areas, you could in fact persuade these VPN companies to put
>>> routers there. Or the local community. And with proper
>>> federation, we'd still be able to get it all to act as one
>>> network. Wherever there are WiFi networks already, we won't
>>> need to build anything new. Where there aren't, we can get
>>> other companies to build it.
>> It is funny you should mention flashing routers by taking
>> them to tech shops, I have never actually heard of that
>> happening which is why I started a shop to do exactly that,
>> but aside from my own, I have never heard of shops offering
>> that service, can you provide any examples ? I am very
>> interested in how others are doing it.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I've already described before how I imagine this to work.
>>> Some will enable 100% free access, even if bandwidth limited
>>> and capped (max X MB per month). Some will enable 100% free
>>> access. Some will require payment, and then these VPN
>>> providers (maybe your phone company? They're used to this
>>> setup already for roaming) would pay the router owner and
>>> you pay the VPN provider. The VPN providers could offer some
>>> limited free access as well, and offer more bandwidth and
>>> higher quotas if you pay.
>>>
>>> --- If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't
>>> thinking // Stupidity is a renewable resource
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Todd <Todd at chiwifi.net
>>> <mailto:Todd at chiwifi.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/06/2012 06:37 AM, Natanael wrote:
>>>> So you'd replace ISP:s with local WISP:s? And they
>>>> wouldn't throttle because...? And what happens to
>>>> tourists and other tempporary bypassers with no
>>>> account? Also, how would one get anybody to pay for the
>>>> infrastructure in the first place?
>>>
>>> There are a few free wifi's currently, If you were part
>>> of a democratically run wisp, would you vote for
>>> throttling ?
>>> If that local wisp decides to throttle, you think the
>>> users won't switch to a new local wisp, or start there
>>> own using the same open source software project ?
>>>
>>> as for who pays for it, I CURRENTLY have 1gbit uplink
>>> that is empty, that's the equiv of 200+ comcast users.
>>> I ALONE already have enough for 200 people, and one
>>> major metropolitan area in IL has already approached me
>>> about my plan. Not to mention the fact that something on
>>> this scale, once proven, is easy to get grants for.
>>> Conversely I would ask, who is going to pay for the
>>> bandwidth of all the VPN end points in your global system ?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are three main options:
>>>>
>>>> Global mesh.
>>> We already talked about how global mesh is impossible,
>>> mesh can only ever work as a last mile solution.
>>> aka _/*mesh does not scale.*/_
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Using existing infrastructure plus VPN:s.
>>>>
>>>> Creating new infrastructure in parallell.
>>> Yes, create a new infrastructure in parallel or even
>>> replace the current infrastructure directly. Both are
>>> possible.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What if we do not want to create any new organizations
>>>> that need to be maintained? Do you think every local
>>>> community will have the expertise and skill to manage
>>>> it? How do you think the local politicians will handle
>>>> it? Etc...
>>>>
>>> We do not need to worry about creating any
>>> organizations. We only need to create the software
>>> framework, other existing organizations will adopt it.
>>> That is the point of turn-key open source.
>>>
>>> What do you have against increasing the number of
>>> sys/network admin jobs ? The same argument was used for
>>> when people thought linux would never become popular,
>>> its a non-arguemnt, if there is demand for more
>>> sys/network admins, then more people will learn to be
>>> sys/network admins
>>> Because its turn key opensauce software, there will be
>>> lots of community support.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Actually, your plan could be replaced by our plan but
>>>> where that organization you propose instead is the one
>>>> providing VPN:s.
>>>> Combined with my idea for "federation" of these, we
>>>> could make this work globally. Got an account with your
>>>> community VPN provider? It will work globally.
>>>>
>>> The account sign up process is a wifi captive portal,
>>> you don't need anything special to use the local wifi
>>> service (in this instance) so you do not need a
>>> pre-exsisting account, just goto your country of choice
>>> and use the wifi the same way you would as if it was a
>>> starbucks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> --- If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't
>>>> thinking // Stupidity is a renewable resource
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Todd <Todd at chiwifi.net
>>>> <mailto:Todd at chiwifi.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121106/8867e231/attachment.html>
More information about the Tech
mailing list