NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Google asks FCC to appoint it a "white space" database admin
There's a TON of risk even if you don't *SEE* anyone in your area (see
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=651).
You should come see the "Wall of Sheep" at DEFCON sometimes (see
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=285).
Turns out there is a really good way to offer anonymous privacy
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=587.
George Ou - CISSP
-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of
Wendy Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 3:34 PM
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Google asks FCC to appoint it a "white space"
database admin
Bob Frankston wrote:
> I've got to take exception as I wrote in
http://rmf.vc/?n=WhiteSpacePolicy.
>
> Trying to administer a database of whitespace is government at its worst.
It
> tries to manage the police state we already have to wireless.
>
> Far better is to just create a path through the current access points (AKA
> wired<=>wireless routers) and moot the whole thing. This the pragmatic
face
> of Ambient Connectivity.
>
> [ Bob, what possible incentive would ordinary folks have to open
> up their wireless (or wired) access points to all comers, given
> the obvious potential for abuse and legal sanctions that can be
> brought down on access point owners when that abuse occurs?
Altruism? hope for reciprocation? recognition that network effects have
to start somewhere?
> Years have been spent teaching people to turn on at least basic
> Wi-Fi crypto and establish that as a default condition. What's
> in it for Joe Blow Internet user that will convince him to
> share his Internet access with anyone who drives by, given the
> risk of RIAA/MPAA or c-porn investigators banging on his door
> when drive-by abuse occurs?
What is this risk, specifically? I run open public wifi, and encourage
others to do so, though I've been the only one in my radius lately.
Lately I hear more encouragement of closure, but I'm not sure whether
that's based on a measurable increase in risk, or just a different set
of defaults in the equipment.
--Wendy
[ Unfortunately, "abusive" activity on an IP address is still often
considered to be prima facie evidence of guilt. Trying to
demonstrate otherwise can be expensive and time consuming --
that's why many accused parties pay fines that they shouldn't,
just out of fear and to get the matter closed. Some countries
are going farther. Concerns about terror threats led to a
crackdown in India against open Wi-Fi. Singapore also has
restrictions I believe. So if you're willing to "do the time"
for someone else who abuses your connection, great. But given
the "have an IP address, you're guilty" attitude that so often
prevails, I think it's important for people to understand what
the potential downside is to connection sharing in the current
"screwed up" (that's a technical term) environment.
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]
- - -
>
> It's one thing to run public Wi-Fi when you're an established
> firm or municipality with an on-staff legal team. But for
> individuals who are easy targets of overzealous prosecutions?
>
> -- Lauren Weinstein
> NNSquad Moderator ]
>
>
>
--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org
phone: +1.914.374.0613
Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/