If you want to counter the agrument, you gotta write to the Times. The Times will publish your remarks if there are enough responses to the article.
Take a good look for the email address on the nytimes.com website. They will publish it as long as you have a valid viewpoint and possess the ablility to compose a sentence in the English language. I have written to various publiciations and surprisly many readers don't writ it. So if you feel as we do, write in, please. ___ Adam Kb2Jpd Sent with SnapperMail on a Treo 650 ...... Original Message ....... On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:30:25 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Send nycwireless mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of nycwireless digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. PXElinux (Seth Rothenberg) > 2. the anti-free wifi movement (John Geraci) > 3. Re: the anti-free wifi movement (Dustin Goodwin) > 4. Re: the anti-free wifi movement (Lee Barken) > 5. Re: the anti-free wifi movement (John Geraci) > 6. the anti-free wifi movement ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > 7. the anti-free wifi movement ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:40:17 -0500 (EST) >From: "Seth Rothenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [nycwireless] PXElinux >To: [email protected] >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > >Greetings, >I wonder if I could ask for a bit of help on the >next small hurdle..I am trying to netboot a 4521, >as a test to see if 4526 would work out for me. > >Host system is Red Hat Linux - I think 9.0 >I think the PXELinux kernel is booting, but it can't >retrieve all of its libraries - probably a >parameter I have wrong. > >One challenge is, tftp does not seem to log its activity. >Not sure if it can be turned on, it's not mentioned in docs. > >I am using pxelinux. >The output is below. >I think the key thing is that >"bootserver=255.255.255.255" - >I don't know where that comes from. > >Thanks for your help. I include all the output below, >only because I don't want to cut something that will shed light. > >Seth > > >PXE-M00: BootManage UNDI, PXE-2.0 (build 082) > >Slot Vend Dev ClassRev Cmd Stat CL LT HT Base1 Base2 Int >------------------------------------------------------------------- 0:00:0 >1022 3000 06000000 0006 2280 00 00 00 00000000 00000000 00 >0:17:0 104C AC51 06070000 0107 0210 10 3F 82 A0000000 020000A0 10 >0:17:1 104C AC51 06070000 0107 0210 10 3F 82 A0001000 020000A0 10 >0:18:0 100B 0020 02000000 0107 0290 00 3F 00 0000E101 A0002000 11 >0:19:0 100B 0020 02000000 0107 0290 00 3F 00 0000E201 A0003000 05 > > Seconds to automatic boot. Press Ctrl-P for entering Monitor. 5 4 3 2 1 > >BootManage UNDI, PXE-2.0 (build 082) >BootManage PXE-2.0 PROM 1.0, NATSEC 1.0, SDK 3.0/082 (OEM52) >Copyright (C) 1989,2000 bootix Technology GmbH, D-41466 Neuss. >PXE Software Copyright (C) 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 Intel Corporation. >Licensed to National Semiconductor >CLIENT MAC ADDR: 00 00 24 C1 81 DC. >GATEWAY IP: 10.248.126.1 >BIOS-provided physical RAM map: > BIOS-e801: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009f000 (usable) > BIOS-e801: 0000000000100000 - 0000000004000000 (usable) >64MB LOWMEM available. >On node 0 totalpages: 16384 >zone(0): 4096 pages. >zone(1): 12288 pages. >zone(2): 0 pages. >Kernel command line: console=ttyS0,19200 BOOT_IMAGE=net4501/linux >ip=10.248.126.23:::255.255.255.0:net4501:eth0 rw initrd=net4501/initrd.lrp >init=/linuxrc root=/dev/ram0 boot=/tftpboot/10.248.126.111 >LRP=root,etc,local,modules,bzip2,fs,fdisk,syslinux,smbmount,wget >Initializing CPU#0 >Calibrating delay loop... 66.56 BogoMIPS >Memory: 61764k/65536k available (865k kernel code, 2872k reserved, 236k >data, 220k init, 0k highmem) >Checking if this processor honours the WP bit even in supervisor mode... >Ok. Dentry cache hash table entries: 8192 (order: 4, 65536 bytes) >Inode cache hash table entries: 4096 (order: 3, 32768 bytes) >Mount cache hash table entries: 1024 (order: 1, 8192 bytes) >Buffer cache hash table entries: 4096 (order: 2, 16384 bytes) >Page-cache hash table entries: 16384 (order: 4, 65536 bytes) >CPU: AMD 486 DX/4-WB stepping 04 >Checking 'hlt' instruction... OK. >POSIX conformance testing by UNIFIX >PCI: PCI BIOS revision 2.00 entry at 0xf00e1, last bus=2 >PCI: Using configuration type 1 >PCI: Probing PCI hardware >Linux NET4.0 for Linux 2.4 >Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039 >Initializing RT netlink socket >Starting kswapd >pty: 256 Unix98 ptys configured >Serial driver version 5.05c (2001-07-08) with MANY_PORTS SHARE_IRQ >SERIAL_PCI enabled >ttyS0 at 0x03f8 (irq = 4) is a 16550A >ttyS1 at 0x02f8 (irq = 3) is a 16550A >Real Time Clock Driver v1.10e >sc520_wdt: CBAR: 0x800fc000 >sc520_wdt: MMCR Aliasing enabled. >sc520_wdt: WDT driver for SC520 initialised. >block: 112 slots per queue, batch=28 >Uniform Multi-Platform E-IDE driver Revision: 6.31 >ide: Assuming 33MHz system bus speed for PIO modes; override with >idebus=xx hda: C/H/S=50127/232/78 from BIOS ignored >RAMDISK driver initialized: 16 RAM disks of 4096K size 1024 blocksize >natsemi.c:v1.07 1/9/2001 Written by Donald Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://www.scyld.com/network/natsemi.html > (unofficial 2.4.x kernel port, version 1.07+LK1.0.14, Nov 27, 2001 Jeff >Garzik, Tjeerd Mulder) >eth0: NatSemi DP8381[56] at 0xc4800000, 00:00:24:c1:81:dc, IRQ 11. eth1: >NatSemi DP8381[56] at 0xc4802000, 00:00:24:c1:81:dd, IRQ 5. >NET4: Linux TCP/IP 1.0 for NET4.0 >IP Protocols: ICMP, UDP, TCP, IGMP >IP: routing cache hash table of 512 buckets, 4Kbytes >TCP: Hash tables configured (established 4096 bind 8192) >eth0: link up. >IP-Config: Complete: > device=eth0, addr=10.248.126.23, mask=255.255.255.0, >gw=255.255.255.255, > host=net4501, domain=, nis-domain=(none), > bootserver=255.255.255.255, rootserver=255.255.255.255, rootpath= >NET4: Unix domain sockets 1.0/SMP for Linux NET4.0. >RAMDISK: Compressed image found at block 0 >Freeing initrd memory: 422k freed >VFS: Mounted root (minix filesystem). >Freeing unused kernel memory: 220k freed >LINUXRC: Bering - Initrd - V1.0-stable >Mounting a 6M TMPFS filesystem... >Loading packages via tftp from console=ttyS0,19200. >console=ttyS0,19200: unknown host >tftp> usage: get host:file host:file ... file, or > get file file ... file if connected >tftp> usage: get host:filKernel panic: Attempted to kill init! >e host:file ... file, or > get file file ... file if connected >tftp> usage: get host:file host:file ... file, or > get file file ... file if connected >tftp> usage: get host:file host:file ... file, or > get file file ... file if connected >tftp> usage: get host:file host:file ... file, or > get file file ... file if connected >tftp> usage: get host:file host:file ... file, or > get file file ... file if connected >tftp> usage: get host:file host:file ... file, or > get file file ... file if connected >tftp> usage: get host:file host:file ... file, or > get file file ... file if connected >tftp> usage: get host:file host:file ... file, or > get file file ... file if connected >tftp> usage: get host:file host:file ... file, or > get file file ... file if connected >tftp> >Finished loading >root,etc,local,modules,bzip2,fs,fdisk,syslinux,smbmount,wget. >LINUXRC: Installing - root:[: 0: unexpected operator > etc:[: 0: unexpected operator > local:[: 0: unexpected operator > modules:[: 0: unexpected operator > bzip2:[: 0: unexpected operator > fs:[: 0: unexpected operator > fdisk:[: 0: unexpected operator > syslinux:[: 0: unexpected operator > smbmount:[: 0: unexpected operator > wget:[: 0: unexpected operator > - Finished. >cat: /var/lib/lrpkg/root.pn.links: No such file or directory >cat: /var/lib/lrpkg/root.log.links: No such file or directory >.: Can't open /var/lib/lrpkg/root.dev.own >^] > > > > > >=--=-=-=-=-=-=-= >/tftpboot/pxelinux.cfg/default looks like this: >serial 0 19200 >timeout 0 >append console=ttyS0,19200 >default net4501/linux ip=10.248.126.23:::255.255.255.0:net4501:eth0 rw >initrd=net4501/initrd.lrp init=/linuxrc root=/dev/ram0 >boot=/tftpboot/10.248.126.111 LRP= >root,etc,local,modules,bzip2,fs,fdisk,syslinux,smbmount,wget > >(Note, default...wget is one line) >-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- >dhcpd.conf looks like: >host soekris95 { # s/n 024695 > hardware ethernet 00:00:aa:bb:cc:dd; > fixed-address 10.248.126.23; > option host-name "soekris95"; > option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0; > option broadcast-address 10.248.126.255; > next-server 10.248.126.111; > option routers 10.248.126.1; > filename "pxelinux.0"; >} > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:10:53 -0500 >From: John Geraci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [nycwireless] the anti-free wifi movement >To: [email protected] >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > >I'm curious to hear what others think about the front-page article in >the NY Times on Saturday, which equated leaving your wifi open with >helping child pornographers and credit card thieves (and maybe even >terrorists). It seemed like a bit of yellow journalism to me, and >reflecting of how much the public has assimilated John Ashcroft's point >of view that we should all submit willingly to government surveillance. > Still, I think the groups and people that support free wifi have to >have a good rebuttal to the argument that was made, and not just >dismiss it. > >I came across a to-do list on this Sony site "lifehacker" just now >(http://www.lifehacker.com/software/security/todo-secure-your-wireless- >network-036577.php). They recommend that their readers 1. set up WEP >on their router 2. create an access list of what computers can access >the Internet 3. turn off their SSID broadcast. Granted, everyone >should know how to lock down their router, but it seems that the press >is going farther, making it your civic duty to close off your Internet >access. What is the free wifi movement's response? Maybe it's just a >good counter argument. Maybe it's developing new tools that allow >users to easily find some sort of middle ground between fully open wifi >and fully closed wifi. Not sure, but I think there should be some sort >of response. > >-John > > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:45:03 -0500 >From: Dustin Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [nycwireless] the anti-free wifi movement >To: [email protected] >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >Turn OFF WEP, broadcast your SSID and let everyone share you bandwidth. >I didn't see the article but by the sound of it the journalist is a >MORON. By his reasoning the mere existence of the Internet is the >equivalent "helping child pornographers and credit card thieves (and >maybe even terrorists)". What do I think? I think to sell papers and >run for political offices you must scare people. It's the currency every >a-hole has access to... fear. Funny how as a child we are taught sharing >is good and as an adult we are taught that sharing is bad. > >Sorry that was a bit of a rant. As NYCwireless we should working on >something like "Responsible Wifi sharing". Maybe the logo can be >crossing guard but instead of heard they have Wifi access point. Teach >everyone how to use Wifidog, CuWIN or the like to do authenticated free >sharing. Would that make the fear mongers happy? > >- Dustin - > > >John Geraci wrote: > >> I'm curious to hear what others think about the front-page article in >> the NY Times on Saturday, which equated leaving your wifi open with >> helping child pornographers and credit card thieves (and maybe even >> terrorists). It seemed like a bit of yellow journalism to me, and >> reflecting of how much the public has assimilated John Ashcroft's >> point of view that we should all submit willingly to government >> surveillance. Still, I think the groups and people that support free >> wifi have to have a good rebuttal to the argument that was made, and >> not just dismiss it. >> >> I came across a to-do list on this Sony site "lifehacker" just now >> (http://www.lifehacker.com/software/security/todo-secure-your-wireless- >> network-036577.php). They recommend that their readers 1. set up WEP >> on their router 2. create an access list of what computers can >> access the Internet 3. turn off their SSID broadcast. Granted, >> everyone should know how to lock down their router, but it seems that >> the press is going farther, making it your civic duty to close off >> your Internet access. What is the free wifi movement's response? >> Maybe it's just a good counter argument. Maybe it's developing new >> tools that allow users to easily find some sort of middle ground >> between fully open wifi and fully closed wifi. Not sure, but I think >> there should be some sort of response. >> >> -John >> >> >> >> >> -- >> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ >> Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ >> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:51:10 -0800 (PST) >From: Lee Barken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [nycwireless] the anti-free wifi movement >To: John Geraci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: [email protected] >Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >hi John, > Our view at SoCalFreeNet.org is that the benefit outweighs the risk. >Every tool that can be used for good has the potential to be used in a >negative way. We could ban cars and save 50,000 lives a year-- but we >don't because the automobile has enormous utility... just like the >Internet. So our role as the enabler of the technology is to implement >guard rails and air bags and take reasonable steps to promote everybody's >safety. > >Take it easy, > -Lee >President, SoCalFreNet.org > > >On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, John Geraci wrote: > >> I'm curious to hear what others think about the front-page article in >> the NY Times on Saturday, which equated leaving your wifi open with >> helping child pornographers and credit card thieves (and maybe even >> terrorists). It seemed like a bit of yellow journalism to me, and >> reflecting of how much the public has assimilated John Ashcroft's point >> of view that we should all submit willingly to government surveillance. >> Still, I think the groups and people that support free wifi have to >> have a good rebuttal to the argument that was made, and not just >> dismiss it. >> >> I came across a to-do list on this Sony site "lifehacker" just now >> (http://www.lifehacker.com/software/security/todo-secure-your-wireless- >> network-036577.php). They recommend that their readers 1. set up WEP >> on their router 2. create an access list of what computers can access >> the Internet 3. turn off their SSID broadcast. Granted, everyone >> should know how to lock down their router, but it seems that the press >> is going farther, making it your civic duty to close off your Internet >> access. What is the free wifi movement's response? Maybe it's just a >> good counter argument. Maybe it's developing new tools that allow >> users to easily find some sort of middle ground between fully open wifi >> and fully closed wifi. Not sure, but I think there should be some sort >> of response. >> >> -John >> >> >> >> >> -- >> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ >> Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ >> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ >> > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 5 >Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:11:21 -0500 >From: John Geraci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [nycwireless] the anti-free wifi movement >To: [email protected] >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > >Here's the link to the article I didn't provide originally: >http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/19/technology/19wifi.html > >The journalist IS a moron, but he's on the front page of the Times, >which gets read by millions of people who hardly know what public wifi >is, and are now being told that it breeds terrorists and child >molesters. It strikes me as a new level of accusation against open >wifi, that might be in need of a coherent response. (And I'm surprised >that the Times went with such a reactionary story.) Just checking in >to see what people's individual responses are. Lee, I like your >response. > >-j. > > > >On Mar 22, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Dustin Goodwin wrote: > >> Turn OFF WEP, broadcast your SSID and let everyone share you >> bandwidth. I didn't see the article but by the sound of it the >> journalist is a MORON. By his reasoning the mere existence of the >> Internet is the equivalent "helping child pornographers and credit >> card thieves (and maybe even terrorists)". What do I think? I think >> to sell papers and run for political offices you must scare people. >> It's the currency every a-hole has access to... fear. Funny how as a >> child we are taught sharing is good and as an adult we are taught that >> sharing is bad. >> >> Sorry that was a bit of a rant. As NYCwireless we should working on >> something like "Responsible Wifi sharing". Maybe the logo can be >> crossing guard but instead of heard they have Wifi access point. Teach >> everyone how to use Wifidog, CuWIN or the like to do authenticated >> free sharing. Would that make the fear mongers happy? >> >> - Dustin - >> >> >> John Geraci wrote: >> >>> I'm curious to hear what others think about the front-page article in >>> the NY Times on Saturday, which equated leaving your wifi open with >>> helping child pornographers and credit card thieves (and maybe even >>> terrorists). It seemed like a bit of yellow journalism to me, and >>> reflecting of how much the public has assimilated John Ashcroft's >>> point of view that we should all submit willingly to government >>> surveillance. Still, I think the groups and people that support >>> free wifi have to have a good rebuttal to the argument that was >>> made, and not just dismiss it. >>> >>> I came across a to-do list on this Sony site "lifehacker" just now >>> (http://www.lifehacker.com/software/security/todo-secure-your- >>> wireless- network-036577.php). They recommend that their readers 1. >>> set up WEP on their router 2. create an access list of what >>> computers can access the Internet 3. turn off their SSID broadcast. >>> Granted, everyone should know how to lock down their router, but it >>> seems that the press is going farther, making it your civic duty to >>> close off your Internet access. What is the free wifi movement's >>> response? Maybe it's just a good counter argument. Maybe it's >>> developing new tools that allow users to easily find some sort of >>> middle ground between fully open wifi and fully closed wifi. Not >>> sure, but I think there should be some sort of response. >>> >>> -John >>> >>> >>> -- >>> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ >>> Un/Subscribe: >>> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ >>> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ >> >> >> -- >> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ >> Un/Subscribe: >> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ >> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ >> > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 6 >Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:28:50 -0500 >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [nycwireless] the anti-free wifi movement >To: [email protected] >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 > > >Re: the anti-free wifi movement > >I think it's a great idea to counter this misinformation. > >Access Points __should__ have security standards, but it should be stuff that >enables better user security rather than deny Internet access. Stuff like: >1. Set aside ports for VPN connections >2. Emphasize SSL email > >By the way, a couple days after the last positive wifi NYTimes article, they printed a TimeWarner Cable "fear letter" in letters to the editor. > >------------------------------ > >Message: 7 >Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:29:02 -0500 >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [nycwireless] the anti-free wifi movement >To: [email protected] >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 > > >Re: the anti-free wifi movement > >I think it's a great idea to counter this misinformation. > >Access Points __should__ have security standards, but it should be stuff that enables better user security rather than deny Internet access. Stuff like: >1. Set aside ports for VPN connections >2. Emphasize SSL email > >By the way, a couple days after the last positive wifi NYTimes article, they printed a TimeWarner Cable "fear letter" in letters to the editor. > >------------------------------ > >-- >NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ >Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ >Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > >End of nycwireless Digest, Vol 25, Issue 13 >******************************************* -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
