Forgive the scathing cynicism, but we're governed by retards who I wouldn't trust to change a 13-amp fuse! Let alone actually realise that 99% of household equipment could get by with a 1-amp, or less, fuse.
I _know_ my local WiFi ;-) (SSID: xxxxxxxxxx, Key: not telling). I also know that WEP is so trivially broken that, pardon the pun, "there's an app for that". WPA is not a great deal better. I've broken a couple just to prove the point. If you're planning to run an open point, do it and be damned. If this is a 'public service', and some media mogul tries to sue you then half the country would chip in to a legal fighting fund. Sadly, Wikimedia UK has to be 'polite' to politicians; I suspect David Gerard would gleefully join me in setting about them with a clue-by-four, and tell them, bluntly, to defer to the likes of Sir Tim Berners-Lee on what is good for the Internet. The Digital Economy Act should be overturned. The Limp-Dems promised to do so - until they ended up in a coalition with Cameron. Now, I'm dealing with repeated alarmist emails from 38 Degrees about plans to grant the police and security services "carte blanche" snooping powers. I could say "I told you so", and you could search for "INDECT" on Wikinews. I, very infrequently, chip in on this list; and, the above is 'quite a rant'. However, I'm of the opinion that WM-UK should be an active advocate for a free and unfettered Internet. Thankfully my own hacking exploits predate the Computer Misuse Act. But, when I'm back online at home, I'll be joining the mayhem in running a Tor node, and whoever in the police told Cameron they'd like more powers can explain how they can't crack real encryption. Brian McNeil -- Wikinews, Accredited Reporter. Personal: [email protected] "Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news." > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] So who knows about their local wifi? > From: Tom Morris <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, May 01, 2012 11:24 am > To: [email protected] > > > On 1 May 2012 11:04, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 1 May 2012 10:35, Thomas Morton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> More than anything it depends on the context; if you are talking about a > >> small endeavour at, say, a meeting venue you're probably alright using an > >> ad-hoc setup. But if you are talking an entirely public network then things > >> are more complex. > >> To be honest; once you are at that level you should be talking to a > >> professional company anyway, as supplying Wifi of that sort is a > >> non-trivial > >> technical exercise. And they will know exactly what is required. > > > > > > I note also the Hack Day Manifesto (really a how-to), which goes into > > quite some detail on the technical side (though not the legal one): > > > > http://hackdaymanifesto.com/ > > > > As one of the Hack Day Manifesto drafting cabal, I'll note why we didn't... > > Firstly, because we aren't lawyers. If you are a lawyer, the Hack Day > Manifesto is on Github, and, as we say on Wikipedia, "anyone can > edit". > > Secondly, because what we do know about the law on wifi, it's actually > very difficult to know what is required. When the Digital Economy Act > was up for debate, one of the provisions, if I recall correctly, would > require closing of open wifi following repeated copyright infringement > complaints, but whether that is going to be required is something I > believe we are still waiting upon from the official Ofcom guidance > (not to go political, but having a law where you basically pass it > without reading it, then have someone else work out exactly what it > means is a hermeneutic strategy that should make postmodernists very > happy and anyone who values transparency and deliberation not so > happy). > > There are still some very strange questions about whether or not using > a weak protection system for wifi would count - WEP is now trivially > crackable, and WPA rather than WPA2 is also trivial to crack... > requiring WPA2 means certain older devices can't connect to wifi. > > It'd certainly be useful for everybody involved if we could have some > lawyers work out exactly what the current civil and criminal penalties > and issues of concern are around open wifi usage. > > I say that as someone who lives right out in the countryside and, > partly on principle, keeps his wifi completely open. Why? Because I > believe that if you should be unfortunate enough to find yourself > standing outside my house, the least you should be able to do is check > Google Maps to find your way to where you are going. Given that we > have really bad GPS reception, almost no mobile reception, certainly > no 3G reception, I see almost no benefit in preventing people from > leeching a little bandwidth from me... on the basis that if I were > momentarily outside their house, I'd really like to be able to do > likewise. Share and share alike, be the change you want to see and all > that. > > Security expert Bruce Schneier does similarly: > https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/my_open_wireles.html > > Of course, if some bastard tracks me down, camps outside my house and > uses my wifi to upload his kiddy porn stash, nuclear bomb construction > instructions or the contents of their 'Lady Gaga' CD-RW to Wikileaks, > and I end up in jail, that would suck quite considerably. Hence why > having some guidance from actual lawyers would be quite useful. > > -- > Tom Morris > <http://tommorris.org/> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
