New subject: So who knows about their local wifi?

1 May 2012

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: brian.mcneil(a)o2.co.uk
"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 &lt;tom(a)tommorris.org&gt;
 Date: Tue, May 01, 2012 11:24 am
 To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org

 On 1 May 2012 11:04, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
  On 1 May 2012 10:35, Thomas Morton
&lt;morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com&gt; 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
 wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
 http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
 WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org 