Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Open Source Electronic Frontier Foundation The Internet Wireless Networking Your Rights Online

EFF To Unveil Open Wireless Router For Open Wireless Movement 184

Posted by samzenpus
from the router-to-the-people dept.
hypnosec writes A new movement dubbed the Open Wireless Movement is asking users to open up their private Wi-Fi networks to total strangers – a random act of kindness – with an aim of better securing networks and facilitating better use of finite broadband resources. The movement is supported by non-profit and pro-internet rights organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Mozilla, Open Rights Group, and Free Press among others. The EFF is planning to unveil one such innovation – Open Wireless Router – at the Hackers on Planet Earth (HOPE X) conference to be held next month on New York. This firmware will allow individuals to share their private Wi-Fi to total strangers to anyone without a password.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF To Unveil Open Wireless Router For Open Wireless Movement

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 22, 2014 @12:54PM (#47293601)
    I'm sure at least some ISPs stipulate in their terms of service that a subscriber cannot provide internet access to the general public without upgrading to some other (more expensive) plan. Surely we can move towards a more secure internet without strongly hinting that people should violate their contracts.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      You better not use the Internet for homework, because effectively
      - your professor is sending you a request,
      - you fulfill it using your own bandwidth,
      - you give back the answer to the professor.

      Exactly like opening up your router.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Entropius (188861)

      Frankly, if ISP's want to prevent overuse of their networks they should impose transfer caps. Within those caps it shouldn't matter whether I want to deliver my own bits or bits on behalf of someone else.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        The sharer should be able to cap, prioritize and limit the traffic already in the router. ISP should only be concerned of the capacity their already rented to the client.

        • we were using ATT DSL at our old house... They had a soft cap of 50GB a month which I would constantly go over. Every GB past that number they would charge $10. We were paying $50 for this service and quite often I would run up the bill to $180+. In that scenario I wouldn't open my WiFi even if I could impose a user bandwidth cap. Maybe if I was somehow able to paywall it.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Exactly this. Some ISPs are sharing wireless from your modem for other ISP customers. But if you share your wireless you are in violation of ToS. You could already find a bomb threat sent from your network... because of the ISP.

    • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Sunday June 22, 2014 @02:38PM (#47294039)

      I'm sure at least some ISPs stipulate in their terms of service that a subscriber cannot provide internet access to the general public without upgrading to some other (more expensive) plan. Surely we can move towards a more secure internet without strongly hinting that people should violate their contracts.

      I work for a moderately large ISP
      The answer to your question is "yes"
      but... but you have to understand that the majority of your agreement with your ISP is there to give them legal immunity against your activities. I've worked for several ISPs and none of them cared how their customers used their service.

      They only start caring when your activity:
      A. Costs them money
      B. Gets them into legal jeopardy... which leads back to A

      When ISPs got federal immunity from prosecution for the activities of their users, that was a great thing for the users because the ISPs were completely off the hook... so the ISPs wouldn't be policing your activity.

      So, that I know of, no ISP has a program where they police what you do. That would be a waste of resources. Bandwidth caps are just there to encourage you to buy larger packages or not suck up all the bandwidth in your neighborhood. They are rarely enforce effectively. They're required to do something about DCMA notices, and I've even been on those teams. It's incredibly labor intensive, and what they are basically doing is telling a PAYING customer that some non-paying customer claims you did something wrong. If you stopped pirating, you might not need Internet. So usually it just ends up that they build some automated system to forward the complaint to you and then they forget about it. If you do other stuff or start causing problems, they yea, they might dig up that data and use it to boot you. But that's VERY rare. I can count the number of times I've seen a customer lose their service on one hand. And that's 14yrs of experience. The few that did get booted usually involved death threats to the billing department. That's how sever it has to get. Even people that launch DDOS attacks get warned that "Someone probably hacked your computer, please fix it."

      • by NotSanguine (1917456) on Sunday June 22, 2014 @03:09PM (#47294147)

        So, that I know of, no ISP has a program where they police what you do.

        Really? [zdnet.com] That's just not so. [yahoo.com] What is more, the abusive contracts/TOS [facepunch.com]/AUP [comcast.com] do restrict what you allowed to do. Whether or not that's actively policed is a different question.

        These types of restrictions are one of the biggest threats to the real promise of the Internet IMHO -- the truly free sharing of ideas and information.

        • Whether or not that's actively policed is a different question.

          Which is exactly what I said. Yes, it violates their policies, but they dont care. Are you stupid or just trolling?

          • Whether or not that's actively policed is a different question.

            Which is exactly what I said. Yes, it violates their policies, but they dont care. Are you stupid or just trolling?

            Your employer may not do so, but other ISPs do. As is clearly detailed in the links included. I guess I should have proofread my post a little better and modified that sentence. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'd edit my post to make it more coherent, but this is /. Sigh.

            I thought your post interesting enough to respond with my own. Unfortunately, your employers' policies are not universally used. Hopefully those ISPs that engage in abusive practices will follow suit, but I'm not holding m

      • by Mr. Slippery (47854) <.tms. .at. .infamous.net.> on Sunday June 22, 2014 @03:43PM (#47294265) Homepage

        So, that I know of, no ISP has a program where they police what you do.

        My ISP is Sprint/Clearwire. (Complicated corporate and branding relationship.) I got a nastygram from them about peer-to-peer downloads. They didn't care that I was downloads GNU/Linux distros, they didn't want me using PtP at all. (So I got a VPN account and flipped them the bird.)

        • So, that I know of, no ISP has a program where they police what you do.

          My ISP is Sprint/Clearwire. (Complicated corporate and branding relationship.) I got a nastygram from them about peer-to-peer downloads. They didn't care that I was downloads GNU/Linux distros, they didn't want me using PtP at all. (So I got a VPN account and flipped them the bird.)

          You likely could have just ignored it. I saw people who got dozens of DMCA complaints per DAY and nothing was ever done to them. In most cases today those letters are totally automated and no-one ever sees them. I suppose its possible if the wrong person got into that job and had some boyscout attitude towards the law they could get a bit over-threatening. But they wouldn't last long in that position. It's one of those rare jobs where they don't want you to do it well.

      • by MobyDisk (75490)

        So, that I know of, no ISP has a program where they police what you do

        Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, Cablevision, AT&T, and Cavalier Telephone do. The last one was my DLS ISP around 2008. I got email notifications from them for downloading with bittorrent.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
        http://www.dailydot.com/news/c... [dailydot.com]

    • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Sunday June 22, 2014 @02:40PM (#47294045)

      I'm sure at least some ISPs stipulate in their terms of service that a subscriber cannot provide internet access to the general public without upgrading to some other (more expensive) plan. Surely we can move towards a more secure internet without strongly hinting that people should violate their contracts.

      I pay for my bandwidth. What I do with it once I've paid for it is none of my ISP's goddamned business. They aren't my parents, they aren't the government, they aren't the police. They're service providers. So let them provide the service that's paid for, then shut the hell up. If they don't like it they can suck eggs, because I ALREADY PAID FOR IT.

      I am literally a block away from my ISP. I've been running an open access point for more than 5 years. And it's a good signal... they can probably see it in their office.

      • by Trogre (513942)

        This.

        ISPs are now a basic utility. They provide bandwidth through which you perform your online activities. That "series of tubes" analogy, while simplistic, applies quite well here. You're renting a small tube.

        In no way should a utility be liable for the actions of its customers. When a psychopath electrocutes puppies in their garage is the electricity company held liable?
        When someone floods their neighbours basement with a garden hose is the water company liable?
        Then it should not be so for ISPs, who

      • I pay for my bandwidth. What I do with it once I've paid for it is none of my ISP's goddamned business. They aren't my parents, they aren't the government, they aren't the police.

        You signed a contract.

        One of many contracts you have signed which insist that you play by the rules --- and no less enforceable when push comes to shove.

      • They aren't my parents, they aren't the government, they aren't the police. They're service providers.

        No, it's a private company with which you have a contract, part of which is that you will not open access to their service to a third party. You are breaching your contract, and they can terminate your agreement at least, sue you for it at worst.

        I run a Tor relay 24/7 on my connection, so I'm sort of in the same boat as you. I'm under no misconception, however, that this breaches the terms of my contract. I'd be happy for the situation you refer to above, where internet service is provided as a utility, bu

      • by MobyDisk (75490)

        I pay for my bandwidth. What I do with it once I've paid for it is none of my ISP's goddamned business.

        You signed a contract that said you won't share it with another residence. There might even be local laws around it too, since it is local laws that gave the ISP the right to run the cables. If the contract did not state that, then one person one the street could run a cable to neighboring houses and cut the ISPs revenue significantly. Similarly, you can't run a cable TV wire to your neighbors house either, for the same reason.

        When you say "I ALREADY PAID FOR IT" that isn't necessarily true. You didn't

    • I have a cunning plan, my lord.
      - The guest doesn't get open internet access.
      - The wifi provider opens up a secure tunnel with a server designated, or owned by the guest. The ISP is foiled.
      - The guest connect to it and sets up a secure tunnel itself, through which he accesses the internet. The wifi provider is foiled as it cannot snoop on it and cannot be considered responsible by what the guest does, morally. Legally it's another matter, but then, the law is immoral. Also if the gues

  • Reckless (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 22, 2014 @12:56PM (#47293613)

    Recommending this to users who don't know exactly what they are doing can only be described as reckless. Without significant changes to the law and/or the way the internet works, opening up your network to complete strangers is a minefield and a lawsuit waiting to happen, even if you keep the public Wifi separate and only allow internet access. Please don't put "civilians" at risk to further your cause.

    • Re:Reckless (Score:5, Insightful)

      by scottbomb (1290580) on Sunday June 22, 2014 @01:14PM (#47293697) Journal

      This. If I didn't have to worry about people torrenting movies or downloading kiddie porn, I'd be happy to share some bandwidth. Unfortunately, the real world dictates I not even consider this.

      • Re:Reckless (Score:4, Insightful)

        by pradeepsekar (793666) on Sunday June 22, 2014 @01:19PM (#47293711)

        Just wait till someone sends a bomb threat using your Wifi and you find police at your doorstep wanting to arrest you! The legal framework and the enlightened enforcement do not exist as yet for sharing your internet connection safely with strangers.

        • by Entropius (188861)

          If someone wants to send a bomb threat using someone else's wifi there is a Starbucks or a McDonalds on every corner.

        • by vux984 (928602)

          Just wait till someone sends a bomb threat using your Wifi

          That's why I don't own a cellphone. Someone might clone my phone and phone in bomb threats.

          I also don't throw away any garbage, i just pile it up in my basement. If I throw it out it might end up at some crime scene somehow and get traced back to me. I just can't take the risk. SWAT teams could break in at night and kill the dog... its happened to people.

          Me, I've always liked the state motto of NH... "Live Free or Die." because that about sums it up.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by bill_mcgonigle (4333) *

        Unfortunately, the real world dictates I not even consider this.

        Just to split hairs - the legal world is the fictional one. In reality people can just share their connections with others in a grand mutual aid* collaboration. It's the made-up rules (legal fictions) that screw it all up.

        Granted, there are large numbers of men with guns who hold these fictions to be reality.

        * mine blocks outgoing SMTP, limits to 1Mbps max with a floor around 384Kbps if I'm using the rest.

        • Yes, and in the 'real' world anyone can break into your home, take your stuff, rape you, kill you, and eat your liver with fava beans and a nice chianti.

          So forgive me for staying in the fictional 'legal' world; I'm not quite ready to throw away all of civilization whenever it happens to inconvenience me.

        • by tepples (727027)

          mine blocks outgoing SMTP

          Including authenticated [wikipedia.org] message submission on port 587 with STARTTLS [wikipedia.org]?

      • by Anonymous Coward
        Sounds like a search of your house would turn up child porn and bombs. Reported
      • this is one of the times in which busting the top off the thermometer is justified. unless the MafIAA is vanquished, this is infinite jeopardy.

      • by swillden (191260)

        This. If I didn't have to worry about people torrenting movies or downloading kiddie porn, I'd be happy to share some bandwidth. Unfortunately, the real world dictates I not even consider this.

        I hear this all the time, but I've yet to see a single example of someone being prosecuted for someone else's use of their bandwidth. On the other hand, I've seen numerous cases of judges ruling that merely because activity occurred on a specific IP address, that doesn't prove that the owner of that address did them. If anything, it seems to me that sharing your connection provides you with plausible deniability.

      • This. If I didn't have to worry about people torrenting movies or downloading kiddie porn, I'd be happy to share some bandwidth. Unfortunately, the real world dictates I not even consider this.

        Hm. For several years in Colorado Springs, I shared out my internet access to any and all. The SSID was PublicDontAbuse (just in case anyone here on Slashdot saw it.) I did not monitor or log anything that happened on it.

        Normally, I would notice police cars and real estate agents parked on the street behind my house for a half hour or so. I felt good knowing that I was helping random people and making their lives just a bit better.

        It has been a few years now since I have done it (long story) so I am sure if

        • I understand your position. However, you are the minority. Most of the tech world are now young people with careers, families, and bills to pay. Risking prison on an ideology, especially one with which they aren't totally familiar, is just reckless.

          Without meaning to sound harsh, it sounds as though you've got nothing left to lose, and in this kind of situation that is a definite boon; such people are nigh on unstoppable. However, a father of two young children dragged through the courts on CP charges and
    • by symbolset (646467) *
      Operating an open wireless network for your own convenience is not a violation of TOS. Nor is calling it "Use Me Free WiFi".
    • Nonsense. There is no law that makes you responsible for what other people download. (at least, not in any sane first world country)

      It is a disgrace that you are so terrified of your government that you think sharing your bandwidth with a stranger is dangerous.

      I have been helped many times in the past by the kindness of strangers who left their wifi open - and I will continue to leave my wifi open for other strangers to benefit in return.

      Many (most?) modern routers support this safely by allowing you to pro

  • by CaptainOfSpray (1229754) on Sunday June 22, 2014 @01:02PM (#47293633)
    In UK. If you have your broadband from BT, you can use wifi from any router that is advertising FON service. You need to logon with your BT account credentials, but it's otherwise free to use. If you are out and about, and you need wifi, just drive into a residential area. There will one or more FON routers on almost any street.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 22, 2014 @01:09PM (#47293669)

      No, this is different. FON gives all guest users their own network address and keeps their account on file for the connection, so whatever they do isn't tied to your account. The OpenWireless router does no such thing. While it separates the guests from each other and your local network, their internet access uses your public IP address and if they do anything illegal or offensive, your account comes up for that. This is intentional, sort of, because these "freedom activists" want to create a critical mass of open wireless networks where the IP can not be used to identify the actual perpetrator. One can only hope that they make this very clear to anyone interested in their router. It's one thing to stand up and say "I am Spartacus", it's quite another to point at someone else and say "he is Spartacus".

      • these "freedom activists" ... the actual perpetrator.

        If someone is active in supporting freedom then they are a freedom activist - no scare quotes needed. Which concept are you implying is dubious: freedom or being an activist? OTOH people can be identified and punished for saying or doing things online that have no victims apart from political ideologies - so they are 'perpetrators' not perpetrators.

        It's one thing to stand up and say "I am Spartacus", it's quite another to point at someone else and say "he is Spartacus".

        I don't quite get this, if you explicitly allow some dissident (called 'Spartacus', say) to use your network and identify as yourself, how isn't that you yours

  • by mrflash818 (226638) on Sunday June 22, 2014 @01:03PM (#47293639) Homepage Journal

    I am fine with sharing my network and wi-fi bandwidth, as long as two conditions are met

    1. That the open public Wi-Fi is QoS, so it cannot max out my connection, and starve my own private WPA2/AES wi-fi of needed bandwidth (So yes, I will share, but am gonna be a bit frugal on how much I am willing to share. Don't want someone streaming HD movies for free, but email and regular web browsing bandwidth is OK.)

    2. That the open Wi-Fi is fully firewalled and separate from my own home network.

    • by SteveWoz (152247)

      Spammers or hackers could get your IP turned off. But I'd do it anyway to be helpful.

    • by iggymanz (596061)

      funny you have no conditions regarding the legal framework; you are perfectly fine with getting blamed for the actions of those who use your network (e.g. door getting kicked in at 3am and armed statsi knocking you and your loved ones to the floor)

      • Sometimes people do things when they're not "perfectly fine" with possible consequences because it's the right thing to do. Its called morality.
        • by iggymanz (596061)

          oh, sharing wifi is a moral obligation and "the right thing to do"? you are funny

          • Sharing wifi is moral, but it's not an obligation.

          • false conflation. sharing wifi used to be fairly common. i regularly connected to some neighbor's open network called "fuckin_theif" and i shared mine when i could afford to pay an ISP. it's the threat of legal action, not selfishness, that's changed the culture.
            • by iggymanz (596061)

              maybe your neighbor had equipment that couldn't deal with particular security method, and so had open network and really felt you and others were stealing from him. how moral would that be?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      8 years and running:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FON

      But keep in mind FON has weaknesses. It uses MAC filtering/whitelisting on an open network (at least it was when I stopped using it 2 years ago), users are at risk of session hijacking, so always logout when you are done using the accesspoint and avoid setting up any connection other that VPNs)

    • by evilad (87480)

      Yup. If tomato or dd-wrt had this as a simple on/off feature, I would happily share 1/4 of my bandwidth.

  • by ledow (319597) on Sunday June 22, 2014 @01:04PM (#47293645) Homepage

    "with an aim of better securing networks and facilitating better use of finite broadband resources"

    If we have finite broadband resources, and they are already scarce enough that customers are demanding more from their connections that can be given to them, why will allowing random passing strangers to decrease the amount of available bandwidth to everyone else help?

    Sorry, it's just an open wifi hotspot. We don't want really them in our homes. We certainly don't want random passing strangers to have them on our connection and traceable only to ourselves, for the hassle if nothing else.

    Surely my freedom of using my own computing resources trumps anyone else's?

    The only thing I can see them useful for is hacking their firmware. Otherwise, I could just switch back on the various options my ISP tries to force onto my router to share with random strangers that I turned off in the first place.

  • by Bill_the_Engineer (772575) on Sunday June 22, 2014 @01:07PM (#47293657)

    My current router allows me to grant guest access to my cable modem with no fear of the guests accessing my local network. Unfortunately thanks to Netflix and Amazon, I'm barely staying within my usage cap with Comcast as it is. Comcast is looking for any excuse to automatically "upgrade" my monthly service for an additional fee, and I'm not going to make that possible by giving away free internet access.

    • by mwvdlee (775178) on Sunday June 22, 2014 @01:13PM (#47293691) Homepage

      Problem #2: Liability

      In my country, the owner of a router can be held liable for the data transmitted throught it. If some anonymous user uses an open WiFi connection to download child pornography or hacks the pentagon servers, the owner of the router can be held atleast partly responsible. I don't know about regulations in the USA, but I'd damn well make certain the law protects the owner of a router before advising them to open up the connection.

      • by aliquis (678370)

        Then again if everyone did this would that law make sense / be resonable to uphold?

        • Uhh, practically everybody is pirating music and movies, and there is still a law that says this is criminal behavior.

          • by aliquis (678370)

            Then you're doing it.

            If you just allow anyone Internet access through you?
            (Which in itself isn't a crime.)

            But ok.

      • by sjames (1099)

        The EFF has more than a few lawyers. I would like to see their statement on legality, but I doubt they would trick the masses into a liability that large.

      • by MobyDisk (75490)

        There is an easy fix to this law. Just reprogram the Google van to connect to every open wifi and download something illicit. Make sure the van drives to affluent neighborhoods where politicians live.

      • > in my country, the owner of a router can be held liable for the data transmitted throught it.

        what country is that?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      See Bill you are the problem. If ten years ago you promoted open wifi and shared your network, and it was widely adopted in 2014. Then Companies like comcast would've had a much harder time implementing bandwidth-caps. But bill you live in a police state, scared all the time, so to pacify your fear you must instil it in your neighbours.

    • Unfortunately thanks to Netflix and Amazon, I'm barely staying within my usage cap with Comcast as it is.

      What the hell are you downloading? Raw uncompressed blu-ray images? According to Netflix's usage page [netflix.com], the highest quality streams use HD: 3 GB per hour, 3D: 4.7 GB per hour, Ultra HD 4K: 7 GB per hour.

      For a HD stream, it would take you over 80 hours to reach 250GB. 40, 2hr HD movies. Wow. Just Wow. The average American watches 2.8hrs [bls.gov] of TV per day. If you download 100% of only HD content from Amazon/Netflix every month you'll be about at the 80+hrs / month of usage. Still a lot of downloading, given that

      • For a HD stream, it would take you over 80 hours to reach 250GB. 40, 2hr HD movies. Wow. Just Wow. The average American watches 2.8hrs of TV per day

        With four Americans in a household, that could reach 11.2 hours per day, or over 330 hours per month.

        • A little improbable (if we're talking "download hours" rather than "eyeball hours" - the former is relevant to a discussion of bandwidth use, the latter is relevant to a discussion of whether Firefly should have been canceled) given that in most cases four people living in the same house are going to be part of the family, and therefore likely to be watching the same television at the same time.
      • by Belial6 (794905)
        It is WAY to late in the game for anyone to be using the bad math of counting only one person per household. That argument has been made too many times, and refuted too many times for it to be considered an honest mistake.
      • You should vote with your dollars, find a provider that will give you unlimited usage with higher bandwidth. I'm sure there's plenty of ISPs that would be willing to drop an OC48 (2.4Gb) into your house for a quite a few grand a month.

        That's like saying if the local gas chain started charging $4 per fluid oz you have no grounds for complaint since you could have a tanker truck fill up a 10,000 gallon tank in your yard. And why do you need more than a moped anyway? Caps are not justified by the ISP's level of congestion or by the price the ISP pays for bandwidth, it's price-gouging. As long as ISPs hang their wires all over the public ways and get exclusive franchise agreements customers should not put up with being scammed.

      • I average 400-500GB per month, no torrents.

        I have a family of 4 with Amazon Prime and Netflix.

        Since we don't use cable TV, many of us just have streaming shows on for background noise while working. We treat it like broadcast but stream it.

  • This country is out of control. No other country on Earth puts large number of its own citizens in jails. Streets are filled with security forces like in some banana republic.
    Two of my sons are welcomed by cop at the entrance to school. It is the same at grocery shop and movie theater. Police is buying military equipment and heavily trained forces in Iraq are under direct control of Washington administration in case people will unleash their unhappiness on the street.

    North Korea man, it is freaking North Ko

  • test comment
  • The innovation here is not opening a network on your router to perfect strangers, nor is it having FOSS running your wifi router. This is more of a theoretical experiment, to take the existing paid-for-services model and try and build an "information wants to be free" system knitted into it. Which will be fine until router owners hit their monthly limit and run sputtering back to their ISP or outside users realize they're getting 3G/ISDN speeds anywhere they please and don't like it. "The false notion t
  • My WiFi SSID has been called "Help Yourself" for years. I've never had any issues, probably because every router I've had has turned out to be so crappy that I can barely get a signal from the other side of the house, let alone the street. Every now and then I see some people joining. I don't use WiFi encryption, because I don't think the speed loss is worth it, and all of the websites I visit that contain information I don't want to share use HTTPS.

  • All the people saying "don't open your router because then the gov't will hold you responsible for things other people use it for" are missing the point. This is exactly why this is a freedom of speech issue and why the EFF is involved in the first place.
    The gov't would like every act online to be traceable to an individual who can then be held responsible for it.
    Freedom of speech means freedom from punishment because of your speech. The Soviets used to have a joke "everybody in Russia is free to say wha
    • yes, this. if open sharing became normalized, there would certainly be a backlash from ISPs, MPAA, NSA, etc., but there would be no way they could actually, successfully atomize IPs. i share my AP and i'm proud!
  • The FAQ and info on https://openwireless.org/ [openwireless.org] doesn't seem to address security and privacy from the "guest user" point of view. They do have a link at the top "Using a network named "openwireless.org"? Check out important information about this network." which provides information for a guest user - but only mentions about being considerate and not abusing the service.

    How does a user establish trust with each Open Wireless access point in order to determine it is not a rogue/fake AP? How are potential guest

  • Come to NYC on July 18-20, http://x.hope.net/ [hope.net] at the Hotel Pennsylvania, just across the street from Penn Station and Madison Square Garden.

    Tickets are only $120 for all three days.

    This year's keynote is Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame.

  • There are a lot of posts here about scary legal problems for the router owner. But what if the routers allowed access to the Internet only through Tor, for example, so the router owner is not in danger of what people do with it? Couldn't the router help by running an internal Tor relay to help that network too?
  • I've got a reasonably fast connection (50 megs down, 10 megs up), but I have a cap. My ISP charges $0.50 per gig overage, who is going to pay for that when strangers pump my monthly bill up?

    • you can limit bandwidth hard enough that it wouldn't really make a dent, but no one's making you do anything. it's just an attempt at a gift economy of information. probably won't work out, but it's worth a shot.
    • by hacker (14635)

      My ISP charges $0.50 per gig overage

      Now THAT is impressive. Here in the Northeast US, where we have AT&T for phone and DSL, each GB over your cap, costs $15.00. It used to be $10.00, but they jumped it 50% without warning a few months ago.

      • by Guspaz (556486)

        My ISP is an indie ISP. They used to charge $0.25 per gig, but then the incumbent carriers got the federal regulator to increase their tariffed costs to smaller ISPs by an order of magnitude (incumbents now get to charge indies up to $20/megabit/month for connecting to their networks), so it had to go up.

        My ISP does still have overage caps (of $50) on their slower tiers (as in it's unlimited after that much overage), and they are trying various strategies to ease the pain on customers (I have a 300GB cap, b

  • I've had a FON device, and I think its main protection against malicious (illegal, stupid) use is that other users on the open FON channel are either authenticated FON users roaming to your access point or paid users who again aren't really anonymous.

    What I was wondering though is whether each of these openwireless devices could also be set up as a Tor entry node for all of the free traffic going out that way? Think something like the Tails distro, where you don't record anything, and don't really want to e

    • by Burz (138833)

      TAILS is an interesting suggestion, because it includes a general IP 'replacement' stack called I2P. And THAT is what the EFF should be encouraging people to spread as far and wide as possible: A P2P-routed, mesh-like, torrent-ready, anonymized network connection that isn't limited to TCP and browser stuff. Its even got secure decentralized messaging (also inspired by bittorrent as it uses DHT), so no more Tormail type incidents.

      I almost feel like the current generation of network experts, even people like

      • by Tool Man (9826)

        Something comprehensive would indeed be much better than solving for one layer. The challenge I find is trying to get people to pay attention to any of it at all, never mind changing everything they do in one fell swoop. For sure, making secure options the default is a huge step, but in this case, we're still relying on whatever compromised client gets allowed on to the wifi.

  • I've seen 34 people (connections once), it all works fine until you can feel something odd, as which time I'll shut down my HotSpot, for a few days.

    I do help many people (34 mayhaps) as it's always being used, and I noticed cars parked across the street or out of the way.

    Yes I run a HotSpot as per EFF, yet will shut it down in a heart beat if it just feels funny (my connection).

  • How about open wifi over Tor - that would allow you to share but avoid problems associated with liability for actions done on your connection and an ISP would have a job proving you were sharing their network capacity too.

    All you need is a router that supports multiple SSID's and segmentation of them, a couple of clever firewall rules and Tor's Transparent Proxy [torproject.org] support.

  • Fools! They should be doing this with OpenBTS. WiFi range sucks.Yes the fight would be harder but WTF, the EFF has gotten wussy.

  • In an alternate reality where every packet is magically stamped with an identifier of person directly responsible for its generation by an infallible "packet fairy" would the world be better or worse off?

    Personally I believe as long as humans continue to prove themselves incapable of handling power the more access and anonymity the better off on balance we all are.

    Seems insufficient to consider only risks on one side of the ledger when weighing a course of action. At least RTFA's FAQ...

  • Why would I trust your wifi to start with ? It's name is "freewififorall" and I should hope it is not a honeypot to eavesdrop my credit card number when it is transiting on the wire(less), or scan my open ports if I connect ?

"Help Mr. Wizard!" -- Tennessee Tuxedo

Working...