Fwd: [cryptome] Wifi Hotspots Must have Users Identity and Password
jim bell
jdb10987 at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 17 11:46:11 PDT 2016
From: Александр <afalex169 at gmail.com>
2016-09-17 21:06 GMT+03:00 jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com>:
Can the name of the network be "Password is password"?
>Hold a second, Jim...i'm on the phone with the senior judge from the European Court now. Well, the judge says
<<Yeah. the name of the network could also be "FuckTheState">>, he claims.
<<The only condition is.... to REVEAL it to the state.
>In the "rest" - you are totally fRRRee! :)>>
I think it's unfortunate that people can't "automatically" share some of their (otherwise unused) WiFi capacity. Many people would do this, as long as a few restrictions are in place: 1. A person sharing shouldn't be legally liable for anything done; 2. The owner gets to use "all" of the capacity when needed; the external user only gets space when available. 3. The IP addresses of "his" use and that of the "external" use be unrelated in any way.
Interestingly, Comcast/Xfinity has a somewhat automatic system of this kind: Boxes are called "gateways" and, in effect, have two WiFi routers: One for the owner and the other for anyone else. (However, to use the other side, you need to be a subscriber somewhere or have his password/permission.) For news of an objection to this, see: https://www.fastcompany.com/3039682/comcast-was-sued-for-quietly-making-your-homes-internet-part-of-the-sharing-economy Jim Bell
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 4847 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20160917/c025e38e/attachment.txt>
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list