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