[AusNOG] Google creepier than Conroy?

[Andrew Oskam]

Got to agree on this one. The onus really lays with the AP owner to  
secure his connection otherwise it's an invitation.

It's obvious that wifi security is abuts grey area and should have  
been dealt with a long time ago.

I honestly do not see anything wrong with what google has done.

Sent from my iPhone
-------------
Andrew Oskam

On 30/05/2010, at 5:10 PM, Mark Smith <nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org 
 > wrote:

> On Sun, 30 May 2010 14:56:30 +1000
> "Steve Lisson" <SteveL at dedicatedservers.net.au> wrote:
>
>> Taking Google out of the equation for a moment...
>>
>> With all these apparently open wifi networks from home users 'who  
>> do not
>> know better' is there possibly a problem with the way vendors  
>> market the
>> products?
>
> I'm not sure if that is actually the case. I'm relatively late to the
> Wifi consumer scene - I only ended up getting my first personal laptop
> last year (haven't really wanted or needed one before). Consequently,
> out of interest, I've paid a bit more attention to the SSIDs that are
> announced where ever I am, and whether they have a lock symbol (on
> Network Manager, under Linux). With a data set of my home, the local
> cafe (so I see a few SSIDs for businesses surrounding it), and where
> I'm working (Adelaide, near CBD), I think I've seen around 25 to 30
> unique SSIDs. Other than Internode's Citilan SSID, which is expected,
> I've only come across one other one that didn't have some form of
> security enabled. So my impression is that the message has got  
> through,
> and in nearly all cases people are securing their Wifi to some extent.
> Whether or not their picking good WEP/WPA keys is another issue, and
> one that I'm not going to try to determine ...
>
> Another interesting question to consider is if there is no security,  
> is
> that an invitation to connect? I think a broadcast, rather than  
> hidden,
> SSID and no security could be interpreted that way - security
> mechanisms are available for you to use, and you haven't used
> them. If I see a shop sign, and an unlocked door, then I assume that  
> is
> an invitation for me to enter. OTOH, any enabled security mechanism,  
> no
> matter how inadequate e.g. WEP, bad password, is a sign that access is
> being controlled, and is limited to authorised parties.
>
>>
>> With having '256 bit encryption', 'very secure', etc in big  
>> pronounced
>> labels all over their packaging for their products is it really the
>> users fault when they go home, plug it in and it works or is it
>> plausible that they, from the marketing, just assume that they are
>> automatically secure? (sure, they should have read the manual, but  
>> can
>> be safely assumed a lot do not).
>>
>> Should there be big mandated labels on the packages such as  
>> 'Incorrectly
>> configured wifi can be hazardous to your [internet] health' with some
>> gory picture along with it?
>>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
>> [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Karp
>> Sent: Sunday, 30 May 2010 2:46 PM
>> To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
>> Subject: [AusNOG] Google creepier than Conroy?
>>
>>> Borrowing from the Australian Privacy Foundation policy on...
>>
>> Well, for my sins, I represent ISOC-AU at regular meetings
>> with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (Karen Curtis is the
>> Commissioner), at which
>> Nigel Waters attends representing the Australian Privacy Foundation.
>>
>> We meet 3 times a year with the OPC, the next one being on July 28  
>> (the
>> last was held on March 31).
>>
>> I am happy to represent your considered views at the next meeting. It
>> would be nice if the discussion
>> is run through ISOC-AU's iamems mailing list, to receive as wide a
>> perspective as possible, but there
>> plenty of opportunity for a more specialised view to present itself  
>> from
>>
>> this list.
>>
>> I am on good terms with Nigel, so if there is something that APF  
>> should
>> be doing of a more urgent
>> nature, please let me know.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> -- 
>> STUDENTNET(r) - Highly Commended: Australian Privacy Awards 2008
>>    Kevin Karp kjk at studentnet.edu.au
>>    next.studentnet.edu.au                  Tel +61 2 9281 1626
>>    Suite 1, 89 Jones St
>>    Ultimo NSW 2007 Australia              Fax +61 2 9281 3047
>> _____________________________________________________________
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog