[dundee] Open Wi-Fi 'outlawed' in Digital Economy Bill

[Arron M Finnon]

Iain Barnett wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2010, at 14:06, Arron M Finnon wrote:
>
>   
>> It would seem to me its a case of finding someone to point fingers at.  Rather than deal with troublesome users, we will penalise the end point.  With regards to Email address, well you enter the whole aspect of DPA (<- Swifty better to answer than me), and greater targets off phishing attacks.
>>     
>
> How are you supposed to target troublesome users if anonymous access is allowed all over the place? The DPA applies all the time anyway, so I don't see how it would be a problem for getting internet access any more than it's a problem for someone who runs an online forum and asks for an email address. You'll have to expand on that. 
>   
By working together rather than pointing our fingers at people who have
an always on connection and saying, its your fault Johnny "come lately"
downloaded "X-Man 23 attack of the Silver file-sharer".  I mean come on,
you don't really expect MacDonalds to be responsible for your behaviour,
i know i don't expect them to be for mine either.  I wonder if Jaguar
felt any burden when their cars where used as get away cars, i mean how
can we stop aimed robberies if people have unauthorised usage of cars. 
Crime is crime, we work at the effects of crime not that the tools of it.

Under the DPA your only allowed data which your have a right to have,
not data you wish you had.  A forum requires interaction via email, not
too hard of an argument to make, not quite the same for wifi.  either
way what small business need is a little more red tape in supplying
services to its customers, and an increase in insurance for the risk i
mean that seems the way to encourage a digital britan
> Rogue access points and phishing... they happen anyway and will always catch the unawares - that could be done today or in the future, doesn't matter about whether giving email details is the norm. It's already the norm to give that info for almost every service on the net anyway, so why can't it be extended to getting on the net too??
>   
Stick our head in the sand doesn't seem too prudent to the argument, so
i attack your works email address, cas its all right i mean every one
does it so lets open the opportunity up a little more, and widen the
vector.  Of course when Mandy and his crack team come swinging through
your door for the film you downloaded they'll not need any daft stuff
like burden of evidence we have your email that all we need its the
norm.  We know that this stopped the evil file downloaders and it had to
be you that did it

Frankly email isn't a passport to the net, nor should it be its far from
the norm to give out  details on the net.  Which is why we explain time
and time again to poeple not to give away data too easily
> It's going to sort out network problems because anyone with a bad setup will have to sort it out or find themselves on the end of a fine/disconnection. It's the same as being told you'll be an accessory if your guns are left unlocked and they're used by someone else in a crime. You'll lock up your guns sharpish.
>   
I hate to state the obvious, but there going to be facing that anyway. 
I can just see it now, sorry officer.  We tried to keep the shared key
secret but the some how it got out, its not really fair we be fined, we
SECURED our network.

I also don't remember anyone saying that libraries, universities or
McDonalds had bad setups, they choose for their systems to be open (too
an extent)

I mean you can lock up your guns till the cows come home, but at the end
of the day.  I steal your keys your buggered, of course the argument
then becomes "did you do everything to keep your KEYS safe", of course
doesn't matter if the dude that stole them was to blame.
> I'm not interested in the copyright argument, I've yet to see a strong, non self interest argument from either side.
>   
Frankly neither am i, but it ain't going anywhere until some basic
premise is sorted.  The bottom line, is it is not a technology problem
its a moral, ethical, and human problem.  Defining controls on networks,
that have been dreamed up by people who have little to do with the
reality of it doesn't quite seem the way to go.  Call me old fashioned. 
It seems this debate has to happen.

I'm no believer in intellectual property, i believe in freedom of
information, shit i've argued these points plenty of time. 
> Iain
> _______________________________________________
> dundee GNU/Linux Users Group mailing list
> dundee at lists.lug.org.uk  http://dundeelug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dundee
> Chat on IRC, #tlug on irc.lug.org.uk
>
>   


-- 
Arron "finux" Finnon

Finux.co.uk/blog - Twitter.com/f1nux - facebook.com/finux

Podcasting for HPR and TRACsec, shows can be found at;
http://hackerpublicradio.org/correspondents.php?hostid=85
http://www.tracsec.com 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/dundee/attachments/20100301/a679e6ff/attachment.htm