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

[j at jayoung.co.uk]

I think the questions are;

1)Who is set to gain?
2)Who is setting the agenda?
3)How likely is this act to be approved?

It's not a technology problem it's people trying to fit industrial  
economics into a knowledge based economy. That's my 2 pence worth.


Quoting Arron M Finnon <finux at finux.co.uk>:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>