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

[Lee Hughes]

Correction Iain, reading the thread (that my email client manged beyondbelief) that you do understand wifi and encryption etc etc,
I'll take those comments back! sorry! :-)

--- On Tue, 2/3/10, Lee Hughes <toxicnaan at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

From: Lee Hughes <toxicnaan at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [dundee] Open Wi-Fi 'outlawed' in Digital Economy Bill
To: "Tayside Linux User Group" <dundee at lists.lug.org.uk>
Date: Tuesday, 2 March, 2010, 9:38

Iain,
no disrespect to yourself, but I don't think you really understand how wifi, the internet and domestic encryption works (or doesn't really work).
I've got a better idea, why not just turn of the internet, easy, you'll have accessto e-commerce sites, and .gov sites, but just turn off the rest, who needsem anyway, people posting things, is that what news paper sites are for, isn't it?
In fact you could probably serve the whole thing of cdrom, converting the internetto a one way push medium. no pesky users upload content, just a niceone push from producer to consumer, just like in the good old days. 
troublesome users? some people regard anyone with a keyboard, and theability to post 'stuff'
 troublesome users. I think you need to define troublesome users before you go any further.
and if we define troublesome users, when does that get redefined by some court,today trouble some users are a few kids that download movies.....
I think the recent google case highlights this point.
Involving politics with technology. not good, I give the internet 5 yearsbefore it is dismantled or turn into the Television. 
 








--- On Mon, 1/3/10, Iain Barnett <iainspeed at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Iain Barnett <iainspeed at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dundee]
 Open Wi-Fi 'outlawed' in Digital Economy Bill
To: "Tayside Linux User Group" <dundee at lists.lug.org.uk>
Date: Monday, 1 March, 2010, 19:06


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. 

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??

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'm not interested in the copyright argument, I've yet to see a strong, non self interest argument from either side.

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





      
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/dundee/attachments/20100302/2f02a50b/attachment-0001.htm