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

[Rick Moynihan]

On 4 March 2010 08:45, Robert Ladyman <it at file-away.co.uk> wrote:
> The major fault with this legislation is the belief that there is "An
> Internet" (sic) - internet is short for interconnected networks: there is no
> 'internet' to connect to; it isn't 'out there' as a real, separate thing any
> more than the sky is blue.
> This belief in a 'something' that exists without its components leads to
> cloudy thinking: once you realise this, you can see that this legislation is,
> in effect, a tax on particular types of network equipment and an attempt to
> impose a technical constraint upon how you run YOUR network. Managing end-
> points of, and access to, your own network is your concern. Managing the
> interconnection to other networks is surely your own concern as well: those
> networks are run by other administrators, not by government (unless they are
> government networks).
> Managing a connection to "The Internet" goes in the same in-tray as an email
> address for the Tooth Fairy.

+1

>> Well, you're assuming it has to be a "network", rather than a simple a
>> pipe to the Internet.  And there are many reasons these are desirable,
>> community wifi projects being one of them.  The legislation here
>> essentially says "only big companies can become ISP's"...  Legislation
>> like this is driving smaller players out of the market... Making the
>> whole industry less competitive.  Would Robert Ladyman have ever set
>> himself up as a rural ISP if more legislation like this were in
>> place?!?!  Maybe, maybe not... I'm hoping he can answer this point.
>>
> There are no 'simple pipes' to the interconnected networks - to interconnect
> you have to be a network, even if only of one device.

I agree entirely.  Hence my using the word "network" in bunnies.  What
I was trying to say (poorly I might add) is that you can run a WiFi
access point for public use, without putting the public machines on
your network.  i.e. you can run the access node on the
public/untrusted/internet side of your firewall/gateway.  Incidentally
I vaguely remember us having a conversation bemoaning the fact that
more wifi routers don't do this by default.

The implication that Iain was making was that "open" access points
compromise the security of your network and machines, but this isn't
the case, if you throw your anonymous users into the same bucket as
the millions of other anonymous machines located on the wider
internet.

My only point is to debunk the myth that "open anonymous" WiFi is a
security hazzard.  It's not, it's just a choice you can make in a long
line of other security decisions.  Legislating like this seems to be a
one size fits all approach.

Iain seems to argue that security is the main benefit of this
legislation, but aren't there better ways for the government to
protect end user networks?  For example by popularising a stamp of
approval, that says a router ships by default in a mode that forces
authentication + encryption?  And then engaging in an awareness
campaign telling individuals to look for the stamp-of-approval?  (I'm
not advocating this position... but it seems to be a better/cheaper
"one granny solution" to help end users secure their networks).

The larger issues here are ones of net neutrality, and the government
thinking it's ok to legislate network protocols and configuration.
It's not ok, and the government should be fighting to keep the
internet neutral, rather than locking it down for the media giants and
telco's...  The majority of wireless installations have occured in the
past 3/4 years, and it's *VERY* early days... certainly far to early
to be legislating a fledgling industry.

R.

> When we set up, there was other legislation in place - we had to submit
> business and technical plans, and so on: the technical plans were explicit in
> that we allowed anonymous access to local services (an Intranet) but paid-for,
> controlled access outwith that. Had we had to pay for each access point on our
> network we would not have started - after all, we would not have a tax on any
> other switch, hub or router.
>
>> What does this legislation mean for community Mesh networks and future
>> WiMax projects?  WiFi technology is rapidly approaching a saturation
>> point large enough to sustain large community networks...  With future
>> wireless technologies such as WiMAX and it's successors around the
>> corner mesh networking becomes increasingly viable.  We could have a
>> future within 5 years where most users wouldn't need ISP's, and could
>> instead get free internet access with self configuring mesh
>> networks...  The technology to do this exists today, and it will
>> likely be in your home in a couple of years.  Legislation like this is
>> prohibitive of this future, and means that we'll likely remain paying
>> our ISP's £20 per/month for the next hundred years.
>>
>> The telco cartel have far too much control over Internet and mobile
>> communications as it is, for example charging approximately £900 per
>> MB (for SMS's) is scandalous.  Not to mention the fact that we're
>> effectively giving control of the Internet to the copyright lobbyists.
>>  Disney and others would have killed the Internet a decade or more
>> ago, if they'd known what the world today is like...  If you'd rather
>> a parallel universe; sans Internet, then I can understand you
>> supporting this legislation...  Otherwise, I struggle to see why
>> allowing them to push through this legislation benefits anyone other
>> than the established 'rights holders' and Telco's.
>>
>> Ensuring authentication on the endpoints does nothing to improve
>> security on the Internet either, as malicious users and those with
>> something to hide can simply bounce a connection around the world a
>> couple of times through something like TOR.  So again, all this does
>> is penalise legitimate users with additional inconvenience, whilst
>> propping up the failing business models of incumbent industries, and
>> preventing future innovation in services and wireless technology.
>>
>> There are countless other ways that this legislation is ill conceived,
>> but given you've now got many good arguments as to why this
>> legislation is bad, perhaps you can offer us a reason as to why it's
>> good?  So far all you've said in support of this is that it will
>> "improve network security", do you have a stronger argument or more
>> straw men?
>>
>> Incidentally if you want a full treatise on the effect of legislation
>> such as this, I'd recommend reading Yochai Benkler's seminal work "The
>> Wealth of Networks" (
>> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wealth_of_networks/Main_Page ) and
>> Lessig's first book "Code - and other laws of cyberspace" (
>> http://codev2.cc/ ).
>>
>> > I could only come up with avoiding the long arm of a totalitarian regime,
>> > but that stretched the point into a new one. Or the "Sex And The City
>> > meets the Spice Girls" argument - because we want to! :-p Always a poor
>> > one for me.
>>
>> Sounds more like a Billie Piper argument to me :-)
>>
>> > However, due to this discussion I had a look and I did find an article in
>> > which Bruce Schneier advocated it (for himself, at least). Schneier's
>> > arguments rely on the practical aspect of (and I paraphrase) "it doesn't
>> > matter to me" or "it's bad elsewhere so why bother, better to focus on
>> > other aspects", because the technical reasons are so weak, which, to his
>> > credit, he admits.
>> > http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/my_open_wireles.html It
>> > didn't convince me at all. Comments section was quite good though.
>>
>> Yes, I provided a link to this Schneier article in my original message.
>>
>> --
>> Rick Moynihan
>> http://twitter.com/RickMoynihan
>> http://delicious.com/InkyHarmonics
>> http://sourcesmouth.co.uk/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> --
>
> Robert Ladyman
> File-Away Limited, 32 Church Street, Newtyle
> Perthshire, PH12 8TZ SCOTLAND
> Registered in Scotland, Company Number SC222086
> Tel: +44 (0) 1828 898 158
> Mobile: +44 (0) 7732 771 649
> http://www.file-away.co.uk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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