 GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | And this matters because? Oh yea so they can think to kill off wi-fi everywhere? Whatever.
Secured or not secured is irrelevant. Sure it would be easier to use unsecured APs, however, as I laid out in the
"wi-fi makes us work hard" thread: »Re: DUH!
The fact of the matter is that any internet connection is vulnerable, secured or not. That is unless you're trying to tell me that Mr. Coffee is going to have to invest in some other methods to block p2p activity altogether...which of course p2p isn't actually illegal so there's no requirement to do this.
I would tend to agree in some aspects that the owner of the AP has some culpability, but regardless, security of the AP doesn't guarantee file sharing will stop. It will just mean that the dude will get the code then logon and go about their business as usual.
I suppose we're just trying to make it harder to get on the network to start with and think that makes a difference. In the long run I don't think it will.
And besides, doesn't wi-fi encryption actually make it harder to sniff what is being xferd over that link? 
K.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Angus the IT Chap |
