2 edits | reply to fatness
Re: What about private wifi? said by fatness:said by fAcEtIOUs:said by tad2020:So every Mom & Pop Coffee Shop out there that provides free wi-fi is going to have to re-invest in new equipment that costs likely 100 times their current setup? No, mom and pop shops will stop free WiFi. Chains like Starbucks will comply. What's good about that? Where did I say it was good? It must have been written in invisible ink and then I missed it when I re-read it.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
 fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:13
Bright House Netwo..
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
| said by fAcEtIOUs:Where did I say it was good? It must have been written in invisible ink and then I missed it when I re-read it. OK, thanks.
I think it's bad, intrusive, another unnecessary expansion of the nanny state, and bad for business. So I don't misunderstand you again, what are your opinions on it?
--
goodbye dad |
|
| said by fatness:I think it's bad, intrusive, another unnecessary expansion of the nanny state, and bad for business. So I don't misunderstand you again, what are your opinions on it? 1 - no problem with keeping 2 yrs of IP login data from ISPs & multi-location businesses.
2 - no need for private residences or 1 location(i.e. mom & pop) hotspots. Law enforcement can get what they need from the ISPs these sites are attached to upstream.
3 - access to info mandated be collected, as stated in the law, is thru warrant only. I see no problem with that.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
| said by fAcEtIOUs:said by fatness:I think it's bad, intrusive, another unnecessary expansion of the nanny state, and bad for business. So I don't misunderstand you again, what are your opinions on it? 1 - no problem with keeping 2 yrs of IP login data from ISPs & multi-location businesses. 2 - no need for private residences or 1 location(i.e. mom & pop) hotspots. Law enforcement can get what they need from the ISPs these sites are attached to upstream. 3 - access to info mandated be collected, as stated in the law, is thru warrant only. I see no problem with that. Regarding #2, Law enforcement can not get what they need from the ISPs these sites are attached to upstream. The hotspot is an anonymiser. One can not know who might have been using that particular hotspot at any given time because all users are behind the same IP address.
Mind you, I'm not for it either, but a simple syslog server is all you need to log that kind of data. It would be better if the vendor were required to provide a syslog server that the routers they sold would log to, if and only if the customer checked a box that authorized that.
That places the onus on the vendors and not the end users, who can hardly be expected to understand the finer points.
Since it was the vendors who established the norm of leaving encryption off by default, and authentication off by default, it should be the vendors who are hit with the requirement to solve the problem.
I'm sure this will go over like a lead baloon. 
Oh well. |
|
