USA Has More Open Wi-Fi Hotspots Than EU

Mark.JUK writes "Some 40% of wireless (Wi-Fi) Internet access hotspots in the USA are unlocked and do not require a security password, which compares with 25% in Europe; according to WeFi based statistics. Across the world, approximately 30% of recorded Wi-Fi access points are unlocked, while some 70% are locked. Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously, then. It should be perfectly possible to 'share' Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time."

Comments

This isn't a bad thing.

[vasqzr]

Good! The Internet was founded on free and open access.

For the first year or two I was using a (very limited) free dial-up shell. Otherwise I would have never been able to get online. I live my access point open, I've had hundreds of users over the last few months.

Re:This isn't a bad thing.

[onionman]

Great!!

When I travel, I want to be able to go into a coffee shop, get my espresso, and sit down and use my laptop on the internet without having to hand out credit card information or any other sort of credentials. I make a point of only frequenting businesses with open access points because I want to reward their community service. I recommend that others do the same!

Population density is a plausible cause.

[Ferzerp]

More people who may hop on your network and negatively impact your performance would likely cause you to learn to secure things. We have a much lower average population density, so you are more likely to be able to remain ignorant (or just not care) and leave your AP open. If I have 4 people who can see my AP, they are much less likely to wreak havok on my quality of service than if I have 50. I would like to see stats on open AP% vs population density. Of course, the article may have this info. I didn't rtfa.

I'm Confused

[Bob9113]

Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously then. It should be perfectly possible to "share" Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time.

I take security very seriously, so my machines are properly secured for direct access to the Internet, and my important machines are behind their own firewall.

I must be missing something about WPA or WPA2 -- how can you make your network show up without the little lock icon when a stranger passes by, so they know they can log in?

Why would I want to encrypt the channel, anyway? As soon as the comm hits the Internet it hops nodes I don't control. If I want it secure, I had better be using an encrypted channel at a higher layer. Admittedly, I could transfer sensitive files in the clear on my own network, but why? I use SCP for everything, which is easy (easier, IMO, than GUI) and it is a good habit to get into.

Which all is to say: I think the "WPA/WPA2 == security" thing is a bad meme. Good security starts above the network layer, and generally can end there. Meanwhile, securing all our Wi-Fi nodes kinda sucks in terms of making the network universally pervasive.

Free the APs, secure the machines and processes.

Stop with the OMG NOT SECURE WIFI crap, please.

[BitZtream]

I must rant ...

I'm rather sick of hearing 'OMG NOT ENCRYPTED' or 'OMG USES WEP INSTEAD OF WPA' when talking about WiFi.

If you're talking about it while using a wifi hotspot, then you're just a fucking moron without even the slightest clue.

No one gives a fuck about your data. They aren't sitting at an airport trying to gather sensitive information. You know why? BECAUSE ANYONE WHO HAS SENSITIVE INFORMATION IS USING ENCRYPTION FOR ALL THEIR CONNECTIONS NOT JUST WIFI. It doesn't freaking matter if the wifi is sent in the clear, their actual session to their file server, mail server or web server is going to be encrypted via SSL or over a VPN.

Any half way competent admin treats wifi as an external network, regardless of encryption used on it, even their own internal wifi networks.

So fucking WHAT if your Starbucks wifi is clear text? You're upset because you're sending it over the air without encryption, but you're fine with the fact that it travels all over the Internet with no encryption? You're afraid someone at the airport may snoop you via wifi, but you don't care if they snoop you via the lan the wifi connects to? You somehow think that because it requires a password, that all the other people that have the password somehow can't see what your sending?

If its public, you're retarded for encrypting it or worrying about the encryption. Everything you're going to do that needs security has a different, BETTER way of handling security and encryption than ANYTHING wifi has to offer.

You don't need to 'share' wifi and use 'wpa or wpa2' at the same time, just fucking make it clear text and stop acting like its 'super secure' when its not. If anyone can buy in or someone easily get your wifi key than your encryption is 100% pointless. Wifi passwords are only useful as a limited effectiveness way of preventing people from using your bandwidth, thats it, nothing more.

Anyone who thinks they are 'secure' because of wifi encryption is just ignorant. Theres no reason for a hotspot to be encrypted, its there to be shared.

And for fucking reference, a hotspot is a place that allows random people to connect. Your WAP at home isn't a freaking hotspot, its just a wireless router. You don't have a hotspot in your home, Starbucks has one, McDonalds has one, the Airport has one. You have a WAP.

So you know why there are a lot of unencrypted hotspots? BECAUSE ITS RETARDED TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY, the only reason it gets done other ways is shear ignorance and paranoia because of other twits on the Internet that scream OMG ENCRYPTION ENCRYPTION ENCRYPTION!@$!@%$!@%.