EFF To Unveil Open Wireless Router For Open Wireless Movement

hypnosec writes A new movement dubbed the Open Wireless Movement is asking users to open up their private Wi-Fi networks to total strangers – a random act of kindness – with an aim of better securing networks and facilitating better use of finite broadband resources. The movement is supported by non-profit and pro-internet rights organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Mozilla, Open Rights Group, and Free Press among others. The EFF is planning to unveil one such innovation – Open Wireless Router – at the Hackers on Planet Earth (HOPE X) conference to be held next month on New York. This firmware will allow individuals to share their private Wi-Fi to total strangers to anyone without a password.

Comments

Doesn't this violate TOS?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure at least some ISPs stipulate in their terms of service that a subscriber cannot provide internet access to the general public without upgrading to some other (more expensive) plan. Surely we can move towards a more secure internet without strongly hinting that people should violate their contracts.

Re:Doesn't this violate TOS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly this. Some ISPs are sharing wireless from your modem for other ISP customers. But if you share your wireless you are in violation of ToS. You could already find a bomb threat sent from your network... because of the ISP.

Re:Doesn't this violate TOS?

[FatdogHaiku]

You better not use the Internet for homework, because effectively
- your professor is sending you a request,
- you fulfill it using your own bandwidth,
- you give back the answer to the professor.

Exactly like opening up your router.

With latency that can be measured using an hour glass...

Re:Doesn't this violate TOS?

[Charliemopps]

I'm sure at least some ISPs stipulate in their terms of service that a subscriber cannot provide internet access to the general public without upgrading to some other (more expensive) plan. Surely we can move towards a more secure internet without strongly hinting that people should violate their contracts.

I work for a moderately large ISP
The answer to your question is "yes"
but... but you have to understand that the majority of your agreement with your ISP is there to give them legal immunity against your activities. I've worked for several ISPs and none of them cared how their customers used their service.

They only start caring when your activity:
A. Costs them money
B. Gets them into legal jeopardy... which leads back to A

When ISPs got federal immunity from prosecution for the activities of their users, that was a great thing for the users because the ISPs were completely off the hook... so the ISPs wouldn't be policing your activity.

So, that I know of, no ISP has a program where they police what you do. That would be a waste of resources. Bandwidth caps are just there to encourage you to buy larger packages or not suck up all the bandwidth in your neighborhood. They are rarely enforce effectively. They're required to do something about DCMA notices, and I've even been on those teams. It's incredibly labor intensive, and what they are basically doing is telling a PAYING customer that some non-paying customer claims you did something wrong. If you stopped pirating, you might not need Internet. So usually it just ends up that they build some automated system to forward the complaint to you and then they forget about it. If you do other stuff or start causing problems, they yea, they might dig up that data and use it to boot you. But that's VERY rare. I can count the number of times I've seen a customer lose their service on one hand. And that's 14yrs of experience. The few that did get booted usually involved death threats to the billing department. That's how sever it has to get. Even people that launch DDOS attacks get warned that "Someone probably hacked your computer, please fix it."

Re:Doesn't this violate TOS?

[Jane Q. Public]

I'm sure at least some ISPs stipulate in their terms of service that a subscriber cannot provide internet access to the general public without upgrading to some other (more expensive) plan. Surely we can move towards a more secure internet without strongly hinting that people should violate their contracts.

I pay for my bandwidth. What I do with it once I've paid for it is none of my ISP's goddamned business. They aren't my parents, they aren't the government, they aren't the police. They're service providers. So let them provide the service that's paid for, then shut the hell up. If they don't like it they can suck eggs, because I ALREADY PAID FOR IT.

I am literally a block away from my ISP. I've been running an open access point for more than 5 years. And it's a good signal... they can probably see it in their office.

Re:Doesn't this violate TOS?

[NotSanguine]

So, that I know of, no ISP has a program where they police what you do.

Really? That's just not so. What is more, the abusive contracts/TOS/AUP do restrict what you allowed to do. Whether or not that's actively policed is a different question.

These types of restrictions are one of the biggest threats to the real promise of the Internet IMHO -- the truly free sharing of ideas and information.

Re:Doesn't this violate TOS?

[Mr. Slippery]

So, that I know of, no ISP has a program where they police what you do.

My ISP is Sprint/Clearwire. (Complicated corporate and branding relationship.) I got a nastygram from them about peer-to-peer downloads. They didn't care that I was downloads GNU/Linux distros, they didn't want me using PtP at all. (So I got a VPN account and flipped them the bird.)

Reckless

[Anonymous Coward]

Recommending this to users who don't know exactly what they are doing can only be described as reckless. Without significant changes to the law and/or the way the internet works, opening up your network to complete strangers is a minefield and a lawsuit waiting to happen, even if you keep the public Wifi separate and only allow internet access. Please don't put "civilians" at risk to further your cause.

Re:Reckless

[scottbomb]

This. If I didn't have to worry about people torrenting movies or downloading kiddie porn, I'd be happy to share some bandwidth. Unfortunately, the real world dictates I not even consider this.

Re:Reckless

[pradeepsekar]

Just wait till someone sends a bomb threat using your Wifi and you find police at your doorstep wanting to arrest you! The legal framework and the enlightened enforcement do not exist as yet for sharing your internet connection safely with strangers.

Something like this already exists...

[CaptainOfSpray]

In UK. If you have your broadband from BT, you can use wifi from any router that is advertising FON service. You need to logon with your BT account credentials, but it's otherwise free to use. If you are out and about, and you need wifi, just drive into a residential area. There will one or more FON routers on almost any street.

Re:Something like this already exists...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is different. FON gives all guest users their own network address and keeps their account on file for the connection, so whatever they do isn't tied to your account. The OpenWireless router does no such thing. While it separates the guests from each other and your local network, their internet access uses your public IP address and if they do anything illegal or offensive, your account comes up for that. This is intentional, sort of, because these "freedom activists" want to create a critical mass of open wireless networks where the IP can not be used to identify the actual perpetrator. One can only hope that they make this very clear to anyone interested in their router. It's one thing to stand up and say "I am Spartacus", it's quite another to point at someone else and say "he is Spartacus".

I am fine with sharing as long as QoS and firewall

[mrflash818]

I am fine with sharing my network and wi-fi bandwidth, as long as two conditions are met

1. That the open public Wi-Fi is QoS, so it cannot max out my connection, and starve my own private WPA2/AES wi-fi of needed bandwidth (So yes, I will share, but am gonna be a bit frugal on how much I am willing to share. Don't want someone streaming HD movies for free, but email and regular web browsing bandwidth is OK.)

2. That the open Wi-Fi is fully firewalled and separate from my own home network.

Eh?

[ledow]

"with an aim of better securing networks and facilitating better use of finite broadband resources"

If we have finite broadband resources, and they are already scarce enough that customers are demanding more from their connections that can be given to them, why will allowing random passing strangers to decrease the amount of available bandwidth to everyone else help?

Sorry, it's just an open wifi hotspot. We don't want really them in our homes. We certainly don't want random passing strangers to have them on our connection and traceable only to ourselves, for the hassle if nothing else.

Surely my freedom of using my own computing resources trumps anyone else's?

The only thing I can see them useful for is hacking their firmware. Otherwise, I could just switch back on the various options my ISP tries to force onto my router to share with random strangers that I turned off in the first place.

Problem #1: Usage Cap

[Bill_the_Engineer]

My current router allows me to grant guest access to my cable modem with no fear of the guests accessing my local network. Unfortunately thanks to Netflix and Amazon, I'm barely staying within my usage cap with Comcast as it is. Comcast is looking for any excuse to automatically "upgrade" my monthly service for an additional fee, and I'm not going to make that possible by giving away free internet access.

Re:Problem #1: Usage Cap

[mwvdlee]

Problem #2: Liability

In my country, the owner of a router can be held liable for the data transmitted throught it. If some anonymous user uses an open WiFi connection to download child pornography or hacks the pentagon servers, the owner of the router can be held atleast partly responsible. I don't know about regulations in the USA, but I'd damn well make certain the law protects the owner of a router before advising them to open up the connection.

Re:Don't do it in totalitarian USA

[ArcadeMan]

If you happen to need cops when you're in Canada, simply go to your nearest Tim Hortons.

Over 330 hours per month for family of four

[tepples]

For a HD stream, it would take you over 80 hours to reach 250GB. 40, 2hr HD movies. Wow. Just Wow. The average American watches 2.8hrs of TV per day

With four Americans in a household, that could reach 11.2 hours per day, or over 330 hours per month.

Re:I am fine with sharing as long as QoS and firew

[symbolset]

The vast majority of people are not jerks.

Re:I am fine with sharing as long as QoS and firew

[evilad]

Yup. If tomato or dd-wrt had this as a simple on/off feature, I would happily share 1/4 of my bandwidth.