I cannot even remember when this was first announced, let alone anything since. I guess Microsoft's ability to push their services ain't what it used to be...
Agreed. The only time I'd use my phone whilst in a restaurant would be a) to take a photo if it's a birthday party or celebration, or b) if there was really bad service or standards of hygiene, and I wanted proof to back it up when I reported it. Ok, technically there's also c) to take a call, but I would either switch the phone off or put it on silent or vibrate, to avoid pissing off everyone around me.
Whilst WEP encryption has been shown to be very broken and easily defeated, the flaws found so far in WPA and WPA2 are not nearly as easy to utilise. There was a detailed breakdown of this a few years ago on the 'Security Now' podcast by Steve Gibson of GRC (with a little help from Leo Laporte). Here's the transcript of that episode, along with links to download the audio to listen to.
In short, the combination of AES encryption and a strong password make for a network that is going to require a *lot* of work to break into.
The problem is, apparently, that the big copyright holders already did that - except they probably used a brown wheelbarrow.
What is most troubling is that the Digital Britain bill will give Lord Voldem^H^H^H^H^H^HMandelson the ability to do pretty much as he wishes regarding controls over the Internet, without having to trouble himself with asking Parliament if it's OK.:(
FWIW, I am in the UK. Admittedly, I first set up our wireless network back in late 2002, before ISPs started to support such things. Yes, it had WEP security, but at the time that was the best we had. I changed to a newer router a few year back, and we're now on WPA2.
I've heard about these hardwired ISP-provided routers / modems - wasn't aware that they were so widespread now. I can sort of understand why the ISPs go down this route, but it seems to be saving on customer support at the expense of leaving the customer (and ultimately, the ISP too) liable for accusations of copyright theft.
True. Here in the UK, both British Telecom (BT) and VirginMedia will complain but will be probably be able to shoulder the burden anyway. And, as the Phorm debacle revealed, they are not overly concerned about the privacy of their customers...
My ISP wrote to us a few years ago, advising us that we should consider improving the security of our home wireless network, specifically to prevent others from gaining access to our connection. They also mentioned the potential for others to gain access to our computers, but the real thrust was to stop others from using our connection to do illegal stuff. Pretty sure that most other ISPs have done similar, as all of the half-dozen wireless networks visible in our neighbourhood are WPA or WPA2 secured.
So, since most home users have secured their wireless networks, it is now the companies and establishments offering public Wi-Fi that are in the crosshairs of copyright holders (and acquiescent politicians)...
Unfortunately, the way this and other legislation are being crafted, just about everyone connecting to the Internet in any fashion will be considered an outlaw as far as copyright holders are (apparently) concerned. No luck required at all.
Not really anologous to what TFA is dealing with - at least with booze, you've already paid for it once you're in the club. And there's not much prospect of the Government requiring the club to keep records of all the drinks that punters bought, mainly due to the fact that drinks manufacturers and pub / club chains would a) balk at such regulation of their trade, and b) lobby the Government to water down or drop any such proposal.
ISPs hate these proposals even more than we do, since the Government wants them to keep records of Internet traffic for all of their subscribers - that means increased costs to the ISP, which will eventually be passed on to subscribers, meaning fewer subscribers, and possibly even fewer ISPs in the long run as the smaller ones struggle to stay profitable.
As for "protected" WiFi, the protection appears to be mainly against copyright owners having to do any work to prove that someone somewhere has illegally downloaded and/or distributed some of their work.
To be fair to Apple, they only did that the one time - and learnt their lesson *really* quickly! Now it shows up in Apple Software Update, but un-ticked.
Which is fine by me, as I don't have any need for Safari. Already have Firefox for day-to-day browsing, Chrome for testing, and IE for just remote access to work.
Ironically, the first time I tried DLM, it didn't work. So now I know to bypass that and hit the direct download link instead for what I can there for.
I daresay that it will be a lot easier to repackage Sparkle-generated apps and take them from the PC to the Web, and vice versa. That way they have all bases covered - application developers, web developers, web designers moving to web development, application developers moving the web development, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I cannot even remember when this was first announced, let alone anything since. I guess Microsoft's ability to push their services ain't what it used to be...
-MT.
Agreed. The only time I'd use my phone whilst in a restaurant would be a) to take a photo if it's a birthday party or celebration, or b) if there was really bad service or standards of hygiene, and I wanted proof to back it up when I reported it. Ok, technically there's also c) to take a call, but I would either switch the phone off or put it on silent or vibrate, to avoid pissing off everyone around me.
-MT.
Give it enough time, the order will randomise itself. Probably within the comments to this story, too. ;)
-MT.
Ah, but this is the UK Government we're talking about. Would be a greater concern if this was in the hands of anyone competent... ;)
-MT.
I stand corrected.
-MT.
Whilst WEP encryption has been shown to be very broken and easily defeated, the flaws found so far in WPA and WPA2 are not nearly as easy to utilise. There was a detailed breakdown of this a few years ago on the 'Security Now' podcast by Steve Gibson of GRC (with a little help from Leo Laporte). Here's the transcript of that episode, along with links to download the audio to listen to.
In short, the combination of AES encryption and a strong password make for a network that is going to require a *lot* of work to break into.
-MT.
The problem is, apparently, that the big copyright holders already did that - except they probably used a brown wheelbarrow.
What is most troubling is that the Digital Britain bill will give Lord Voldem^H^H^H^H^H^HMandelson the ability to do pretty much as he wishes regarding controls over the Internet, without having to trouble himself with asking Parliament if it's OK. :(
-MT.
Hadn't spotted that.
And he has an impressive track-record, apparently.
Ah, to be young again, and have time to waste posting to Slashdot. :D
(I only visit sporadically these days)
-MT.
FWIW, I am in the UK. Admittedly, I first set up our wireless network back in late 2002, before ISPs started to support such things. Yes, it had WEP security, but at the time that was the best we had. I changed to a newer router a few year back, and we're now on WPA2.
I've heard about these hardwired ISP-provided routers / modems - wasn't aware that they were so widespread now. I can sort of understand why the ISPs go down this route, but it seems to be saving on customer support at the expense of leaving the customer (and ultimately, the ISP too) liable for accusations of copyright theft.
-MT.
True. Here in the UK, both British Telecom (BT) and VirginMedia will complain but will be probably be able to shoulder the burden anyway. And, as the Phorm debacle revealed, they are not overly concerned about the privacy of their customers...
-MT.
My ISP wrote to us a few years ago, advising us that we should consider improving the security of our home wireless network, specifically to prevent others from gaining access to our connection. They also mentioned the potential for others to gain access to our computers, but the real thrust was to stop others from using our connection to do illegal stuff. Pretty sure that most other ISPs have done similar, as all of the half-dozen wireless networks visible in our neighbourhood are WPA or WPA2 secured.
So, since most home users have secured their wireless networks, it is now the companies and establishments offering public Wi-Fi that are in the crosshairs of copyright holders (and acquiescent politicians)...
-MT.
Unfortunately, the way this and other legislation are being crafted, just about everyone connecting to the Internet in any fashion will be considered an outlaw as far as copyright holders are (apparently) concerned. No luck required at all.
-MT.
Not really anologous to what TFA is dealing with - at least with booze, you've already paid for it once you're in the club. And there's not much prospect of the Government requiring the club to keep records of all the drinks that punters bought, mainly due to the fact that drinks manufacturers and pub / club chains would a) balk at such regulation of their trade, and b) lobby the Government to water down or drop any such proposal.
-MT.
ISPs hate these proposals even more than we do, since the Government wants them to keep records of Internet traffic for all of their subscribers - that means increased costs to the ISP, which will eventually be passed on to subscribers, meaning fewer subscribers, and possibly even fewer ISPs in the long run as the smaller ones struggle to stay profitable.
As for "protected" WiFi, the protection appears to be mainly against copyright owners having to do any work to prove that someone somewhere has illegally downloaded and/or distributed some of their work.
-MT.
Ah, I'm on Windows. Guess it's OK if it's on their 'turf', so to speak. Sorry, dude.
-MT.
To be fair to Apple, they only did that the one time - and learnt their lesson *really* quickly! Now it shows up in Apple Software Update, but un-ticked.
Which is fine by me, as I don't have any need for Safari. Already have Firefox for day-to-day browsing, Chrome for testing, and IE for just remote access to work.
-MT.
Ironically, the first time I tried DLM, it didn't work. So now I know to bypass that and hit the direct download link instead for what I can there for.
-MT.
Windows Update has been separated from IE in both Vista and Windows 7 - and apparently it will be backported to XP at some point in the future.
-MT.
You want people to think before posting? Getoutahere! :D
Oh, and before I forget...
In Soviet Russia, the domain deletion concept thought about you! (For a moment)
Good day!
*Chuckle*
That'll teach me to leave Slashdot open on my PC with a dorky cow-orker in the room... please ignore above post.
-MT.
I daresay that it will be a lot easier to repackage Sparkle-generated apps and take them from the PC to the Web, and vice versa. That way they have all bases covered - application developers, web developers, web designers moving to web development, application developers moving the web development, etc.
-MT.
Try sticking something in it....try an male organ of some kind??
Wait a minute... you've gone and read the article?!
/. is torn apart! :)
Quick, someone mod the parent post down, before the fabric of
-MT.
Nah, they're not hippies, just people who've watched too many hair-product commercials...
-MT.