I first came across the metal binder idea from Instructables. I then came across the traffic sign binder via Make. Having a middle schooler who can’t seem to keep a binder intact for longer than a week the metal binder idea appealed to me.
[click to continue…]
{ 0 comments }
For the sake of clarity and brevity I will use TOS to refer to both Terms of Service (TOS) and Acceptable Use Policy (AUP).
After I wrote my post on the EFF’s “Open Wireless Movement” essay I realized that in addition to trivializing the need for wireless security the EFF also failed to point out that sharing your home Internet connection is likely a violation of your Internet Service Provider’s (ISP) Terms of Service (TOS). Violating your ISP’s TOS could get your Internet service suspended or terminated.
For example, Comcast’s residential TOS reads [emphasis mine]:
[click to continue…]
{ 0 comments }
Also see my related post EFF’s “Open Wireless Movement” Could Get You Terminated
I discussed the issue of leaving your WiFi network open back in 2008 after reading an article in Wired were Bruce Schneier mused that an open WiFi network (that is, one without encryption) is nothing to worry about and went as far as to recommended that everyone open their WiFi up to the world.
It was a bad idea then and it still is but that does not stop the normally privacy and security conscious EFF from going against their own advice and publishing an essay that trivialities the effectiveness of WPA and implies that everyone should disable WPA (because it’s not doing you any good anyway) and open up their WiFi for the greater good.
From the EFF essay [emphasis mine]:
The problem that’s really killing open WiFi is the idea that an unlocked network is a security and privacy risk.
This idea is only partially true. Computer security experts will argue at great length about whether WEP, WPA and WPA2 actually provide security, or just a false sense of security. Both sides are partially correct: none of these protocols will make anyone safe from hacking or malware (WEP is of course trivial to break, and WPA2 is often easy to break in practice), but it’s also true that even a broken cryptosystem increases the effort that someone nearby has to go to in order to eavesdrop, and may therefore sometimes prevent eavesdropping.
This essay explains why the progressive locking of wireless networks is harmful — for convenience, for privacy and for efficient use of the electromagnetic spectrum.
The essay never explains how securing WiFi is harmful to privacy. I really wish it had because that would have been a huge revelation to me. That statement alone is almost enough to call for a ceasing of donations to the EFF until they get their head on straight and print a retraction.
[click to continue…]
{ 0 comments }
