Welcome to Gaia! ::

Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

N3bu
This doesn't help when people think using a computer like a hacker is like the movie 'hackers' thanks to hollywood.

I'm sorry. I don't know if that was directed at me but I want to clear this up anyway.

The most important security feature of Low Power Bluetooth and NFC is the extremely limited range. Bluetooth proper had about a 15m range and even that was exploited thoroughly. I used my cheap Nokia to push anonymous messages through a contact card transfer vulnerability. If I could trick them into a pair, I'd control every aspect of their phone, though I only ever really managed that as a prank on friends. Combine the two and you'd have a scheme set up.

People encourage you to secure WiFi access points for a reason. An attacker on the same access point as you has full access to the stream of information between you and the target, to swap and intercept data as they please. You don't even have to take my word for it. Install Network Spoofer on any rooted Android device and you'll be swapping all the pictures on your network's devices with trollface in five taps. dSploit, if it's not exactly your network. A child could use these tools, no exaggeration.

So with the extended range of a cell tower-strength WiFi hub and the vulnerabilities of having unknown people on your network, my concerns are valid.
I like this and also hate this. I can see the benefits; FREE INTERNET! However, as much as I support the government, that is a bit too far for my own taste. I mean sure if you do nothing wrong, but the mere fact they could just watch you as you log into your bank, or e-mail has me worried.
I'd support this, but the major issue is that nothing is free. Well, except Linux.

The issue is with it being nationwide and free, it has to be paid by something, so it'll probably be ad-supported, or even worse adware-supported.
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Sen Natsu
The issue is with it being nationwide and free, it has to be paid by something, so it'll probably be ad-supported, or even worse adware-supported.
When the government provides free things, they are paid for with taxes. Roads have ads on them, but they aren't put there by the city to pay for maintaining the road, they're put there because eyes are there. (Actually, they're mostly put there by ClearChannel.)

Also, pretty much everything on the internet is ad-supported anyway.
Disa Uniflora's avatar

Perfect Hunter

9,450 Points
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Jolly Roger 50
  • Brandisher 100
Aside from the old days when I still used to get pop-ups, I can't say I've ever been bothered by the presence of ads in itself. Maybe once upon a time I cared about the invasiveness of sites tracking your activity (and tailoring ads to you based on that, but obviously the tracking is the worrisome component) but as I've grown up I think I've just accepted that I have no future as a social activist, I don't think the Canadian government is someday going to put me in a camp because I visited this site or that, and I'm fine with being a faceless packet of data in a massive ******** database somewhere. *I* don't think I'm that interesting, I'd be really surprised if anybody else did.

So, to me, internet everywhere is nothing but good news. I don't care about anybody else, they can opt not to use it if they're so upset, like every other human being who existed before the internet came alone. All other security issues are worth looking at and addressing, but I'm not going to throw away the beautiful wifi infrastructure for what criminals might try to do through it.
Lord Cameron
Quote:
The federal government wants to create super WiFi networks across the nation, so powerful and broad in reach that consumers could use them to make calls or surf the Internet without paying a cellphone bill every month.

The proposal from the Federal Communications Commission has rattled the $178 billion wireless industry, which has launched a fierce lobbying effort to persuade policymakers to reconsider the idea, analysts say. That has been countered by an equally intense campaign from Google, Microsoft and other tech giants who say a free-for-all WiFi service would spark an explosion of innovations and devices that would benefit most Americans, especially the poor.

Designed by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the plan would be a global first. When the U.S. government made a limited amount of unlicensed airwaves available in 1985, an unexpected explosion in innovation followed."

link

One side of me loves this idea because of the obvious benefits. Also it would spur the ISP industries to have to provide better internet service, because the only flaw America currently has is that it's internet is from the nineties. Also it would help the poor, ect.

But the other side of me believes...

It would be the mark of the beast system and you'll need a chip to access your free internet and answer your free obama phones.

That this is a blatant attempt to have a government monitor placed in every home, neigh, every device.

It's UNHEALTHY to have terabytes of computer information pass through you 24/7

it's thinkable but to me it seams far more plausible that access could very well be unrestricted, simply because it is easier to police, after all everyone would have the right to access said internet.
Phallic Wonderland's avatar

Distinct Browser

10,950 Points
  • Grunny Rainbow 100
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Forum Regular 100
Think of all the ads... I'd still go for it.
TANRailgun's avatar

Familiar Smoker

Lord Cameron
Quote:
The federal government wants to create super WiFi networks across the nation, so powerful and broad in reach that consumers could use them to make calls or surf the Internet without paying a cellphone bill every month.

The proposal from the Federal Communications Commission has rattled the $178 billion wireless industry, which has launched a fierce lobbying effort to persuade policymakers to reconsider the idea, analysts say. That has been countered by an equally intense campaign from Google, Microsoft and other tech giants who say a free-for-all WiFi service would spark an explosion of innovations and devices that would benefit most Americans, especially the poor.

Designed by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the plan would be a global first. When the U.S. government made a limited amount of unlicensed airwaves available in 1985, an unexpected explosion in innovation followed."

link

One side of me loves this idea because of the obvious benefits. Also it would spur the ISP industries to have to provide better internet service, because the only flaw America currently has is that it's internet is from the nineties. Also it would help the poor, ect.

But the other side of me believes...

It would be the mark of the beast system and you'll need a chip to access your free internet and answer your free obama phones.

That this is a blatant attempt to have a government monitor placed in every home, neigh, every device.

It's UNHEALTHY to have terabytes of computer information pass through you 24/7
Couple problem with your misgivings:

First of all: Why? Why would the US government need to, or even want to, monitor your every online interaction? Wouldn't having to sift through all that worthless crap in hopes of say...identifying a security threat, be terribly inefficient and a huge waste of time and resources? Which brings us to the next question: How? Do you have any idea the time, energy, money, and man/processing power such a monitoring operation would cost? It would be completely impractical. Then theres all the legal and political problems with such an operation. I mean ********, Obama cant even get away with a hypothetical drone strike on US soil. Somthing that never has happened, and most likely never will, you really think he could pull something like this off?
Trollzors Vader's avatar

Quotable Lunatic

7,100 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Tycoon 200
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
Je Nique vos Merdiers
So they're going to make tens of thousands (conservatively) to millions of wireless APs and keep them powered on year round? And then maintain them? And I suppose they won't want to spend much money on this, so all these devices are probably going to come from China. And of course, WiFi has a limited number of channels, so this is going to interfere with other 2.4GHz networks.

That's not even mentioning the obvious ulterior motives for all parties involved.
Actually they could use something like cell phones use for far cheaper, and upgrade it that way... A few small upgrades in certain preexisting technologies would mean I never pay a cell phone bill again.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games