Wireless Internet Access is a Civil Right??

**_Martyr_** · 10-06-2005, 00:32

Actually, you are wrong. Intel is currently working on this WiFi technology to replace GPS in built up areas, its called Precision Location Technology (PLT). The satellite signals needed to triangulate in GPS systems are often blocked by tall buildings, whereas WiFi signals aren't so PLT doesn't suffer from this. Another advantage of the technology is that not only does it give lat and long coordinates, it also gives altitude which is ideal for multi story buildings (you can tell what floor a person is on). I dont have the exact figures for how accurate it is, and obviously it depends on the quality of the signal (as with GPS), but they are blowing it up to be the next big thing in WiFi security because it can supposedly tell if a networked device is inside or outside a given wall, thats a few centimeters... Intel will be submitting this technology to the IEEE's 802.11 standard, so it will be commercially available in the near future I suppose. Already a Finnish company Ekahau have a system commercially available using only todays 802.11 technology that gets an average indoor accuracy of 1m.

About moving around... well, he can still be found. Infact, it would probably be easier to cath a moving target like that! The system works in real time, you get a flashing dot on a 3D map that indicates his location. Ever tried hacking the Pentagon and driving around at the same time?

**Xiahou** · 10-06-2005, 00:39

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

About moving around... well, he can still be found. Infact, it would probably be easier to cath a moving target like that! The system works in real time, you get a flashing dot on a 3D map that indicates his location. Ever tried hacking the Pentagon and driving around at the same time?

This is really off-topic but... Not if you're not transmitting when you move- and, once you've broken a few other systems, a cracker worth their salt would use them as proxies. I'm sorry, but there's no way that putting an entire city on a shared access wireless network won't create security problems.

Even using this alleged tracking system, it'd still require active monitoring of all traffic to identify who the troublemakers are (what, with software programmable MAC addresses?). It's not like in a corporate system where you have a small set of authorized users. You're talking about open access to an entire metropolitan area.

**_Martyr_** · 10-06-2005, 00:48

Here: http://wifi.google.com/download.html

Im not 100% sure how Google put the adds in (im not exactly within WiFi connection distance of the Bay area, so I havent tried it...). The project is still early Beta, so it will probably evolve from what it is now anyway. Its not only about directly inserting extra adds for them either, by using their service they can analyse your internet usage data and sell/use this anonomous market information. Also, by just increasing their profile, Google can charge more for adds. Perhaps they will release a browser that you have to use to be able to use the service, maybe they will be insert adds at the top, side or bottom of any html data that they transmit to you. Who knows! One thing is sure, Google know damn well that they can and will make money from it. Ubiquitous computing, Google style!

**_Martyr_** · 10-06-2005, 01:00

This is really off-topic but... Not if you're not transmitting when you move- and, once you've broken a few other systems, a cracker worth their salt would use them as proxies. I'm sorry, but there's no way that putting an entire city on a shared access wireless network won't create security problems.

And that differs from what we have now how exactly? At least this way the locations would be detectable in real time, as opposed to just having an IP where you need the ISP to divulge information first. I dont contest that there are a lot of issues to be sorted out, I pointed some out myself, but its not going to be a situation where script kiddies and crackers alike can just log on and committ cyber crime with impunity as you suggest. (well, no more than it is today...)

About active monitoring, as I alluded to in my previous post, I think thats the whole point of the thing. Google bots will monitor everything you do, I would imagine there will be a very strictly enforced access blocker, certain sites allowed, certain sites blocked. All operating on a dont like, dont use basis. As I said I dont know, havent used the thing.

**Xiahou** · 10-06-2005, 01:03

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

About active monitoring, as I alluded to in my previous post, I think thats the whole point of the thing. Google bots will monitor everything you do, I would imagine there will be a very strictly enforced access blocker, certain sites allowed, certain sites blocked. All operating on a dont like, dont use basis. As I said I dont know, havent used the thing.

Sounds like civil rights violations to me.

**_Martyr_** · 10-06-2005, 01:11

Haha, yeah. As I said, I agree it was badly phrased. Calling it a civil right was going a little bit of over ambitous in his rhetoric. But the idea is not wrong. The internet is becoming increasingly vital, for this guy to arrange for a private company to set this up in his city is not socialism, its a publicly available private utility. If the guy set up an arrangement with a taxi firm that didnt charge customers but made them look at loads of advertisements and fill out surveys, would you complain? Free movement is a civil right too isnt it!