[CWN-Summit] Sinister Tmobile

[steve at neobio.org]

When i blogged about the situation to see if others had the same problem
connecting, the lone response was to go to the coffee shop across the street
inside one of the theaters.  Didn't know there was one and proves Sascha's
point about $tarbuck$ shooting themselves in the foot.  If the other cafe
uses one of Cleveland's local roasters, you can guess where I'll be hanging
out downtown.

Just another thought, if some of what Mike was saying is happening, isn't
that interfering with a legitimate signal and illegal?  What say the
legal-eagles at EFF, New America, and MAP?

Steve Goldberg
Tremont Wifi Neighborhood
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:13:59 -0500
> From: Michael Oh <oh at techsuperpowers.com>
> Subject: [CWN-Summit] Re: CWN-Summit Digest, Vol 5, Issue 2
> To: cwn-summit at lists.cuwireless.net
> Message-ID: <1772AA3D-4EC5-11D9-A625-000A95CD64A2 at techsuperpowers.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> > Could Tmobile be doing something sinister here?  Have any of you come
> > across similar stories in your cities?
> >
> > Steveg
> > Tremont Wifi Neighborhood
>
> Something similar, but not directly related.  There was a time that
> Starbucks had APs that would allow you to ping the broadcast address
> and then find others on the network, presumably allowing you to file
> share and things, etc.
>
> Recently (i.e. in the last few months), Starbucks has increased their
> security to include 802.1x as well, which I suspect means either new
> APs or new firmware on their boxes.  At the same time, it looks like
> they do some sort of blocking between wireless connections, so that
> even if you know the other person's IP on wireless, you can't do
> anything - no file sharing, pinging, nothing.  Sorry, guys, no more
> file sharing at Starbucks.
>
> [As a side note, the reason that we found this out was for a TV spot
> where they wanted us to prove that Starbucks was just as insecure as
> other networks.  Imagine our embarrassment.  Luckily, it made for bad
> TV, so that section went on the cutting room floor.]
>
> It's possible that they're using enterprise technologies that do
> "block" other APs - a la Airespace (I'm not sure how they do it), but I
> would think it would be unlikely for you to even attach to an AP if
> that was the case.
>
> Short story: they're much more secure than you think they are, so it's
> possible they're also a lot sneakier.
>
> Mike
>
> -------
> Tech Superpowers, Inc. - "Technology for Genius®"
> 252 Newbury Street
> Boston, MA 02116
>
> [Phone]   (617) 267-9716   [Email]     oh at techsuperpowers.com
> [Fax]     (617) 267-8927   [Email 911] pageoh at techsuperpowers.com
> [Pager]   (888) 377-9591   [Web]       http://www.techsuperpowers.com
>
> [PSST!] Get our monthly e-mail newsletter -
> http://www.techsuperpowers.com/TQ
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:47:11 -0600 (CST)
> From: Sascha Meinrath <sascha at ucimc.org>
> Subject: Re: [CWN-Summit] Re: CWN-Summit Digest, Vol 5, Issue 2
> To: National Summit on Community Wireless Networking Participant
> E-mail List <cwn-summit at lists.cuwireless.net>
> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412151342580.25187 at imsahp.cu.groogroo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> This is a really sad development.  Basically, it's an artificial limiting
> of the resources that would otherwise be available to network users.
> Basically eliminating the LAN aspects of a WAP.  Seems rather foolhardy to
> me, but then again, the whole pay-for-access business model is pretty
> silly.
>
> But it is strange that Starbucks wants to shoot itself in the other foot
> -- spending time and money to make the service _less_ useful to customers.
>
> --Sascha
>