3 ms·

I totally agree that captive portals suck and we should name and shame anybody using them, especially ones that are poorly built. But, there has to be some rea

by neuland 10y ago

I totally agree that captive portals suck and we should name and shame anybody using them, especially ones that are poorly built. But, there has to be some reason that these exist right? To get rid of captive portals, there needs to be this functionality in the underlying protocols: - Requiring Terms of Service - Showing a special site from the service provider (like the page Starbucks takes you to after "Accept and Connect") - Selecting what kind of connection you want (like at airports and hotels where there's free and paid) - Login to some system the service provider controls (also airports and hotels w/ paid plans) - ... and, potentially other things I haven't seen Edit: Somewhere else in this thread, kelleboo mentioned this [0] [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7710 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7710

guitarbill 10y ago
> To get rid of captive portals, there needs to be this functionality in the underlying protocols Not really - I don't think implementing legal considerations into technology is the way to go. Mainly because laws vary by country and laws also change independently from technology. For example, in Germany, EULAs only valid if agreed on at the time of purchase of the goods or service. If presented after purchase, even if you have to click some "I agree" button, they are not valid. (And even then, they can't contradict German consumer law.) I don't believe anybody has sued because of WiFi, but then the question becomes when does service start? When you connect, or when you click accept? Keep in mind that some devices like Nintendo DS' or Kindles can't use captive portals, better implementations of portals recognise these devices and let them connect. In reality, what does the ToS really way, anyway? Don't do illegal stuff - but that's illegal with or without ToS. For free WiFi, you only have X amount of traffic - well, it's free WiFi, there's no obligation for for service. (Put simply, EULAs and ToS' also need to die - but that's a different discussion.) Billing is more interesting. One argument is it's 2017 - should we really encourage billing for basic WiFi when bandwidth is cheap? One solution could be to give users x amount for free, and only if they use all that use a captive portal. It's not ideal, but at least it doesn't happen right at the start. You could also simply have different SSIDs for paid and free.
- neuland 10y ago
  > Not really - I don't think implementing legal considerations into technology is the way to go. I think that's totally fair to say. But just know that the immediate answer from Starbucks or whoever at that point is "Ok, then we'll continue doing what we have to do". With the ToS/EULA, I think it's really a cover-all protection measure. So, if there's something that the user is doing that is illegal, the service provider is not liable for the user. For example, I go to Starbucks and torrent Star Wars; Disney sues Starbucks for facilitating me or whatever. But I think your last point is where the argument breaks down. Yes, WiFi should probably be free at this point. But, there are tons of reasons that are valid (even marginally) someone would want to have someone connect to some website before connecting to the rest of internet. Without providing some way to do that, the terrible hacks will continue.

by neuland 10y ago

guitarbill 10y ago

> To get rid of captive portals, there needs to be this functionality in the underlying protocols Not really - I don't think implementing legal considerations into technology is the way to go. Mainly because laws vary by country and laws also change independently from technology. For example, in Germany, EULAs only valid if agreed on at the time of purchase of the goods or service. If presented after purchase, even if you have to click some "I agree" button, they are not valid. (And even then, they can't contradict German consumer law.) I don't believe anybody has sued because of WiFi, but then the question becomes when does service start? When you connect, or when you click accept? Keep in mind that some devices like Nintendo DS' or Kindles can't use captive portals, better implementations of portals recognise these devices and let them connect. In reality, what does the ToS really way, anyway? Don't do illegal stuff - but that's illegal with or without ToS. For free WiFi, you only have X amount of traffic - well, it's free WiFi, there's no obligation for for service. (Put simply, EULAs and ToS' also need to die - but that's a different discussion.) Billing is more interesting. One argument is it's 2017 - should we really encourage billing for basic WiFi when bandwidth is cheap? One solution could be to give users x amount for free, and only if they use all that use a captive portal. It's not ideal, but at least it doesn't happen right at the start. You could also simply have different SSIDs for paid and free.

neuland 10y ago
> Not really - I don't think implementing legal considerations into technology is the way to go. I think that's totally fair to say. But just know that the immediate answer from Starbucks or whoever at that point is "Ok, then we'll continue doing what we have to do". With the ToS/EULA, I think it's really a cover-all protection measure. So, if there's something that the user is doing that is illegal, the service provider is not liable for the user. For example, I go to Starbucks and torrent Star Wars; Disney sues Starbucks for facilitating me or whatever. But I think your last point is where the argument breaks down. Yes, WiFi should probably be free at this point. But, there are tons of reasons that are valid (even marginally) someone would want to have someone connect to some website before connecting to the rest of internet. Without providing some way to do that, the terrible hacks will continue.