I get where the EFF is coming from. From a technical standpoint, the notion that "WiFi everywhere" could be delivered easily if everyone just opened their netwo

I get where the EFF is coming from. From a technical standpoint, the notion that "WiFi everywhere" could be delivered easily if everyone just opened their networks is sound, but their arguments trivialize a lot of the consequences. Take this gem: "...a desire to prevent their neighbors from "free riding" on their connections; and a fear that unencrypted WiFi is a security or privacy risk. Both of those reasons have a degree of legitimacy..." A degree of legitimacy? The article goes on to state that the risks inherent to untrusted network access have "other solutions", but that's a pretty bold statement. Good security is about layers. If you don't want people snooping on your network communications, you need layered security. Their proposed solution of link-layer security is cool and all, but it's a long ways off. There was a time when I was all about open networks for the common good, but the whole Firesheep fiasco changed my tune pretty quickly.