3 ms·

> It's not opt-in for the owner of the network, who should really have a say in the matter. Why? It’s literally just a shortcut for asking for the password fro

> It's not opt-in for the owner of the network, who should really have a say in the matter. Why? It’s literally just a shortcut for asking for the password from someone who already has it and then having it read it out loud or texted. If the owner of the network doesn’t want that happening they need to explain that in either case.

verandaguy 2y ago
It’s a shortcut that deprives the network owner of agency. As the person running the network, should you not have some degree of control over who gets to join your network, be it fully open, fully closed, or anywhere in between?
- nlawalker 2y ago
  > It’s a shortcut that deprives the network owner of agency. It doesn’t, they have exactly as much agency as they would if the shortcut didn’t exist. > As the person running the network, should you not have some degree of control over who gets to join your network, be it fully open, fully closed, or anywhere in between? If you want more control than a shareable password provides, it’s on you to implement something other than a shareable password. A feature that merely helps people share passwords doesn’t change that.
- austhrow743 2y ago
  How does it change the network owners ability to decide who gets to join their network?
- kalleboo 2y ago
  If you need control over who joins your network, implement 802.1x or a captive portal or something. If you just use a WPA key, people will always share them, you can't stop them, there are literally crowdsourced online databases of "free internet" WiFi keys
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway3306a 2y ago
  Use RADIUS then. If you told someone the password, they can share it
- sussmannbaka 2y ago
  You have that control: allowlist individual devices
- ClassyJacket 2y ago
  The guests could already simply tell each other the password
fireflash38 2y ago
It reminds me a bit of how Waze or Google Maps would end up using access roads as shortcuts with navigation. You let a couple of people use it because you know them. They might tell a few others. Then big tech just sees it as "other people use it, so I'll use it". And now you have no control over your road anymore.

verandaguy 2y ago

It’s a shortcut that deprives the network owner of agency. As the person running the network, should you not have some degree of control over who gets to join your network, be it fully open, fully closed, or anywhere in between?

nlawalker 2y ago
> It’s a shortcut that deprives the network owner of agency. It doesn’t, they have exactly as much agency as they would if the shortcut didn’t exist. > As the person running the network, should you not have some degree of control over who gets to join your network, be it fully open, fully closed, or anywhere in between? If you want more control than a shareable password provides, it’s on you to implement something other than a shareable password. A feature that merely helps people share passwords doesn’t change that.
austhrow743 2y ago
How does it change the network owners ability to decide who gets to join their network?
kalleboo 2y ago
If you need control over who joins your network, implement 802.1x or a captive portal or something. If you just use a WPA key, people will always share them, you can't stop them, there are literally crowdsourced online databases of "free internet" WiFi keys
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throwaway3306a 2y ago
Use RADIUS then. If you told someone the password, they can share it
sussmannbaka 2y ago
You have that control: allowlist individual devices
ClassyJacket 2y ago
The guests could already simply tell each other the password

fireflash38 2y ago

It reminds me a bit of how Waze or Google Maps would end up using access roads as shortcuts with navigation. You let a couple of people use it because you know them. They might tell a few others. Then big tech just sees it as "other people use it, so I'll use it". And now you have no control over your road anymore.