5 ms·

I'm curious—what are the philosophical reasons for not having a password on your network?

by jer0me 2y ago

uselesswords 2y ago
Gratuitously, maybe he has a device that can’t connect to WiFi network with a password. Realistically, probably just laziness. Neither of these are philosophical though…
nkurz 2y ago
It's a mixture of things, some philosophical and some practical. I live in a very rural area with poor cell phone coverage. I'm happy to provide a WiFi signal for the lost people who are in front of my house trying to figure out why their GPS has led them here. We get a few each year, because Google Maps shows the road past my house going through while in reality it's closed in winter. I also like it that I don't need to play the "what's the password" game with houseguests. I like that I don't need to input passwords to screenless devices using clumsy and slow input methods. I like the idea that the default should be sharing what you can afford to share rather than keeping everything private by except by special arrangement. More generally, I don't think that closed networks substantially improve security and I don't like the push to require them. It's great to have the option to keep people off of your network through passwords or MAC filtering, but I don't like it being the default. I don't like technology that tries to enforce its own opinion about social norms. Contrary to the other poster, it's not laziness. At this point it's frequently more difficult to host an open network than a password protected one. It might not be a good idea, but it's a conscious choice.
- lsaferite 2y ago
  You could always run two wifi network SSIDs (depending on your gear I guess). Then you have the ability to have open wifi for guests, but also keep your other devices on a segregated network as an extra layer in your personal security profile.
  - nkurz 2y ago
    I definitely could, and technically it would be easy. This is probably the way most people would solve this. But I don't because I don't like giving in to opinionated technology. But I may end up doing so if I eventually encounter a home appliance where I really do want to connect to it.
- uselesswords 2y ago
  These are all practical reasons, not really philosophical. Unless any form of logic is philosophical but then everything is. If your claiming your philosophical stance is setting passwords doesn’t provide security, by your own reasoning in your case that’s just a matter of practicality. There is no philosophical argument. > More generally, I don't think that closed networks substantially improve security and I don't like the push to require them. I mean that’s just your opinion, not a philosophical stance, and it happens to be a empirically demonstrably false one. > I don't like technology that tries to enforce its own opinion about social norms. This statement is so vague it’s practically useless. It can just be selectively applied against anything you don’t like. All technology is opinionated. From the layout of your keyboard to this site, everything is shaped by and shapes social norms. It would also be an opinionated technology if it decided not to ask you to set a password by default. You might as well have said I don’t like WiFi passwords because I don’t like WiFi passwords and it would’ve carried the exact same message.
  - trinix912 2y ago
    Sorry but I fail to comprehend what you are trying to do here. First you say that none of their reasons are philosophical, then a few lines down you go after the person by "I mean that’s just your opinion, not a philosophical stance, and it happens to be a empirically demonstrably false one." Isn't that exactly what a philosophical stance is? Someone's personal opinion, whether it be right or wrong (in your book). Honestly, I find your response quite rude compared to the general tone of responses on this site.
    - uselesswords 1y ago
      Granted my response was a bit more hostile than the general tone of responses on this site. The person I was replying to had made a very large claim about passwords and general security that ran counter to what I think we can agree are generally well-understood principles of security and claimed he had philosophical reasons for doing so. The amount of confidence in his response rubbed me the wrong way and probably raised my own arrogance, sure. > I don't think that closed networks substantially improve security and I don't like the push to require them. You know what, you're right this is a philosophical stance, as dumb as a stance I might think it to be. My actual issue with his "philosophy" is that he makes a broad generalization when the statement really just applies to his unique use case. I didn't consider it to be a philosophical stance because I didn't think he seriously meant it as a systematic approach for the entire world but honestly re-reading what he wrote I think he does actually. Honestly I take bigger issue with what he believes is a stance against opiniated technology but all technology is inherently opiniated his opinions are just different.

I'm curious—what are the philosophical reasons for not having a password on your network?

by jer0me 2y ago

I'm curious—what are the philosophical reasons for not having a password on your network?

Gratuitously, maybe he has a device that can’t connect to WiFi network with a password. Realistically, probably just laziness. Neither of these are philosophical though…

nkurz 2y ago

It's a mixture of things, some philosophical and some practical. I live in a very rural area with poor cell phone coverage. I'm happy to provide a WiFi signal for the lost people who are in front of my house trying to figure out why their GPS has led them here. We get a few each year, because Google Maps shows the road past my house going through while in reality it's closed in winter. I also like it that I don't need to play the "what's the password" game with houseguests. I like that I don't need to input passwords to screenless devices using clumsy and slow input methods. I like the idea that the default should be sharing what you can afford to share rather than keeping everything private by except by special arrangement. More generally, I don't think that closed networks substantially improve security and I don't like the push to require them. It's great to have the option to keep people off of your network through passwords or MAC filtering, but I don't like it being the default. I don't like technology that tries to enforce its own opinion about social norms. Contrary to the other poster, it's not laziness. At this point it's frequently more difficult to host an open network than a password protected one. It might not be a good idea, but it's a conscious choice.

lsaferite 2y ago
You could always run two wifi network SSIDs (depending on your gear I guess). Then you have the ability to have open wifi for guests, but also keep your other devices on a segregated network as an extra layer in your personal security profile.
- nkurz 2y ago
  I definitely could, and technically it would be easy. This is probably the way most people would solve this. But I don't because I don't like giving in to opinionated technology. But I may end up doing so if I eventually encounter a home appliance where I really do want to connect to it.
uselesswords 2y ago
These are all practical reasons, not really philosophical. Unless any form of logic is philosophical but then everything is. If your claiming your philosophical stance is setting passwords doesn’t provide security, by your own reasoning in your case that’s just a matter of practicality. There is no philosophical argument. > More generally, I don't think that closed networks substantially improve security and I don't like the push to require them. I mean that’s just your opinion, not a philosophical stance, and it happens to be a empirically demonstrably false one. > I don't like technology that tries to enforce its own opinion about social norms. This statement is so vague it’s practically useless. It can just be selectively applied against anything you don’t like. All technology is opinionated. From the layout of your keyboard to this site, everything is shaped by and shapes social norms. It would also be an opinionated technology if it decided not to ask you to set a password by default. You might as well have said I don’t like WiFi passwords because I don’t like WiFi passwords and it would’ve carried the exact same message.
- trinix912 2y ago
  Sorry but I fail to comprehend what you are trying to do here. First you say that none of their reasons are philosophical, then a few lines down you go after the person by "I mean that’s just your opinion, not a philosophical stance, and it happens to be a empirically demonstrably false one." Isn't that exactly what a philosophical stance is? Someone's personal opinion, whether it be right or wrong (in your book). Honestly, I find your response quite rude compared to the general tone of responses on this site.
  - uselesswords 1y ago
    Granted my response was a bit more hostile than the general tone of responses on this site. The person I was replying to had made a very large claim about passwords and general security that ran counter to what I think we can agree are generally well-understood principles of security and claimed he had philosophical reasons for doing so. The amount of confidence in his response rubbed me the wrong way and probably raised my own arrogance, sure. > I don't think that closed networks substantially improve security and I don't like the push to require them. You know what, you're right this is a philosophical stance, as dumb as a stance I might think it to be. My actual issue with his "philosophy" is that he makes a broad generalization when the statement really just applies to his unique use case. I didn't consider it to be a philosophical stance because I didn't think he seriously meant it as a systematic approach for the entire world but honestly re-reading what he wrote I think he does actually. Honestly I take bigger issue with what he believes is a stance against opiniated technology but all technology is inherently opiniated his opinions are just different.