4 ms·

They seem to contradict their own statement of purpose in their FAQ. First, they imply that the primary use would be for your own wireless network: > "It is pe

by FreakyT 12y ago

They seem to contradict their own statement of purpose in their FAQ. First, they imply that the primary use would be for your own wireless network: > "It is perfectly legal to block any device you choose from a wireless network you own and/or administer. " ...but then change gears and imply that the real use is to plug it in at coffee shops and the like: > "Cyborg Unplug isn't designed for use in those cases where there is already strict control over who uses the local wireless network. Rather, it's for those with networks used by many people (school, office, library, bar, cafe) that either give out the password or provide an open network." As much as I like privacy, this seems less focused on personal protection and more on imposing your own will on other people's public networks because of your dislike for other people's taste in devices.

icebraining 12y ago
I read that as, this is not for network owners who already require authentication to access their networks, but for networks owners who run open APs. I don't see the implication that this is for non-owners.
- FreakyT 12y ago
  That thought did occur to me -- but it seems like that could be better achieved simply by reconfiguring your AP as opposed to introducing a new device entirely.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    An AP won't have a checkbox to kick out a Google Glass device, nor will it auto-update the list of such devices. Essentially, this is a plug-and-play solution to the problem of: (1) having to learn about what distinguishes these devices (when most AP owners don't know what a MAC is) (2) having to understand if and how their AP allows to ban those devices (I'm assuming they ban based on a MAC prefix, which many APs won't allow you to ban, only full addresses) and (3) keep up to date with new devices. There is plenty of money to be made from people who have more money than time and interest to learn how to solve these small problems.

by FreakyT 12y ago

icebraining 12y ago

I read that as, this is not for network owners who already require authentication to access their networks, but for networks owners who run open APs. I don't see the implication that this is for non-owners.

FreakyT 12y ago
That thought did occur to me -- but it seems like that could be better achieved simply by reconfiguring your AP as opposed to introducing a new device entirely.
- icebraining 12y ago
  An AP won't have a checkbox to kick out a Google Glass device, nor will it auto-update the list of such devices. Essentially, this is a plug-and-play solution to the problem of: (1) having to learn about what distinguishes these devices (when most AP owners don't know what a MAC is) (2) having to understand if and how their AP allows to ban those devices (I'm assuming they ban based on a MAC prefix, which many APs won't allow you to ban, only full addresses) and (3) keep up to date with new devices. There is plenty of money to be made from people who have more money than time and interest to learn how to solve these small problems.