Hacker News Reader

Comment by mseebach | Hacker News Reader

This is a pretty good idea. It solves the coordination problem of not wanting to just provide free wifi forever to anyone by requiring a token "payment". It solves the identification problem which (unfortunately) is a requirement in many jurisdictions. And it helps non-technical business owners provide decent wifi.

View on HN

What sort of problem is this exactly solving? People seem to get at Wifi no problem at all. Just wander into any Starbucks around 4PM, especially in New York or any major metro and you'll see hordes of people accessing wifi. Is it crowded? Sure? But this doesn't solve that problem. This just eliminates some login steps and provides value to the provider of the wifi.

Do you feel that trading in your privacy to simplify the login problem (and allow you to avoid actually paying the people whose space you are occupying when you use their power and wifi and restroom and hvac) is worth it? It isn't for me, and so I ask, what problem is it solving?

I'm sure that many people will think that tradeoff is worth it - I doubt many people will think about it at all.

Not everyone is a Hacker News reader.

Exactly this. I mean, consider that anyone who wanted to could be monitoring the Wi-Fi they provide to you already. Starbucks could be crawling huge amounts of browsing data daily.

Here in the UK most 'free' hotspot providers like BT or The Cloud already require you to register and give up your personal information to get access. When I've been travelling abroad I've encountered hotspots that require a (local) mobile phone number to get access. Today I accessed a wifi network that wouldn't let me get access unless I agreed to receive marketing material. I see this as an easier way to get access, if you must you could always set up a fake Facebook profile for this.

Also I haven't seen the terms, but I'm wondering if Facebook give out direct personal information. Assuming they don't, would you rather be seen as John Smith of 14 Main Street, DOB 1990-08-23 or 18 - 24 male who likes football?

Interesting. I've never seen that in the Nordic countries or the US. Typically either the wifi is just open entirely, or there's a WPA password written on a little card by the cash register. Helsinki even has open wifi across the whole downtown, and in Denmark all the Baresso locations have open wifi (no login or password). Does the UK have laws requiring the hotspot providers to collect that information, or are they doing it of their own accord for marketing or abuse-reduction reasons?

People in the UK seem strangely at peace with surveillance.

> And it helps non-technical business owners provide decent wifi.

And a more direct, measurable reason to providing wifi. I'm sure if they don't already, they will provide metrics on checkins and impressions from them. Will help FB get future ad spend from them once they are seeing results. Very clever.

> It solves the coordination problem of not wanting to just provide free wifi forever to anyone by requiring a token "payment".

Actually, it doesn't really address that at all. It doesn't discriminate against non-customers (or people in the business next door, or people in their car outside) as long as they have Facebook accounts to check in with. The upshot is that the check-in even from a non-customer is probably worth it to the owner.

> And it helps non-technical business owners provide decent wifi.

Not sure about that, either. I think it's still incumbent on the business owner to acquire and set up one of the supported "smart" routers. Facebook's only help here probably comes in the form of some documentation.

There's nothing decent about WiFi that links your customers to the creepiest personal info vacuum on earth.

Meh. Just filter what you put on Facebook, or don't use it. I'm not in favor of this, and I do find it creepy, but nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you log in and post status updates recapping your day. It's a trade off - the pleasure/whatever you get from FB vs the creepiness/unpleasantness from them having your information. If the balance tips, re-evaluate using the service.

The "don't use it" argument falls apart when you realize that Facebook builds shadow profiles for people who don't use Facebook.

http://www.zdnet.com/firm-facebooks-shadow-profiles-are-frig...

That stuff is creepy, but I always find claims of such-and-such a company stealing "my data" a little weird when that data turns out to be very public information about me such as my name, phone number and what I look like.

Post, don't post, doesn't matter. Your friends who do post will give enough information about you that not having an account wont matter.

Nothing stops someone from tagging you in a photo. Nothing will stop people from posting "Hanging with XXX @ YYY". Putting 2 and 2 together: they now know who you are, types of places you visit, and what you look like. And you never made an account. After this your choices are:

- get radical with friends about what they post about you

- give in and use facebook

- stop hanging out with your friends

Filtering what you put on facebook will not protect you and not using it will not prevent facebook from profiling you but will prevent you from accessing "free" internet from this places.

No it's not. It's the same as answering your business phone by saying "go fuck yourself" and hanging up 1 out of 10 times.

Besides it doesn't solve the identification problem at all, as in lent credentials, fake accounts, hacked accounts and things of this ilk. It turns facebook acounts in commodities to be traded to access the internet.

An the worst part is that it's an attack on the very foundations of the Internet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com