
Activist pulls off clever Wi-Fi honeypot to protest surveillance state - etiam
http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/01/activist-pulls-off-clever-wi-fi-honeypot-to-protest-surveillance-state/
======
simplicio
Seems like kind of a weak attempt at a ' _gotcha_ '. I don't think there's
really any expectations that attendees at a conference are only doing work
related things 100% of the time. The fact that politician X was reading the
paper online while waiting for a talk to start is pretty weak tea.

If anything, I think this sort of reinforces what a lot of people think about
these sort of surveillance concerns. That their web-traffic isn't
particularity interesting, so they don't really care if the gov't, or
whomever, knows about it.

~~~
ersii
So, this isn't any regular conference. This is a conference filled with mostly
Swedish politicians, some in government/office and a lot of different Swedish
agency officials. Then there's of course some foreign dignitaries, as well as
press and a few select normal persons.

It wasn't translated, but in the Swedish press release - they note that
"Myndigheten för Samhällsskydd och beredskap", the Swedish equivalent of FEMA
in the US - had at least one official agency staffer connecting to their
agency e-mail server over this insecure/open network.

That said, most conference attendees are at the conference in their official
capacity, ie. at work.

~~~
hvidgaard
If that is a security risk, then they ought to make the mail unconnectable
outside their own network and demand VPN usage. You cannot blame the person
for a poor security setup within his organization.

------
excitom
> Still, he concluded his statement to Swedish media by observing the “good
> news that through our reconnaissance we could not find any preparation for
> terrorist activities.”

Well played, sir.

~~~
psykovsky
Now we know their actions were justified!

------
shitlord
It would be pretty funny if he had actually modified the web pages people
view, especially considering the attendees. They would go to
[http://www.example.com/economy](http://www.example.com/economy) and see that
everything is crashing, when in reality, everything is fine. It would send a
stronger message, IMO. :)

~~~
justatdotin
> in reality, everything is fine.

what world do you live in?

~~~
lazzlazzlazz
This one? Earth? What about you?

~~~
sp332
On the planet I'm from, the economy is crap.

~~~
wyager
>On the planet I'm from, the economy is crap.

By what metric? For some reason, it seems to be a pretty common media
complaint that "the economy is bad", and people seem to take that at face
value. In reality, by most metrics, the worldwide economy is doing pretty
well, and the media is just manufacturing artificial problems per usual.

~~~
vdaniuk
By the metric of more than 3 billion people living on less than $2.50 a
day[0]. Artificial problem, right?

[0][http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-
sta...](http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats)

~~~
gambiting
But by that metric economy was NEVER doing well. Ever. So what is your
suggestion, do we just keep saying that economy is bad until .....what
exactly? How do you define "bad" or "good" economy? I would say that an
economy where we have achieved the lowest poverty levels across the human race
in the history is "pretty damn good". As for the starving children in
Africa(or America,or anywhere else) - we will fix that too.

~~~
collyw
Depends on how you define poverty. Living on a couple of dollars a day was
probably quite good many years ago. So now we have millions living on $2.50.
we are doing better, right?

I personally want to see a far greater redistribution of the wealth. What the
point in a county having economic growth if it only affects 1% who are already
comfortably well off?

As for staving children in Africa, what have you done to help exactly. You
claim you are fixing it? How? Writing a mobile app?

~~~
gambiting
I feel like you are missing the point entirely. Economy is doing better than
at any point in human history, and so do we as a human species. There is less
people dying today from hunger or diseases than in any point in known history,
and these numbers are falling every single year.

And why are you so aggressive in asking me how I am helping? That's none of
your business - and I meant that again, as a society, we are fixing those
issues. We are sending humanitarian aid, we are sending food, we are
establishing helping programmes at home. When I say "we will fix those issues"
I mean we, as humans, will fix them.

So once again...why would you define the economy as bad, when it's in better
shape than ever before? You can make another clever point about wealthy people
becoming more wealthy,but it doesn't change the broader outlook.

~~~
collyw
[http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global-
wealt...](http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global-wealth-oxfam-
inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland)

Economy is doing well for the one percent. Unemployment is high here in
Eurpoe. Apparently its the same in the States if you compare it to 2006. Many
of the jobs that have been created in recent years are low paid, unstable
jobs, not the sort you would base a career on.

You define that the economy is doing well, ignoring that fact that many people
are a lot less well off than they were a few years ago. Inequality is rising.
Fewer people own a larger share of the wealth. Many people _are_ struggling.

Your claims of helping have absolutely no substance, which is why I am
questioning them.

~~~
gambiting
No substance? I imagine the trillions of dollars spent globally on charity are
"absolutely no substance"? That every humanitarian aid we sent to countries
struck with disease or famine is "absolutely no substance"? We as humans are
doing more than ever before - no one was sending food aid to Africa 100 years
ago,because we had our own problems at home - but now, because of the improved
_economy_ we can!

Sure, middle and working class workers make less now than they did in 1990
dollars. So what? An average human being is much less likely to die from
illness or starvation than as little as 100 years ago, and you keep iterating
that the top 1% make more money than ever before?

But you know what, whatever - let's say that the economy is shit if you
insist. I still keep asking(for the 3 time now!) what is your definition of
the good economy then?

~~~
collyw
Your claim of " As for the starving children in Africa(or America,or anywhere
else) - we will fix that too." had no substance.

I would prefer a more stable fairer economy that rewarded the people actually
doing the work rather than the owners of capital. People that are working a
full time job or more should not need to have to worry about being able to
afford essentials like rent and food (the UK has seen a huge growth in the use
of food banks despite your thriving economy).

Technology is making many things better, but not fairer. And why do you choose
100 years ago as your comparison? Why not 2006?

~~~
gambiting
Because I am looking at the large scale of things, while you concentrate on
the few last years. This is the problem between our arguments. You refuse to
see that as society we are doing better than ever before, consistently
pointing out how things have gotten bad in the last few years. Yeah, they have
- that doesn't change the broad outlook.

As for the food banks - fantastic! That means that the system is working - if
you are hungry, you _will not starve_ because the economy can afford to feed
hungry people even if they don't have a job! Don't you think that this is a
success?

~~~
collyw
Generally when speaking about economics, people are talking in those sort of
timescales or shorter, not over a hundred years. So economically we are doing
poorly.

As for your food banks comment - I think you are a fool or a troll.

