Photo: CC/Niall Kennedy
Universal Hub relays the news that Boston’s languishing municipal Wi-Fi project–that is, its government-run wireless internet service–has been reinvented as an ad-hoc, mesh network:
The effort initially focused on traditional wireless access points (like the ones you can see on lightpoles all over Brookline), but organizers realized that would prove impossibly expensive and so are now using a “mesh” approach, in which each subscriber’s computer is essentially equipped to act as an access point through a cheapo router. The result: Free WiFi in parts of the Fenway.
This is not likely to be good news for individual privacy and security.
First, consider the following:
- Muni Wi-Fi projects in other cities have been marred by conflicts of interest and mismanagement
- Users in other cities are already being charged for what they were told was going to be “free” access
- Boston is among the cities planning to piggyback police and other government communications onto its muni Wi-Fi network. (This “dual use” for the network has the potential to bring Homeland Security dollars into the city’s coffers.)
Now, for the “ad-hoc” piece:
- Some of the equipment Boston will be using was developed with money from sources with direct ties to the intelligence community.
- Ad-hoc networks were not created with privacy and security in-mind. Rather, the technology was first deployed in vineyards and parking lots.
- Ad-hoc wireless networks are more prone to unreliable connections and speeds–which means the folks on Mission Hill, and in Boston’s other poor neighborhoods, will be getting less service for their money.
- Cheap wireless equipment might also be more vulnerable to backdoor attacks.
Hi Mark,
I am openairboston’s Project Manager in Fenway and Mission Hill and I’d like to clear up a few points:
1. Our organization is a separate non-profit from the city. Although we have a strong relationship with the City the network is in no way “government run”
2. Regarding your point about Meraki’s funding ties to the intelligence community – we are not using Meraki technology or its predecssor roofnet.
3. I do not believe that it is accurate to say that ad-hoc networks were not created with security in mind. The routing protocol we are using for example is also used by NATO. Additionally, while the hardware we’re using may be inexpensive, the software is highly standardized (openwrt). We have been telling users that using our network is no different from a security perspective from using any other free wifi network, whether at a coffee shop or somewhere else. We recommend that users concerned about security consider VPN connections and take other precautions such as using secure webmail sites.
4. I do not believe it is accurate to say that ad-hoc networks are, per se, less reliable than traditional means of doing municipal wireless. A large part of our focus is on offering connections in low-income neighborhoods and we are committed to delivering a high-quality, free service.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0