There's a bigger joke here. They are asking people WHO ARE ALREADY NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE ENOUGH TO ADD A WIFI ENCRYPTION to change their network SSID. I think .01% of the population will benefit.
> To opt out, change the SSID (name) of your Wi-Fi access point (your wireless network name) so that it ends with "_nomap." For example, if your SSID is "12345," you would change it to "12345_nomap."
It's silly that the wifi owner has to opt-out of wifi sense. Because it's not like it's already difficult enough for a non-techie to securely configure his access point, no, let's add another thing he has to care/know about.
And the way to opt-out is even sillier: you have to append _optout to your SSID. The SSID should not be used to control the clients behaviour imho.
opting out by adding random strings to your ssid is pretty shady. that's why my wifi scanning startup will require explicit opt-in by adding either "_optout" or "_nomap" to your SSID
The difference is that the wifi opt out method is perfect since they can trust that the person with control of the router's SSID is actually opting out when it receives that list.
> To opt out, change the SSID (name) of your Wi-Fi access point (your wireless network name) so that it ends with "_nomap." For example, if your SSID is "12345," you would change it to "12345_nomap."
That's annoying, but I don't actually care, that much. My access points are locked down about as well as possible, and having them in there actually helps to improve map accuracy. I just switched ISPs, and I'm currently getting ads that think I'm in New Jersey. As soon as my new router gets re-mapped, I'll be getting ads that make it seem as if stock photo models are local lawyers.
Anyone that really wants to get into my access points could probably do so, but I also have a few layers of security (multiple routers of different manufacture), as well as fixed MAC addresses (which is a pain for the iOS devices).
Also, I'm surrounded by neighbors that have much lower-hanging fruit.
Yeah, which is why it is sometimes weirdly safer to not change your SSID - a cracker can assume that someone who figured out how to change the broadcast name could've also changed the WiFi password... often to something much less secure.
I think there are a lot of smart people on HN, but that doesn't mean they're all interested in all the same things. Tweaking wifi settings just seems like a waste of time to me, and boring to top it off. My interaction with my AP stopped at setting the ssid and passphrase.
> Give your neighbor your Wi-Fi password and they can share it with hundreds of their friends automatically.
Give your neighbor your Wi-Fi password, and they can trumpet it on the streets, distribute on pamplets, post it on HN, and update their Facebook status with it.
I am a little shocked at the HN reaction here. I've had a Windows Phone since January and I've thought the feature was not only useful, but a great idea. The only benefit for me has been the automatic TOS acceptance though since nobody else I know has a Windows Phone.
If you're running a "secure" wireless network and don't want anyone else to use it, well, don't give anybody you don't trust the password, and make sure they're not running services like Wi-Fi Sense. Generally speaking, the common man is going to want any of his friends he lets into his house onto his Wi-Fi anyway.
This reminds me that another way for fellow Japanese to help their compatriots would be to remove the passwords on their wireless networks and rename the SSID to "Free Wi-Fi for those who need it".
>What if the owner of the WiFi network wants you to connect but not your friends?
Then they should switch their network to a more complex authentication scheme. Multiple SSIDs, run 802.1x authentication (maybe with certs), MAC filtering maybe (bypassable sure, but will foil most casual users), run their own simple portal and shunt different classes onto different VLANs with different levels of isolation and traffic shaping, etc.
Ultimately if there is one password which then gets any device on, well that's that. Sharing has always been pretty trivial. If the owner of a network wants more fine grained and powerful security, all the tools exist to do that already, but they'll have to use them.
> I still don't have an easy way to authenticate the network I'm joining.
If you're using WPA-Enterprise, yes you can - you need to roll out your own SSL PKI though, and almost no consumer-grade APs support it.
> When I go to someone's home it'd be nice if they could post a QR code for their guest Wi-Fi network and all I'd have to do is scan it to join it. Plus a QR code could elide the need for a password.
That has been a thing for years [1], if you need a generator you can use [2].
Naturally opt-in < opt-out.
reply