[close04]

> Your analogy is flawed

Of course it isn't. The person making one argument against convenience chose convenience over the massive downsides of using the option with "questionable security" and that is "inherently unreliable". Hence the validity of the claim is undermined. Tomorrow your message might read that "WEP secured WiFi networks are the pinnacle of security and reliability" because dang decided it's a funny thing to do, with little recourse from your side.

The world is not only black or white. You're using the downsides of one extreme as an argument to support the other extreme. Do you realize now that they're both extremes and likely equally wrong?

There's always a balance between security and usability. A sweetspot where the system is convenient to use and still offers as much security as possible. Make it too inconvenient and it's either not used at all or people just end up circumventing all the controls to get that convenience. And this happens ad-hoc, uncontrolled, which is worse.

[the8472]

You seem to mistake this as an either-or-argument. I said that people who realize that wifi is unreliable and insecure will make sure to have other options at their disposal. That does not rule out using wifi when convenient and appropriate (e.g. making a guest wlan available to people who wouldn't trust your ethernet either).

But it should not be the only option since it can't be relied on due to its many problems. Deauth attacks aren't the only issue.