They've done a pretty good job of scaring people into securing their APs (which is also a legitimate thing in most cases); just publishing some stories about people having ISP service cut off due to freeloaders doing bad stuff would probably be enough; wouldn't even need to try to prosecute some.
>They've done a pretty good job of scaring people into securing their APs
How is this even remotely a bad thing? It's trivial to MITM people on unsecured networks - I can't think of a single consumer router that actually does DHCP snooping to prevent it either.
I think the technology confuses two things:
1. Encrypted traffic between device and wireless hotspot
2. Restricted access to the wireless hotspot (you need a password or it won't give you service)
I want to allow anonymous access, but let the traffic be encrypted. Is there a technical reason why this is not implemented?
I'm very sad by the culture (and moreso, the legal necessity) of restricting wireless access. I want to share, and have at times relied on anonymous wifi to help me get home.
You can run an access point with all the benefits of WPA2/AES, but make the password really simple. Setting your SSID to "PasswordIsBacon" or just using the same SSID and password is a fairly easy way to share access, without running a completely insecure, unencrypted network.
That's "easy to share" which is a much greater hurdle than "publicly accessible". I want strangers to be able to use my wifi in the middle of the night from outside my home. I want devices to connect without any questions or hassle.
A short walk with Wigle shows literally dozens with WPS on, and usually 4-5 with WEP, plus a couple of open ones that aren't paid. WPS is a massive gaping vulnerability as long as you can stay nearby for a few hours, while WEP gives the illusion of security to clueless people but is worthless (yay RC4... worst algorithm ever.).