Who’s the real glasshole: the person who could easily be wearing an actual hidden recording device but isn’t, or the person who goes to extreme lengths to push that person around just because they can?
If the point of this is to control your own network, it seems a rather convoluted way to do it. Just setup a MAC filter and don’t hand out DHCP leases to Glass users.
Letting users connect, then hunting them down afterwards, seems like the kind of thing you would only do if you didn’t control the network. I am reminded of the TV zapper that turns off all the TVs in (e.g.) a sports bar because you want to have a quiet conversation. The owner of said sports bar obviously wants the TVs to be on, that’s why they’re there.
I am all for banning Glass from your network (house, coffee shop, etc.) but this is a technically poor solution for that particular problem.
This is for the situation where you don’t control the network, or where you don’t have support for MAC filters for DHCP (e.g., a cheap wifi router). This “attack” is deauthenticating the devices from the network continually, so they’re never able to maintain reliable connectivity.
For cases where you totally control the network you’re correct, there are much easier ways to block the device.
I don’t like Google Glass but that does not give people free reign to terrorise someone who may have had made a misjudgement in purchasing a Google Glass. Instead of labelling them “glassholes” or kicking them off the network shouldn’t we throw our over exaggerated anger and try to have a reasonable discussion with them as to why society may not like them wearing Glasses to exhibitions?
This is extreme bullying and it’s not going to solve anything, other than drive a wedge between those with Glass and those do not.
You make it sound like being on my network is a right.
If it’s a public network it seems somewhat unfair to ban someone because they’re using a specific device. If it’s your personal network, or a home network, that’s different. And, even if it’s your personal network it still seems unnecessarily mean spirited.
As explained in other comments, you don’t need a script like this if it’s your network; every brand of wireless router comes with MAC filtering by now. This script is for when you want to kick Google Glass users off a network you don’t own.
You make it sound like you were appointed God over your network as opposed to being granted admin right over your network to ensure those that needed internet access got it.
Uh, if it’s my network, then yes, I am God over it. That’s how it works. It’s my network. I own the company or the house that it resides in.
I think callumj is distinguishing between networks you admin and networks you literally own.
So owning your network gives you the right to be a jerk?
So owning a private good obligates you to provide it to everyone?
I ask you to reconsider the idea that this is what extreme bullying looks like.
Are you saying that wearing Google Glass is bullying? Or that being prejudiced against someone simply for owning something, and acting on that prejudice isn’t bullying? Or that just banning a type of device on your network isn’t “extreme”?
If it’s the last one, perhaps it’s not the same as walking up to someone and punching them in the face, but I would argue that implementing such a blocker is going a little extreme.
I propose that the reason this submission is so popular is that it gives readers back a small measure of control over their image and privacy that Google Glass otherwise takes away. To push back, a bit, how long we can still live in public without the awful indelibility of other people’s computers.
As an aside I think Google made a huge PR mistake by including a camera with Glass. If they had launched the first versions as personal information devices then they could have waited for society to acclimatise before extending to adding cameras and other inputs.
I thought we were a pro-net neutrality site.