Doesn’t stop it broadcasting, but stops it being useful to anything nearby.

Any SSID broadcast is useful to Google and Apple spies (read: simple phone patrons) who feed the SSID to the mothership which is then used for mapping. There are security risks by that alone even if it’s blocked from my LAN, which I detail in these threads:

• https://infosec.pub/post/50218987
• https://infosec.pub/post/50218988

Apart from tracking my residency, I boycott both Google and Apple, so I object to feeding them in the slightest even when it’s innocuous to me. The map data enhances their location products and feeds their advertising surviellance machines.

Anyway, I appreciate your insight. I assumed it was a proactive act by Karcher and would not have thought that they were naive or lazy w.r.t. something baked-in upstream from them.

So IIUC, you’re saying it’s for a phone to configure the appliance? The reason being that the appliance’s UI is not convenient enough, I presume?

In the case at hand, the Karcher DAB radio has no iOS or AOS app. So AFAICT it would only be feasible if the radio also had a built-in web server and a captive portal. But I get no captive portal when connecting.

I suppose another theory is that if the radio has a cloud uplink, perhaps it would then push a captive portal to redirect to a centralised server which then remotely configures the device. I would not trust it enough to give it an uplink so I can’t test this theory.

Sorry for the late reply. But for the record I must say Tails does not do what I want because Tails gives clearnet access. The UI discourages it, but the possibility is there to open a browser on clearnet.

You may be right about Whonix… I have yet to tinker with it.

I like where your head is at but this feels like an impossible stretch. If you have the technical knowledge to run Tails, you aren’t being blocked.

It’s perhaps more complex than you realise. There are several facets to this with a broad range of effects, which is not necessarily just a Tor-acceptance problem.

Tor-blocking sites do not have the decency to so much as state /why/ they have blocked you. They either send a generic “403 forbidden”, or they drop packets and it times out, or you get a broken CAPTCHA. In the latter two cases you can’t even be sure Tor is the issue. They do not treat visitors with dignity. So playing dumb when facing them is a good policy. E.g. “I could not pay my taxes on time because I get this screen:…” then go boomer on them and send a camera pic of a timed out connection. If they take some time to investigate and chase their tails a bit, that’s already a win to some extent, in some situations. We want to penalise them for not even having the decency of transparency.

It’d be like shutting off your water, locking the mechanical room, and suing your landlord

Hence why Qubes is not ideal. But if there is an OS that simply excludes clearnet, I might say (when pressed): “my friend gave me this laptop… said it was safer than Windows”¹. But the conversation never goes that far.

The baby step micro-goal is just to get a bit of due transparency and dignity. Not “403 Forbidden” but rather “We’re sorry, we detect you are using Tor and we do not have the competency to secure against Tor users”, or “we need to track you, thus cannot accept traffic from Tor or VPNs”.

¹ Note that this scenario is becoming increasingly realistic. A local group of volunteers offers gratis advice and support for digital self-defense. Some people walk away with Tails and only a superficial idea of what they have.