So I guess you missed that part of the article where Mike wrote the following:

“Finally, a side note, because this has come up before from commenters who think that I’m being inconsistent: supporting open WiFi does not mean that you support individuals not protecting themselves when using the open WiFi. In past threads, it was suggested that supporting open WiFi while pointing out how silly it is for people to complain about their own poor security habits was in disagreement. It is entirely reasonable and consistent to support open WiFi (at the access point level) while suggesting that individuals (at the user level) encrypt their own data. In fact, that’s quite a useful situation: more open WiFi, but security at the user level, is really a situation that works best for everyone.”

So, from what I read in that article you linked to, that DID NOT AT ALL support any of what you’re claiming against Mike, is that the use of open WiFi was illegal, but setting up open WiFi, in Finland at least, was perfectly okay. With Mike commenting on it, then pointing out that there’s nothing wrong with having an open WiFi access point, but if you’re going to do so, there’s nothing wrong with making sure you’re secure.

“He glosses over the fact that inviting someone into your network on THIS side of any firewall is a very insecure idea.”

No, he doesn’t. At all. He says in that same article that you can have open WiFi, but “encrypt your own data”. I.e. make sure YOUR stuff if safe, if you do decide to do so (have an open WiFi connection that is).

“Pushing people off onto “off brand” DNS systems, with little or no oversight or control is many times worse than dealing with the current system that we have, which is what SOPA would have left us with. People seem to forget that small point.”

No one was pushing anyone onto “off brand” DNS systems. Which is a point you seem to be thinking Mike was making. It wasn’t. Mike merely pointed out in a few SOPA related articles what would potentially happen if the U.S. can do as it wants and force censorship to become commonplace. People would move onto other DNS systems. Think of it like this. I’m going to put it very simply, for you. You’re a business owner. You run a restaurant. You act like a douchebag. Constantly. I get tired of your stupidity and rudeness and thinking you can treat your customers as you please. I take my business to the place down the street that serves up a much broader menu, at the risk of knowing it may not be as clean. That’s my choice. But a choice, acted upon due to YOUR actions. Perfect 1:1 example? No. But it’s as simple as I can make so you might understand. No one is promoting going to other DNS systems. Such systems MAY be insecure. Emphasis on MAY. But, it will happen and people will move to avoid such totalitarian control on the part of one country and a few special interest groups.

“SOPA wasn’t just about piracy, at least not in the music and movie piracy way. It was about companies operating offshore to avoid US law, and purposely selling otherwise illegal products into the US, including pirated and counterfeit goods. The hiding illegal businesses offshore deal is a real issue, and something that will have to be dealt with. Because the speed that many countries deal with these things are VERY slow (if at all), the US is sort of in a position to have to take action at the levels it controls to try to solve the issues.”

SOPA was specifically about piracy. Trying to throw in the counterfeit good portion was BS. There are already laws in place to deal with such things. You say Mike uses weasel words, you and the people you support do the same (if not more so than anyone else). Be men, stand by your position. Don’t be afraid. We get it. You hate piracy. So just be up front about it. SOPA WAS about piracy, pure and simple. Anything else was just thrown in to say “nuh uh… but counterfeit goods…”

The long and short of it is the U.S. is not the world. It might be a big part of it in some ways, but the other countries can decide for themselves what laws they need or do not need and what is or isn’t illegal. “They act too slow.” Boo fucking hoo. That’s their prerogative. Let them deal with whatever is taking place IN their country and we’ll do the same. Overreach wins you no friends and turns the ones you do have on you. The people were complacent up until SOPA. The minute they realized the internet, which is a world thing and is great at the moment in it’s openness was under attack, they let it be known they wouldn’t stand for such a thing. Look what happened. SOPA shut down, for the time being.

“I point out when Mike’s views don’t add up. I bring them back, and say “look, you can’t have it both ways”. His response generally is dismissive, pointing sometimes to weasel words used, or when really caught, to try to insult me personally.”

No, again, you don’t. You try and point out when Mike’s views don’t add up, and go “aha!” That’s what you constantly do. Mike has called you out on this and so have a number of others, myself included. Mike doesn’t want things both ways, in regards to anything. But you try and conflate his position on one thing with his position on something else and, again, say “aha! but what about your previous stance on THIS Mike?!” That’s what you do. I’ve seen him ask you, assuming you are who you obviously seem to be, for proof of this or that or to explain yourself and you weasel word your way out of it as well. You expect more from Mike than you’re willing to offer of yourself. And it is for that that you get called out and insulted. Besides, if you don’t want to get personally insulted, maybe you should stop acting like such a troll/jerk. You’re personally taking shots at Mike and what he says and saying “weasel word his way this and that”. Guess what? That’s you making personal insults, although you try to make it appear like you’re not. Essentially insulting someone, but weasel wording your way through it so it doesn’t seem like you are. As I said, you’re either trolling/obsessing/etc. But you’re in no way acting like an adult/reasonable/respectful/logical.

“A couple of guys with laptops, a car, and decent wireless equipment (like an external antenna on the car) could wander around town, modify wireless units, and quickly set up a pretty solid man in the middle attack system without anyone noticing. Don’t you think that is something to be concerned about?”

No. As someone else said, those same couple of guys could do the same thing to even a secure connection. I don’t see you acknowledging or even pointing out that. Maybe we should do away with WiFi entirely, since you’re so concerned about the safety regarding it and man in the middle attacks. Heck, I can launch a man in the middle attack FROM MY CELL PHONE. And do so to secured connections easily. Maybe we should warn of the perils of people with smartphones. Everyone, for the most part, has one. Heck, there’s millions of potential man in the middle attacks from that alone.

Either way, you’re overlooking the important part, yet again, where the police are wasting time telling people to close their WiFi when they could be solving real crimes. And doing so, just to attack Mike’s positions/statements. Not because it appears you care one way or another. Because if you did, you’d acknowledge my previous bit and be calling for a flat out end to WiFi in general. If you’re so concerned and worried about the safety of other’s information that is.