The FAQ and info on https://openwireless.org/ doesn't seem to address security and privacy from the "guest user" point of view. They do have a link at the top "Using a network named "openwireless.org"? Check out important information about this network." which provides information for a guest user - but only mentions about being considerate and not abusing the service.

How does a user establish trust with each Open Wireless access point in order to determine it is not a rogue/fake AP? How are potential guest users being educated, besides a mention of HTTPS Everywhere? (Which most potential guest users don't really understand, and can also easily be manipulated into overriding SSL security warnings, such as one that may come up if the guest is being routed through a mitm SSL proxy.)

If this does become more widespread, I could definitely see a lot of money to be made for "Open Wireless VPN proxy" subscription services. But if the point is to "help change the way people and businesses think about Internet service" then shouldn't the guest user security issues be in the forefront with at least as much important as the host?

That last sentence sounded strangely familiar:
        "If biological intelligent design is taught, any proposed identity of the intelligence responsible for earth's biology shall be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation and teachers shall not question, survey, or otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity within a science course." ....

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

Thanks for the response, I am one critic who appreciates the response, whether I'm being put in my place or not, I firmly believe in always questioning everything, including myself when necessary.

Had I not received the invitation email last week from Microsoft, I probably would have nothing about the article to disagree with. However, my impression upon reading the invitation email from Microsoft was that the client software end of the project is ready and stable, but the "functional" side (detection patterns, accuracy, etc) was still in the early stages and still a long way off from being useful to the public. When reading the article I got the impression it was being reviewed like a final product, however my impression from Microsoft is that this is a long way from a final product. That being said, you do bring up a very valid point, it is being called a Preview Release and does not have an NDA, which a commenter in a thread above referred to as guerrilla marketing. After reading your reply to my criticism, it does seem fishy for Microsoft to release a product not labeled beta with no NDA, but with beta quality functionality, regardless of how their invitation email is written. (I have participated in a number of Microsoft betas, both public and private, and this project does not fit the usual pattern.)

So I wasn't looking for bias, however my viewpoint was different since I have already used the application and read the information from Microsoft before reading the article. I agree with the main point of the article ... at this point in time it is a useless application. But many people reading the article are going to completely pass over the part that mentions "preview release", since these days everything is a preview release or beta of some type, and just assume the tool is junk even though it only part that is complete is the client side scanner. (Kind of like finishing an antivirus engine, but not maintaining your definition database yet.)

So the bigger question is, did Microsoft intend for information about this upcoming tool to spread around in an attempt to inspire confidence, or did someone mess up and should this have been under an NDA while being developed for the next six months until it is ready? After taking into account your response, along with some other criticism of my comments, maybe a different title and disclaimer would clear up any confusion. "Microsoft Launches PC Advisor Repair Utility" to me seemed untrue as it is not available to the general public, but with no NDA as you mention, maybe it is more accurate than I gave you credit for.

Keep up the good work, I've been a subscriber for years and plan to keep it that way :)