Busted For Using Library Wi-Fi Outside The Library 746
sevej writes "Keith Shaw, in his weekly column "Wireless Computing Devices" (Network World Fusion), reported on a recent entry in AKMA's Random Thoughts where AKMA was using a public WiFi network outside of a library. A policeman approached him and asked that he only access the Internet from within the Library and hinted that Federal Laws against "signal theft" were applicable. Oh, and btw, we're not talking about a person that looked like your stereotypical 'hacker'; AKMA is an ordained priest."
well... (Score:5, Insightful)
light and bandwidth ! (Score:5, Insightful)
These are nowhere analogous,you are stealing bandwidth when u use WiFi this way,but its not the same with light which anyway is gonna illuminate the bench without an added effort to the wattage.
Worrying (Score:5, Insightful)
I held up my TiBook, pointing to the zero lines in the Airport icon, and showed the officer that my card was off.
"Why don't you just close that up, sir, or use your computer elsewhere?'
Quite apart from the signal stealing part, isn't the fact that the cop asks him to move on a bit worrying? He's demonstrably not breaking the law and is sitting on public land. Are they just going to ban using laptops with wifi cards near any wireless point?
Re:no protection ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Priest? So? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, that's a good point. We're thinking "jerk policeman picking on innocent geek", but it might have undercurrents of "jerk policemen who hates priests picking on innocent geek who is a priest". We probably need to get over the idea that certain occupations are automatically respected (priests, doctors, COBOL programmers, etc).
In fact in this case I'm disinclined to think it was a factor; Occam's razor and all that. But it's a viewpoint to consider. Doesn't make the cop any less of a jerk, of course.
Re:Priest? So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:no protection ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Look?? (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is, if you are scruffy looking, not white, dressed in drag, or in some other way deviant from the norm, police are more likely to harrass you. Often, they do so simply because you look deviant, rather than because there is any enforcable law being broken.
While I appreciate your point, try to appreciate the submitter's: what he's saying is, because AKMA is supposedly very wholesome looking, the cop's motivation in telling him to use the library's wifi inside the library only could not possibly have been because he was a "hacker type". In other words, this wasn't simple harrassment. It was "for real".
We all hate the fact that people get harrassed unfairly, but they do. The submitter is recognizing this, not advocating it. If he had said, "I got asked to move on, and I was Arab and wearing a turban", we would naturally be outraged by the cop's mistreatment of an arab man, rather than by him being told to move on, because we would assume, understanding our rights, that the only motivation the cop could possibly have had for asking the turbaned man to move on was the fact that he was wearing a turban.
The point here is that this isn't simple harassment: it's an erosion of our rights. I think I've beaten this point to death already, I hope you understand it now.
Theft analogies (Score:4, Insightful)
The Airwave Nazis will say something similar to the cop in blog posting listed in the article above. Something along the lines of "It's like stealing somebodies cable or walking up and plugging in your hairdryer to the electrical outlet on the outside of their home"
NO, it's NOT.
The priest in the article likened it to reading off their porchlight,which is a pretty good analogy. I prefer to say that it is more along the lines of tossing your empty bottle into someones trashcan they have set to the curb without a lid (it may not be "polite" and *some* people might not appreciate it too much....but you're not "stealing" their trash service by doing so). If someone gets so upset at the idea that someone passing by might throw their empty coke bottle into their beloved garbage can, they can simply put a lid on it (which would discourage most would be bottle-throwers) or, in the analogy, the WiFi AP owner could simply turn on WEP (which would discourage most would be bandwidth users).
Regardless of the analogy, it simply is not "stealing", no matter what some judge decided.
Theft of service, my ass.
What is the libraries TOS? (Score:1, Insightful)
Busted? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Priest? So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad Cops (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple Defense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Theft analogies (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Look?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except politicians...
and other policemen...
and celebrities...
and foreign nationals.
I'm probably missing a few groups. Then again I've been awake for about 5 minutes.
The real story here is that.. (Score:2, Insightful)
It probably happens all around the world every second, its the nature of law enforcement.
Re:Look?? (Score:1, Insightful)
Personally, the media needs to crack down so hard on the police that the cops are afraid 24/7.
they are PAID to Protect and Serve... Why was this Officer screwing around and not patrolling in an area that needs him? why was he not ensuring that the complete morons that don't know what SCHOOL ZONE means when they blast through at 55mph in their audi? Why is he paying attention to someone sitting there peacefully instead of looking for criminals??
Cops get ZERO respect from me. I see them turn a blind eye to crime every day because they do not want to be bothered to get out of their car.
I say take away their car's and FORCE them to walk the streets in our neighborhoods and actually do their jobs.
can you tell that I am slightly jaded?
The real point (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Public Rights (Score:3, Insightful)
when a foot soldier (cop) confront's you. the ONLY thing you was is whatever it takes for him to become happy and go away. You DO NOT FIGHT with a cop, peace officer, soldier, whatever. You will not win anything.
Say whatever it takes for him/her to be satisfied and go away, then YOU go away.
you can protest AFTER the fact to your local newspaper, tv news, blog, whatever....
only complete fools try and stand up to a cop because the Cop will always win that battle right there.
you reply with, "Thank you officer! I did not know! I will comply right away!"
then you go inside and complain to the library about the police harassment, and even call the local police station and complain to the police captian.
Re:How did they know? (Score:5, Insightful)
And you assume the public bench and public WiFi in a public place outside your local public library are available to the public, especially if said public happens to have a library card. What's different from being outside the library and inside it in this regard? Your analogies are both faulty and misleading, unless you seriously want to claim that it's illegal to walk into a public library and sit down on one of their chairs.
Re:US CODE COLLECTION (Score:5, Insightful)
If he wasn't actually hacking a bank, though, it doesn't seem like he could violate a "protected computer". It seems doubtful that he "exceeded his authorized access" (a librarian would presumably be the authority on that, not a police officer). Perhaps he could have asked the librarians at that point.
And even so, unless he visited the DMV website or something he didn't "obtain information from a government agency" anyway.
There's no way sitting outside the library while in possession of an operational laptop could violate this law.
IANAL, of course, etc. etc.
Re:The real story here is that.. (Score:5, Insightful)
not yet... just wait.
the more people that sit passively and are privately disgusted at stories like this the more draconian laws we will get.
If YOU dont get publically outraged, inform others and express your concern and outrage to all your government officials then you are the cause of laws like DMCA, PATRIOT, and The Public Laptop Decency Act of 2006.
A local city councilwoman here in my town wanted to make it illegal to criticize the city council or the city it's self. except for a few people that had enough balls to go to meetings and call her "Herr Hitler" and spend their money and time informing the rest of the public that this woman wanted a law that would limit their free speech severly, it would have passed because 90% of the people that live in your town are sheep. Be the 10% that actually care and do something.
fight! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Simple Defense (Score:2, Insightful)
Secret Service (Score:2, Insightful)
No one else seems to have pointed out the obvious problem here. He was briefed on this by the Secret Service. I always thought that the Secret Service has jurisdiction over Presidential protection and counterfeiting (and other currency-related crimes) ONLY. So what is the Secret Service doing given local cops advice about WiFi theft?
Apparently I was wrong. Looking at the Secret Service [secretservice.gov] website, apparently a newer expansion of their mission covers "computer and electronic communications fraud." This would seem to make sense to me only insofar as it is an extension of their powers to investigate crimes relating to the banking and currency systems. It looks as though the Secret Service has extended their authority through aggressive interpretation of their mandate. Doesn't that bother anyone else?
Re:Public Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure how to parse that sentence, but he did show the cop he was not using the library's system.
I see no problem with having "patrons" use the wifi inside where the librarians can oversee as is their job.
So how do you "oversee" a WiFi connection? Watch the logs roll by? Detail one surveillance librarian-bot to every patron to look over their shoulder? Walk around and listen for the tell-tale moans of someone surfing www.kinkyceline.com? BTW, I believe it's illegal in most states for the library (or anyone else except the FBI) to monitor your library activity and loaning habits. One example of those laws are statutes 41-8-9 and 41-9-0 of the Alabama Code which protect the confidentiality of library users.
Furthermore, here's some reading for y'all:
Alse check out LibraryLaw.com [librarylaw.com] for some Patriot Act perspective.
Re:How did they know? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't lease an IP address until user visits a web splash page listing the terms of service and clicks Agree.
Re:Public Rights (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How did they know? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, in the case where the owner DOES NOT want to provide internet access, it is fairly easy for him/her/it to refrain from doing so. If I don't want to slip and lie face down in a pool of mud, I simply walk around them. If I don't want to provide a public WiFi hotspot, I turn encryption on.
If I want the public to sit on my bench, I put it in the park. If I don't want the public to sit on my bench, I put it in my back yard. It's not up to the public to magically read my mind or to stay off all benches everywhere; it's up to me to place the bench and any relevant signs so the public can deduce my intentions.
Re:Public Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'd take the safe route and pack up and leave, however I respect anyone who stands up for my rights by being a little defiant.
Re:Don't take it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you might have "fallen" up a flight of stairs while "resisting arrest." Don't tip off a cop that you're going to report something--figure out what you can and report it when you're safely aware, so long as it's worth harassment from his colleagues whenever you happen to again cross that jurisdiction, or continually if, heaven forbid, you live in it.
Remember, we now live in a country where failure to produce "your papers" for the police is an arrestable offense, affirmed by our corrupt Supreme Court. It doesn't pay to be excessively vocal about invoking rights that, when it comes down to it, we no longer have for all practical purposes, unless you have a martyr complex. And as we see demonstrated every day here, holding one's breath waiting for the outraged public to agitate for your release would be fatal save for the autonomous nervous system.
Exactly where "outside the library"? (Score:3, Insightful)
And another thought (random as it may be) doesn't he, as a taxpaying citizen (yes church folk still have taxes) have a right to use a public access wiFi connection? After all, it's offered as a free service to the public, not just some of the public.
Now if he was doing something malicious (hacking their server, sending spam), perhaps the police have a point, but for general use, I don't see how simply accessing a public connection is a problem.
Re:What is the libraries TOS? (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that there was apparently no gateway that provided such notice, I find it difficult to believe that a crime could have been established. The librarian or his/her representative was simply being a dolt, and abusing the armed force of the state to enforce what I'd lay five bucks had at least before that point been an unwritten rule, had it existed at all.
Re:How did they know? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, reading the article, this "priest" seems to make a real hobby of using other people's access points without their knowledge. Why can't he politely walk into the library and ask them if they mind if he uses it outside, preferably with the policeman in tow to help settle the issue? What the heck was this guy up to?
Re:no protection ? (Score:2, Insightful)
How can the ensure this if you roam around outside?
Same way they do it if you're sitting with your laptop in a quiet corner with your back to the wall. They can't look over your shoulder to see what you're up to, so they'd have to use technical means.
Re:Exactly where "outside the library"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that this has anything to do with anything, but having taken a vow of poverty, it's not at all unlikely that a particular Roman Catholic priest pays no income or property taxes (which typically support libraries). Of course, that doesn't change his standing with respect to the rights to services offered to all citizens.
Ironically, this is my 666th comment with this account.
Re:How did they know? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Public Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
I sort of agree, but think I'd put it in less extreme terms.
It's probably unwise to engage in outright physical contact with an officer. Not that they're supermen - they aren't - but they are in better shape than average, they're often armed, they can call for backup, and in the short term (before due process gets fully ironed out) their judgement is generally deferred to.
In this case of a priest using wireless outside a library, physical contact does not sound like an issue. The question then becomes: is it worth the effort to explain whatever your position is to the approaching officer? I'd say the answer is yes IF the concepts involved are simple and familiar (not only are officers not supermen, they're even further from being Einsteins). A good thing to try to explain: "officer, I was making a perfectly legal left turn and that guy ran a red light." A bad thing to try to explain: "officer, as weirdly as spectrum has been treated in the history of our legal framework, its similarity to property is a false one for the following three reasons...."
you reply with, "Thank you officer! I did not know! I will comply right away!"
Personally, I think that's a little too much boot-licking. Officers are there ostensibly to serve the public. Citizens who conduct themselves politely are entitled to the respect of an officer. Yes, I know that some officers are buttheads, but if you don't actually become belligerent with them they will still have a very difficult time parlaying their unresolved childhood issues into a trip to jail for you. Presume your entitlement to respect when you likewise give respect. Don't pretend officers have a higher moral ground; that leads to a big brother state. If you've really done nothing wrong, don't give attitude... but don't send the message that an officer puffing his chest is a welcome thing.
Re:Public Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are words to live by in any context.
So why the cops? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Theft analogies (Score:2, Insightful)
The water foundatain and the McShit both cost the owners EXTRA money (in both cases increasing their water billf ro your usage).
It's a bit more like walking into a McDonalds and wathing their CNN feed on the TV. You are taking up space in their restaurant and watching their television. They pay for their cable feed and body space by the month, not by the viewer. If you camp out at one of the tables 24/7, they won't pay any more in rent or cable bills. HOWEVER, you are reducing their POTENTIAL MAXIMUM customer capacity by one person. In a "saturated" condition, you are reducing the overall capability and comfort of the other McDonalds patrons.
Not the library .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but the key thing to remember here is that it was not an agent of the library. It was not even in response to an agent of the library.
A uniformed policeman who had been told by the secret service that "theft of signal" was a new form of crime. Said officer informed this individual that he was committing a crime and needed to move on.
The article doesn't even say if the library thinks their open wi-fi should be accessible to people sitting on that particular park bench.
This is not a case of violating the rules of the access point. This is a case of someone deciding that the entire category of hooking up to a wi-fi point is a crime and informing the person they were in violation. To the point that using a computer in a vicinity of a wi-fi without actually using the wi-fi is cause to be moved along.
Any arguments about the library being able to enforce their own rules are mostly irrelevant since we have no idea what the libraries rules/stance on this actually are. [OK, in some of the follow up posts they posted rules about when they'd have the access point open ].
Cheers
Re:How did they know? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it the police's job to enforce public library rules? Do you expect uniformed policemen to knock on your door, asking for that overdue library book? BTW, there's nothing in the Nantucket Atheneum Internet Access Policy [nantucketatheneum.org] about restricting public WiFi AP use to the interior of the library.
Enter the library.
So why did they place a convenient bench just outside the library? Would it be OK to read a library book while sitting on that bench? Does the placement of the bench constitute entrapment?
Point is: it isn't a public access point. It belongs to the library.
Yes it is. And it's still safely sitting there, on its little shelf inside the library, happily blinking its little lights and routing its little packets. He didn't take it, you know. He simply used it. Just like one might use the bench outside, sit on a chair inside the library or - God forbid! - read a magazine inside the library without checking it out first. We really need to stomp out these heinous crimes against humanity!
The library has the right to restrict access if that means they can keep the program going.
Yes, they do. That's probably why their other AP was encrypted. I don't have a problem with that. But this AP wasn't encrypted. It was an open, public hotspot. Besides, even after he stopped using it, the cop still rousted him from the bench where he was sitting. In a public area. By your analogies, he could be accused of stealing the bench unless he carried it inside the library before sitting on it.
Well, I don't see the owner of these apples so I might as well eat one.
And here's another flawed analogy: What if the store puts out a box of apples and the sign "Unsellable old apples, minor cosmetic flaws, please help yourself". Might as well steal one. You really can't compare apples and bandwidth.
Oh, and for your precious rules, check out http://www.ala.org/ . They should know, they wrote the book on the subject.
Re:How did they know? (Score:5, Insightful)
Many hotels, conference centers, etc do this. You just plug in your laptop and the first page that always comes up is some type of disclaimer then instructions how to setup/configure the connetion.
IANAL, IAAUSC with the inherent responsibilities (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not a Lawyer, but I am a US Citizen with the inherent responsibilities that entails. (I posted a comment to the following effect in reply to Akma's thread)
Akma passed up a slow ball thrown by God in the game of Good vs. Evil on this one. As my good friend Henry Davis Thereau would have been quick to point out, a bit of Civil Disobedience was called for and quite appropriate here. This is exactly the kind of situation that could have resulted in a nationally publicised arrest that resuts in exposure of the Law's absurdity and education of the masses that might
I have noticed a large number of people arguing about Akma's analogy regarding the porch light and claiming that a person standing in the light doesn't take up any bandwidth. Really? Perhaps these people have never noticed a shadow? Even in the case of a light directly overhead, if one looks within themselves for the answer so to speak, they will realize that they are eating up light bandwidth in the geophysical location they occupy. Bits and people move at different rates to be sure, but wherever the [person as bit] goes, there they are, eating up light bandwidth!
If noone else needs to stand where I am when I'm there, does it effect anyone that I am eating up that bandwidth. Things get complicated and philisophical from here, but it should be reasonaby clear that his analogy holds quite well to those who couldn't see it before at this point.
Of course, being a preist accused of possibly downloading child porn, perhaps he had good reason to throw his civil rights out the window and bow and pray to the powers that be (just a rhetorical comment to make my point Akma, and I realize that you are not Catholic.) The point is this
This would have made such a great case on so many levels, I can only hope he has what it takes to go back there, throw open his laptop, and wait for a cop to try it again so that he can tell the him or her to go fsck himself
Library Wifi laws (Score:4, Insightful)
a) our friend the priest was accessing a PUBLIC WIFI AP
b) it was from a Library offering PUBLIC NET access
c) it is illegal (according to Boss Hog) to access a PUBLIC ACCESS spot (even though the range allows you to) from outside that building.
You know it makes me wonder, how many of these laws are real. The articles author could have hopped into the library to look it up. It would not at all surprise me to see that no law exists concerning Public WIFI AP's.
Ok true people have dl'd kiddie pr0n on other peoples bandwidth but still. The ones doing that aren't going to stop because now it's a Federal Law.
I would have searched for that law. Printed it out and had I found nothing even remotely close. I would have told Boss Hog he was harrasing me and to shuffle his way down to Dunkin Donuts.
I am not one who hates Police and thinks they are all "The Man".
They are there for our protection, and I applaud them for the job they do.Yet I also wonder how many of them, create these imaginary laws and tell people well it's a such and such law you cant do this. People may argue, but like the blog stated "you can explain it to the Cheif if ya like", so he has threatened to arrest this Priest on possibly an imaginary charge. My bet would be that if the Priest did not cease and he went before the Magistrate it would have been something completely different than accessing a public wifi spot outside a library.
Re:Theft analogies (Score:3, Insightful)
And you're adding load to Slashdot's service without recompense. Slashdot has to pay for that, not you. Are you a thief? If your answer is "no," please explain to me the difference between accessing a public web server and accessing a public access point.
If technology offers a way to distinguish between offering a public or a private service (by using passwords, encryption etc. for private services), those technological means should be used.
To try a different analogy, there are "technological" ways (design, architecture, signs) to distinguish between e.g. stores and other buildings you're not supposed to enter. If you lived in a house that looks very much like a store, has a big sign with your name above the entrance, a parking lot, and a glass door that opens automatically when someone walks by, do you believe you should still be able to sue people who enter your home for breaking in?
Re:The real point (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no such law, and the officer said no such thing. What he did say was it was "signal theft". It sounds like the library has a policy in place against anyone from using their network from outside the building. The library is certainly free to put policies like this in place since it is their network, and even enforce such policies.
Re:The real point (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not your punctuation, you're just completely wrong.
The ability to follow orders is not the height of good law enforcement. Sometimes good law enforcement means not following the rules, ie. not arresting a 90 year old woman for too many parking tickets. Most police organizations are setup with this understood.
Imagine a state where all the stupid and ridiculous laws are suddenly enforced because "we've got to follow orders." It's not a place you'd want to live.
Re:How did they know? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, that's called harassment. If it's illegal, then do something about it, but if it's not then the officer is not justified in harassing the man for doing what he was doing. Oh, and it doesn't matter if the guy was a priest or anything else, the law isn't supposed to be on a sliding scale.
If the officer had some reason to suspect that he was checking out the kids, he should have gone after him for that, rather than just harassing him for something unrelated. Quit making excuses for the cop.
I never saw anything in the original article about this last week where the intended usage of this service was really covered. The library provided an open access point for it's patrons to use and I don't remember there being any indication of them forbidding anyone to use that access point outside the building. So unless you would like to find out what the intentions are I suggest opinions not be thrown out here as fact.
Basically it is an article about a cop on a power trip. Granted, we have only seen one side of the argument and there may have been some reason for the officers actions, but be careful of assuming that the guy was doing something wrong just because the officer gave him a hard time.
Re:How did they know? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um... why not?
Re:Public Rights (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The real point (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. The problem is they haven't and they didn't. There were no signs explaining such a policy and no library-enforced rules. The policeman was not acting under orders from the head librarian to go out in the land and stop any and all bandwidth-stealing priests that may be roaming the nearby countryside. Strawman.
Re:Worrying (Score:3, Insightful)
i dont know what kind of access point they're using, but my off-the-shelf consumer one lets me set what times it can be used... if they dont want people to use it, why do they leave the damn thing on?
Re:How did they know? (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you simply walk in and take books off the shelf to carry outside and read? No.
Um, have you ever heard of checking out a book? It's where you go to a library, present them with your card, and then leave with any book you want. If you desire, you can then read them on the public lawn outside the library.
Because Wi-Fi doesn't need to be "checked out", this guy was simply skipping an unneccesary step. If it said in the Terms of Use that the Wi-Fi must be used indoors, then you might have a point.
FCC (Score:2, Insightful)
So, you can transmit on the freq. all you damn well want, if your xmiter is fcc approved for that freq, and they are SOL. Just like if you get a wifi and your neighbors cordless phone hoses your wifi signal, or their wifi and yours are fscking each other.
While THEFT of network bandwidth MIGHT be enforcable, (maybe), the possession, operation and use of the transceiver is 100% within the law, because it is covered by part 15 of the FCC rules, who has 100% jurisdiction over the airwaves in the USA, under Federal Pre-emption.
Just like the FAA has 100% pre-emtion over the use of airspace. ( Fiefdom of Boulder Co. tried to make a freind of mine stop towing banners over the CU games, ( well before 9 11 01 ) and threatend to arrest him... even did... he had to take it through state courts, all the way to US court before FAA _could_ get involved, and then they told Boulder that they could NOT regulate the airspace above the city in any form or fashion. Boulder tried to claim that his "advertising" broke thier advertising and licensing laws, and he claimed that the FAA had jurisdiction over the airspace ( which they did )
and therefore their advertising laws only applied to that which they had jurisdiction over. ( the ground ). They tried to claim safety issues... Again, aircraft safety is under FAA... etc. etc.
In the end, Boulder LOST. But it cost him a buttload of money to defend himself and his business. He recovered it in another lawsuit wherein he nailed them for giving him so much shit they had no business in. (Boulder was _aware_ that they ha no jurisdiction because the FAA TOLD THEM SO. but they pressed the issue in the lower courts, trying to force him to stop by bleeding him dry money wise. )
SOmething similar will maybe oneday happen with wifi. It is a conflict of the method of access which is unlicensed and the laws goverening the unauthorized use of someones networks.
Its going to get interesting...
Re:RTFA. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is so much bogus nonsense to me. The RIAA and the MPAA have cultivated this paranoia about computer use. I say if a public library's wi-fi network extends outside of the building, then citizens of that public (read as: taxpayer-funded) institution have just as much right to the bandwidth as they do inside the building.
It is not ridiculous to assume that those individuals who configured and created the library's wi-fi network knew that it was not secured. Indeed they set up multiple access points, and did secure others. Knowing this, they made a conscious decision not to secure it and thus to service any and all client machines who wished to "climb aboard". It is public bandwidth paid for by the public's tax dollars. To my way of thinking, this cop is infected by the "it's illegal to be a geek" mindset/paranoia that's permeating our culture, resulting in such ridiculous expressions as "stealing music".
"What? He used his brain and found a way to use his computer that wasn't expressly permitted by policy?" Yeah, folks, last I checked it was a free country .. maybe I'm deluding myself.
Re:RTFA. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, the officer *did* have a copy of the library's AUP, right???
Having read the article, I'm now wondering whether AKMA knows if the library's wireless network is in fact provided for the public, or only for staff. That would change the situation markedly. But if it is indeed public, then rousting someone for using it is a bit like rebuking somebody for "stealing" a pamphlet off a pile lying under a "take one" sign.
Re:Why did I get into this? (Score:4, Insightful)
And accessing an open AP is also following protocol. You may wish it wasn't so, but it is.
How can you say that being in close proximity of the library is being a patron?
Because it's protocol. Anyone using the library's services is, by definition, a patron. He had a library card, he sat on their bench, leaned against the library wall and accessed their open public AP (not their closed, encrypted one, mind you). He's a patron. Read their web, they specify how to use the library's resources, request books and search their databases from your home, hundreds or thousands of miles away. Being a patron of a library is demonstrably not a geographic function.
Library staff may limit use of computer equipment which has been purchased from grant funds, according to the terms or intent of the grant agreement.
Users will not make any attempt to gain unauthorized access to restricted files or networks, or to damage or modify computer equipment or software.
The library staff did not limit use of the computer equipment, it was an open AP, hence by definition unlimited. A cop came along and cited a non-existant federal law and rousted him from a public area.
The priest did not make any attempts to gain unauthorized access to any restricted file or network. It was unrestricted. None of these rules apply and I suspect you just added them to look like you read their website. Maybe you did read it, but you obviously didn't understand a word.
How can you even say that has anything to do with it?
It doesn't. And neither did your analogy. "You can not compare apples and bandwidth." I'm quite sure I wrote that in the post you replied to. Mine was just another example of the futility to try and construct analogies between tangibles and intangibles.
I'm sure that the library doesn't have a sign saying: "please connect to the Internet, other people inside aren't doing the same"
BTW, the library was closed so it's not as if he was consuming anyone else's bandwidth - he had the pipe to himself.
At least he should have went inside and asked a librarian
At least you should have read the article. THE LIBRARY WAS CLOSED.
We need to stop the idea that any "hotspot" without a WEP key or WPA is free for anyone to use.
No we don't. We need to make sure all AP operators know to secure them if they don't want them used. Otherwise there will be tons of laws and people will go to jail and their lives will be ruined, because they followed the prevailing protocol - an open AP is a free AP. We can't reverse that protocol more than we can reverse the protocol that says that you can sit on a public bench outside the library or the protocol that says that you shouldn't take apples from outside the grocery story.
But we can educate the owners of access points on the protocol.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How did they know? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. The internal terminals are all wired, but even if they had been wireless, surely they would have been hooked up to the encrypted AP that the library operates side-by-side with the open AP? It stands to reason that the encrypted AP is the internal network while the unencrypted AP is a public hotspot.
That brings us back to the argument of whether a open but private wifi point can be used by anyone.
Not really. It brings us to the argument of whether an open wifi point can be considered private. I claim that established protocol says it's public. Reason being is that it's impossible for a casual observer to distinguish between a public hotspot knowingly offered as a service to the public and a "private" AP that just hasn't been secured, especially if distance from the AP becomes a factor (ie "this AP is public up to this point, but private if you cross this line/wall/door/road/imaginary boundary in the air"). If you make it theft of signal to use an unencrypted AP you are making criminals out of regular Joes which is a bad idea for any law, rule or protocol. I applaud efforts to rename public hotspots to name.public, but until that becomes established protocol, we'd better go with the flow. The jails are already full.
What if he'd been using the WiFi inside the building, placed his still running TiBook in his bag and walked out? Would he become a criminal at the door? It just doesn't wash.
Re:RTFA. (Score:1, Insightful)
He was outside the library. OUTSIDE THE LIBRARY. Repeat 5 times.
Why should he be held to rules that apply only _inside_ the library?
Remember. He was outside the library.
RTFL (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember. He was outside the library.
Why should the AUP only apply inside the library? I agree that this whole story is ridiculous, but I'd say the rules for an access point are the rules for an access point. Unless you want your tax dollars paying for libraries to install EM shielding in all their walls, I'd recommend you think about this one for a second.
Just because I leave my door open doesn't mean you can walk into my house whenever you want. Yes, it may be stupid on my part, and yes, it changes it from break and enter to trespass, but it's still not acceptable. Similarily, just because my WiFi connection is open, doesn't mean you're allowed to do whatever you want with it.
I'd imagine he was probably obeying the terms of the AUP regardless, but if he'd never gone in and read it, that's kind of weak on his part. If someone's offering a free service, at least be respectful of their terms, so you don't ruin it for everyone.
Re:Why did I get into this? (Score:2, Insightful)
A closed bank doesnt mean that I cant withdraw cash, it only means I have to use the automated service, AKA ATM.
Closed library also means that I can only use automated service offered there.
Re:RTFA. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you send radio waves my way, I'm free to do as I please with them. If I sent radio waves your way, what you do with them is your choice.
If you want your wifi service to only be used in a certain area, it's up to you to use some mechanism to enforce that (at the lowest level, radio-opaque shielding; at a higher level, software mechanisms to make users register after agreeing to some terms). If you leave it open, it's an open invitation.
This is a ridiculous as threatening someone with arrest for reading by the light coming out of the window...(and now reading TFA, I see AKMA making the same comparison).
Re:RTFA. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, sometimes police officers just like flaunting their authority a little, and while this is one of the more harmless cases, what about the times photographers have been harassed for taking photographs on public property, of public buildings (or even private ones, but in public places, where there is no expectation of privacy or secrecy) and not violating anyone's personal privacy doing it?
Public funded open wifi. (Score:3, Insightful)
The public library is funded with tax dollars, and therefore open to use by the public. Key word there is PUBLIC...
Secondly, since the wifi wasnt encrypted or anything to cause restriction, its the same as being IN the library, so the cop has no legal leg to stand on..
I'm not so sure there is any legal ground to stand on if you access ANY unencrypted wifi point. You have to assume it was intended for public use if its not restricted in some way.
Re:RTFL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RTFL (Score:5, Insightful)
Your Wifi (Score:3, Insightful)
Much as i can receive any commercial broadcast signal that hits my yard...
True i cant decrypt any signals as that is illegal due to the DMCA, however that falls into 'reasonable protection'.. Which is your responsibility, not mine.
Or how about if you stuck your hose toward my house and turned on the faucet, i could collect whatever water i get on my side of the fence and use for my garden or pool..
We arent taking about me going on your property to see if your door is unlocked, its YOUR signal that is on MY property....
If you are going to use analogies, at least try to compare apples to apples...
Comment (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus its in my yard, so i didnt break any trespass laws..
Oh, and the 14th does not count.. it wasnt part of the original 10..
Re:RTFL (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it's not their property outside the library. Except for the brainwashing campaign by the RIAA and MPAA, and numbnut busybodies like this policeman in question, this would have been a no-brainer question.
The library's wifi was deliberately broadcast beyond the boundaries of the library's property. The key word here is "broadcast". CBS, as an example, can't impose an acceptable use policy on the media it broadcasts into your home. Beyond what copyright allows, of course. CBS can't tell you where you must watch television.
As another post stated, saying the AUP applies outside the library is like telling your neighbors they can't listen to the music you're blasting out your windows.
Re:RTFA. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it that, so often with technology, places will only employ half of what's available and then complain about the results?
Ok, so maybe they don't have the funding to secure their wifi connection. Then, to me, that means they can't afford wifi and they should either (1) not do it half way, or (2) do it half way and then not complain about the results.
Besides, it's a public library. Public. What makes people's use of bandwidth outside less valid than inside? Oh, I know, the library can't monitor the use of its patrons, right?
Bull. They can't monitor it inside either...not by walking around casting glances. If this really worried them, then they would install the appropriate filters instead of doing a half way job (see above argument). So, given that they don't care/can't afford the full solution, and given that they, as reasonably intelligent human beings, have weighed the pros and cons, they shouldn't be worrying about monitoring content OR whether access is inside or outside. Besides, they could simply post signs saying that they're logging all connections and monitoring THAT if they're so concerned about it--even if they're not, it would cut most of the stuff they're worried about. A low-tech solution to a high-tech problem, inside or outside the libe.
Alternatively, they could get a charitable project started at the local college/high school to get a hacker to create a small app that connects patrons to the library. They have to install the app and it provides a username/id to the libe to attach to the logs of web sites browsed. Problem solved for free. (Public resources rarely take advantage of the public's desire to give back, and they should.)
One other thing about all of this bothers me. Is the library even supposed to be monitoring what people are doing inside? They're not allowed to prevent certain people from checking out certain books or reading up on certain subjects, right? The government isn't allowed to get access to books you've checked out unless they have reasonable suspicion of terrorist activities (and even that wasn't true before the Patriot Act). I mean, what if I'm doing a college-level report on Internet pornography? I can't use the library to do that report? Who are they to tell me what I can and can't research? (Of course, I have no problem with them limiting the total amount of bandwidth any one patron can use for the day...that's just sharing the resources...but then again, see above argument. If they won't install the tech that applies equally to everyone, they don't really have a leg to stand on.)
This is a matter of practicality butting up against legalisms. Consider as an example that many police departments across the country will not turn illegal immigrants over to the INS even though they're breaking the law and it would be the legally correct thing to do so. The point of this example is to say that the law is clearly not applied in every case regardless of the technicalities present--in this case, the library hasn't even done a full installation and they've weighed the pros and cons, and now they want to suck police budgets to make up for their budget shortfalls. If the local population didn't vote that library more money, that means they don't want them spending tax dollars on stuff like that. So they shouldn't start spending police tax dollars on it either. The people said no.
Re:RTFL (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why did I get into this? (Score:2, Insightful)
People in this thread are either idiots or know nothing about libraries. Libraries want you to use their services, for free.
If they could leave libraries unlocked 24 hours a day, they would. If they could do away with the overhead of checking out books, they would. But they can't, they'd loose too many books.
Libraries want you to use their stuff. If my library was providing an open-AP from outside the library, I'd certainly presume I could access it at any time, at least if I wasn't being abusive of their bandwidth by denying it to others. (Which I, by defination, couldn't be, if I was the only user.) And assuming they weren't being charged per-byte, but, if they were, they really shouldn't be letting it operate unsupervised.
And the porn argument is a red herring. The only reason libraries even vaguely care about porn (note most filtering is imposed by higher up government), is that patrons complain. They could give a flying fuck if you download porn in the parking lot, while they're closed, where people can't see you. They don't have some moral objection to porn.