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."
How did they know? (Score:5, Interesting)
signal theft ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, had they secured their Airport, they would not had it vampirized.
And I am not sure the inside/outside concept applies to a radio signal...
Public Rights (Score:5, Interesting)
"A policeman approached him and asked that he only access the Internet from within the Library"
What if the guy wasn't using the Internet but was editing his site and was looking at the preview? (this was not the case but what if)
Look?? (Score:5, Interesting)
What are you advocating here exactly? That police officers are more justified to harrass some because of their look? Or that the law is less applicable to some people because of their job? With ignorant, prejudicial comments like this who needs rights eh? Let's just roundup all those who look like they may cause trouble and be done with it...
Looks, job, race, gender, etc should have nothing to do with the law and law enforcement. Laws and rights apply to everyone equally.
Not Signal Theft (Score:3, Interesting)
Now the DMCA makes it illegal to decode those signals.
Now I dont understand why some landowner who owns huge tracts have not sued the satilite broadcasters for using their airspace as a transmission medium again and ask for royalties and why cities have not charged tarriffs since they're essentially getting a free ride over the airwaves. If it was fiber optics buried in the ground they'd pay.
Re:signal theft ? (Score:1, Interesting)
I think you could make a reasonable analogy with the visible light spectrum. Lets say it was a broadway performance going on inside a theatre. If the theatre has a window in which you could see the stage, would it be illegal to "intercept" (i.e. view) the performance from this window (assuming you're far enough away from the window to not be tresspassing, i.e. using binoculars).
Re:How did they know? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:light and bandwidth ! (Score:3, Interesting)
However, if you use bandwidth you're not simply using it as you would use a radio signal. Your intrusion (because that's what it is) is causing other users' bandwidth to decrease. Not only that, but you're active on a network that you shouldn't have access to, which could be considered illegal. I'm not familiar with US laws.
Tell the cop to get bent! (Score:5, Interesting)
I smell something very fishy here BTW. He showed the cop the second time that he wasn't connecting to anywhere and yet the cop told him to move along. Move along? He was on a bench on public land just looking at his computer! The cop had no right to tell him to move along!
Two sides to every story I suppose, but would be interesting to call the police station and get their take on it...if only I knew where this was all taking place.
Also, where is this story reported from? The submitter of the story said "Keith Shaw, in his weekly column" yet the link just goes to an index where I can't find anything on AKMA...nor does it even show up on a search of the site!
US CODE COLLECTION (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not Signal Theft (Score:2, Interesting)
well im surely not an expert here (and neither do i live in the states), but ist the dmca about breaking encryption?
so if the signal was protected by a lame 64 bit wep, it would be applicable (like css and friends) but not if its unencrypted, as you are still allowed to copy unprotected (i.e not css'ed) dvds.
Re:Look?? (Score:2, Interesting)
I've never been harassed for having a Phish sticker on my car...oh wait, I have...while broken down on the side of the road - waiting for a tow truck, I wasn't even asked if I needed help. Instead I was badgered and berated, as well as illegally searched for about a half hour about how they knew I was in possession of marijuana. Once they finally realized I didn't have any illegal substances, they sped off in their car, leaving me still stranded and still never offered assistance.
Oh yea - I'm an Eagle Scout as well as an Assistant Scoutmaster.
Re:Public Rights (Score:5, Interesting)
I feel no sorrow for the library. I hope the lawyers get involved and that the library and police face penalties for this.
eric
How does one advertise a public WiFi hotspot? (Score:3, Interesting)
If there is no current convention, maybe it could be done by, say, sending a periodic broadcast packet on a specific port with a text message. "This network is public access" or something. Maybe there needs to be an RFC?
How law defines theft (Score:2, Interesting)
As a result the law was updated so that this particular behavior became illegal (something most of us would agree with). In this case the definition of theft had to be updated. The law did not mandate that all power line are to be buried under 10 feet thick concrete (to make them secure).
Now we have many folks hooking up wLAN access points who don't know how to properly configure them, essentally leaving them open. I've read numerous stories about war driving/flying/biking/sailig/whatever here on slashdot.
So most commons (who don't know how to encrypt wLAN but want an access point) will be very happy about this new definition of theft. This may lead to some funny results (as TFA helps to point out) but most of us will understand what the point of this law is and find it agreeable.
Result: expect this law to remain and to be extended to most places. In some cases courts will have to decide whether a particular case is theft or not.
Re:How did they know? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bad Cops (Score:4, Interesting)
My brother is a deputy in a small town, because he likes to drive fast and carry guns. Scary.
Re:How did they know? (Score:2, Interesting)
Against the rules? Yes. If the library, public library, has a rule against people using the wi-fi access outside the library's building... then sure they have that right to ask anyone who is breaking the rule to leave/stop using the wi-fi.
It's not about laws, it's about rules. Even still, the access point is open to library patrons. You are not a patron for simply sitting in front of the building with your card in your pocket. Enter the library.
I mean... should the whole neighborhood cancel their ISP subscriptions and run some sort of bridge to the "public" access point? I'm sure that wouldn't be okay.
Just go inside, it isn't that hard. I argued in another post that it isn't okay for you to simply remove books from the library without checking them out... there is a protocol. Maybe they want you to sign something saying that you won't look at porn or something.
Point is: it isn't a public access point. It belongs to the library. Look inside of a library book, it doesn't have the words: "Property of The People Of XXXXXX". It likely has this stamp: "Property of XXXXX Library".
If you don't return a book, are you charged for it or do they say, "no bother, it's yours good citizen" ?
The library has the right to restrict access if that means they can keep the program going. From a moral standpoint though I can't understand why the Priest doesn't see his actions as wrong.
"I did notice several other open signals in the area -- am I allowed to connect to them?"
What in your right mind makes you think you can? Because the system administrator came to you and said you could?
I understand how cool it is to use an unsecured Wi-Fi signal, but morally it seems wrong. Legally, who cares.
Well, I don't see the owner of these apples so I might as well eat one.
Re:light and bandwidth ! (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, unnecessary laws produce confusion (Score:4, Interesting)
His solution is the "butt test". Take the biggest guy you have on site. Stand next to him a couple feet away from the rail, and fall backwards so your butts land on the rail at the same time. If this doesn't make you nervous, then the railing is strong enough.
This situation is pretty much analagous to a lot of cyberlaws. They're supposed to "clarify" things but all they do is create a bunch of new restrictions everyone has to learn to steer their way around. It all gets muddled up in the average person (or cop's head) to the point where they are n't sure what is legal or not. It probably never makes sense to propose a law to "clarify" anything, at least until the courts have had a crack at the situation. Prosecutors are pretty creative at finding ways to do this, and if the courts get it wrong, then it's time for a new law. Programs can be created to educate police and prosecutors on strategies for using existing laws. But that would (a) take longer, (b) appear to be more expensive and (c) doesn't sound as good. It sounds better to say "I wrote a law to stop kiddie porn over the Internet", than "I sponsored a program to teach law enforcement how to use the law against people trafficking in kiddie porn on the Internet." Create an educational program points out the (true) fact that you can't do anything directly about kiddie porn, you're one step removed from the actual action.
I should point out reason (d), though: new laws are a chance to change the way the law works to favor one party or another.
The intent was correct... (Score:3, Interesting)
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:2, Interesting)
But the idea of a priest hanging around a parking lot with all those kids coming and going...
Seriously though, he wasn't "busted". He has not been whisked away by a black van filled with ski-masked villians to a classified prison. He wasn't even arrested. Hell, he didn't get a freaking parking ticket. A lone cop allegedly asked him to stop doing something which may or may not have been illegal, perhaps as an excuse just to engage him in conversation and make sure he was on the up-and-up.
Someone re-file this under "Whining About Trivial Annoyances", and leave YRO for the occasional legitimate problem.
Re:How did they know? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:How did they know? (Score:2, Interesting)
It reminds me of the old story about the baker who is angry that his neighbors get to smell the bread baking without paying for it. He went to the judge and demanded that his neighbors pay for the bread they smelled. - It's just damn silly.
If people don't want you to use their wifi they need to make it secure. Regardless of silly laws.
Re:How did they know? (Score:2, Interesting)
I work for Harris County Public Library which surrounds Houston, Texas. I work in the C.O. and we have 27 branches, 25 of which are WiFi capable. I should know... I designed them and implemented them using old computers in the back room for the gateways, linux and NoCat (www.nocat.net).
That being said, I would like to comment on one of your statements:
The library has the right to restrict access if that means they can keep the program going. From a moral standpoint though I can't understand why the Priest doesn't see his actions as wrong.
Thats where I believe you are misinformed. Remember, the library is not a for-profit entity. Because of that, to get funding, we have to submit to the Commisioner numbers. How many books did we check out for the month? How many new borrowers? How many overdue? How many people used the computers inside the library?
You know, stuff like that...
Concerning the public wireless, all they want are hits. How many people use it? THe higher the number, the more legitimate that system becomes, and the more funding you get for it. Which is why here at HCPL, and I would hope there at the library in question, that they not only allow, but encourage people to use it, even when the library is closed.
Why? Because thats a 'hit', and thats as good as a sale in the library business.
++John
Re:RTFL (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:How did they know? (Score:2, Interesting)
And the Judge instructed the defendant to take all of his money out of his pockets.
"But your honor..." the defendant protested, but complied.
"Now," the judge continued, "pour the coins form one hand into the other and back again."
The defendant did as he was instructed. The baker looked greedily at the tenant's meager coins.
The judge then spoke to the baker "This is my just ruling: As your neighbor has enjoyed the smell of your bread, so have you now enjoyed the sound of his money. You have been paid in full."
Retold to the best of my recollection from a children's book "Ookah the Wise," which may or may not have been old Japanese folk tales.
Communications Act of 1934 (Score:1, Interesting)
If you don't want me intercepting your signals, keep them off me.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
We did it on purpose (Score:3, Interesting)