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)
RTFA. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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: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
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..
RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
2) At the time that he was using it no rules were in place against the use of wireless connections outside the library. If you read his coverage, the library stated their opposition to using wireless signals outside the library only after this incident.
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How did they know? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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.
Re:How did they know? (Score:3, Funny)
A viola, being a stringed instrument, would be rather useless if wireless. You probably mean "voilà".
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:How did they know? (Score:5, Informative)
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:How did they know? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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: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.
Re:How did they know? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um... why not?
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:How did they know? (Score:3, Informative)
"Our reference book collection is complemented by online databases and free Internet access for our patrons." From the Nantucket Atheneum Website [nantucketatheneum.org].
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:How did they know? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How did they know? (Score:3, Funny)
Of what (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry... had to
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...
Re:signal theft ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:signal theft ? (Score:4, Informative)
Did you ever notice that only Sony is allowed to call their walkman's a walkman?
As long as Apple stops other companies from using the name, they lose no rights to the trademark if the rest of the world uses it as a generic name.
Hmm FCC? (Score:3, Funny)
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)
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, "Than
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:Public Rights (Score:3, Funny)
It would be interesting to see a good # of
And yes... I am one who believes that a person should know their rights and not need a police officer to tell them... down with Mir
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Re:light and bandwidth ! (Score:4, Informative)
--
Ehr, 'Holland, the country' ? Coz I live there and I'm quite certain that's not the case. If you have a TV antenna here and you're receiving TV signals, you will be asked to pay 'kijk en luistergeld'.
Re:light and bandwidth ! (Score:3, Informative)
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
Kernel Developer, ReactOS
http://www.relsoft.net/ [relsoft.net]
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.
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.
Re:Look?? (Score:5, Funny)
AKMA is an ordained priest.
From the article:
"It's a law, sir; if someone comes along and downloads child photography (that wasn't the exact word the officer used) and it goes through their [sc., the access point owner's] connection, that's a violation and we've had cases of that. That's a felony."
No profiling, my ass.
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.
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:Worrying (Score:3, Informative)
No, it seems like fairly standard behaviour. The cop probably thought that the guy had quickly switched off the WiFi card, and suspected that it would be turned back on as soon as he left. So the cop asks the guy to leave.
It's the same if a cop thinks you're defacing property or if you're up to other shenanigans, but he hasn't actually see you break the law so he cannot take you in or fine you. If he suspects you'll do something bad when
Re:Worrying (Score:3)
People are more likely to cooperate with you if you ask nicely and have a gun, than if you ask rudely.
That said, why didn't the guy simply walk into the library, sit down at one of their nice tables and use his laptop on the Internet in the Library using the wifi? The cop may not have been right, but there is nothing more dangerous than a cop who is willing to be wrong.
Re:Worrying (Score:5, Informative)
One of the followup articles explained that the library was closed at the time.
Another one said
The Atheneum has just now posted a policy stating that the wifi connection is available only between a half-hour after they open to a half-hour before they close, on days that they're open. The stated reasonn is "for better maintenance and operation." Case closed.
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?
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.
So some cops are stupid and/or overzealous (Score:3, Funny)
Oh great... (Score:3, Funny)
He still looks like a hacker (Score:3, Funny)
He's still got glasses and wears all black. Sounds like probable cause to me.
I'm joking, in case you can't tell.
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!
Re:Tell the cop to get bent! (Score:4, Informative)
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
Kernel Developer, ReactOS
http://www.relsoft.net/ [relsoft.net]
my own wi-fi story (Score:3, Funny)
I was at a party last week and a guy is talking to my friend
guy : "... we noticed someone was sucking our bandwidth via the wifi, cut him off, looked outside and saw a red BWM with a laptop on the passenger seat drive away"
friend : "hehe that's him," points at me.
busted !
ah, the perils of wardriving.
I thought wardriving was going to be an interesting hobby, got all the kit - wifi-card, laptop, inverter, usb gps.
I drove 2 miles from my house to my friends and on the way discovered 30 access points along the main road !
Turns out urban wardriving is just too easy here in the UK.
Re:my own wi-fi story (Score:3, Funny)
US CODE COLLECTION (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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.
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 (desi
but it was closed (Score:3, Informative)
Just a thought: if the library puts up a sign (inside ofcourse) that you can use the internet. Does it mean you can keep on using it, outside the building, after that library closes?
Bad Cops (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Simple Defense (Score:5, Insightful)
The real point (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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: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 no
revenge (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Re:How does one advertise a public WiFi hotspot? (Score:5, Informative)
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: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.
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)
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
actually thanks to HBO in 1981.. (Score:5, Informative)
Secondly, the FCC has detemined certain channels to be public use. the 2.4 gig range used by WI/Fi is among those.
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.
My policy @ the library (Score:3, Informative)
We use a timed based ACL to restrict connections while we're closed, but I couldn't care less what you do while we're open. We force a page on the first HTTP request, which gives you the ACU and notes that you're agreeing to it by proceeding. Included in that ACU is adhearing to the law (fed. , state, and local). That ACU doesn't mention where you can use the signal, but if it's a nice day...
People surf for porn all the time inside the building. Heck, I'd prefer if they'd take it outside. Granted, we've never had to deal with illegal child porn, but if we did, we'd at least have a MAC address and hostname to watch for if they returned.
We did it on purpose (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:no protection ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no protection ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Priest? So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Minister (Score:4, Informative)
Since when is it in the job description of the Police Department to help carry out statistical surveys for the local library? If the librarians want more statistics, they can simply log more traffic.
BTW, how do you propose keeping all users indoors may help with their statistics? Is it so the librarians can look them over and make notes like "suspicious-looking priest in black with glasses and TiBook" in their little statistical notebooks?
Encrypting wouldn't help much as they would have to give out the key anyway it being a public access point
Yeees. Go on. Keep thinking, you're on to something here. What if it ceases to be a public access point when you turn encryption on? Since the library already had an encrypted AP too, it seems to me this one was intentionally left public and open. Hell, he even had a library card so if they had encrypted the signal and made the AP available for known users only, he would most likely have had access to the key. It would be interesting to see the incident report.
BTW, he's not [go.com] alone [nwsource.com] being questioned by police about his horrible crimes and terrorist activities.
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.
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.
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 representa
Re:Oh, so he was a priest!? (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, the cop did make some kind of comment to the priest about kiddie porn, which was entirely unappropriate.
How would you like it if people assumed you were a member of the KKK simply because you are white? Or a violent gang member because you are black? Or an illegal alien because you are latino? Or that you eat dogs and cats because you are Vietnamese? Or that you live in a single room apartment with 20 people because you are Chinese?
It's bigotry,