WoW!
February 26, 2007 6:55 PM Subscribe
Gamer has laptop confiscated and faces criminal charges for accessing open wifi. What makes this story interesting is that the open wireless connection was at a public library in Palmer, Alaska and the young man accessing it was doing so while sitting outside the building in the parking lot after hours. (via Digg)
This post was deleted for the following reason: kinda old news and done to death.
Oy, the last time we discussed something like this it devolved into an obnoxious metaphor freeforall. Lets try to avoid metaphors in trying to describe what we think is right or wrong regarding wifi leaching.
I personally think open wifi carries an assumption of free use, however, if you are asked not to use it then obviously that assumption goes away. It appears people told this kid not to use that service. So it's not simply a case of arresting someone for using a hot spot randomly.
posted by delmoi at 7:04 PM on February 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
I personally think open wifi carries an assumption of free use, however, if you are asked not to use it then obviously that assumption goes away. It appears people told this kid not to use that service. So it's not simply a case of arresting someone for using a hot spot randomly.
posted by delmoi at 7:04 PM on February 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
The story (which is quite short) claims that the reason for the confiscation was not so muct the after-hours part as the violating library internet use policy. Since it is a public library there may be some basis, although it is stretching the logic to its limits. It implies that the after-hours part was just the source of enough suspicion to execute "probable cause." It also says that he has been chased out of many other areas for wi-fi leeching.
If we remember the case back in Florida, the leecher was found liable for damages in civil court (since it was a private wi-fi connection) and last I heard criminal charges were being considered.
Still, there is a sufficient amount of detail lacking. I would like to hear more, and I would also like to see this picked up by other MSM sources. I may not be able to discern if those MSM affiliates are honest, but at least it will shed further light on the incident.
posted by mystyk at 7:09 PM on February 26, 2007
If we remember the case back in Florida, the leecher was found liable for damages in civil court (since it was a private wi-fi connection) and last I heard criminal charges were being considered.
Still, there is a sufficient amount of detail lacking. I would like to hear more, and I would also like to see this picked up by other MSM sources. I may not be able to discern if those MSM affiliates are honest, but at least it will shed further light on the incident.
posted by mystyk at 7:09 PM on February 26, 2007
Oh, and let's say I just left my refrigerator out on the lawn ...
Aw, shit.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:09 PM on February 26, 2007
Aw, shit.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:09 PM on February 26, 2007
...plate full of delicious cupcakes... grumble ...nobody there... grumble... can't eat 'em?... grumble... damn you, delmoi.
posted by schoolgirl report at 7:10 PM on February 26, 2007
posted by schoolgirl report at 7:10 PM on February 26, 2007
...cupcakes in Astro Zombie's fridge... grumble...
posted by schoolgirl report at 7:11 PM on February 26, 2007
posted by schoolgirl report at 7:11 PM on February 26, 2007
Imagine I open a pretzel stand with a sign that says "condiments are free." Then a dog walker, with five dogs on leashes, approaches, and the dogs start barking. The dog walker insists that the airwaves are the property of everyone, including the dogs. A passer-by insists that he has a right to silence. He then proceeds to take 50 packets of mustard and feed them to the dogs. Wendell passes by and says, "keep your radio waves off my lawn." Then I say, imagine a pizza with an infinite number of slices. If I give you five slices of that pizza, how much pizza do I have left? What if you put complimentary mustard packets on it?
posted by knave at 7:12 PM on February 26, 2007 [6 favorites]
posted by knave at 7:12 PM on February 26, 2007 [6 favorites]
But delmoi, it's like when someone posts a weak front-page post and you click on it and complain and then people tell you that if you don't like it you should shut up and skip over it and go find a post you do like.
The post, like the free wi-fi, is just asking to be abused.
posted by vacapinta at 7:13 PM on February 26, 2007
The post, like the free wi-fi, is just asking to be abused.
posted by vacapinta at 7:13 PM on February 26, 2007
Are analogies okay?
posted by inconsequentialist at 7:15 PM on February 26, 2007
posted by inconsequentialist at 7:15 PM on February 26, 2007
Yes, but hyperbole, alliteration, and limericks are unacceptable.
posted by knave at 7:16 PM on February 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by knave at 7:16 PM on February 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
knave, have you considered become a law professor?
It also says that he has been chased out of many other areas for wi-fi leeching.
That's not relevant.
posted by ibmcginty at 7:19 PM on February 26, 2007
It also says that he has been chased out of many other areas for wi-fi leeching.
That's not relevant.
posted by ibmcginty at 7:19 PM on February 26, 2007
It doesn't matter how many slices you have. If you put mustard on a pizza, you've ruined it.
posted by pompomtom at 7:21 PM on February 26, 2007
posted by pompomtom at 7:21 PM on February 26, 2007
There was special air
I paid for and left outside
Somebody breathed it.
posted by jimmythefish at 7:24 PM on February 26, 2007 [3 favorites]
I paid for and left outside
Somebody breathed it.
posted by jimmythefish at 7:24 PM on February 26, 2007 [3 favorites]
I say we make an exemption for metaphors in posts, as long as the post is written in iambic pentameter.
posted by knave at 7:26 PM on February 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by knave at 7:26 PM on February 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'm getting hungry for pizza all of a sudden.
posted by inconsequentialist at 7:27 PM on February 26, 2007
posted by inconsequentialist at 7:27 PM on February 26, 2007
Man, tough crowd...
I posted this story because I thought the issue of whether libraries should provide access to their wifi services 24/7, seeing as they are tax-funded public institutions was an interesting one worthy of discussion. I can think of numerous points pro and con but would lean towards the pro side. No analogies, limericks or mustard needed.
posted by Jaybo at 7:33 PM on February 26, 2007
I posted this story because I thought the issue of whether libraries should provide access to their wifi services 24/7, seeing as they are tax-funded public institutions was an interesting one worthy of discussion. I can think of numerous points pro and con but would lean towards the pro side. No analogies, limericks or mustard needed.
posted by Jaybo at 7:33 PM on February 26, 2007
I posted this story because I thought the issue of whether libraries should provide access to their wifi services 24/7, seeing as they are tax-funded public institutions was an interesting one worthy of discussion. I can think of numerous points pro and con but would lean towards the pro side. No analogies, limericks or mustard needed.
And I panned your post because it was a one-link post pointing to a news story that is already widely distributed. Not to mention being about a topic that has been completely done to death.
Metafilter quality, this is not.
posted by tkolar at 7:36 PM on February 26, 2007
And I panned your post because it was a one-link post pointing to a news story that is already widely distributed. Not to mention being about a topic that has been completely done to death.
Metafilter quality, this is not.
posted by tkolar at 7:36 PM on February 26, 2007
I posted this story because I thought the issue of whether libraries should provide access to their wifi services 24/7, seeing as they are tax-funded public institutions was an interesting one worthy of discussion. I can think of numerous points pro and con but would lean towards the pro side. No analogies, limericks or mustard needed.
If you have to explain it...
posted by wfrgms at 7:36 PM on February 26, 2007
If you have to explain it...
posted by wfrgms at 7:36 PM on February 26, 2007
Sure makes non-laptop wifi devices, like tablets & phones, more desirable.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:38 PM on February 26, 2007
posted by jeffburdges at 7:38 PM on February 26, 2007
If they don't want people using it after hours, why don't they just turn it off?
posted by GavinR at 7:38 PM on February 26, 2007
posted by GavinR at 7:38 PM on February 26, 2007
"I posted this story because I thought the issue of whether libraries should provide access to their wifi services 24/7"
If they don't want it used at certain times, could they then, say, TURN IT OFF after hours? Or is that too obvious?
posted by cccorlew at 7:39 PM on February 26, 2007
If they don't want it used at certain times, could they then, say, TURN IT OFF after hours? Or is that too obvious?
posted by cccorlew at 7:39 PM on February 26, 2007
Jaybo, I think it's just that we're all so used to this form of government insanity that we have a hard time getting upset about it now. (or maybe it's because we all already saw this on slashdot or digg) With all the issues on our radars right now, the guy getting harassed for using wifi after hours is hard to get worked up about. I agree with you, it's completely reasonable that the library wifi would be open 24/7 (although there are clearly bad things people can do with untraceable internet access). But government services aren't really accountable directly to the people who use them, so they set their policies according to their whims, and it's something we deal with.
posted by knave at 7:43 PM on February 26, 2007
posted by knave at 7:43 PM on February 26, 2007
Wendell passes by and says, "keep your radio waves off my lawn."
I don't think I'm being fairly represented here. First of all, I don't have a lawn. I have a front porch and a hunk of shrubbery, but everything past that is pavement. And not only is it impossible to keep radio waves from hitting the ground, I know damn well that they bounce off the lawn (or pavement), therefore I know I have nothing to complain about.
Now, what were we talking about?
Sorry, I gotta get offline now. The librarian is coming out.
posted by wendell at 7:43 PM on February 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
I don't think I'm being fairly represented here. First of all, I don't have a lawn. I have a front porch and a hunk of shrubbery, but everything past that is pavement. And not only is it impossible to keep radio waves from hitting the ground, I know damn well that they bounce off the lawn (or pavement), therefore I know I have nothing to complain about.
Now, what were we talking about?
Sorry, I gotta get offline now. The librarian is coming out.
posted by wendell at 7:43 PM on February 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
This story raises a serious question we should be asking ourselves:
What kind of a fucking loser
sits outside a library
in a parking lot
after hours
in the middle of winter
in Alaska
to play video games
because he is too cheap to pay for internet access
and has been chased out of everywhere else in town
???????
posted by Muddler at 7:44 PM on February 26, 2007
What kind of a fucking loser
sits outside a library
in a parking lot
after hours
in the middle of winter
in Alaska
to play video games
because he is too cheap to pay for internet access
and has been chased out of everywhere else in town
???????
posted by Muddler at 7:44 PM on February 26, 2007
Our own Jessamyn wrote about this today. "I install wireless access points for libraries and I make the various levels of access crystal clear to them (want a password? want a new password every day? want to turn it off at night? want to limit downloading? want to block certain users? want to make the network invisible?) and let them make their own choices. These are all hardware/software problems, not social problems and certainly not legal problems. They may become legal problems if we shirk responsibility for maintaining and understanding our own technology, but can we please not let it get to that?"
posted by lee at 7:47 PM on February 26, 2007
posted by lee at 7:47 PM on February 26, 2007
I've spent a lot of time using "free" wifi, for a number of reasons.
I'll be interested in seeing how this ends.
Personally, my opinion is if the access isn't password protected, there isn't much of a case...
posted by HuronBob at 7:47 PM on February 26, 2007
I'll be interested in seeing how this ends.
Personally, my opinion is if the access isn't password protected, there isn't much of a case...
posted by HuronBob at 7:47 PM on February 26, 2007
Okay, she's gone. Now, would somebody explain to me why mustard packets are different from other data packets?
posted by wendell at 7:48 PM on February 26, 2007
posted by wendell at 7:48 PM on February 26, 2007
These are all hardware/software problems, not social problems and certainly not legal problems. They may become legal problems if we shirk responsibility for maintaining and understanding our own technology, but can we please not let it get to that?
With apologies to delmoi... The fact that the locks on 80% of our houses can be opened with "bump keys" is a hardware problem, then? So I should expect uninvited guests, and have no legal recourse when they let themselves in?
posted by knave at 7:51 PM on February 26, 2007
With apologies to delmoi... The fact that the locks on 80% of our houses can be opened with "bump keys" is a hardware problem, then? So I should expect uninvited guests, and have no legal recourse when they let themselves in?
posted by knave at 7:51 PM on February 26, 2007
If you've been explicitly told to not use a wireless connection, then of course you shouldn't. It's not really trespass, exactly; perhaps we need a new law spelling this out. (and for the most part, I hate making new laws, but it's not clear that this is either theft OR trespass, even though it's obviously wrong.)
If, however, you have not been explicitly told to not use a connection, and it's not encrypted, you can make a very strong argument that you were invited.
The laptop first has to 'associate' with the AP; it's granted permission to communicate on the physical network. (the wireless equivalent of plugging in a network cable; this step can be refused.) Then the laptop sends a request for an IP address, which a server on the network must grant. Finally, the network firewall has to allow the traffic out and the replies back. A failure of explicit permission at any of these steps would render the network inoperable. The open network has:
A) Chosen not to encrypt its signal;
B) Allowed a foreign MAC id to associate with the network;
C) Given out an IP address to the unknown computer;
D) Allowed traffic from that computer onto the Internet.
I don't know much more explicit a permission you could hope for... that's about as good as it gets, in computer terms. Barring an explicit request to not use that service, I just don't see how it could be considered illegal.
posted by Malor at 7:53 PM on February 26, 2007
If, however, you have not been explicitly told to not use a connection, and it's not encrypted, you can make a very strong argument that you were invited.
The laptop first has to 'associate' with the AP; it's granted permission to communicate on the physical network. (the wireless equivalent of plugging in a network cable; this step can be refused.) Then the laptop sends a request for an IP address, which a server on the network must grant. Finally, the network firewall has to allow the traffic out and the replies back. A failure of explicit permission at any of these steps would render the network inoperable. The open network has:
A) Chosen not to encrypt its signal;
B) Allowed a foreign MAC id to associate with the network;
C) Given out an IP address to the unknown computer;
D) Allowed traffic from that computer onto the Internet.
I don't know much more explicit a permission you could hope for... that's about as good as it gets, in computer terms. Barring an explicit request to not use that service, I just don't see how it could be considered illegal.
posted by Malor at 7:53 PM on February 26, 2007
Post quality aside, I'd like to fuck UPI in the eye with a dirty stick for using those pop-up text ads.
"Gee honey, I was reading a story about a boy getting arrested for accessing WiFi after hours when I thought to myself 'We really should Perm-A-Seal our driveway.'"
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:55 PM on February 26, 2007
"Gee honey, I was reading a story about a boy getting arrested for accessing WiFi after hours when I thought to myself 'We really should Perm-A-Seal our driveway.'"
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:55 PM on February 26, 2007
Also, was he using the library's free Wi-Fi to download porn and wank to it? If so, where was Carl Monday?
No more library wankery for Carl. He's got a new gig.
posted by evilcolonel at 7:57 PM on February 26, 2007
No more library wankery for Carl. He's got a new gig.
posted by evilcolonel at 7:57 PM on February 26, 2007
« Older We already have a flat tax? | put me down or i eatz yer fambly Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by tkolar at 6:58 PM on February 26, 2007