AKMA’s Random Thoughts

You might want to go back into the Athenaeum and ask a librarian about this. I smell a cop-library feud somewhere.

I agree. This one makes no sense. It's the same as taking photographs of public buildings when you're on public land -- there is no law against it, but tell that to security.

I would take this to city hall. You've been harrassed on public land.

Whoa, remind me to keep my computer off outside. Read this article - http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/237

EFF has a whole section on this, called Best Practices for Online Service Providers. Basically, as a service provider (if you ran a wireless point open to all, or the library in this case) you are not responsible for what takes place on the network. If someone really is trafficing some illegal stuff, the person doing it is at fault, not the person providing the connection.

You should try this again sometime, and tell the officer that you would like him to cite you or arrest you if this is infact illegal. Continue sitting on a bench and modifying the radio rave vibrations. If you are actually arrested or fined for this, it will become far more interesting. Good luck.

s/rave/wave/ # typo

while getting arrested over a nonexistent law might be interesting, i doubt it would do anything to change the law. plus it can be hard to defend yourself against laws that don't exist, unless you happen to know a good nonexistent lawyer. it would probably be better (and also interesting) to lobby your representatives to change this nonexistent law.

I once tried to take a picture of a federal courthouse on a weekend (the purpose was to use on our firm's website). I was approached by a building security cop who told me I was not allowed to take pictures of the court. I asked him why. He said it was against the law. And I informed him that I was a lawyer and I had worked in that very building and was aware of all of the laws that might pertain to picture taking of public buildings and he was, unfortunately, misinformed.

I told him that I didn't want to put him an awkward position so I would stop taking pictures, but I told him that he might want to brush up on the law. Obviously, people are allowed to take pictures of public buildings while standing on a public street. What's amazing is that something that most people would instinctively understand as a fundamental right, a policeman can be trained to prohibit with minimal effort. I think there's a lesson here.

The next time my girlfriend gives me crap about being a nerd and using my computer on a park bench... I'll be all like:

"No baby! I'm stealing signal! I'm a rebel! I'm a criminal! I'm fightin' the man! Now kiss me damn it!!! "

ha...

Girls always like the dangerous ones! Now I'm cool all of a sudden. All I need is a Harley !!

Kevin

Nonsensical, nonexistent, or just plain weird and annoying, such a law might actually come to be. Or at the very least, the precedent for such a law has already been set in a similar situation. As my father, an amateur "ham" radio operator and all-around radio enthusiast, informed me the Federal government passed a similar communications law in the mid 80s (the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986), but with respect to cell phones and (improperly named) "police" scanners. From what I understand, the law aims to prohibit the general scanner-owning public, as well as the federal government, from listening to cell phones and similar devices, which are basically just 2-way FM radios. (My father also tells me, turning apoplectic purple in the process, that at the time the law was passed only very expensive, high-end scanners had the range to hear cell phones. As they came down in price, however, the general public still could not own such a device--unless they could prove they were part of a federal agency.) Actually the Communications Act of 1934, I've also learned, already "allows" the public to listen to any radio transmission they can, but prohibits listeners from revealing the content of transmissions to uninvolved parties or from using the content to aid in illegal activities or for personal gain. So, no blogging about something you saw on the net while using wifi and no ebay via wifi? Granted, the more recent law aims to protect commerical interests and the right to privacy--issues not raised by AKMA's situation (except his _own_ right to privacy)--it does so by attempting to police the reception of open wireless signals. So both weird and scary I'd say.

well, sucking up someone's 802.11 bandwidth is a bit different than reading by their porchlight.

And the illegal d/l issue does make criminalizing this use somewhat sensible, and it looks like:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html

1030 (a)(2)(C) is the gotcha! clause if the computer/router you're accessing communicates across state lines.

(though it must be said getting hassled for using a library's publically-available signal outside the library is extremely sketchy -- this isn't Red China fer gosh sakes)

Police officers are remarkably willing to use urban legend to enforce laws. If it's a federal law, and that police officer is not a federally deputized agent, then he is not obliged or, in fact, able to enforce that law. He could perform some kind of arrest and then alert the FBI, but local officers don't act as executive arms on federal law. They alert federal authorities to violations of laws.

A neighbor was burgled a few years ago and the thief took her pulled wisdom teeth, which she'd forgotten were stashed in a small manila envelope. She only knew he'd taken them (and some panties and other stuff) because he'd torn the envelope open, which was labeled. The responding officer told me very seriously that the teeth were used in satanic rituals, which he'd been reading about in a book.

Yikes. Police officer need to be able to provide the precise law under which they are interceding. If they can't, their only recourse is to arrest you, and then to (often) face the consequences if you're middle or upper-class enough to pursue a complaint and civil litigation. The city then settles or apologizes, the officer might lose some pay or be fired.

Basically, I don't believe that anyone should be arrested without a specific charge, and I'm sure the officer in your case, AKMA, would have said you were disturbing the peace and resisting an officer's instructions, or some such.

Gee, that was how I emailed family and updated my blog the whole time I was in Mississippi last fall.

Bet you had no idea you had a hardened criminal working for you...

Like duh guys, guess where this cop gets his free coffee. Starbucks, right?

Illinois' Super-DMCA passed last year, and includes the following wording:

"Unlawful communication device" means any ... communication device that is capable of acquiring or facilitating the acquisition of a communication service without the express consent or express authorization of the communication service provider

Is it possible that the police officer was refering to a similar law recently passed in your state? (url goes to EFF's super-DMCA page)

It wouldn't be good to push your luck on this. Even though the cop is wrong, he'll confiscate your computer when he arrests you. Then they will look over the contents of the hardrive to find something else to charge you with once they realize they have egg on their face from their mistake. Being innocent is not enough to make you safe. Anyone who has been on the internet at all has clicked on links that the cops could call suspicious and cause them to look into your ISPs logs and try to trump up charges. Plus, you probably won’t get your computer back in one piece.

This is totally ridiculous. Shouldn't you at least report this to the local precinct? Perhaps the library as well. I would be angry.

What's amazing is all the folks saying that you should just bend over and take this because the even though the law is on your side, the "man" could make things difficult for you. I had no idea that our society had become so chickensh*t. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. I see why Shrub & Co. are getting away with their rape of the country.

Surprise! The USA is a police state. Get over it.

That sounds like a troll from an abrasive anti-American European. And to some extent you'd be right. But really people, wake up and look around you. Spot the armed policeman in the corner of McDonalds. Read the stories about people being hassled for no reason beyond "you ain't from around these parts, are you boy". Read the stories about the bad craziness of trying to fly on domestic airline flights. Even if you're a Senator. Read the stories about the caged designated protest area in Boston. And so on. And on. And on.

Land of the free? Pah! Free, yes, just as long as you stay between the white lines. And we're not going to tell you where the white lines are. And for 1/3 of the population there is no space between the white lines; You're guilty if we feel like arresting you.

Taken another tack. Let's say that the library provides free wifi. What T&Cs do the library have for this service and *where are they*. Do they specifically state that access is only to be used within the walls of the building and do they make it reasonably easy to find this statement and to accept it? Was there a captive portal page with a link to the terms? Or more likely is there a bit of paper on a pinboard covered by other bits of paper announcing free wifi.

Perhaps the best response would have been to invite the policeman to walk with you into the library and find the piece of paper or person that could confirm that they specifically ban the use of the Library wifi outside the walls of the building. Given that library people are generally quite in favour of sharing and free access, it shouldn't be hard to find someone who would tell him it was OK.

It would be helpful to know what law specifically he was advised about by the FBI. Freedom of Information Act requests (to the local precinct and Secret Service) for notes from the mtg might lend some insight into how the officer acquired this belief. Surely the ACLU or EFF would be willing to send it out on your behalf. Both organizations should have some interest in a law supposedly claiming such a broad restriction on electronic communication.

Lesson learned - the higher the church the easier to intimidate.

In China, many children know well about the story of Afanti, who was a legend hero that helps poors. He ever hoaxed one richman who wantd to charge a poor sitting outside his restaurant to smell. Afanti shaked his money bag to the richman, "Did you hear the sound of coins?", "Yes", "Then paid", haha.

I'm the computer go-to guy at my library. We're currently in the midst of a renovation and have a temporary branch on federal property. If you want to come sit outside and use our bandwith...go for it. It is my belief you're already paying for it.

*: Note: the above comment may or may not be the official policy of my or any other library and/or federal facility. But it should be...don't you think?

Sounds as though the cop's read a few too many of those WiFi-scare stories. By the way they're written, one would be led to believe that all Wi-Fi users are up to no good.

Maybe you could tell the cop that your boss could smite his boss.

> “Is this a state law?” I asked.
>
> “It’s a federal law, sir; a Secret Service agent > came and explained it to us.

This would be likely the Patriot Act then? As far as I know, that's the only US law currently on the books under which people can be picked up and taken away without specifically being charged with anything. Although perhaps there are laws that the citizenry can't be told about, now.

You can't be too secure, you know. Just try it.

I know of several public libraries in Iowa that welcome people to use the wireless connection from outside the building. One in Ankeny, Iowa has stated openly to several people that if the library is closed you are welcome to use the wireless connection. They have also stated that even if the library is open please feel free to use the connection from your car if you so desire. There are also at least 2 rest area's in the state of Iowa that have wifi service available for free (these are on I-80 between Des Moines and the Illinois border and have signs stating Wi-Fi access). It sounds like this officer was being a bit zealous with his approach. It appears that I could be told to stop using my wireless connection from outside my home if he were to see me doing so.

I would definitely speack with the library staff ( director if possible ) and, if they are not opposed to allowing access while outside the building, request they inform the police department that this is a perfectly acceptable use of Publicly funded resources ( which all taxpayers finance ).

A different but related issue: we need to go to libraries to help provide them with signal boosters so that we CAN use them outside of the library... help them become a wISP to serve the whole town!

Even with a nifty built-in iBook antenna, I had trouble acquiring signal outside the Little Compton, RI public library. What with budget cuts reducing open hours, this is more important than ever. Darn those old buildings with lots of real metal nails and other signal-attenuating structural features, as well as cheap low-signal-strength base stations.

From the perspective of the cop, he's been told something, interpreted it (as people do) and may have interpreted it from the view of someone not as comfortable with computers as someone who's a blogger might be. So I'll *presume* non-evil intent.

[Just as with doctors there are people who are sick and people not yet sick: from a cop POV (not terribly realistic given the range of humans that are cops), there are criminals and people not yet criminals. His job is to catch criminals and discourage want to be criminal behavior.)

Now, what YOU can do is not to bug HIM about the law - once he's on the defensive and seeing himself as attacked, resistance will build. You can get some information (EFF jumps to mind, but also the view of the librarians - most are smart and very interested in this kind of topic) and approach his "management". That might be chief of police, taht might be the city government. It might also include HIM.

"Hey, I was concerned and I went and got this information and I'm wondering who we can talk to to clear up the misinformation you guys were given."

You're not challenging the OFFICER, you're challenging that they got bad information and you have something in your hand (not just theory) that proves it different. Give him a chance to be on your side and be your ally in this. "We both got screwed, lets fix this before a mistake is made."

...um, correct me if I'm missing something, but if you have a library card issued by that library, then you already have permission to use their resources.

You can't be arrested unless they have a specific violation to nab you with. You have to be charged to be arrested. (On any police report, the police is required to note a code violation and this can be challenged in a court of law.) If any police officer claims that you're in violation of the law, you have the right to demand clarification. There's also a little something called Miranda rights.

Plus, you get due process under the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment gives you the right "to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation." The Fourteenth Amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States."

Stop caving into their fear, people. Citizens hold more cards than they realize. And it disgusts me that backbone is so undervalued.

There's an abbreviation for that incident, AKMA.

GEST - of the Library +
A - Akma +
PO - Policeman +
======================
GESTAPO

"You have to be charged to be arrested."

legally, yes. realistcally, no. i know many people who've been arrested simply because a cop didn't like their attitude/politics/skin colour, and then came up with a charge later (the most common being assault officer, resist arrest, breach of peace, etc... or sometimes the cop gets lucky and finds he can get them on possession).

An easy, relatively non-confrontational way to handle it:

Ask the officer to tell you what the statute is that you are breaking. He'll probably name some random law that he is making up or misinterpreting. Then, ask him for his business card. If he doesn't have one, get his name and badge number. Now, politely go home or into the library & research the specified law. Better yet, politely ask the officer to wait while you call up the text of the law. If you are able to confirm that such a draconian law exists in your jurisdiction, politely thank the officer for bringing it to your attention. If not, however, print out the text of the law & have it ready for the next time you are harrassed.

Even if such a law does exist, however, I think that they would have a very tough time convicting you in this particular case. You are using a publicly provided signal, and accessing it from a public place. This is even more clear cut then using a private but unprotected signal since the government is providing the signal for public use. If it were a coffee shop, they could argue that the signal was provided for customers only, but since it is a public entity offering a public service, I can't imagine that you could be convicted. (As someone else pointed out, this does assume that the library doesn't have a TOS posted that specifically forbids using the service from outside of the library.)

One more course of action... Talk to the library manager. Most librarians would be highly offended by the situation. Ask them to give you writtten permission to use the library's signal from outside the building. Next time the cop hassles you, you just whip out your permission slip & tell him to go away...

One more suggestion... Contact your local media! Let them know that the local police are harrassing citizens for doing noothing more then taking advantage of a public service. This course of action worked quite well for Ian Spiers, a Seattle photography student, who was repeatedly harrassed & threatened with arrest for taking pictures on public property. See Brown Equals Terrorist for details.

I think that the points about stealing bandwidth are good, but when the library (or a coffee shop) contracts with an internet service provider, they can work out an appropriate fee to cover the people using the wireless network, so there is proper compensation to the bandwidth provider. I think individuals, in their homes, should be required to close their access points simply because it is a lot like sharing cable to let other people use your access for free. But libraries and coffee shops who get wi-fi probably already pay a fee that would cover your hanging out on their steps and checking your email.

Messrs. Finite, Mixalis, & Ed are invited to visit Nantucket and exercise their rights.

Barlow, why can't the cable companies just charge for a certain amount of bandwidth and a certain amount for overages? That way bandwidth sharers would be paying their way, and there'd be no logic to place impediments on whatever sharing the customer wanted to engage in.

This would also help deal with P2P bandwidth fiends as well, of course.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Dealing with stupid (or simply misinformed) people in positions of authority is, of course, the real problem.

Perry

Julian was being sarcastic with that "police state" comment, right?

If they weren't otherwise occupied with the tasks of daily survival, residents of actual police states would surely have cause to protest.

Perry, where does that quote come from?

How often do we do just that? Great Quote!

As far as "stealing" someone's signal, and utilizing it, it's akin to someone watching a person undress and/or perform personal acts in their own house with the curtains and shades open. Law enforcement could possibly arrest the peeper on some local or state law of some kind if they were on private property, but might also trump up something if the person was just standing on the public right of way getting an extended eyeful, if they wanted. But they could also charge the resident with public indencency if indeed it was flagrant and not simple failure to remember the curtains weren't closed. Such laws are open to very vague interpretations and the offense can be on either side, just as with WiFi.

I agree it's ludicrous to harass someone who is picking up a PUBLIC signal in a public place. How does the policeman know that's it's not a malicious hacker using a computer to defraud, however, or someone programming a bomb to go off in a nearby area? Life gets more difficult every day, and lines between liberty, personal and business privacy and safety too blurred, and there's very little we can do about it.

Reminds me of just a few decades ago when policemen arrested women who were breastfeeding their babies in public, no matter how modest they were. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

A few years ago I tried to sell an old satellite reciever on Yahoo! Auctions and had my account banned for selling illegal items. when i called Y! they told me that I was selling a device for illegaly receiving satellite signals. I tried to explain that it was just an old reciever collecting dust in my closet, but they wouldn't change their policy. Of course there was nothing to stop me from opening a new Y! account and still using it for the other services they provide.

Anyway, just something that came to mind when I read this.

How about this, ask the officer what the law is and while he is standing there either look it up online while sitting on the bench and him looking over your shoulder (unless that causes problems) or ask him to go INTO the library with you and then look it up - doing it in the vestibule may be pushing your luck :)

r.

I agree with Don't Risk It about the nuisance value when the cops go through the hard disk to see if there was something mildly incriminating. A couple of thoughts:

* Arrange for a large number of wireless users to surf the web while sitting outside the library, and alert the news media.

* The feds probably briefed the cops that terrorists always steal bandwidth in this manner so that they can't be traced. (One presumes that terrorists never go inside a hotspot to use the bandwidth, as in a Starbucks)

Quite sad, really.

I've heard Perry's quote termed "Hanlon's Razor;" it's most often attributed to a man named Robert Hanlon.

Don't ask me why I know this; I'm a magnet for useless trivia, or what my husband calls "little known facts of little interest to very few." (^_^)

The porch light analogy is flawed: (1) You are using bandwidth, reducing the bandwidth available to others. (2) You are using bandwidth, increasing the overall bandwidth going through the node, incurring more costs on the ISP, resulting eventually in an increase in rates the WiFi owner will have to pay. (3) You are exposing the WiFi owner to potential hacker issues or dealing with issues like the kiddy porn example.

Advocating that libraries and the like allow use of WiFi from whereever it can be picked up is fine. But asserting that you have the unlimited right to use something someone else is paying for is wrong.

Darcy, all analogies are unfortunately flawed but I think your analysis overlooks relevant circumstances. As for (1) the bandwidth in question is specifically being provided for public consumption; (2) the "WiFi owner" in this case is the public library, whose intent is to provide the signal free of charge for public access; and (3) this issue is unaffected by whether a "perpetrator" is seated inside ... or outside.

No one is claiming an unlimited right to use something paid for by another, rather the right to use a publicly-funded resource consistent with the purpose for which it's being provided. The library's T & Cs most likely prohibit use of the system in a manner which would impair or threaten its availability to others (i.e. business use / excessive bandwidth consumption or to engage in illegal activities). If those terms are being observed, why it should matter on which side of a wall someone is seated?

Could you provide me with information about the law you are specifically speaking about? You see, I am thinking of hiring a lawyer to represent me on a case similar to this, but not exactly. I was sitting out here in the sun because it was so much more pleasant than the stuffy library. If you could give me a head start, I'd appreciate it. I'll go back in the library now. Thank You.

If you do pursue this and find out the actual statute involved, please post your findings. Beyond the "this is a police state" concerns, it is interesting to see how rules, regs and laws developed for older technologies adjust to new ones; wifi is a curious one: Starbucks charges for theirs, so they don't have the free-rider problem (at least in this area -- in fact, some businesses proximate to a Starbucks use their wifi rather than their own firm's net); if my neighbor gets cable and puts in a wireless hub and I can get the signal in my house, is it ok for me to piggy-back on this? No (or not without asking). The library is somewhere in-between, it seems to me.

Your library, like some here, may have done this: they put in sufficient bandwidth (like my neighbor) to service the population that can fit in the building but not the population that can fill the park. If passers-by start planning their day around stopping in the park not-library-related web activity or 'anonymous' browsing using library bandwidth, but not at the library, inside patrons' access is slowed. Maybe the library is just trying to apply direct-connection rules to wifi.

The general problem of free-riders and wifi seems challenging: when wifi is put in as a "service" like downtown hotspots for everyone, it's clear; and when it is a service that is charged for like Stabucks, it's clear; but a public institution like a library trying to provide service on a limited budget to those who want to use it as a library service (vs use it as a free cyber-cafe) can try to allocate the service to 'truer' library patrons by trying to exclude everyone sucking up bandwidth from the neighborhood because they are treating the signal as their ISP.

Financial Times today has an interesting article on the new economy and control issues for products and services once they are in the public domain -- like an open signal.

Intersting post -- thanks.

Unauthorized use of wi-fi hotspots is referred to as "warchalking", where people use chalk to indicate their existence.

There is an interesting article on this that appeared in the 2003 UCLA Journal of Law and Technology: 2003 UCLA J.L. & Tech. Notes 19

The Origin and Legality of Warchalking
by Eric Vandevelde

http://www.lawtechjournal.com/notes/2003/19_030731_Vandevelde.php

The author concludes that the practice does raise some legal issues but that they are unresolved at this point -- both in terms of statutes and judicial decisions.

Interesting that this gets raised in Nantucket, of all places -- we can thank the presence of the Secret Service for that, which in turn comes from the fact that John Kerry and his wife have a house there.

If the library is really concerned about this use of their network, I think there are some ways they could limit access to the network, via passcodes and the like.

Further to my earlier email, a May 3, 2004 article, "WiFi High Crimes" talks about the federal statute -- the US federal computer crime statute (Title 18 U.S.C 1030) -- that can be interpreted to make it a crime to knowingly access WiFi networks "without authorization". However, as the author (a former head of the Justice Department's computer crime unit) explains, "how was I supposed to know that I wasn't allowed to access the WiFi connection".

His advice: "if we want to move to ubiquitous wireless computing, where you can use wiFi protocols for cheap, mobile VOIP communications, or have near universal wireless Internet access, we are going to have to persuade the law to get the hell out of the way."

The article is at http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/237

Interestingly enough, I have a house on Nantucket and will be there next week. I may try to use a laptop outside the library and see if I the police say anything.

The FCC provides free WIFI wireless internet to the public at their headquarters, even outside at the courtyard ! So some branches of the government encourage you to use it. Story is linked below.

http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/story/0,10801,83729,00.html

"I think your analysis overlooks relevant circumstances. As for (1) the bandwidth in question is specifically being provided for public consumption; (2) the "WiFi owner" in this case is the public library, whose intent is to provide the signal free of charge for public access; and (3) this issue is unaffected by whether a "perpetrator" is seated inside ... or outside."

This is relevant if the public library's rules do in fact permit use of WiFi whereever it can be received. If they don't, then it's not. So it boils down to the fact issue of what the library's rules are. They certainly have the right to set limits on use of their resources, despite the fact that they are a "public" library. For instance, there are rules that reference books cannot be checked out, and rules that books that can be checked out must be returned in two weeks and cannot be written in.

"No one is claiming an unlimited right to use something paid for by another, rather the right to use a publicly-funded resource consistent with the purpose for which it's being provided. The library's T & Cs most likely prohibit use of the system in a manner which would impair or threaten its availability to others (i.e. business use / excessive bandwidth consumption or to engage in illegal activities). If those terms are being observed, why it should matter on which side of a wall someone is seated?"

Again, it comes down to the actual rules of the library, which can be reasonable in the way you state, or can be unreasonable, in which case the recourse is via complaints to elected representatives. From a strictly legal standpoint though, they can limit use in any way they want, so again it comes down to how they have actually limited it--what are their published rules?

I don't mean to call you out, but this original story sounds like a load of crap. so you were on this bench, and some cop comes up, because you look suspicious in front of the library. And then the cop somehow realizes, (since cops are so savvy) that you are using the internet. hmm, is this story just bait for comments?

Yeah, AKMA's pretty suspicious looking. Criminy.

What irks me most, I think, is this bit:

"Why don’t you just close that up, sir, or use your computer elsewhere?"

Am I to believe that even if you _weren't_ using the open wireless networks, just using your _laptop_ in public was discouraged? Zoinks.

Hey, Heath — yup, that’s the way it went down. Beware!

Cops are shit. We need to treat cops like shit. If everyone treated cops like the shit they are, people would be less inclined to become cops. Also cops would be less inclined to treat random law abiding citizens like shit in case it blew up in their face.

More fool the library for having an open node.

Most 'public' nodes in the UK are not open, but use a 'scratch card' or 'pre-paid' ID method.

>If it's a federal law, and that police officer is not a federally deputized agent, then he is not obliged or, in fact, able to enforce that law. He >could perform some kind of arrest and then alert the FBI, but local officers don't act as executive arms on federal law. They alert federal >authorities to violations of laws.

WRONG!

You've been slashdotted!

I'm not going to be really popular for posting this opinion, but I feel you handled this in a selfish way, and missed an excellent opportunity to practice some H. D. Thereau (sic?) Civil Disobedience. I feel you would have served society much better if you politely told the cop that any law you were violating was unconstitutional at best, and that he would need to arrest you if he wanted you to stop accessing the public libraries resource from a public place.

With any luck he would have arrested you and some much needed publicity surrounding the rampant abuse of the legal system currently ocurring in this country would have been acheived. Can you think of a better case to make it as clear as cut diamond how absurd such laws are and how out of hand the legislative branch has gotten? You may say it is your duty as a man of God to follow the law (pure speculaion on my part, here, of course) but I say that you passed up a slow ball thrown by God in the game of Good vs. Evil!

Never the less, God Bless and Blessed Be!

Rhiannon

I am the systems librarian for my local library out here is Nebraska. Your cops are way to uptight! I put wi-fi out so people could do exactly what you are doing. If they want to connect from outside of my building when it is closed, I have no problem with that. I have signs in the window stating that the library is a hotspot and am glad people use the service. That cop has no idea about what he is talking about.

So what hapens if you are a ham or a general radio telephone liscense and have primary use of the spectrum, just whip out your liscense and say auctaly officer they are interfeering with my spectrum just ask the FCC. Provided they are using a certian part of the 2.4 gh band, you could make them change the chanel or even turn the point off. I wonder how a cop would react to that.

Hey, Rhiannon — I opted to cooperate not out of theological principle (indeed, theologically, I’d do just the opposite) nor out of selfishness in the purest sense, but because I’m a pro tem single parent who was out of his home terrain, on my realtives’ home terrain, and didn’t want simultaneously to mess with my kids and with my Nantucket relatives’ community.

But that’s not to suggest that I ought, in a best situation, have refused. I’m from a civil-disobedience background, and I regretted missing the call to take this one on. I hear your criticism, and take it to heart.

I was once threatened in heathrow Airport for plugging in alaptop into a wall socket. I was told I would be charged with theft of electricity. I complied but was rather rude and told him in strong terms to go and catch a violent criminal. This was in 1995 by the way. Before 9/11......

Some people love to plaster over their ignorance with power.

In a previous post, Mr. Dawson appears to have cited the correct U.S. code at . . .
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html

How-some-ever . . . this law refers to protected information, typically financial, personal medical, defense/security etc., and the intent to exploit or do something harmful with such information. Realistically, this does not refer to the typical user of WiFi hotspots. In this case, it would be stretching it to consider each and everyone a putative violator of THIS law. Additionally, the simple access of a WiFi signal is not the issue of this law, the access to the signal has to reveal some "harm" done. E.g., if access is receive only, akin to a radio signal, has harm been done? As protected information, the agency involved would be violating their own internal security laws by allowing this unsecured access to privileged infromation. This has too many loopholes to be enforced in the manner most have described here. And, this really appears not to be the intent of this law. Read the entire law and see the general intent, it will become more evident.

I would have to agree that this issue really boils down to the rules of the public library regarding the use of their WiFi signal.

This does, however, bring up two interesting points in my mind.

First - what obligation does the library have to post their rules? If the signal is available outside do they need to post rules outside (within signal range) indicating what they intend?

Second - does the library have an obligation to configure their access points in such a way as to support whatever rules they have? If they wish to prohibit outside use what is their reasonable obligation (according to the law) to configure their access points to produce minimal outdoor coverage and/or secure the signal? Does an unencrypted signal with adequate strength in and of itself constitute a defacto posting of their usage policy?

Simple- you don't want me to "receive" your signals, then keep your G**D**n signals away from my air space.

Cops WILL lie to you. I smell a rat.

First ask to see the cop's ID. (He's legally required to show you -- It's not harassment, it's verifying authority.) Ask him to put it in writing -- a brief on the statute, the statute#, along with his badge number and signature.

I'll bet he's not willing to risk this. If it's true, you can back down. If not, letter to his boss and the the editor.

Do it again, and when he tells you it's against the law, ask him which law. If he can tell you... google it and see if there is such a thing, being connected to the internet and all. Or just go to the justice department and look it up. If he's right, he's right. But really - all he did was tell you that you were doing 'something' wrong, and you'd better stop it or else... only God gets to do that. ;)

I think I'm going to my local library this afternoon...

During my federal trial, my attorney asked one of the investigating FBI agents if he had a wireless card to which the FBI agent replied he did. My attorney then asked him if he had a copy of "netstumbler" installed on his laptop to which the FBI agent relied "yes".

My attorney then asked him if he had ever connected to open network which didn't belong to him. The FBI agent replied "yes I have". My attorney then asked him if he had committed a crime in doing so. The FBI agent replied "no".

It seems scarier to me that after he shut the wifi off he was still asked to turn the notebook off. This is like asking him the close the book and leave the library. So what would happen if Akma was using a wireless cellular card from one of the providers, could and would they still tell him to shut if off, using this example it seems that they might.

http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1546

There is a federal law against the unauthorized access of a government computer system. Unlike the law for private computers, interstate commerce does not need to be involved. It would be very difficult to show you were granted authorization to use the wireless. Now if there was a sign outside, you would be fine. On a side note, the FBI would NEVER prosecute you for this. There has to be substantial damage before the US Attorney's office will let them do anything. Normally $5000 is the key number.

This reminded me of something I recently saw in Washington, DC. In the back of the government printing office building on the corner of 1ST & D ST NE, there is a giant bronze placard that reads "No Tresspassing -- This Sidewalk is Private Property of the Government Printing Office." WHAT? The sidewalk on a public street, between one public building and another (Union Station) owned by a public entity in the federal district (think: 61^2 miles of eminent domain) is PRIVATE?

Okie dokie, smokie.

About the quote "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Though often attributed as "Hanlon's Razor", no one has come up with a Hanlon to pin it on. The Jargon file attributes it to Robert Heinlein, the SF writer.

There is a federal law concerning attempting to connect to a wireless network that is protected by encryption.

If the AP does not have any sort of encryption or authentication, then the law is technicaly not being broken.

Besides you can always use the excuse that the card is configured at the factory to connect to any AP, so the manufactorer of the card is at fault

Humm,,
I wonder if the policeman parked here next to Loring Park her in Minneapolis will arrest himself for stealing the TCWUG's Public WiFi signal here in Loring Park?

I wonder if he every approached TCWUG to request permission?

Better yet, If he arrested me for using TCWUG Loring Park WiFi, how he would explain to the court how he stole that same signal to checked on my ID via via that WiFi connection with a VPN connection?

Hmmm, this is also interesting in light of the fact that many states have "blue sky" or open door laws regarding publicly funded groups/organizations/etc.

Our local library was recently sued for *not* opening their ISP connection (live in a really rural area where 28Kbps is a good connection) to local people. It was settled when the library installed wireless 802.11g and allowed access in or out of the physical building. You *do* need a library card and the WEP key to access it though. (Not that they change the key ;)

Thought everyone would find this interesting!

He is actual proof it is illegal or harrassable to take pictures/video even indirectly! Granted this is a 'non-US citizen' but the police didn't know that at first.

Enjoy...

August 31, Washington Post - Russian queried over photos. A high-level
Russian diplomat was questioned by local and federal authorities Sunday,
August 29, after a 911 caller became suspicious of a man photographing a
liquefied natural gas terminal on the waterfront in Calvert County, MD,
state police said. According to Lt. Homer Rich, the man appeared to be
taking pictures of the bay, various wildlife and fauna with Dominion's Cove
Point gas terminal in the background. The man, whom authorities identified
only as a member of the Russian Embassy who has been living in the United
States for six years, was not detained, Rich said. The man's digital camera
card and videotape were confiscated and will be forwarded to the State
Department or the Department of Homeland Security, Rich said. If federal
authorities find the items not to be a threat, they will be returned to the
man, he said. "It does not appear to be that he was focusing on the power
plant," Rich said, adding that the man was not trespassing when he got out
of a vehicle and took the pictures and video. Calvert residents and Maryland
lawmakers have raised concerns that the liquid nitrogen gas facility could
become a target of terrorist attack. Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48052-2004Aug30.html

Make sure you don't talk to someone through the open window of the library ... you might be accused of stealing "Gassious propogated compression wave" bandwidth.

Oh wait ... they discourage over use of that INSIDE the library

SHHHH! Quiet Please

Actually I think the porch light analogy is a good one.

Remember the scenario. They have an open access point that is broadcasting its SSID.I would take that at face value (which I think is the only reasonable action) and assume that I have implicit permission to use it.

Afterall, one needs an SSID to use a wireless AP, so if it is broadcasting its SSID to everyone (broadcasts can be turned off), and has no MAC or WEP access controls, then one can only assume that it is open for public use.

If you built a cement chess table and placed it at the edge of your property, right next to the sidewalk, with no fence of no tresspassing sign or anything, I would assume that you mean to leave it there for anyone who wants to play it (much like houses I have seen that put a bench in such a spot. On their propery, but abutting the sidewalk for passersby to have a seat). I note the chess table I mention because its something i plan to do someday when I have some time to make one.

I sent an email to the library asking them to come here and comment on this to clarify their position.

Nevermind. The mail bounced. :-(

I have also asked the Nantucket PD to comment.

lol @ silly police officer...

> “It’s a federal law, sir; a Secret Service agent > came and explained it to"

The "Secret Service" agent? doesn't the secret service protect the presidents and families??

maybe and FBI agent.... not secret service....

Well at least we know why he became a police officer, bet he was short too.

Of course no reason to explain his current assignment.

The police do not often actually know the law, but are acting on what they think the law is.

This happened in my neighborhood in Chapel Hill, NC. There was a small fire across the street from my house and my side neighbor was standing on his porch taking pictures of the action. The police told him to stop, he refused and was arrested and had his camera confiscated.

Unfortunately for the local police, the student's father was a big time journalists rights lawyer.

It became a big scandal and the officers were disciplined

Actually, asking for his name and/or badge number might not be such a good idea. A group of friends and I were once harassed by an officer for walking near a party someone was throwing. Trying to be polite I asked the officer under what legal statutes he was demanding my friend put his hands on the hood and submit to a search without being charged with anything. This question resulted in the rest of the group being searched, hands on the hood, but no answer to my question. Luckily nothing illegal was found in these searches and we were free to go. For the purposes of further investigating what had just happened and possibly contacting the officer, I wrote down his license plate number.

Bad idea. The cop promptly pulled his car around, handcuffed my friend and I, and took us to the station.

As it turns out we were never actually arrested but relocated (or something like that) but the actions of the cop were apparently legitimate as my friend and I were minors at the time. As I found out that night minors don't really have rights and can be 'relocated' at a police officers discretion.

My point is that you're better off not confronting an officer if he is feeling defensive or aggressive and dealing with any legal implications or misunderstandings on either side at another time, especially if you are a minor in an urban area.

This is ridiculous. I recently retired as the IT director for our public library. Two years ago I installed WiFi at all our branches. I INTENTIONALLY placed hubs near windows in case the signal would be available outside after open hours. In one case I installed an extra hub pointed at the parking lot of our biggest branch. We don't guarantee coverage outside (or inside), but our whole point is to try to give 24 hour access. It's popular, too. People DO use WiFi from the parking lot. People DO sit on nenches outside and use WiFi. If one of our patrons reported an incident like this I would take on the cops in a second. There may very well be a "theft of signal" law, but it does not apply if the library is intentionally providing it.

No one has asked how the officer knew that Akma was accessing a wireless network, and more specifically the Libraries network.

I'm in agreement with the people here stating that it is was a public place you were sitting, using a public access point, paid by taxpayers, and that you had every right to be using the network. As far as the officer "being told by some Secret Service agent about federal law" I would say that is a bunch of BS. I would strongly encourage you to research some of this. Possibly ask someone in the law profession that you know about this casually. What happened is that you were harassed in a public place by a law enforcement offical with nothing else better to do. That should not be tolerated by anyone. I sure as hell would have either had the police officer come with me to the library while I ask a librarin about the wifi network. If that doesn't work I would have him specifically tell me the law I was breaking. If he was unable to then he has no grounds for which to arrest me. (As for those of you saying not following an officers command, uh you don't have to do everything they say; if he can't recite the law I'm breaking then he doesn't need to be an officer. If I'm being charged with something the better damn well know what law I'm breaking. "being told by some SS agent" doesn't cut it. Recite it and arrest me, or shove off.

Actually,
As far as I am aware, (as previously said by another poster) SS only watches over the prez and his family. As well, how did the officer know that you were not just sitting there with your wireless card turned off? Was he intercepting the signal and watching your traffic? How does he know that you even have an airport card installed on the laptop? Personally, it sounds like a crock. As well, he should know the law that he is trying to charge you for breaking. "Why don't you close that up or use your computer elsewhere." I would say, "Excuse me?" "This is a public place, I have my wireless card turned off, I followed your previous instructions even though you are totally misinformed with how "theft of service" laws operate." "I am a law abiding citizen, (and a priest for god sake) so if it is a crime for me to sit on a park bench please inform me that I am breaking such law, or I will call my lawer right now, and file a harassment suit." As far as you are saying you were in a public area. There is not a damn thing that he can do about you being there, using your laptop. Also if it is a federal law, he would have to alert the proper agency in order to have the law enforced. That is a bunch of hooey. The best thing to do in a situation such as this is to stay calm. I would get together lots of people and seat them in the park with their laptops as a form of protest.

Some are making a false assumption. That the police have to tell the truth. Just not so. Not at all. And once you start challenging them they are trained to keep "control" of the "situation" and will do so via any means. This was a power struggle, justice, facts, law (which has nothing to do with facts or justice) has nothing to do with it.

The Secret Service actually does have jurisdiction when it comes to computer crimes.

Secret Service Jurisdiction

Although the general public sees them as being essentially Presidential bodyguards, their mandate is much wider. It is actually feasible the cop in question was informed by a Secret Service representative, although the officer's rough interpretation is clearly erroneous.

Grow a backbone and stand up for your rights! Of course there is no such nonsense law.

To all you cautioning trolls:

"
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
"

As I am always telling my kids; cops can do what ever they want now days. Even if he was wrong he will find *something* to screw you with for making him look stupid.

Good Luck!

..this is what you get from living in what I have to call a Policed State currently ( aka the USA ?! )..

What does this do for projects like NoCat then I wonder, and what does this do for open air Wireless projects in general, commercial or priavte?

I personally wire a whole street for free "coz I can", but if what your cop beleives is true pertaining to public use of Wireless networks, then the recent SlashDot.ORG story:

QUOTE:

"The Associated Press is running an story about Philadelphia's city goverment seriously considering creating the world's largest hotspot. "For about $10 million, city officials believe they can turn all 135 square miles of Philadelphia into the world's largest wireless Internet hot spot....the city would likely offer the service either for free, or at costs far lower than the $35 to $60 a month charged by commercial providers"

well it woudl put the whole city of Philadelphia into a bit of a bind wouldn't it, because even if the local councils, or the city as a whole, set bylaws in place to allow open Wireless networking, they supposedly, according to your copy, would all be breaking some currently undocumented Federal USA law?

More reading on this at AP's story:

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1333&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040901%2F0654343788.htm&sc=1333

All very curious..

I'm conserned by this in that as an Australian, I'm stuck with the fact that Australia and it's currently rather pathetic government ( state and federal in my opinion whatever that is worth ) are so obsessed with turning Australian into a mini-usa that we're supposedly in time screwed!

We're now stuck with USA radio, print, TV, Pay-TV, Trade Agreements, and now I have a sick feeling we'll inherit similar draconian laws policing our use of what has to be said to be a fundiemntal tool of the next generation, Wireless networking.

Yea gods!

Cheers,

Dez

---
Dez Blanchfield
Dez WebSearch.COM.AU
http://WebSearch.COM.AU

To respond to the "using someone's light" analogy, when one uses a light, photons bounce into the user's eye and are absorbed, there by not being available to be used by others. It is kinda like bandwidth.

To respond to the "using someone's light" analogy, when one uses a light, photons bounce into the user's eye and are absorbed, there by not being available to be used by others. It is kinda like bandwidth.

Agreed about the "cops will lie" statement.

When you interact with a law enforcement officer, you need to understand that their only priority is placing you in an untenable or legally compromised position. As such, you would be unwise to engage in "just a friendly little chat" (one of their favorite lines). They are not your pal and anything you say can and will be held against you.

Your smartest move is to provide them with only the barest of details and insist they explicitly state why they are even initiating a conversation with you. If they can give no specific reason, you ought to politely excuse yourself and say: "Unless you have a specific reason to detain me, I no longer wish to continue this conversation."

A cop is not your pal. He's not your buddy. He is a law enforcement officer. If he is speaking to you at all, there are only three reasons:

1) He thinks you are a criminal.
2) He thinks you are a victim.
3) He thinks you are a witness.

If you do not fit any of the above criteria, you should not speak to the cop. A cop will get you to talk and the more you say, the more likely you will soon find yourself falling into one of the above categories whether you legitimately belong in one or not.

This particular officer was either lying or dangerously ignorant. In either case, you don't want to be talking to him and should consider reporting this matter both to the library supervisor and that officer's superiors.

Respect the police, but do not let them encroach on your rights as a citizen. Speak calmly and in a straightforward manner (don't lie), but only tell them what they need to know. Police work for us. They are not our warders. They are public servants.

Public.

Servant.

Those words have meaning, but only as much meaning as we, citizens of a democratic nation, choose to imbue them with.

And finally, there are no minor or meaningless interactions with the police which we ought to just "let go because it's not a big deal." We build or erode our democracy one "small" action at a time.

Two words: "Civil Disobediance"

being the mavrick that I am, I would have kept at it and let the dude on duty arrest me -- just for kicks --

I was in Madrid, Spain during the glorious reign of el Generalisimo - I loved to visit elPardo, where a friend was serving in the mili -- it was also where Franco had his home -- I went there with my camera to take a pic of the entrance, guarded by a dude on horseback in a kewl medieval costume and cape -- he galloped over to me and told me NO PICS ALLOWED -- he rode back, when he turned around I was behind a bush and took the pic anyway. It may eventually appear in my memoirs.

I am now in Trenton, NJ -- I usually carry my digital camera in the Jeep -- once I parked near a bridge connecting Trenton to Morrisville, NJ to take a pic of the ice floes on the river 2 or 3 years ago - a guard came running over to me to say NO PICS ALLOWED -- I explained I wanted one of the ice floes for my web site news section [the forerunner of the currently popular blogs], but she still said NO -- I got the pic from another vantage point! And apparently, you got your story written, at least partially, the same way -- keep up the good work!

If I were in the south, as the officer peep went away, I would prolly say BLESS YOUR HEART!

When I was living in Europe I would've felt outrage, disgust, anger and completely rebellious feelings.

After living in the U.S. for quite a few years and seeing so much injustice I have attained a new attitude: WHATEVER.

Whenever you feel down, angered, insulted, offended, attacked, bothered in public, put-down, criticized by people who have "official" powers just say 'whatever' to yourself, accept the new situation as it is and ignore the whole issue. Trying to actually rebel against EACH case would get you rather quickly in a mental institution.

All I can say is: it is hopelessly hopeless trying to change this and it never will change because so many people not only accept but actually support this kind of gov't (VERY SAD). Oh well. Whatever.

the MOST curious thing about this, coming from my birth town, is that in the news this evening I read that Street wants to make ALL of Philly a WiFi town!

hummmmmm

IF that law exists, where will they exercise it when the whole freekin city has thousands of hot spots and EVERYBODY theoretically has access?

Out of towners will have to wear extraterrestrial costumes and buy a visitors WiFi access permit?

Something just doesn't sound right somehow!

i'd just like to repost a comment akma responded with awhile ago, which is now covered by dozens of people saying pretty much the same thing, in an effort to clarify his position:

"I opted to cooperate not out of theological principle (indeed, theologically, I’d do just the opposite) nor out of selfishness in the purest sense, but because I’m a pro tem single parent who was out of his home terrain, on my realtives’ home terrain, and didn’t want simultaneously to mess with my kids and with my Nantucket relatives’ community.

But that’s not to suggest that I ought, in a best situation, have refused. I’m from a civil-disobedience background, and I regretted missing the call to take this one on. I hear your criticism, and take it to heart.
Posted by: AKMA at September 1, 2004 07:54 AM"

Refusing to acquiesce to the demands of a police officer (you're sure he was a cop, right? Was he in uniform? Did he display a badge?) who is attempting to enforce a nonexistent law or misrepresent or misinterpret an existing law is NOT civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience is the act of intentionally violating a law through nonviolent action.

Ignoring this officer is not disobedience. In fact, ignoring this officer is not even an action. It is a state of being whereby you continue your activity as a citizen free from unwarranted harassment. This is why we have those law thingies and it is why we only pay police to uphold the authority we have granted them.

Cops who cannot, or refuse to uphold, or simply make up their own laws get fired. They can get a job at a mall.

If you're walking down the street and a police officer threatens to fine you $857 for violating the Federal Anti-Sneaker Ordinance of 2009, is it civil disobedience if you just shake your head and say: "um, no?"

What if he says: "A secret service guy told me it's a felony to wear sneakers. Or at least it will be in five years."

Just keep walking.

yeah it's pretty remarkable how ignorant the gendarmjes are about technology and luckily for us that they are so impared with low IQ's and the assumption that they will always be safe from those that they protect.

So how do you correct an self righteous armed man? It's like teaching a pig to sing (oddly enough) it annoys the pic and wastes your time.

We have only ourselves to blame for allowing this to happen here in the US ahhh yes it was predictable. Freedom cannot thrive where there is no free thoughts and acts in the heads of those allowing themselves to be governed by the likes of the evil scum we have over us today.

The US is a police state folks wake up! Pay attention to the cops in black military uniforms they are getting the same training as the Army Rangers or Delta (thou the cops aren't nearly as smart or well trained)Correcting one of these guys is a big mistake and many messages i've read speak of standing up and telliong em off. Yeah right try that yourselves and see where it gets you. JAIL or worse. We are the new palestianians FOLKS wake up.... we are being secured alright by our own govt and anyone that disagrees with their captors ends up labeled a terrorist and dealt with accordingly.

Ever hear of the stockholm syndrome? Thsi is what we see now in america where the people have been cowed into submission into believing and defending their captors.

Hoodwinked

"we are at war with the muslim nation and everyone knows this" - this is a quote from one of our county commissioners

Folks, remember this subject in November with your votes. Most of these laws and regulations came into effect when Bill Clinton left the White House.
Also, this sort of thing is just the cold, hard reality of our country today, as technology moves forward, government moves backward to hobble its full potential.

We are increasingly living more and more in a police state. I understand about "theft of signal" and all of that, but this scenario is ridiculous. You did as the officer asked and disconnected from the library's WiFi network. You should be able to use your laptop anywhere you want. I have a similar experience that happened recently. I was in a study room on the UT Austin campus (I am not a student, but my spouse graduated from UT and I have hung out there for years with my PowerBooks). A UT Police officer walked up to me, and without saying anything proceeded to examine my PowerBook. My WiFi card was in my PowerBook's bag, so I guess he was satisfied that I wasn't thieving UT's wireless Internet access! He went around the rest of the room looking at the other people's laptops, and even spoke in hushed tones to another girl nearby. She remained calm, but left shortly after he finished his "sweep". I mean, I sincerely understand about piracy, but I found the whole thing ridiculous. I mean what's next, the WiFi Police?! This is supposed to be a democracy, not police state!

You could also say… Gee officer, I’ve paid my yearly library tax to the tune of some $225.00. I think that gives me the right to access this public service. I have a library card to prove it too.

i know this is a bit late, but just a randome point: their are no starbucks on nantucket. though the other signel he was picking up probably came from the atlantic caffe(they have a wooden placered in the window saying "HOTSPOT!"). anywhay, as i said in the updat to this, im going to see what i can do w/ the inky merrior if its alright

well that is weird...

Are you allowed to read library books outside the library if it's closed?

They turn the darn copier off at night, can't they turn off the WiFi?!? (My home wireless router has the option to set a schedule for when to be off and when to be on.)

The library should be responsible for securing their wireless spot so that it can't be used for downloading kiddie porn.