Busted For Using Library Wi-Fi Outside The Library

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?

I wonder how the police officee knew the priest was using wi-fi? A wi-fi sniffer or something like this?

RTFA.

He didn't. He assumed and even when he knew AKMA wasn't using wifi, he still told him to leave.

Re:RTFA.

I agree - if the cop felt that a law was being broken, and he had no choice on how to enforce it, he could have taken it much farther.

But that gets to another point - instead of whining on the internet about it... Knowing it's the library's signal, why not just go in and see what the AUP or whatever the rules are, and bring the cop in for good measure? More often than not (there are exceptions), the cop will be happy to find out if the library staff really cares or not.

While I'm sure there are a few out there, your average ground-pounding police officer will never read this blog entry or the slashdot article that links to it. He won't be informed of the issues, and certainly isn't going to listen to anyone that he has no reason to believe as an authority on the issue. This is a better practice than you think - I'd rather be getting told that something is wrong because someone with authority told him to tell me that than some "ordained priest" with a WiFi connection told him it was ok.

Re:RTFA.

I don't think this is really whining. The policeman twice bothered this individual without any foreknowledge of what he was doing, and even when told his complaint was no longer valid, continued to harass someone who was causing no trouble, just sitting outside on a peaceful day. What probable cause did the officer have to do this? I can't see any.

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:RTFA.

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.

Whether it's okay for AKMA (whoever he is) to make such use of the facility would seem to be entirely dependent on the library's acceptable-use policy. If it says you can use their wireless only within the building then that's that. If it doesn't say, I'd say your location is irrelevant to whether you are using the facility acceptably.

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

Why should he be held to rules that apply only _inside_ the library?

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

It's still a good idea for you to ask the library if they mind if you sit outside as long as you follow their rules ... but it's NOT OK for a policeman to harass with no probable cause. That's the real problem here.

Re:RTFL

If you leave your door open and play music real loud , I can sit on the curb and listen to it. You can't tell me to leave because I'm hearing your music. You can't charge me a fee because your music is spilling out on to the public street.

Re:How did they know?

The key point isn't how they knew. The question is, how are YOU supposed to know if the access point owner does not want you to use the signal where it is technically available? After all there are lots of hotspots where the owner wants to provide internet access to public areas outside of buildings.

Re:How did they know?

You grant the IP on first contact, but firewall it from going anywhere except for the accpetance page. Once the necessary information is filled out and accepted, the webserver signals the firewall to release the port to general traffic.

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?

I can understand the cop's confusion and inability to explain details of such regulations. There are way, way too many laws in place for a normal person to be able to cite chapter and verse of the actual statutes on every possible violation. But it's also easy to believe that a Secret Service agent gave them an extremely mistaken and civil-rights violating explanation of any applicable regulations, especially the Patriot Act. Remember, the Secret Service did the Sun Devil raids some years back and got their wrists slapped by the EFF and by Steve Jackson Games for those civil rights violations. They just don't get it when it comes to civil rights over "national security".

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?

Read it again, he said the library was closed. Otherwise, he would have gone in to finish up.

Re:How did they know?

It therefore stands to reason that the wifi network is an internal system not intended for the public, and therefore not a public wifi point.

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?

you assume that the tables outside a restaraunt are only for the shops patrons

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.

Not the library ....

Against the rules? Yes. If the library, public library, has a rule against people using the wi-fi access outside the library's building... then sure they have that right to ask anyone who is breaking the rule to leave/stop using the wi-fi.

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?

It's not about laws, it's about rules

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?

Sure, you can read a book inside the library without checking it out and that goes beyond the discussion (because you are still following protocol).

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"

7. What does it cost me to use Atheneum services?

Your Atheneum card provides access to virtually all of our services and is issued to residents at no cost. The card is available to out of state residents for fifteen dollars.

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?

You are not a patron for simply sitting in front of the building with your card in your pocket.

Um... why not?

Re:How did they know?

Well, the GP's premise was "there are lots of hotspots where the owner wants to provide internet access to public areas outside of buildings". And your response was basically "you assume the owner doesn't want to provide access" and added a few irrelevant analogies. I claim they are irrelevant to both the specific example as outlined in TFA and also to the more general example "where the owner wants to provide internet access".

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?

RTFA, fool. The policeman had a wireless laptop which was logged into CIA spy satellites through the library.

Of what

Of what... the church of Emacs?

Sorry... had to :-)

signal theft ?

The signal itself was not stolen, it was the receiver's bandwidth.
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 ?

I'm sure Apple marketing would rather have it differently, but 'Airport' is not a generic name for Wireless Access Points.

Re:signal theft ?

You mean similar to the whole "Walkman" thing?
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?

I would have asked the officer for his FCC badge.

Public Rights

He should have replied that since it was a public access point that he was in his rights to use it in a public area (namely outside the library)

"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

...Because this is unlicensed spectrum. If the library has a desire that access be from inside the library only, they should actions provide this. Access/security protocols or radio blocking walls/wallpaper/partitions.

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

Had he shown the cop he was not using the library's system, no thing.

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 (