'Wi-Fi Police' Stalk Olympic Games 268
schwit1 writes with news from London that Olympic venues are being patrolled by so-called "Wi-Fi police," who seek out and shut down unauthorized access points and hotspots. BT is the "official communications services provider" for the Games, so access points other than the ones they set up or approve have been disallowed. A picture tweeted from the Olympics shows a gentleman carrying a portable direction antenna that can localize sources of transmission and interference.
"One possible aim of shutting down such WiFi access points is to cut down on interference with essential wireless communications being used by those refereeing, reporting on and working at the sporting events. ... The news of the WiFi crackdown has angered many of those following the Games online, who were already upset at Olympic authorities' attempts to limit the use of social networking tools at the Games at certain times. The London Olympics had been billed as the first 'social media Games,' but organizers have been accused of bungling the effort to seamlessly integrate popular technologies like Twitter and Facebook into the event."
Fox hunt? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I were in the area, I'd be tempted to set up a few of the old linksys routers that cut out now and then in strange places (just powered, not networked).
Make it a little more challenging for them to find the real "WiFi Offenders"
Re:Fox hunt? (Score:5, Funny)
If I were in the area, I'd be tempted to set up a few of the old linksys routers that cut out now and then in strange places (just powered, not networked).
Make it a little more challenging for them to find the real "WiFi Offenders"
Or put your phone in Hotspot mode then put it in your wasteband of your pants. When he comes by and points that ridiculous thing at your crotch, just say "yep, guilty as charged, your hunk detector worked like a charm" and then dare him to get close enough to stop your wifi signal.
Re:Fox hunt? (Score:5, Funny)
...wasteband of your pants.
Wasteband...you mean a diaper? Wouldn't the phone get dirty?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fox hunt? (Score:5, Funny)
or maybe it'd grow to mutant proportions.... a thousand comic books can't all be wrong, can they?
Re:Fox hunt? (Score:4, Insightful)
As funny as the idea is, those of us who actually suffer with penile gigantism know it's no fun. As one point of interest, for example, vaginal, anal, and oral sex are all out of the question. This is why most of us get surgical reduction eventually, in spite of the level of pain involved.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As nicely as you've trolled, no you are not going to get me to Google that...
Re: (Score:2)
As funny as the idea is, those of us who actually suffer with penile gigantism know it's no fun. As one point of interest, for example, vaginal, anal, and oral sex are all out of the question.
That's why I'm happy with mine. 15cm goes anywhere.
Re:Fox hunt? (Score:4, Funny)
6 inches in Yankee speak. I understand that's about average. Well, it's not about the length of the vector, it's about how you apply the force.
Re:Fox hunt? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not the size of the boat, nor the motion of the ocean, but whether the captain stays in port long enough for all the passengers to disembark.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>vaginal, anal, and oral sex are all out of the question.
Could be worse. You could be a girl with genital dwarfism. "It hurts!" I didn't even put it in yet.
Back to Topic:
Even in the socialist paradise of Europe, the police are serving their corporate masters (protecting their exclusive WiFi and McDonalds and other monopolies) not the people. It's corporatism run amuck.
Re:Fox hunt? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the real problem is that some people actually believe that socialism would negate corporatism; if anything, it institutionalizes that kind of protectionism.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect you've probably only seen men with large pensises, and not gigantism.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you're phone is getting service from BT, your phone in hotspot mode may possibly qualify as a sanctioned wifi hotspot. Interesting question, that.
Re: (Score:2)
Except BT don't have a mobile phone network any more. They sold BT Cellnet to Telefonica some years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the mass may have accumulated to the central area of my body but I still find your choice of word offending. You insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:2)
He would be like TSA agents and do patdowns/molestations. :P
Re:Fox hunt? (Score:5, Funny)
"You found my Hot Spot baby!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fox hunt? (Score:5, Funny)
Hook some 3g routers up to batteries and tie them to cats. Set the cats free and grab some popcorn.
Re:Fox hunt? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't see the problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't see the problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
It may be so, but I have serious doupt about the legallity of this action in light of RF frequency allocation and usage rules. If it is an open and unregulated band for wifi, BT has not right what so ever to ask someone to turn of an access point. If they claim the said access point causes interference on their equipement, which is unlikely for certified devices, they can fill a claim through the proper channels. I doupt running, chansing access points, is the proper channel.
Re:I don't see the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
They are chasing down the devices in the venues. Why wouldn't that be legal? You can be restricted from doing all sorts of things in the venues (or any other private property) that are perfectly legal elsewhere.
It must differ from the United States (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
US spectrum rules say that you can't interfere with transmissions (ie no signal jamming). They don't say anything implying that you are allowed to operate a device on someone else's private property. I doubt that rules anywhere else are much different from that. You wouldn't think it legal for a HAM operator to erect some giant antenna in the venue just because he has a license to use spectrum, would you?
Re: (Score:3)
>>>They don't say anything implying that you are allowed to operate a device on someone else's private property.
You _____. Are you too lazy to even LOOK at the links the grandparent poster provided??? QUOTE LINK: "fcc-nixes-airports-ban-on-private-net-access". In other words private property owners like airports can NOT ban the use of private net access.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I am not too lazy to read it, but apparently you are too stupid. The airport thing was a STATE GOVERNMENT trying to enact a rule regulating spectrum use. States do not have the authority to do that, hence why the article is talking about jurisdiction. Furthermore, the airlines in question were leaseholders in the airport, and their leases had no such restrictions on WiFi use. Being a leaseholder means that the space is theirs to do with as they please, within the boundaries of the lease.
The airpo
Re:I don't see the problem. (Score:5, Informative)
I have serious doupt about the legallity of this action in light of RF frequency allocation and usage rules. If it is an open and unregulated band for wifi, BT has not right what so ever to ask someone to turn of an access point.
Ofcom was certainly interested in this. In it's 2009 publication "The Spectrum Plan for the London 2012 Games," Ofcom said:
4.91 Certain equipment may be exempted in the UK from the requirement to be licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 because its use is not likely to cause harmful interference. Experience from past Games has shown, however, that the unusual concentration of such equipment in particular venues can create the potential for localised harmful interference.
4.92 We are exploring with LOCOG how such use can best be controlled and/or coordinated to avoid any disruption to the smooth running of the London 2012 Games. Practical measures (e.g. preventing certain types of equipment from being brought into London 2012 Games venues or actively coordinating use between users) have proved successful at past Games.
4.93 The Met Office raised concerns in its response about the need to protect the use of its radars and the importance of the information provided by these radars to the London 2012 Games. Ofcom will carry out a detailed study of the protection of meteorological radars from WLANs and will consider how WLAN use can best be controlled and/or coordinated to avoid any disruption to the meteorological radars.
It also appears, from the same document that the Vancouver Games took a slightly different approach:
4.95 During the Vancouver Games, VANOC will be providing both wired and, in certain high-traffic locations such as the Olympic and Paralympic Villages, the MPC and the Media Centre, WLAN Internet services. Within Olympic Net Zone wireless hotspots, use of personal WLAN routers will not be permitted. Use of WLAN routers will be permitted in designated locations outside these Zones. Anyone bringing in their own WLAN services will have to use the 5000 MHz band and the 802.11a networking standard. They will not be able to use the 2400 MHz band (802.11 b/g/n) or selected channels at 5000 MHz (802.11 a/n). VANOC will stipulate the SIDH and channel assignment.
The Wireless Telegraphy (Control of Interference from Apparatus) (The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Regulations 2012 [legislation.gov.uk] were certainly part of the legal basis for tackling interference, but these regulations are limited to interference with wireless communications for public safety purposes:
Regulation 5(1):
The requirement is that between 26th July 2012 and 10th September 2012 apparatus must when in use operate at a sufficiently low intensity of electromagnetic energy such that it does not cause undue interference with wireless telegraphy used for public safety purposes within a protection area.
I've yet to find the basis on which Wi-Fi interference is verboten, but I would have thought there's a document out there somewhere...
Re: (Score:2)
In it's
Oop's*
*intentional, this time...
Re: (Score:3)
Wifi interference is not prohibited, operating Wifi devices on their private property is. Two completely different things.
Re: (Score:3)
Wifi interference is not prohibited, operating Wifi devices on their private property is. Two completely different things.
I agree with you completely. Looking at what Ofcom wrote a couple of years back, I was under the impression that particularly rules were to be drawn up on this, rather than relying on the exclusionary right of a property owner, but this may well not be the case.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference in saying "you can't have your wifi hotspot on because you are breaking xyz law" and saying "you can't have your wifi hotspot on without being escorted off premises without the ability to re-enter." Just like it's not illegal to possess and use a recording device in plain sight when capturing images that are also in plain sight, but if you do it at certain venues where they ask you not to, and you don't have a press pass, you will be tossed out. House rules trump the law.
Re: (Score:3)
It may be so, but I have serious doupt about the legallity of this action in light of RF frequency allocation and usage rules.
This is in England. The police can arrest people for being too tall [theregister.co.uk], so why should they let something silly like laws or rights get in the way?
Food cops also deployed (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone not eating official McDonalds food--prepare for an ass whipping!
--
This post brought to you by Carl's, Jr. Fuck you, I'm eating!
Re:Food cops also deployed (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone eating official Taco Bell food--prepare for an ass wiping!
Re: (Score:2)
Poor donkey. Guess it works similar to the "if you don't buy this magazine, we'll kill this dog" magazine cover.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone not eating official McDonalds food--prepare for an ass whipping!
It's all about the Olympic Games - a nearly ancient past-time that we all value dearly. We're honoring the games by policing stupid shit!
We do nothing but good.
</snark>
Re: (Score:3)
The City Of London 2012 MacDonalds BT Coca Cola Official Olympic Games (TM) have turned out to be a huge exercise in making money for the sponsors while screwing over the athletes (who aren't allowed to display the logos of the sponsors who have supported them for years) and the local businesses who have
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a US-only thing. We're required to eat only McDonald's food while watching the Olympics on any NBC partnering Pay TV provider.
Re: (Score:2)
BT Wifi Fees (Score:5, Informative)
BT offers paid hotspots, through BT WiFi (£5.99 for 90 minutes, £9.99 for 24 hours, £26.99 for five days), except for BT home customers and customers of mobile carriers which have sharing agreements with BT (O2 and Tesco Mobile). For anyone else, vouchers can be bought from kiosks at Olympic parks, BT told GigaOM.
Re: (Score:2)
BT offers paid hotspots, through BT WiFi (£5.99 for 90 minutes, £9.99 for 24 hours, £26.99 for five days), except for BT home customers and customers of mobile carriers which have sharing agreements with BT (O2 and Tesco Mobile). For anyone else, vouchers can be bought from kiosks at Olympic parks, BT told GigaOM.
and Vodafone too ;)
Re: (Score:2)
They are worried that free hotspots would interfere with their Wifi Monopoly inside the stadium.
Nothing to see here.... The police are protecting the interests of the powers that be. Please pay us the 5.99 and only post how totally awesome and great the venue is today.
Re: (Score:2)
Short translation (Score:5, Insightful)
"We want more money."
Actually, a good portion of human activity can be explained by that simple phrase. In this case, it's about enforcing rules guaranteeing BT certain amounts of money.
Re:Short translation (Score:5, Informative)
yup, so true. One of our more respected news shows interviewed Coe (the olympic head organiser) and asked awkward questions like "so if someone turns up wearing a Pepsi tshirt, will they be allowed entry?" eventually [politics.co.uk] they got an answer of "yes but only if its not obviously organised" - ie no crowdsourcing some non-coke advertising.
Reminds me of the Bavaria Babes (where brewer Bavaria gave bright orange dresses to a few ladies to go to a football match that was officially sponsored by rival Heineken), and the ban on Heineken's response of a helmet. [www.rnw.nl]
Frankly, its getting a bit silly when you have to ask if you can wear what you want to an event, and equally silly when the marketing people hijack that with a publicity stunt. But the most stupid is when a group of select sponsors get to take over the entire event in the first place.
Re:Short translation (Score:4, Insightful)
"We want more money."
Actually, a good portion of human activity can be explained by that simple phrase. In this case, it's about enforcing rules guaranteeing BT certain amounts of money.
BT paid to be the sole wifi provider of the Olympic games and at Olympic Venues, if the Venues are private property they have done nothing wrong, just as a home owner has the right throw someone off their property they have the right to do the same. Now if you were directly across the street you can do what ever you please as long at it is within the the Ofcom regulations. They are not saying you can't set up a wifi hub in London they are saying you can't set up a wifi hub at an Olympic venue on private property. If the venues are on public property then they have no ground to stand on as they don't have the authority to remove people from public property.
Re:Short translation (Score:5, Insightful)
The cognitive dissonance occurs when people realize that the world's premier global festival is a "private" event in which the incredibly rich can exclude citizen participation for no better reason than it does not make them more rich.
When exactly did we sign up for that?
Re: (Score:3)
The cognitive dissonance occurs when people realize that the world's premier global festival is a "private" event ....
... which the local taxpayers are forced to pay off for the next decade or two. Truly an amazing deal.
Re:Short translation (Score:5, Insightful)
"We want more money."
Actually, a good portion of human activity can be explained by that simple phrase. In this case, it's about enforcing rules guaranteeing BT certain amounts of money.
BT paid to be the sole wifi provider of the Olympic games and at Olympic Venues, if the Venues are private property they have done nothing wrong.
THEY ARE NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY! The games are paid for with public coffers.
All that infrastructure wasn't paid for by BT or McD or Coke or the IOC, it was all the local municipalities or provinces or federal government. It took Montreal 30 years to pay off their Olympic debt, British Columbia is four billion in the hole after 2010, and the same will happen to London in two weeks.
"We want more money" (Score:5, Insightful)
1. by working hard and providing attractive product: ok
2. by embedding yourself as an oligopolisitc rent seeking parasite on the political landscape: not ok *
* but by #2 cloaking itself falsely as a capitalist force like #1, and spreading propaganda to that effect, riling up fools who believe that nonsense, such as with healthcare insurance, we can remain embedded in the body politic, and siphon off cash in a noncapitalistic way, all the while protected by idiots who think they are championing capitalism
Re: (Score:2)
you don't win arguments based on grossly mischaracterizing what people believe and what their past actions represent
not that that stops demagogues from exactly doing that: grossly mischaracterizing situations for simpletons and thereby manipulating their actions
thanks for showing this phenomenon in action and proving a warning example to anyone with a still functional critical thinking capacity
Re:Short translation (Score:4, Funny)
The Olympics--where everyone gets paid except the athletes who actually do the work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Short translation (Score:4, Informative)
The Olympic Park is Private Property (Score:2, Insightful)
Locog doesn't want your Wifi hotspot on their property, so they forbid it and enforce the policy. If you're not put off by the commercial nature of the Olympic Games, why are you offended by this? Besides, if you were offering Wifi on your property with that many visitors, would you allow anyone to shit all over the scarce spectrum? Didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
It does, however, grant you the right to say "Follow the policy or leave my property. Your call."
Re:The Olympic Park is Private Property (Score:5, Informative)
19. Spectator Policy
* 19.1
* Personal property
* 19.1.1
* There will be no storage available at the Venues, save for limited space afforded to children’s buggies, prams and wheelchairs.
* 19.1.2
* LOCOG has the exclusive right to determine what objects may be brought into a Venue by a Ticket Holder. LOCOG will not store confiscated and/or unauthorised material at a Venue and a Ticket Holder will have no right for the item to be returned.
* 19.2
* Prohibited and restricted items
* 19.2.1
* Ticket Holders are prohibited from transporting into a Venue any firearm, ammunition, dangerous weapon or object, explosive, chemicals or incendiary device. Any Ticket Holder who is found to be in possession of any of the above items will have the items seized, shall be removed from a Venue and may be subject to arrest and/or prosecution by the relevant authorities.
* 19.2.2
* No objects that may cause damage to Persons and/or property, or cause disturbance to the regular and orderly execution of a Session (as determined by LOCOG in its sole discretion), may be brought into a Venue.
* 19.2.3
* The following is a non-exhaustive list of restricted items which may not be taken into a Venue (LOCOG reserves the right to amend this list, generally, or in respect of any Venue or Session): food (save for baby food), alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages (save for baby milk and other valid medical reasons), liquids in containers of greater than 100ml in size, needles (save as required for valid medical reasons), animals (save for assistance or guide dogs), weapons (including knives), illegal drugs, other illegal substances, fireworks, firecrackers, poles, flagpoles, sticks, large photographic equipment (including tripods), bats, large umbrellas and other blunt instruments, motorcycles, bicycles, roller-skates, skateboards, or other types of skates, electronic transmitting equipment, flags of countries not participating in the Games, large flags or banners, horns, whistles, drums, rattles, musical instruments, lasers or any other devices that in the opinion of LOCOG may disturb a Session, objects bearing trademarks or other kinds of promotional signs or messages (such as hats, T-shirts, bags, etc) which LOCOG believes are for promotional purposes, counterfeit products, balls, rackets, frisbees or similar objects, large quantities of coins, lighters, advertising or promotional material of any kind, printed matter bearing religious, political or offensive content or content contrary to public order and/or morality, bottles or containers made of glass or other material, flasks, thermoses, refrigerators, large objects such as suitcases or bags, and in general any material that LOCOG may deem dangerous or that may cause damage or disruption to a Session.
* 19.3
* Forbidden behaviour
* 19.3.1
* Any behaviour by a Ticket Holder that, in LOCOG’s view, creates a dangerous situation, puts at risk an individual’s personal security, is against public order, interferes in any way with the orderly execution of a Session or disrupts the enjoyment of a Session is forbidden and may result in a refusal of admission to or removal from the Venue without refund.
* 19.3.2
* The following is an illustrative list of prohibited and restricted behaviour within any Venue: fighting, public drunkenness, smoking, gambling, unauthorised money collection, any activity related to marketing or advertising (including, for the av
Re:The Olympic Park is Private Property (Score:4, Insightful)
And no wonder that the businesses in London complains of the lack of customers when the restrictions for the olympic venues are hard enough to make you feel like a suspect.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't logically work though. Either the spectators are staying away from the centre and going to the Olympic park, and therefore the GP post about this being some massive deterrent is rubbish, or they are deterred and would be expected to be somewhere else... like the shops.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You need the rules of 'get off my property if I say so' to be written up for you?
But then, in the interest of fairness, the ticket holder should get his money back. And not only the price of the ticket, but also any other expenses that he had to be able to see the games (hotel, plane trip, and a suitable compensation for his now useless vacation time)
But maybe, that's the case?
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. You can't interfere with their transmissions, but you CAN prevent them from using a device on your property. If someone is not on your property there is nothing you can do about it.
Other Olympic blackouts (Score:5, Informative)
Every single online stream for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, for instace, i snow a endless loop saying "During the London 2012 Olympics, we are unable to bring you regular ABC programming in your location. This is due to the Olympic Broadcast Agreement."
Try any of the streams at http://www.abc.net.au/radio/listenlive.htm#directlinks [abc.net.au] All blocked if you're outside Australia.
Assholes. Not just sport. EVERYTHING from Australia's main broadcaster is off the air for weeks because of the fucking Olympics.
Re:Other Olympic blackouts (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there anything about the Olympics that isn't corrupt and disgusting?
Re:Other Olympic blackouts (Score:5, Funny)
Is there anything about the Olympics that isn't corrupt and disgusting?
Maybe (slightly...) less doping than in the Tour de France?
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe (slightly...) less doping than in the Tour de France?
No, Tour de France has far fewer participants.
There are mainly two types of competitors in the olympics: Those who get caught, and those who don't. If you think that [insert 2012 Olympic Hero] is clean, you're deluding yourself.
In the past, we had an occasional Eddie the Eagle who was clean, funny and doesn't stand a breadcrumb's chance in Picadilly Circus of winning anything. But now they've banned those so only top dopers, sorry, I mean athletes, can compete.
Re: (Score:2)
"doesn't stand a breadcrumb's chance in Piccadilly Circus"
Love it!
Tim.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there anything about the Olympics that isn't corrupt and disgusting?
I think the Olympics committee did a good job revamping their appeals process to appear more legit and transparent.
Oh wait...
Michelle Jenneke (Score:2)
My answer to every question about the Olympics.
Re: (Score:2)
ABC is far from the main broadcaster in Oz.
Really? The context of "broadcasting" I was talking about was Internet radio streams. Not local over-the-air TV.
The 30th Corporate Games (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to wonder when the hell they will just sell naming rights and be done with it.
bad move (Score:5, Funny)
These "wi-fi police" are clearly infringing on the exclusive intellectual property rights of the Metropolitan Police Service, The Official Police Force of the Olympic Games®.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually I think the British Army is now the official police force of the olympic games. Previously it was G4S, but they failed miserably.
fakeap (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A substantial percentage of the world's cheap-ass 'wireless' tat is 2.4GHz, because it is generally usable without a license and the silicon needed to implement it is heavily commodified. I don't know of anything specifically designed for the purpose; but a Goodwill's worth of nasty old cordless phones and ghastly analog video blasters would probably fit the bill...
The London Olympics have been corrupted... (Score:5, Funny)
Soon after, Coe backpedalled so rapidly that if he was seated backwards on a bike he'd win a gold medal in cycling.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just the London Olympics. In fact, not new at all. The Olympics have been corrupted beyond belief for decades now.
Wifi police? (Score:2)
So we have WiFi Police, and Brand Police (to protect what is really important, sponsors and their branding, even from those ungrateful unpaid athletes).
But there was a shortage in real security. Nice to see what the priorities really were for the IOC.
Re:Wifi police? (Score:4, Funny)
Drown the area in hotspots named "Burger King", "Pepsi" and similar using directional antennas.
That would cause some amusement.
How are you getting an internet connection? (Score:5, Informative)
So, uhh, I'm a bit confused how anyone would provision outside internet access to their WiFi hotspot in the olympic park? The only answer which comes to mind is phones with built-in WiFi hotspots - but in Britain, if you're getting your phone data connection from BT (which you've paid for), why would they be able to stop you from using it?
It is, after all, a BT wifi hotspot which they have been paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
I use my mobile as a WiFi hotspot regularly so that I can use my (non-3g) tablet. It'll be interesting to see what Vodafone's coverage will be like at Weymouth tomorrow (got offered a ticket by a mate). It wouldn't surprise me that LOCOG will manage somehow to degrade 3g coverage to get people onto BT's network.
Finally a reason to go to the 'limpics (Score:2)
Social Media is a euphemism for Empty Seats (Score:3)
Maybe the next Olympic games they'll actually let common people buy tickets again instead of selling huge blocks to corporate sponsors who don't show up.
Naaa...
Olympics: Why bother? (Score:2)
Wrong country (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
arresting people for tweeting harmless complaints at athletes who failed
I wouldn't call a death threat a harmless complaint. To quote one of my overseas buds:
He followed it up with a series of threats, culminating with a number of death threats... one of which read: "i'm going to find you and i'm going to drown you in the pool you cocky twat your a nobody people like you make me sick." He was arrested for the death threats, not for the tweet about the athlete's father.
Well, that sounds almost like a challenge. (Score:3)
If that's not a red flag screaming "challenge" to Anonymous, I'm not sure what is.
Re:two methods of defeating such methods (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they did.
Re:Wait what? (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone else pointed out - you are free to use Wifi [em]outside the Olympic Park[/em] which is private property. You are only allowed on the grounds according to the rules by which they setup and you agree to when you purchase a ticket? Don't like the rules - then you become a trespasser and they eject you from the Park.
It sucks, but it would seem to be quite legal. They aren't regulating wireless spectrum, per se, they are regulating access to their property.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever gone to a museum or other public place that said "no flash photography?" It's the same thing as this, here. Light is the same damn thing as radio, just at a different wavelength.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This protects the quality of the "official" WiFi service
You mean, the one operating on the PUBLIC spectrum and infringing on everyone else's rights in order to make a profit? That "official" service? No, this is a complete sham. If they felt so strongly about it technology now exists to jam wifi devices. No, but that would take effort, and eat into profits. Much easier to round people up and bully them for, well, not breaking any law at all.
Re:And I thought I hated the NFL and MLB (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's even worse than religion. At least the goal of religious organization (ideally, without the greed and corruption) is about people as a group trying to find a spiritual part of themselves. We could argue whether such a part exists or not, but sports organizations really aren't about anything positive for the individual, only idolatry towards freaks of nature, those within the top 0.1% of humans with such levels of athletic ability made possible by genetics, and distracting people from doing things like work or caring about politics and their future or education or gaining skills or even taking a moment to be introspective.
Ha! The olympic corporation supersedes alll (Score:2)
They will just pay the local government with an insurance plan to cover the costs of all lawsuits for rights violations. Naturally, it will ultimately be payed by the locals going into debt for decades but they will not sell it that way.
The legal system is broken, you can't sue for enough money to force changes; they can always ends up appealing so it amounts to their pocket change (especially if spread out over YEARS in court.) I wonder how many people would speed if their tickets only cost a nickel?? Al
Re:Suck it up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow, we managed to have games without all that corporate bullshit up until late 80's or so. And not all of them were held in Berlin, Moscow or Beijing.