Is it a nice car?
Me three. Did you have to provide some kind of identifying information before connecting? And how did they tell you to stop? Did you get a message on your PC, or did the cops come up to you and tell you to knock it off?
Even if you don’t have to provide ID at login, the router you’re connected to can be set up to intercept packets - from which can be determined all sorts of information about the user.
But it sounds to me more like the OP was sitting in a lounge using his laptop and some official walked up and told him to knock it off.
Whether you should assume you’re allowed to use an unsecured wireless network is debatable and the type of argument that will rage on with silly analogies on both sides. Some will argue that the act of setting up an open network is akin to a “free stuff” sign, and some will argue that it’s akin to accidentally leaving your front door unlocked. But these arguments center around what you’re allowed to assume absent any other info. If you’ve been explicitly told by a representative that you’re not allowed to use the network, then you’re not allowed. The fact that you can get away with it and that their method of restricting access is pretty pathetic on a technical level are kind of irrelevant. You’ve been told you’re not allowed so arguments about what you can assume don’t apply.
That said, I’d probably move around the corner and keep doing it. Did you piss this guy off and he just wanted you out of there? Were you camped out there for three straight days? You’d have to be a pretty big busybody to get in a huff about a non-passenger sponging off the airport wifi.
ETA: …unless they’re being particularly obnoxious about it.
Subscribing - I want to see how the OP got busted.
I’m inclined to agree, although his question was whether he had a leg to stand on, and most folks are saying no, which I think is correct. I just think that, yes, there is an implicit assumption that everyone at the airport is there to fly, but at the same time, you can’t assume that leeching off the WiFi is a potential problem.
Folks parking outside of Starbucks and leeching I can see. But you have to go through a lot of trouble to do something similar at the airport, and so you will never see people congregating at the airport for the sole intent of leeching. I’ve been at the airport several times for reasons other than flying. It makes sense to me that I should have been able to use the WiFi had I had a laptop with me.
And count me in for wanting to know how he got busted.
<snip>
There’s a rather nifty identity scam you can run in places with free wifi and it works especially well at airports.
<snip>
My public library provides free Internet access. However, I have been informed by representatives of this tax-supported entity that I am not allowed to use this government service to surf for porn. Furthermore, I can only use the service at all for 30 minutes.
I beg to differ.
Do I have a leg to stand on?
In the case of the airport wireless I’d request to see the written policy on useage. And try to look it up on whatever website the airport maintains.
And as to how OP was busted. My WAG would be that he was observed surfing and there was no apparent adapter for Sprint or other access provider. While most laptops have built in WiFi, I’m not aware of any cellular provider that doesn’t require an external connection to the laptop, either by a PCMCIA card or USB device.
I’m curious why you would be required to have a “ticket to fly” (as opposed to a ticket to ride?) in order to use the WiFi in the first place. Does that mean that the service is off-limits to people waiting to meet incoming passengers?
For what it’s worth, even free newspapers often have restrictions. Generally, only one per customer is free, to prevent competitors or people who just don’t care for something you’ve printed from stealing all the copies.
I leave my fifi open so that passersby and neighbors can use it if they need to. How do they know that they can legally do so?
Of course I meant WIFI. PLease don’t touch my fifi.
They don’t. That is the thing that pisses me off in this digital age. Different groups will tell you what you absolutley cannot do and that usually makes some sense. Some things are marginal like this example.
However, for both digital music and WiFi internet access, no one can give you a definition of what you CAN DO and it doesn’t appear much progress is being made. They just prosecute and fine random people for versions of this. It isn’t the average citizen’s fault for not knowing if they can access open WiFi networks or transfer their old LP’s into MP3’s. Nobody in the world knows what the actual rules are.
According to the Board Rules:
I’ve removed the illegal instructions from your post. Do not do this again.
Gfactor
General Questions Moderator
And any chance of people being forwarned of a not uncommon scam. You didn’t even leave the name of the technique.
By the way, it’s been described in much more detail by the BBC, they actually performed it on camera, at Heathrow, with unwitting members of the public.
I posted a couple of things about these risks a few months back in a similar thread, with citations and all, and I assume that was the kind of risks that Szlater was warning of.
Of course, I hesitate to copy/paste the posts here, so I just linked to them :).
Actually it’s more like the free newspapers offered to passengers on airplanes, which aren’t free in and of themselves, but are ordinary papers paid for by the airline and offered to their customers as an additional service.
Access these newspapers can easily be restricted to non-paying customers by placing them after the boarding gate. WiFi-access on the other hand can’t be similarly restricted without making the paying customer jump through some extra hoops. Very large hoops practically resting on the ground, sure, but still.
They’re leaving the courtesy cars unlocked with the keys in the ignition, to jump to another analogy, because the rate of legal to illegal use is so high. But it isn’t legal to steal something just because it’s mindnumbingly easy to do so.
Sounds to me like you’ve never had to go through airport security.
But in keeping with the above analogy of the SkyMall magazine, what can we deduce if the airline starts leaving stacks of them all over the plublic areas of the airport? Not tied up in bundles but stacked loosely against the wall , and there is no vendor in site that might be accepting payment for them. Might be an oversight, but look - there’s another stack just over there. And down at the end of the airport, another one. And other people are nonchalantly picking them up.
Should I still buy a ticket and wait in the long line for security to examine my shoes before I can legally have one?
Are you trying to imply airport security is there to prevent people from stealing free newspapers? Or did you just leave the smiley off the end of a joke?
If you’re notified that the magazines are for paying customers only, yes. To legally have one, you would need to be a paying customer. If you’re not there to fly, you should go find a vendor and pay for whatever magazine or newspaper you want.
But that was my point, the newspapers (and I’m talking about regular dailies offered for free to passengers here) can easily be put where non-paying visitors can’t get at them, and, since airport security has nothing to do with this, the paying customers won’t be jumping through any extra hoops to get at them.
Free WiFi on the other hand can’t easily be placed after airport security, and unauthorized use is of little concern, but that still doesn’t mean you can legally use it for free if you just happen to live within range.