News Bill signals end of free WiFi

While everyone here can see this is an utterly terrible idea, its not going to stop it happening.
Why don't we collate a list of good reasons why this bill is no good and get a petition going or something?
If people like us who are in the know do nothing, your average joe certainly wont...

 

Just hack your phone and tether it instead. Slow, but it still works. With 3G on so many phones today this doesn't surprise me at all, after all who needs to carry around a laptop anymore to check facebook? I bet its the phone companies that push this through so the uptake of 3G will be higher.

University's may track usage but here at queens im limited to 400kb/s download speeds. It takes 4-5hours do download a 30min video from iplayer (I leave it downloading in lectures when not using the laptop). If queens drops wi-fi access ill personally lead a campeign to have a computer with wired access for every student. Simply because im in contact with lecturers, other students, downloading notes online, researching, bit-tech and applying for jobs through out the day. I got my netbook specifically because of uni needs.

 

Maybe not that drastic, but in the Netherlands if your car is photographed speeding, the owner will be punished. (unless presenting someone else that's driven)

Same principle though, owner is responsible for abuse of ... whatever.

It exists!

 

That sort of exists in the UK, but preys on the on the fact that people don't know, they hope that people will assume the guilt with out the real evidence remember innocent until proven guilty, a picture of the back of the car doesn't mean you committed the crime, prove who was driving, also you should be read your miranda rites (the rite to remain silent/right against self-incrimination).

But this is slowly changing, people are fighting it and the courts can't take it as its all a farce. So again the government try to change the law to circumvent this. All they really succeed in doing though is pissing more people off and creating more paper work for the coppers and less time to do there real job. Hey they can't loose their extra tax now can they.

In Germany all speed camera's take pictures from the front (with the passenger greyed out) clear evidence of the car and the driver. Go figure, no assuming guilt there

 

Your right +1 on the petition.

Talk is cheap.

 

I don't know about you, but I used to get around 2mbit when tethering my Kaiser (T-Mobile MDA Vario III), and that was without paying for faster access (7.2mbit). Besides, you have to pay for cellular/mobile broadband, whereas the article discusses open-access/free WiFi.

 

and just because a big cooperation does it it is not socialism? i think you forget that the a lot of big cooperations push for socialism *because* it is good for *their* bottom lines. if you can get a bunch of socialistic laws passed that force out smaller competitors but are specifically worded to give you a pass that may help you, but it is also not capitalism. capitalism is supposed to keep corruption out of the market, and make sure that all people are represented equally in a court of law (among a few other things) but it is most definitely not supposed to pass laws that favor certain parties above others, or make business possible only for the giants.

to summarize: restricting fair business for some may be good for others, but it is not capitalism.

this is pure socialism, no matter who is pushing it. saying anything else is intellectually dishonest.

@Psytek

right on.

@dreaming

about the knife. say i didn't loan you the knife, say you came into my store and bought it from me. am i still culpable? how far are you wiling to extend your argument?

if we were really being true to our "innocent until proven guilty" principles you would have to prove that i gave you the knife (either sold or loaned) with the fore knowledge that you intended to do malice. for all anyone knows i loaned you the knife because you said you had a large roast at home and nothing to cut it with.

and a lot of us have thought this through very well before hand, but it may not show because of our testiness when it comes to dealing with people who obviously have not.

 

With so many people with free "unlimited" internet on their phones its an alternative to wi-fi. Most people have "unlimited" internet on their phones anyway. For those that don't already have a data plan o their phone Why ignore the enormous cash elephant by offering a free alternative thats faster?

 

If he came into your store and bought it then it is no longer yours and is a moot point, no?

Also, following the "innocent until proven guilty" idea, wouldn't saying "he told me it was for a roast" prove you innocent unless someone had proof that you were told otherwise? That doesn't seem like a problem at all... you're still responsible for only allowing the safe and reasonable use of your possessions, to the best of your knowledge. That being the focal point of this whole issue in my opinion. No cafe owner, for example, has any specific reason to believe that they are supporting piracy, yet they will certainly know that it exists and must take actions to prevent the misuse of their service.

Another example, a little more violent. Let's say I own a handgun. Obviously it is a dangerous item and there is quite a lot of potential for it to be misused. Now if I set this gun down on a park bench I have no reason to think anyone's going to take it and commit murder, but there is obviously a risk. I am responsible for ensuring the safe and reasonable use of my possessions to the best of my knowledge and my knowldge says that leaving guns around is neither safe nor reasonable!

This bill may be taking things too far, but the general idea is that the internet and wi-fi specifically are becoming potetionally dangerous items and owners must be aware of this and take measures to provide safe and reasonable use to the best of their knowledge, such as blocking file sharing ports.

 

@sloth

the issue with the knife is i am not presumed to be innocent in your version. i am presumed to be guilty and must prove my innocence with my statement. if i was truly presumed to be innocent, i would not have to say anything, and it would be up to you to prove that i was either malicious or criminally negligent. criminal negligence, in the u.s. anyway, usually extends to things that should have been accounted for, such as leaving a loaded firearm unattended in a public place. but then again criminal negligence is also applied to the little old ladies who mosh the gas in their cars and kill a pedestrian. it is the same concept.

that concept, i will add, does not apply to open networks. it would be like making the phone companies (or other owners) liable for crimes committed from payphones. service providers, of any kind, need to be heavily insulated from crimes committed with their service, least the innovation in the market be killed. you need to prove that they are criminally negligent in their operation, such as hosting files or trackers for illegal content. their are many reasons that someone may wish to remain anonymous online, and not all of them are illegal. and purposefully handicapping the technology is not really a good solution either, since it puts the burden of regulation on the small businesses more than on the large.

 

To be fair, it's not exactly accusing you of anything to be questioning just why the knife was in his possession. Being clear as to why the murderer was in possession of your knife is basic fact gathering. Provide your honest answer that it was supposedly for cutting a roast and the matter should be over with, unless someone tries to prove that you were malicious as you said. In all likelihood your own lawyer will be the first to bring the subject up so that the matter will be clear early on, and he/she certainly isn't accusing you of anything.

Blocking ports used for file sharing has little, if anything, to do with anonymity. Users can still walk into their favorite library/cafe and perform most non-piracy tasks just the same as before, with the exception of some legitimate peer to peer downloading being blocked. For the wifi owner this should actually be preferable, it would prevent people from using them as a free primary internet source as opposed to a complimentary feature to enjoy while you sip your latte. This also isn't exactly hard to set up, I wouldn't doubt that some already have just for the benefits I just mentioned. Compared to the initial challenge of installation it's not exactly difficult to only allow 80 and a couple others, might even be an option with professional installation.

And the main point for restricting peer to peer services is that most users should be able to accept it. There are only a handful of reasons to reeeallllyyy want your torrents at a free wifi hotspot. One of them is piracy, the other is immorally mooching off of a service that is not intended for prolonged use. It's exceedingly hard to claim that honest, heart of gold users truly need to have access to file sharing applications at a wifi hotspot such as a library or cafe or school. Bittorrent has nothing to do with writing one's final, or checking the weather on lunch break

Of course, there's always the "It's the principle of being free citizens!" argument, but if that's the problem there are certainly bigger fish to fry in this world...

 

it may not be unthinkable to question someone related to a crim, but it also does not mean that they get to presume guilt based on anything they do or do not say. if i remain silent they must assume i am innocent until they can prove i am guilty. you are still operating under the premise that i a guilty until i prove myself innocent. *i* don't need to say anything to prove my innocence, *you* need to say a whole lot to prove my guilt. anything i say can be used against me, but it cannot be used to help me, therefor i will remain silent.

see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

(two parts)

moving on to free wifi

sure some business might find it useful to block file sharing ports, and it is their right to do so, but what if doing so hinders their business model? say they are catering to a gaming crowd. lots of games use the torrent app to download updates. take WoW for example. all of a sudden their customers can no longer get updates for popular games, thus alienating their user base. as i said before, there are all sorts of legitimate reasons to have an open an unhindered network, and imposing arbitrary limits only limits innovation.

not to mention that it is trivially easy to change around the port setting on a computer and have it share files, printers, ssh or whatever on whatever port you want. all you need is someone on the outside who knows what port you want to connect to. how long do you think it would take after port restricting legislation was passed for it to be completely ineffectual? a week? a day? a few hours?

 

Bah, youtube is blocked here for security, I'll edit in later when I've watched them. Though I can use that as an example: Youtube, Photobucket, Flickr, Imageshack, etc are blocked here to prevent me from illegally uploading sensitive information. Of course, treason is almost undebatably more serious than online piracy but this situation follows along a similar route. It's a freedom which is given up to uphold the law and protect the country, just as filesharing is a freedom given up to protect musicians/artists/developers/etc. I apologize for broadening the subject, but some form of protection is entirely warranted, be it at the service provider's level, at the end user's level, or at the content host's level. Simply tracking down pirates doesn't prevent the crime from being committed, action has to be taken to correct this.

To get back on subject, it would seem that a new market of security hardware and software could be coming about. Finding ways to limit innovation is ironically full of innovation. Cisco and all of it's daughter companies, for example, could certainly focus attention more towards products designed for protecting wifi hotspots through passively protected wireless access points. Pre-setup firewalls to cut back on administrative overhead and configuration costs. Creative ways of determining and allowing known-good applications such as Blizzard's updater, perhaps a sort of digital certificate. Necessity is the father of invention (did I get that right?) and this need for anti-piracy measures, especially if Big brother is pushing it, could certainly cause a number of security inventions.

 

i don't mind you broadening the subject, i enjoy the conversation

you did hit on one of my points. companies (and governments) are perfectly free to control access on computers and networks they own. that is the whole point. if i own a hotspot *i* get to dictate under what terms and conditions it is available, not someone else. the moment government decides that "you must do this or someone may abuse it" they are presuming guilt. and while you are right that initially the legislation may drive some innovation, that innovation invariably comes with higher cost to the users, which has the net effect of stifling innovation in the long run. that on top of the fact that the legislation would limit a persons exercise of free choice, which means that whole sets of behaviors are not open for profit.

and the idea to have "creative ways of determining and allowing known-good applications" sounds like a huge cost to developers that will close the market to any independent developer, thus perpetuating the problem of big business legislating out smaller competitors through the use of unfair laws. cant afford to pay cisco $1000 to get on the trusted file sharing list? you must be one of those bad people we can't trust on the network. . .

the topics of presuming guilt and stopping network traffic "because it's bad" are very closely related. there are a number of other topics that share similar points as well, like 2nd amendment issues, and 1st amendment free speech. how much can you limit freedom "for the common good?" almost always you only wind up limiting the freedom of law abiding citizens and the criminals simply flaunt the law and find trivial ways around it. anything that would seek to legislate network traffic would be doomed to the same failure, and is therefor not even worth perusing.

a better solution is to make prosecuting those actually guilty easier, or changing existing laws to make the illegal behavior not worth the effort (or in some cases, simply enforcing existing laws, rather than writing new ones to go on top of the old ones).