Free Wi-Fi access on BART in San Francisco during beta
John Navas
See "WiFi trial comes to San Francisco's BART trains"
<http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/02/wifi-trial-comes-to-san-franciscos-bart-trains/>
"Wi-Fi Rail Tests WiFi On San Francisco Subway"
<http://www.profy.com/2008/02/02/wifirail/>
"Firm tests Wi-Fi on moving San Francisco trains"
<http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/02/01/wi.fi.rail.on.bart.trains/>
"Free WiFi on BART's Beta Network"
<http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/002699.php>
WiFi Rail home page
<http://www.wifirail.net/>
Registration is free during the beta. No idea how long it will last.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
Bill Z.
It's a non-starter, as far as I'm concerned. They claim their fee is
$10 for a "day pass". If you might use BART occassionally, the cost
is astronomical for what you get. If you have to pay that for every
nickle and dime operation out there, you'd go broke.
Even with a monthly pass, these guys want $30 per month. If you use
Starbucks, those guys want close to $30 per month.
It's like going through a jungle full of leeches.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
John Navas
wrote in <87abm5g...@nospam.pacbell.net>:
Did you miss the currently FREE part? ;)
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<aip4r3p7pq8go8fdi...@4ax.com>:
Heading toward Millbrae from Embarcadero this morning, I had usable
Wi-Fi to Civic Center (4 stations), but not beyond that point.
Wi-Fi access points are in stations and tunnels, not on trains.
Jeff Liebermann
>Did you miss the currently FREE part? ;)
There's no such thing as a free launch.
(Sorry. I couldn't resist).
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
AES
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> It's a non-starter, as far as I'm concerned. They claim their fee is
> $10 for a "day pass". If you might use BART occassionally, the cost
> is astronomical for what you get. If you have to pay that for every
> nickle and dime operation out there, you'd go broke.
>
> Even with a monthly pass, these guys want $30 per month. If you use
> Starbucks, those guys want close to $30 per month.
Wonder if iPass will add BART to their list of connections? Starbucks
MacDonalds, etc, are already on it.
John Navas
wrote in <9dh6r35p9jrq6f0c3...@4ax.com>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>
>>Did you miss the currently FREE part? ;)
>
>There's no such thing as a free launch.
>
>(Sorry. I couldn't resist).
Bad, really really bad! LOL
Bill Z.
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:29:53 GMT, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> wrote in <87abm5g...@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>
> >John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> writes:
> >
> >> I was pleasantly surprised to find Wi-Fi on BART today in San Francisco.
> >> See "WiFi trial comes to San Francisco's BART trains"
> >> <http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/02/wifi-trial-comes-to-san-franciscos-bart-trains/>
> >> "Wi-Fi Rail Tests WiFi On San Francisco Subway"
> >> <http://www.profy.com/2008/02/02/wifirail/>
> >> "Firm tests Wi-Fi on moving San Francisco trains"
> >> <http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/02/01/wi.fi.rail.on.bart.trains/>
> >> "Free WiFi on BART's Beta Network"
> >> <http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/002699.php>
> >> WiFi Rail home page
> >> <http://www.wifirail.net/>
> >> Registration is free during the beta. No idea how long it will last.
> >
> >It's a non-starter, as far as I'm concerned. They claim their fee is
> >$10 for a "day pass". If you might use BART occassionally, the cost
> >is astronomical for what you get. If you have to pay that for every
> >nickle and dime operation out there, you'd go broke.
> >
> >Even with a monthly pass, these guys want $30 per month. If you use
> >Starbucks, those guys want close to $30 per month.
> >
> >It's like going through a jungle full of leeches.
>
> Did you miss the currently FREE part? ;)
It's currently free as a promotional gimmick. My guess is that it
won't be free for long. :-(
Bill Z.
No idea, but we have coffee shops in town with free Wi-Fi. It draws
in enough customers that they make more in sales than it costs to
run the service, which just consists of a wifi router connected to
the shop's DSL or Cable connection. If you need it anyway (e.g., for
placing orders on-line) the marginal cost of letting customers use it
is nearly zero.
John Navas
in <87d4r0w...@nospam.pacbell.net>:
It's apparently been free for several months. (I only just learned of
it.) Regardless, why would you care? When it stops being free, move
on.
John Navas
in <878x1ow...@nospam.pacbell.net>:
Actually not zero, because it takes a fair amount of expertise to set it
up and keep it running reliably. Those who cheap out risk alienating
the very customers they are trying to keep.
Bill Z.
> On 13 Feb 2008 16:42:45 -0800, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote
> in <878x1ow...@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>
> >AES <sie...@stanford.edu> writes:
> >
> >> In article <87abm5g...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> >> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >>
> >> > It's a non-starter, as far as I'm concerned. They claim their fee is
> >> > $10 for a "day pass". If you might use BART occassionally, the cost
> >> > is astronomical for what you get. If you have to pay that for every
> >> > nickle and dime operation out there, you'd go broke.
> >> >
> >> > Even with a monthly pass, these guys want $30 per month. If you use
> >> > Starbucks, those guys want close to $30 per month.
> >>
> >> Wonder if iPass will add BART to their list of connections? Starbucks
> >> MacDonalds, etc, are already on it.
> >
> >No idea, but we have coffee shops in town with free Wi-Fi. It draws
> >in enough customers that they make more in sales than it costs to
> >run the service, which just consists of a wifi router connected to
> >the shop's DSL or Cable connection. If you need it anyway (e.g., for
> >placing orders on-line) the marginal cost of letting customers use it
> >is nearly zero.
>
> Actually not zero, because it takes a fair amount of expertise to set it
> up and keep it running reliably. Those who cheap out risk alienating
> the very customers they are trying to keep.
Actually I said, "nearly zero". I think they just use consumer-level
products. Setup is easy - it is just what you do at home. It's a
coffee shop with a single relatively small room, so you just need a
single router. The level of service is fine for browsing web sites
and checking email. But that's really all most people need. They get
some coffee in the morning and handle some work-related tasks before
driving into work so they don't sit in traffic during the worst part
of the commute. You aren't going to download videos or listen to
music - the level of background noise is too high.
Bill Z.
> On 13 Feb 2008 16:37:03 -0800, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote
> in <87d4r0w...@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>
> >John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >It's currently free as a promotional gimmick. My guess is that it
> >won't be free for long. :-(
>
> It's apparently been free for several months. (I only just learned of
> it.) Regardless, why would you care? When it stops being free, move
> on.
Well, one reason to care is that sales taxes help pay for BART.
A no-hassle use of an internet connection while riding BART
might help increase usage and reduce the subsidy BART needs.
BART is institutionally too stupid to make good financial decisions.
An example is the parking charge they've introduced - all day
long in Daly City. While they fill up early in the morning,
people start to leave faster than they arrive in the afternoon,
at which point the trains going into San Francisco are nearly
empty. That's when you want to make parking free - to attract
more people in the afternoon when the lot is not heavily
utilized.
I got pissed off enough at the charge that I no longer use
BART to get into San Francisco - the extra charge was enough
to make driving a more attractive option. It wasn't just the
cost - paying was a pain in the neck. You had to remember
your stall number, buy the ticket, go through the gate, and
only *then* enter the number. Invariably, by the time I had
finished fooling around with the ticket machine, I'd forget
the number and have to walk back to my car to find it again.
Letting you enter the number when you got your ticket and
having it activated when you put your card into the reader
at the gate was beyond them.
John Navas
wrote in <87zlu4u...@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> writes:
>
>> On 13 Feb 2008 16:42:45 -0800, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote
>> in <878x1ow...@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>> >No idea, but we have coffee shops in town with free Wi-Fi. It draws
>> >in enough customers that they make more in sales than it costs to
>> >run the service, which just consists of a wifi router connected to
>> >the shop's DSL or Cable connection. If you need it anyway (e.g., for
>> >placing orders on-line) the marginal cost of letting customers use it
>> >is nearly zero.
>>
>> Actually not zero, because it takes a fair amount of expertise to set it
>> up and keep it running reliably. Those who cheap out risk alienating
>> the very customers they are trying to keep.
>
>Actually I said, "nearly zero".
Not even close.
>I think they just use consumer-level
>products. Setup is easy - it is just what you do at home.
That's cheap and foolish. Proper configuration of a robust router is
non-trivial.
>It's a
>coffee shop with a single relatively small room, so you just need a
>single router. The level of service is fine for browsing web sites
>and checking email. But that's really all most people need. They get
>some coffee in the morning and handle some work-related tasks before
>driving into work so they don't sit in traffic during the worst part
>of the commute. You aren't going to download videos or listen to
>music - the level of background noise is too high.
File sharing is in fact a real problem.
Bill Z.
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:43:04 GMT, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> wrote in <87zlu4u...@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>
> >John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> writes:
> >
> >> On 13 Feb 2008 16:42:45 -0800, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote
> >> in <878x1ow...@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>
> >> >No idea, but we have coffee shops in town with free Wi-Fi. It draws
> >> >in enough customers that they make more in sales than it costs to
> >> >run the service, which just consists of a wifi router connected to
> >> >the shop's DSL or Cable connection. If you need it anyway (e.g., for
> >> >placing orders on-line) the marginal cost of letting customers use it
> >> >is nearly zero.
> >>
> >> Actually not zero, because it takes a fair amount of expertise to set it
> >> up and keep it running reliably. Those who cheap out risk alienating
> >> the very customers they are trying to keep.
> >
> >Actually I said, "nearly zero".
>
> Not even close.
No, quite accurate.
> >I think they just use consumer-level
> >products. Setup is easy - it is just what you do at home.
>
> That's cheap and foolish. Proper configuration of a robust router is
> non-trivial.
This is a coffee shop with 2 to 3 employees and a capacity of maybe 30
people, only a fraction of whom bring laptops along. The users are
a responsible group of people.
> >It's a
> >coffee shop with a single relatively small room, so you just need a
> >single router. The level of service is fine for browsing web sites
> >and checking email. But that's really all most people need. They get
> >some coffee in the morning and handle some work-related tasks before
> >driving into work so they don't sit in traffic during the worst part
> >of the commute. You aren't going to download videos or listen to
> >music - the level of background noise is too high.
>
> File sharing is in fact a real problem.
Not there. It may surprise you, but people are not having a problem.
Bill Kearney
> in enough customers that they make more in sales than it costs to
> run the service
And you base this on what numbers? I've always been skeptical of the claim
it adds business. Put up tables and wif and people stay longer. I can't
imagine they're buying anywhere near the same amount of product (or
generating the same profits) as a walk-in/walk-out customers. I'm sure
there's something to be said for it's abilility to create a certain
atmosphere. But at the end of the day if you're not making money then it'll
fail no matter how quaint, charming or technically connected it might be.
Bill Z.
The numbers are the number of people in this place, which is pretty
much at capacity in the morning. There are plenty of walk-in/walk-out
customers too, and they'll sell some pastries and cooked breakfasts
as well. There are a number of tables, and quite a few people
chatting, working on their laptops, etc. Some probably just browse
some news sites or handle some email while eating.
A Starbucks a short walk away gets relatively little business in
comparision. Given a choice between the two places, if I needed
Internet access (e.g., to check my mail), Starbucks would lose,
and Starbucks' charges for Wi-Fi are a signficant factor.
Bill Kearney
> much at capacity in the morning. There are plenty of walk-in/walk-out
> customers too, and they'll sell some pastries and cooked breakfasts
> as well. There are a number of tables, and quite a few people
> chatting, working on their laptops, etc. Some probably just browse
> some news sites or handle some email while eating.
Those aren't numbers, at least not in the proft and loss sense. I'm not
arguing against the advantages as a customer to having free wifi or it's
ability to improve the customer's perception of the atmosphere. I'm simply
questioning the notion of that being a cost-effective means to increase the
bottom line, demonstrated with REAL DOLLAR FIGURES.
Starbucks, and any other sort of chain, often fail for failing to cultivate
a community among the customers. Some places work great for the
get-in/get-out anonymous crowd. But plenty of small independent businesses
exist because they seek to provide a service level well above that level.
The trick is in doing that while not going broke, much harder to accomplish.
-Bill Kearney
DTC
> Starbucks, and any other sort of chain, often fail for failing to cultivate
> a community among the customers.
We have a Dairy Queen in town that just installed a free and totally
open hotspot. They remodeled the place and on their marque outside
it says..."Come see our new bathrooms"
On a DQ and only in Texas.
Eric Weaver
The point being, what, "The Only Clean Bathrooms in Town" or something?
Just curious...
Bill Z.
> > The numbers are the number of people in this place, which is pretty
> > much at capacity in the morning. There are plenty of walk-in/walk-out
> > customers too, and they'll sell some pastries and cooked breakfasts
> > as well. There are a number of tables, and quite a few people
> > chatting, working on their laptops, etc. Some probably just browse
> > some news sites or handle some email while eating.
>
> Those aren't numbers, at least not in the proft and loss sense. I'm not
> arguing against the advantages as a customer to having free wifi or it's
> ability to improve the customer's perception of the atmosphere. I'm simply
> questioning the notion of that being a cost-effective means to increase the
> bottom line, demonstrated with REAL DOLLAR FIGURES.
Except that the marginal cost of the Internet service is nearly zero.
In this case, the guy who owns the business probably uses it to place
orders or for other business uses, but when the place is crowded, he'll
be handling orders as well as his staff. So basically he's letting his
customers use excess capacity. If it attracts more people, those
indivuals will tell their friends, helping to build up a customer base.
I used it this morning and during a discussion with a friend I met
there, I ended up emailing a URL (literally to the person sitting
right across the table from me) to save having to write down the
link from a web site.
John Navas
wrote in <87wsp57...@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>"Bill Kearney" <wkear...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Those aren't numbers, at least not in the proft and loss sense. I'm not
>> arguing against the advantages as a customer to having free wifi or it's
>> ability to improve the customer's perception of the atmosphere. I'm simply
>> questioning the notion of that being a cost-effective means to increase the
>> bottom line, demonstrated with REAL DOLLAR FIGURES.
>
>Except that the marginal cost of the Internet service is nearly zero.
>In this case, the guy who owns the business probably uses it to place
>orders or for other business uses, but when the place is crowded, he'll
>be handling orders as well as his staff. So basically he's letting his
>customers use excess capacity. If it attracts more people, those
>indivuals will tell their friends, helping to build up a customer base.
The problem is the Tragedy of the Commons, where the service gets abused
by folks doing things like illicit file sharing, which more than soaks
up any excess bandwidth, and risks bringing law enforcement down on the
local establishment.
Bill Z.
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:39:27 GMT, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> wrote in <87wsp57...@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>
> >"Bill Kearney" <wkear...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >> Those aren't numbers, at least not in the proft and loss sense.
> >> I'm not arguing against the advantages as a customer to having
> >> free wifi or it's ability to improve the customer's perception of
> >> the atmosphere. I'm simply questioning the notion of that being
> >> a cost-effective means to increase the bottom line, demonstrated
> >> with REAL DOLLAR FIGURES.
> >
> >Except that the marginal cost of the Internet service is nearly zero.
> >In this case, the guy who owns the business probably uses it to place
> >orders or for other business uses, but when the place is crowded, he'll
> >be handling orders as well as his staff. So basically he's letting his
> >customers use excess capacity. If it attracts more people, those
> >indivuals will tell their friends, helping to build up a customer base.
>
> The problem is the Tragedy of the Commons, where the service gets abused
> by folks doing things like illicit file sharing, which more than soaks
> up any excess bandwidth, and risks bringing law enforcement down on the
> local establishment.
The "Tragedy of the Commons" seems to be a non-issue in this case,
partly due to the clientel. Since the business is providing its
customers with an Internet service - connectivity for buying coffee,
the business might be covered by the ISP exception to the DMCA:
<http://www.cyberspacelaw.org/dogan/dmcaisp.html>.
msg
<snip>
>>The problem is the Tragedy of the Commons, where the service gets abused
>>by folks doing things like illicit file sharing, which more than soaks
>>up any excess bandwidth, and risks bringing law enforcement down on the
>>local establishment.
>
>
> The "Tragedy of the Commons" seems to be a non-issue in this case,
> partly due to the clientel. Since the business is providing its
> customers with an Internet service - connectivity for buying coffee,
> the business might be covered by the ISP exception to the DMCA
Chances are they are simply 'sharing' their end-user ISP account with
clientele, and their terms of service probably forbid this in a
business setting; how do you suppose they could successfully defend
or afford to defend against criminal or civil prosecution?
Michael
Bill Z.
Since many coffee shops do this, there terms of service most likely do
not forbid it, which is why business accounts cost more.
Also, they might have a solid defense against what their customers do
based on laws that protect ISPs. If you want to claim otherwise, show
one case of a business providing free wifi for its customers ever
being successfully prosecuted for copyright infringement. Given that
they allegedly sued one person for "illegal downloads" using a service
that didn't run on his/her hardware/OS, the lack of any cases should
be a pretty good indication as to whether it is a non issue.
Rahul Dhesi
>msg <msg@_cybertheque.org_> writes:
>> Chances are they are simply..
>> ...terms of service probably forbid this ...
>...most likely do not forbid it...
>Also, they might have a solid defense...
This is a pretty interesting debate, but does anybody have any real
facts, as opposed to the "chances are", "probably", "most likely" and
"they might" type of guesswork?
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
Bill Z.
That's why I asked about any cases in which a business providing free
wifi ever got in legal trouble due to their customers' usage of the
service. Naively reading it, the DMCA seems to protect them, but then
you have to know all the "case law", etc. If there have never been any
court cases, I'd sort of like to know why - it is not because the music
industry isn't going after people.
msg
> c.c....@XReXXFreeX.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>
>
>>nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes:
>>
>>
>>>msg <msg@_cybertheque.org_> writes:
>>
>>>>Chances are they are simply..
>>>>...terms of service probably forbid this ...
>>
>>>...most likely do not forbid it...
>>
>>>Also, they might have a solid defense...
>>
>>This is a pretty interesting debate, but does anybody have any real
>>facts, as opposed to the "chances are", "probably", "most likely" and
>>"they might" type of guesswork?
>
>
> That's why I asked about any cases in which a business providing free
> wifi ever got in legal trouble due to their customers' usage of the
> service.
<snip>
Finding case law on the Internet these days ain't so easy if you can't
afford Lexis-Nexus, Westlaw, etc. I remember searching the topic
last year and finding a number of reports of civil and criminal actions
in the U.S. on both DMCA and porn charges involving open WiFi access.
Here is a post from a forum on schneier.com regarding a German action:
" In germany, we have a 'nice' thing called "Störerhaftung", i.e.
liability for people that allow bad things to happen.
In September 2006, a court actually ruled that a person running
an un-protected WLAN was liable for copyright infringements conducted
over her internet connection because she could have easily protected
her network.
It did not matter that it wasn't her. Even if if had not been her,
personally, she had enabled others to do the copyright infringement
and therefore she was liable.
Posted by: Paeniteo at January 15, 2008 07:03 AM"
On other forums there are mentions of similar actions in Italy and
other European countries.
Finding any references to legal opinions on the web or in usenet posts
has come up null; there is an ample volume of traffic devoted to
speculation however.
News reports of open wifi providers (home or business) being arrested
on suspicion of violations of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) or
the DMCA probably reside in the archives of numerous local media outlets
but these aren't indexed by the major search engines. The most fearsome
circumstance would be the holder of a 'residential' ISP account
that offers open access and is arrested for the actions of others
after investigations reveal his IP address in logs of a child porn or
music site. In our area I know that small business owners often hold
such ISP accounts, especially if the business is run from a residence
or the residence is part of the structure that houses the business.
I fear that it will be a major research effort to find examples and
to get a legal opinion on rights and responsibilities. Regardless of the
merits, my question remains:
Who but deep pockets could afford to defend against arrest and
prosecution and/or civil action for the actions of clientele?
I doubt if the mom and pop coffee shop owner's insurance or in the
case of the homeowner (assuming he has some) would cover the expenses
and the severe disruption to business and living would likely be
intolerable let alone the loss of reputation after the story breaks.
Michael
Bill Z.
> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > c.c....@XReXXFreeX.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
> >
> >>nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>msg <msg@_cybertheque.org_> writes:
> >>
> >>>>Chances are they are simply..
> >>>>...terms of service probably forbid this ...
> >>
> >>>...most likely do not forbid it...
> >>
> >>>Also, they might have a solid defense...
> >>
> >>This is a pretty interesting debate, but does anybody have any real
> >>facts, as opposed to the "chances are", "probably", "most likely" and
> >>"they might" type of guesswork?
> > That's why I asked about any cases in which a business providing free
> > wifi ever got in legal trouble due to their customers' usage of the
> > service.
> <snip>
>
> Finding case law on the Internet these days ain't so easy if you can't
> afford Lexis-Nexus, Westlaw, etc. I remember searching the topic
> last year and finding a number of reports of civil and criminal actions
> in the U.S. on both DMCA and porn charges involving open WiFi access.
>
> Here is a post from a forum on schneier.com regarding a German action:
> " In germany, we have a 'nice' thing called "Störerhaftung", i.e.
> liability for people that allow bad things to happen.
But German law is not applicable in the Bay Area.
>
> On other forums there are mentions of similar actions in Italy and
> other European countries.
Similarly, those don't apply here either.
>
> Finding any references to legal opinions on the web or in usenet posts
> has come up null; there is an ample volume of traffic devoted to
> speculation however.
>
> News reports of open wifi providers (home or business) being arrested
> on suspicion of violations of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) or
> the DMCA probably reside in the archives of numerous local media outlets
> but these aren't indexed by the major search engines.
<snip>
> I fear that it will be a major research effort to find examples and
> to get a legal opinion on rights and responsibilities. Regardless of the
> merits, my question remains:
>
> Who but deep pockets could afford to defend against arrest and
> prosecution and/or civil action for the actions of clientele?
>
> I doubt if the mom and pop coffee shop owner's insurance or in the
> case of the homeowner (assuming he has some) would cover the expenses
> and the severe disruption to business and living would likely be
> intolerable let alone the loss of reputation after the story breaks.
So, the bottom line is that some people are nervous but nothing has in
fact happened. The porn thing is a non-starter. If the police
dropped by the business, the owner would simply say that he provides
free wifi and nothing would appear on the owner's computers - all the
traffic goes through the routers. He'd probably suggest having
someone stake out the place or would ask about what to look for to
help catch the guy.
John Navas
in <87ve4mr...@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>So, the bottom line is that some people are nervous but nothing has in
>fact happened. The porn thing is a non-starter. If the police
>dropped by the business, the owner would simply say that he provides
>free wifi and nothing would appear on the owner's computers - all the
>traffic goes through the routers. He'd probably suggest having
>someone stake out the place or would ask about what to look for to
>help catch the guy.
The police have a nasty habit of seizing all the gear first, and letting
you prove your innocence later.
Bill Z.
> On 18 Feb 2008 13:58:39 -0800, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote
> in <87ve4mr...@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>
> >So, the bottom line is that some people are nervous but nothing has in
> >fact happened. The porn thing is a non-starter. If the police
> >dropped by the business, the owner would simply say that he provides
> >free wifi and nothing would appear on the owner's computers - all the
> >traffic goes through the routers. He'd probably suggest having
> >someone stake out the place or would ask about what to look for to
> >help catch the guy.
>
> The police have a nasty habit of seizing all the gear first, and letting
> you prove your innocence later.
Actually, they have a real incentive not to seize the gear - that would
tip off the guy doing it. They'd rather get the cooperation of the
business owner and not let on that they are trying to find someone
who is frequenting the place (or sitting outside in a car).
msg
Firstly, this thread crossposted to alt.internet.wireless, which is from
where I am posting; my comments are not directed specifically to Bay Area
folks.
Secondly, my main concern is for the type of mixed residential/business
situation commonly found in my area, where the police or investigating
agency would simply pursue the account-holder of a residential ISP
service in the case of suspicion of criminal activity as discovered
at a remote site (bust of file sharing or porn site, peer-to-peer user,
torrent user, etc.). Even though the account-holder had no involvement
in the alleged activity, the investigating agencies would have no reason
to believe otherwise based on the evidence available to them. The onerous
burden would fall on the account-holder to prove usage by others of
his open wifi service; in the mean time his gear would likely have been
seized after a possibly destructive raid, he would likely have been
arrested, and costs would escalate in defending against the action.
I have often wondered about pro-active defenses such as clearly visible
banners or signage on the physical property declaring that the owner
is acting as a wireless ISP, and a similar statement in a home page
presented to any anonymous user of the wireless access points. I doubt
that this would prevent a raid and seizure though. Even established
ISPs are subject to subpoena and there are plenty of stories of raids
on ISPs involving seizure of records and hardware despite the CDA and
DMCA.
Michael
Bill Z.
But we were talking about a business owner obviously maintaining a free
wireless service for customers. It's really obvious - you walk into the
place and see a lot of customers using laptops. You can connect your
own.
>
> I have often wondered about pro-active defenses such as clearly visible
> banners or signage on the physical property declaring that the owner
> is acting as a wireless ISP, and a similar statement in a home page
> presented to any anonymous user of the wireless access points. I doubt
> that this would prevent a raid and seizure though. Even established
> ISPs are subject to subpoena and there are plenty of stories of raids
> on ISPs involving seizure of records and hardware despite the CDA and
> DMCA.
ISP's can have records subpoenaed, but can't produce records when there
aren't any to produce, which is the case with many free wi-fi services
as the hardware doesn't maintain log files telling who connected to what.