AT&T Accidentally Provides Free Wi-Fi To All

SecureThroughObscure writes tells us about a hack broken by MacOSRumors: you can get free Wi-Fi at Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, and other AT&T hotspots if you know how to set your browser's user agent string (trivial on Safari), and know a valid iPhone phone number. ZDNet blogger Nate McFeters gives some more details and links. This can't last.

Comments

Security by stupidity.

[LostCluster]

This actually had some chance of working before it was revealed on /. Afterall, you don't usually publish your iPhone number to strangers, and if they ever caught the same user agent showing upo at two hotspots it'd be trivial to shut them both down. Not the best security idea... but it got the system up until they had to come up with better.

Re:Security by stupidity.

[Hijacked Public]

I have no idea how many strangers know my phone number, but all my friends have it and I suspect most of them know I have an iPhone.

And I'm sure AT&T sees thousands of the same user agent running through their hotspots at any given time.

Re:Security by stupidity.

[NeutronCowboy]

Security by stupidity, indeed. Because this doesn't even qualify as security through obscurity. What the hell is wrong with people to use PUBLICLY known information to do access control? It's not the worst security idea, it is absolutely no security at all. Your phone number has to be known to people, otherwise it's useless. So why use it as access control? Yes, it allows for quick bootstrapping, but that's about it.

I expect that ATT will lobby in short order for a law that will make it illegal to spoof user agent strings. Not only that, but they will then charge the spoofers and the person with the original phone number with the same crime.

Re:Security by stupidity.

[History's Coming To]

Yeah, it was the same with the BBC iPlayer "hack". It went all public and they wrote around it. Sadly, we don't have a new version which allows high speed downloads to non-Windows machines.

Re:Security by stupidity.

[ewanm89]

Sure about this? ;) Maybe if you used google a bit you'll know the truth.

Re:Security by stupidity.

[eobanb]

if they ever caught the same user agent showing upo at two hotspots it'd be trivial to shut them both down Er, what?

User-agent strings are identical for any given copy of the same build of a browser. For example, mine is:

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_2; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1 Safari/525.13

This string is essentially the same for anyone running the latest version of Mac OS X and the latest stable version of Safari. It does not differ among hosts. Maybe you're thinking of MAC addresses.

Re:Security by stupidity.

[Phroggy]

Well no, not necessarily strangers, but certainly anyone you'd ever like to talk to on the phone. And are you suggesting that AT&T should block their paying customers from being able to use a service they're entitled to just because some of their acquaintances are exploiting AT&T's shoddy lack of security?

Re:Security by stupidity.

[NateTech]

Nah, it'll work for a while...

AT&T: Hey Apple, we need you to change the code on the iPhone so the phone can truly authenticate to the access point.

Apple: No. The iPhone is perfect.

AT&T: Mmm-kay. We'll need to send you a bill for the extra bandwidth we ESTIMATE is being used every month.

Apple: Mmm-kay. We'll change it. It might take a while.

AT&T: Our estimates are based on only the finest engineering a 120 year old company can give.

Apple: We'll have it done next month.

AT&T: No worries, we'll have the new code for the access point through engineering in about a month, it'll be another month for certification testing and QA, and then we'll have to write installation documentation for the field techs. We estimate one year after you notify us that the iPhone piece is done.

Apple: Great. We'll notify our market analysts about our expected change in our quarterly earnings. You guys really are evil aren't you?

AT&T: The best in the world!

This can't last?!

[Anonymous Coward]

This can't last?! I've been doing this for two months now and by now I am sure this will never bCARRIER LOST

It might last...

[sith]

Even if every /.'er did this, it still would be a drop in a bucket compared to the number of folks who happily pay the fee.

For example, many pay wifi points can be circumvented just by connecting to a VPN over UDP (since they're only filtering TCP requests). I doubt they're going broke due to that issue though..

Re:It might last...

[aliquis]

Exactly, I can't see why it couldn't last? What's so bad with offering free network connection at some locations? And as soon as one read that people "logged in" by typing in their phone number this was very obvious. I doubt they will care. And it's not like every person on the planet will know about it or care either (as you point out.)

Re:It might last...

[Anonymous Coward]

since I don't know of a VPN methodology that runs over UDP... it might be tough...

IPSec/SSL both require TCP

Re:It might last...

[aesiamun]

Here you go

Re:It might last...

[Dog-Cow]

OpenVPN.

Re:It might last...

[joelpt]

http://openvpn.net/

Re:It might last...

[Shakrai]

IPSec/SSL both require TCP

You realize that IPSec can encapsulate itself into UDP packets, right? In fact this is the primary mode of operation for clients stuck behind NAT.

Next time you might want to fire up Wireshark before you open your mouth. Or read this.

Re:It might last...

[KnightMB]

Even if every /.'er did this, it still would be a drop in a bucket compared to the number of folks who happily pay the fee. For example, many pay wifi points can be circumvented just by connecting to a VPN over UDP (since they're only filtering TCP requests). I doubt they're going broke due to that issue though.. Here's how in Firefox.

Download and install the "User Agent Switcher", then add new user agent with:

Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1C28 Safari/419.3

Go to StarBucks and hit up the wi-fi, you get the standard login screen that the iPhone uses, put in a valid phone number and well free wi-fi I guess. It's also interesting to visit websites to see what kind of iPhone page they have this way (cnn.com for example)

Re:It might last...

[camperslo]

OpenVPN appears to be for Windows, if that's the case, is there something else that'll work on OS X and Linux?

Re:It might last...

[richlv]

i wonder why it would appear as such. it definitely works on linux (on this opensuse installation, i could just install package openvpn-2.0.9-44@i586).

not sure about macos, but i'd expect it to work there as well.
actually, i think openvpn is the best vpn solution at this point.

Re:It might last...

[mrbooze]

How does that work when you need actual TCP connections? How are sessions, sequences, error detection, etc performed over UDP? Is the VPN software taking over several of the network layers and doing it's own session, transport, and network implementations?

Re:It might last...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the VPN software taking over several of the network layers and doing it's own session, transport, and network implementations?

Yes.

Re:It might last...

[Niten]

It's a cross-platform open source application. I've never tried the Windows port of OpenVPN, but I currently use it on OS X, OpenBSD, and Linux. It works perfectly on all three platforms.

If you want to run OpenVPN on OS X, though, I recommend the TunnelBlick front-end.

Re:It might last...

[rocketPack]

Alternatively (for those who don't want to download an extra program):

• - Go to about:config in Firefox
• - Right click/command click in the list and chose New > String
• - For the preference name use "general.useragent.override"
• - Use any value you wish, such as "Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1A543a Safari/419.3"
• - You can verify your change by going to "about:" in Firefox and reading the information from the page!

Can't help you with the 'finding a working iPhone number' part though!

Re:It might last...

[ewanm89]

OpenVPN is open, there are clients available to Linux, Mac and Windows.

Re:It might last...

[Psykechan]

Interesting. For quite some time I've been connecting my Mac client (using the OpenVPN GUI Tunnelblick) to a Linux OpenVPN server.

Sure Windows clients can play too but it's not like OpenVPN is Windows only.

Re:It might last...

[NateTech]

You're missing the important term... "encapsulation".

You can put TCP packets inside UDP packets, inside X.25 packets, inside ATM cells, inside...

UDP to the VPN code at the far end, it reassembles the TCP packets and sends 'em on their way...

Well kiss this goodbye.

[WiglyWorm]

I was worried when it started showing up on lifehacker and a few other places. Now that's it's been on /. I think it's safe to say it will be ending shortly.

Oh well, good while it lasted.

Staying Power

[whisper_jeff]

A surefire way to ensure that this hack lasts as long as possible is to keep it super-secret and not let AT&T know they screwed up.

But I'm sure posting the story to slashdot is fine. Nobody reads this site, after all...

Re:Staying Power

[peragrin]

If AT&T techies actually read slashdot then they would be smart enough to setup the system with more than just a browser user agent tag and a phone number.

how many systems have been setup that way and then suddenly laughed at?

The other option is why bother? Most people who visit starbucks don't know what a user agent string is, or have enough money that they don't care.

Re:Staying Power

[Talennor]

The other option is why bother? Quite right. Let's do some security analysis.

Attack vector: Someone sitting in your shop, who has already paid for coffee. Not remote.
Target compromised: Allows net access, you don't get to charge the guy. No data loss, no availability loss.
Required knowledge: HTTP and an iPhone number. Barrier could go down with further public exploits.
Public exploit: Yes, though limited to the geek crowd. And they had to assume this would be true, or they are pretty bad at this.

For what you're looking at, I think a user-agent string is the kind of security you're looking for when deploying this. There are some scenarios where you would need to escalate security, but IMO not required yet.

Re:Staying Power

[aliquis]

Hey, we read the headlines, eventually the summary and then head on to comment and read comments. It's just TFA we skip ;)

Re:Staying Power

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

If AT&T techies actually read slashdot then they would be smart enough to setup the system with more than just a browser user agent tag and a phone number.

How would you set it up then? Assuming the predefined goal is "Allow iphone users free service with no hassle", what would you do if not sniff user agents?

The only way I could think of to do this more 'securely' would be a full network scan to see how their tcp stack behaves, possibly looking at tcp sequence numbers and timestamps to find any quirks.

This of course would seriously complicate things, and still be vulnerable to more advanced spoofing. More complication means more errors means spending more money on techs, likely much more than you'd lose to a few hackers browsing slashdot for free.

Or I guess you could just make iphone users come to the counter and train starbucks employees on how to check and add a mac address, and hope nobody has a problem handing their iphone over.. Not the route I'd go.

Re:Staying Power

[Anonymous Coward]

802.1X, EAP-TLS, although that would have required the foresight to equip every iPhone with a unique client certificate, preferably embedded in a crypto chip like a TPM.

Re:Staying Power

[Firehed]

I would set it up just like this, except perhaps some sort of reasonable limit on connection time or frequency to the system ("legit" use should never have more than one connection per phone number, for example).

Will some people abuse it? Yes, though I wouldn't consider it abuse. It's really a long-term value add. People see that iPhone users get free Wifi at these places from their iPhone, and a few know how to get it on their laptop too. That's a tremendous additional value to using AT&T over competitors if you spend any amount of time at those businesses. People can get on sometimes using their friend's phone number for the time being, but realize how damn awesome the access is that comes for free because they're paying the same bill they'd be paying already, and make the switch when it comes time to replace their existing phone.

How much can bandwidth cost them, anyways? I know it's not free, but it's not costing them anywhere near the $20/mo that they charge for the iPhone unlimited data plan either. So long as customers aren't maxing out the connection for the entire month (and even if they do, it's probably still pretty profitable), it's in their best interest to get as many people paying for the service even if it means slightly slimmer margins by giving them "free" access at other places.

Re:Staying Power

[cpricejones]

Someone needs to not rephrase the article only so that slashdot members can understand. AT&T will not never know!

SecureThroughObscure writes tells us about a hack not broken by MacOSRumors: you can not get free Wi-Fi at Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, and other AT&T hotspots if you know how to set your browser's user agent string (trivial on Safari), and know a valid iPhone phone number. ZDNet blogger Nate McFeters gives some more details and links. This can't not last.

Re:Staying Power

[floodo1]

or you could just have iphone users goto a website where they would create a password for use at ATT hotspots. Then require them to login.

you know like how EVERY other pay for wifi service works.

Re:Staying Power

[pak9rabid]

A surefire way to ensure that this hack lasts as long as possible is to keep it super-secret and not let AT&T know they screwed up. Actually, it was Wayport's screw up, as they're the company that AT&T contracts to provide their wifi hotspot system.

Re:Staying Power

[Jugalator]

But I'm sure posting the story to slashdot is fine. Nobody reads this site, after all... Well it *is* just mostly geeks -- a minority.

I rather think the actual problem is when that random blog links to this site, catching the attention of some large general media site, etc... Soon enough it's a story reaching the general population.

Still, manipulating user agent strings is "advanced" work to novices. So in the end, for the shit to truly hit the fan, we'd first need a simple UI with only a textbox for the iPhone number and an OK button (handling the rest itself), distributed on a web site popularized by large news sites.

We aren't there quite yet at least... :)

Re:Staying Power

[Blkdeath]

If AT&T techies actually read slashdot then they would be smart enough to setup the system with more than just a browser user agent tag and a phone number.

Waitaminute; are you actually saying that reading Slashdot is a benchmark for intelligence in the IT field?

Re:Staying Power

[Sentry21]

The only way I could think of to do this more 'securely' would be a full network scan to see how their tcp stack behaves, possibly looking at tcp sequence numbers and timestamps to find any quirks. Given that my iPhone may have different ports open (since purchased apps may open ports), and given that my Mac is likely going to behave identically to an iPhone from a TCP-behavior point of view, I'm in favor of this proposal.

Re:Staying Power

[SleepyHappyDoc]

The AT&T people could talk to their good buddies at Apple and get them to put some kind of 'prove I'm an iPhone' code in the firmware. Could be as simple as verifying the number submitted on the form actually came from the device that submitted it.

Re:Staying Power

[Anonymous Coward]

be nice patrick

Re:Staying Power

[ewanm89]

MAC addresses can be pulled out of the air. And are easy to spoof.

Last time i went wifi was free anyways

[mhx]

Every time I goto these places I never have trouble getting free WIFI. I dont see the big deal here.

I don't think that's what you meant

[techpawn]

Accidentally providing free wi-fi to everyone... IF they use this hack to work around... That's not providing ANYTHING. It's not having proper security in place.

Who Pays?

[hawg2k]

I don't understand. I't been a good two years since I tried to use wi-fi at a Starbucks, but when I did, I didn't pay anything for it.

Is that no longer true, or what does an iPhone user get that I don't?

Re:Who Pays?

[Hijacked Public]

I don't recall the company names, but lately I've been finding that a lot of places advertising 'Free Wi-Fi' restrict access to 'partner' sites. To receive unfettered access to the tubes you have to pay.

A couple of months ago I tried to connect through a Starbucks and took away that impression, but they could be pay all the way now.

Re:Who Pays?

[pak9rabid]

I don't understand. I't been a good two years since I tried to use wi-fi at a Starbucks, but when I did, I didn't pay anything for it. T-Mobile used to be the wifi hostspot provider for Starbucks. Within the past year, Starbucks switched to AT&T (which is essentailly just a rebranded Wayport wifi hotspot system) to provide their wifi hotspots. This is probably where the change in price came from.

SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[AKAImBatman]

Maybe it's just me, but am I the only one who's sitting here thinking that using this hack is tantamount to stealing service? Hacks for stealing cable service have existed for decades now, and were very much illegal. And why shouldn't they be? Not everything has to be hacker proof. Sometimes it's just about putting a lock on the door and saying, "This doesn't belong to you."

To use a typical Slashdot analogy, the lock on my front door is pretty flimsy and could probably be picked or forced without much effort. Is that an invitation to walk into my house and use my computer?

This also differs from open WiFi points in that open WiFi points have no security. It's difficult for a passerby to tell the difference between an intentionally shared access point and an access point that has accidentally been misconfigured.

Which reminds me, WiFi security is not all that hard to crack. Does that give people a free license to crack their neighbor's WiFi and begin using it without permission?

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T: Are you allowed free wifi?
Hacker: Yes.
AT&T: Ok, here's some wifi.

I wouldn't even compare it to a flimsy lock.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Anonymous Coward]

Lock: Are you allowed to enter?
Lockpicker: Yes.
Lock: Ok, here's access to the house.

That hairpin just fit in the lock. I wouldn't even compare it to stealing WiFi.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[dissy]

Maybe it's just me, but am I the only one who's sitting here thinking that using this hack is tantamount to stealing service? No it is not just you. Unfortunately it is still incorrect despite the fact others see it that way too.

Since everyone is different and has different morals, sure, it can easily be morally wrong.
But legally and technically, it isn't wrong at all.

Clearly their service allows iPhones to access for free, and stupidly it asks the users computer if it is an iPhone or not, so lying and saying 'yes' shouldn't be enough for access, but apparently is.

They are just asking the users computer if it is an iPhone, and if that computer says 'yes', it becomes authorized.
My guess is they did not intend for that, but that is the way it is setup.

So, anyone who makes their computer lie and say it is an iPhone, becomes authorized.
Hard to use an unauthorized service when you are decidedly authorized to use it by their own software.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Anonymous Coward]

Which reminds me, WiFi security is not all that hard to crack. Does that give people a free license to crack their neighbor's WiFi and begin using it without permission? When the person hosting the WiFi doesn't secure it or even change the default password on their router? Yes. That's like leaving your car doors open with the windows down and the keys in the ignition with the car running. Illegal or not, it's just plain stupid.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[pebs]

Maybe it's just me, but am I the only one who's sitting here thinking that using this hack is tantamount to stealing service?

I own an iPhone and have AT&T service. Lets say I use this hack to get my laptop working on wifi using my own number; is it still stealing service?

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Nimey]

No worries. AT&T is making up what it loses from this by sharing all its customers' information with the NSA.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[LandDolphin]

To bring this to physical world example, if the Gas Station clerk asks you for ID, and you forge a fake ID to purchase cigarettes, it does not make the act legal all of a sudden.

Your authorization to use the free Wi-Fi service is based on information you forged. Just because you tricked the authentication software does not an actual authorized user, it just makes you an unauthorized user with access.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[gnaed1]

Or you could just go to your local library and use their WiFi for free. Comfy chairs, quiet work space. Most don't allow coffee, though some only care if you're near THEIR computers.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[jrumney]

I own an iPhone and have AT&T service. Lets say I use this hack to get my laptop working on wifi using my own number; is it still stealing service?

Yes. The free WiFi is for your iPhone, which while more usable than most mobile phones is still not the kind of device you're going to camp out with all day at Starbucks. It is not for your keyboard equipped, large screen laptop that AT&T makes no revenue from whatsoever.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[jmyers]

It is just as easy to break the window of my car and steal my cigarettes and it is have you computer lie and say it is an ipod. Why shouldn't just asking be enough? I think legally and technically it is.

How well protected something is does not mean it is more or less moral or legal. All that is required is you understand that you are allowed or not. It is basically an honor system as are almost all laws. It is not up to law enforcement to catch people to prevent crime. that is just a cross check. It is up to people to not commit crimes.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Anonymous Coward]

That's like leaving your car doors open with the windows down and the keys in the ignition with the car running. Illegal or not, it's just plain stupid. I once had my car doors locked with the windows up and the keys in the ignition with the car running and headlights on in my apartment's parking garage. I couldn't leave it.

I thought that was pretty stupid.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Shakrai]

Yes. The free WiFi is for your iPhone, which while more usable than most mobile phones is still not the kind of device you're going to camp out with all day at Starbucks. It is not for your keyboard equipped, large screen laptop that AT&T makes no revenue from whatsoever.

And what 'revenue' are they losing if you use a different device then your iPhone to access the network? Aren't they getting paid the same regardless of which device you use? I'd agree that it's stealing if you are entering a buddies iPhone number but you'd be hard pressed to convince me of that if you actually have an iPhone and just want to use a different device with a service that you are already paying for.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly do you 'steal' service? People are beginning to use 'steal' and 'theft' way too freely.

If you walk across a tollbridge without paying, did you 'steal' the bridge?

You may not have paid, but you didn't 'steal' anything, you simply trespassed.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Edgewize]

It doesn't really costs them anything more, but that's not the point - they have a right to charge you more for unrestricted service, and it is theft to take their lower-tier service and hack your way around the restrictions.

Your iPhone comes with unlimited data access for your iPhone. That agreement is based on the understanding that using the internet on your iPhone is not something people will do a lot of, because of the interface and other convenience factors. The data access is tied to the device.

If you use your PC web browser roughly as much as you would use Safari on the iPhone, and you don't download any more files (or Flash content) or visit more pages than you would have done on the phone, then I can agree that this is a "harmless" hack. Otherwise it's like hacking a cable box that was artificially restricting your channel selection, another time-honored and fully illegal activity.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[AK Marc]

But legally and technically, it isn't wrong at all. Clearly their service allows iPhones to access for free, and stupidly it asks the users computer if it is an iPhone or not, so lying and saying 'yes' shouldn't be enough for access, but apparently is.

I think that lying in order to obtain a fee service for free is illegal in all locations in the US. It's theft of services, fraud, or such.

Also, you separate moral wrong and legal wrong, but you have "technically" in there with legal. I would argue that moral/personal wrong is where technical wrong lies. It's wrong to lie for anything that gains you something (and sometimes not wrong to lie if it gains you nothing but someone else someting, like self esteem when you say "no honey, that dress doesn't make you look fat"). However lying to obtain something that you know you aren't entitled to or supposed to have is something that is technically wrong, morally wrong, and legally wrong.

Hard to use an unauthorized service when you are decidedly authorized to use it by their own software.

If you have to lie to gain authorization, then you are not authorized. The person at the front desk may let you in, but you are still trespassing. The computer may let you in, but it is still illegal access to a computer network.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[DarkOx]

To bring this to physical world example, if the Gas Station clerk asks you for ID, and you forge a fake ID to purchase cigarettes, it does not make the act legal all of a sudden. Hate to break it to you but even if you were otherwise allowed to buy cigarettes, but used a fake ID to it, it is ILLEGAL.
The crimes are FORGERY(creating the fake id) and UTTERING(using the forged document). The harm is that it destroys societies faith in documents. Its a criminal.

In this case your user agent string is probably not something that would be considered a "document" under those laws so its probably not a crime, so your analogy is flawed in that it really does not actually fit and forced as it is evinces the opposite of what you were trying to prove. Good try though come back again soon.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Liath]

To use a typical Slashdot analogy, the lock on my front door is pretty flimsy and could probably be picked or forced without much effort. Is that an invitation to walk into my house and use my computer? You forgot to mention the car...

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Anonymous Coward]

they dont lose anything if you use their service. so it is not stealing. end of story.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Shakrai]

Otherwise it's like hacking a cable box that was artificially restricting your channel selection, another time-honored and fully illegal activity.

I disagree. If the restrictions on content (you mentioned flash) are built into the iPhone then it's not like "hacking a cable box". If anything it would be similar to replacing a cable box.

If I pull my SIM card out of my iPhone and put it into a more advanced device that is capable of downloading flash then am I also "hacking" them?

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[LandDolphin]

All analogies are flawed... it was just to give another view... Either way, the rest of my arguement was valid.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Vellmont]

Sometimes it's just about putting a lock on the door and saying, "This doesn't belong to you."

Everything in security isn't a lock. There's no personal property being protected here, so stop with the "enter my house" analogy.

This is more like give away a free small bag of popcorn to anyone with a name badge that says "I own an iPhone" on it. In other words, this is more like lying than it is theft. Lying isn't usually illegal, unless you're defrauding someone.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Anonymous Coward]

I was waiting for this. Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_service

"Theft of services is the legal term for a crime which is committed when a person obtains valuable services -- as opposed to goods -- by deception, force, threat or other unlawful means, i.e., without lawfully compensating the provider of said services."

Nice try, genius.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Edgewize]

Yes. From the AT&T iPhone service agreement:

cannot be used for any applications that tether [...] to laptops, PCs, or other equipment for any purpose

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Edgewize]

If your "more advanced device" is a computer, you're violating your service agreement. The limitations on what the device is capable of are part of the pricing strategy. A true unlimited data plan costs more than an iPhone data plan.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Edgewize]

OK, replying to myself because I didn't finish expressing my thoughts correctly...

There is no explicit contract with the WiFi thing, so it boils down to what a "reasonable person" would expect of the service. I think a reasonable person with an iPhone would recognize that AT&T treats iPhone data access as distinctly separate from PC data access, and bills them at different rates.

If you have an iPhone, you should already be familiar with that distinction from your service agreement.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[rcastro0]

> You may not have paid, but you didn't 'steal' anything, you simply trespassed.

Consider that it is your own bridge, and that you built it for the good of the community, put your good name to a bank in order to get the US$ 250 million in credit needed for it. Consider that you are today repaying the US$ 250 million you spent on the bridge, your bridge, and that you depend on the cash flow from toll booths to pay for it. If free riders (people who used the bridge but do not pay for it) break the cash flow in half, now you can only afford to repay US$ 125 million -- and the creditors will take your bridge away from you, as the collateral for the original US$ 250 million loan. It is not your bridge any longer.

So, in a very real sense, the bridge was stolen from you.

Say, what will you tell your friends when one of them asks you about whether they should build another bridge, like you did?

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[crhylove]

Kind of silly comparing breaking and entering to using somebody's wifi. This analogy fails for a vast variety of reasons, but you're missing a larger and I believe more important point:

Internet access should be a basic human right.

Seriously, it is a very low cost thing, taken all in all, as compared to the highway system, or any number of other things we waste countless dollars on (don't get me started on the war in Iraq!). It provides communication. It provides information. It provides entertainment, health, and wealth (or at least it can). Just let people have it.

Any corporation trying to make a buck on what SHOULD for all intents and purposes be free, is just a maniacal penny pinching asshole, which honestly is how I depict any corporation in my mind. There are TONS of local coffee shops that offer free wifi, and make enough selling coffee to justify that negligible monthly expense.

Stop talking about wifi "theft". It's like water "theft", or air "theft". There's plenty to go around, and we all need it, so fuck right off.

Further, stop supporting these maniacal and insane corporations that are grossly exploiting the lowest class, charging fees for things that should be free, and voluntarily serving you stuff that is bad for you, over-priced, and addictive.

By default Starbucks uses 2% milk. Do you know how they MAKE 2% milk? Trust me, you need to stick to whole milk, and when you can get it, organic or free range whole milk.

These corporations want you to buy their shit, get sick, buy their pills, and then die as quickly as possible, uneducated, poor, in debt, and miserable, so the next batch of "consumers" (your kids!) can ignorantly get directly in line and start buying all the same old disposable useless crap that killed you and made you broke and kept your standard of living sub-par.

Buy local. Better yet, start a business and SELL local, and while you're at it, set up free wifi. It's easy, it's cheap, and it will make you better than these corporate fucks who seem single mindedly hell bent on killing every living thing on the planet while completely subverting every democracy and making the populace retarded through the E channel, Prozac, and Cheetos.

Where the fuck is my gun?!?!

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Anonymous Coward]

>To use a typical Slashdot analogy, the lock on my front door is pretty flimsy and could probably be picked or forced without much effort. Is that an invitation to walk into my house and use my computer?

You dont get it. See, people here think that wifi is part of their cool cyber lives and not restriced to old fashioned meatspace laws. Breaking into a home is not a cool cyber thing to do. Its done by uneducated minority criminals. White educated hackers arent criminals theyre cool dudes! Welcome to slashdot!

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Shakrai]

you're violating your service agreement

Violating your service agreement != theft of service. It's cause for them to terminate your service if they find out but is it criminal? Doubtful.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Anonymous Coward]

Restricting services to only work with a particular kind of hardware is an old monopolist's trick (You may be too young to remember the old AT&T, where you werent allowed to connect anything except an AT&T leased phone to the line)

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[mosch]

Yeah, I saw this article and was moderately annoyed.

This isn't a fair use issue like the DRM-strippers that are oft covered here. This is just directions on how to straight-up defraud a company that decided that the risks of using weak authentication were worth the trade in implementation costs and ease of use.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Hatta]

I sort of agree. I'm 100% in favor of letting people borrow open wifi. If it's wide open, the server is giving you permission to use it when you get an IP. But if you have to trick it into giving you an IP, that's not so ok.

But still, having thousands of slashdotters flood their network for a few days seems like the appropriate consequence for AT&Ts negligence. Maybe they won't make the same mistake in the future.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[jahudabudy]

Internet access should be a basic human right.
Stop talking about wifi "theft". It's like water "theft", or air "theft". There's plenty to go around, and we all need it, so fuck right off.

Wow. We need internet access? You're seriously comparing basic requirements of life (water, air) to internet access? You honestly think ISPs have an obligation to provide everyone with access at their own expense with no remuneration?

Someone forgot their dried-frog pills today, eh?

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[mosch]

The most likely result being that next time I try using my iPhone in an AT&T hotspot, I'll have to authenticate via a more obnoxious method.

So you get to annoy AT&T's customers forever, to punish AT&T for what.... for being naive?

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[Ethan Allison]

And how isn't this defrauding someone?

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[icepick72]

Is that an invitation to walk into my house and use my computer?

I doubt you'll find me sitting at your computer when you arrive home.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[crhylove]

I was not implying that ISPs and other tech companies provided it for free. That is obviously ludicrous. I was suggesting that the government spend the equivalent of what they spend on the highway system to allow all citizens access to wikipedia, web MD, skype (or an open clone), and google maps (or an open clone). This makes good solid sense on a lot of levels, not the least of which is what we save on education if we quit spending the money on text books that are usually outdated by the time they are printed.

Re:SuddenOutbreakOfMoralSense

[clichescreenname]

Hacks for stealing cable service have existed for decades now, and were very much illegal. And why shouldn't they be? A better question is, why should they be? If something exists on my property, then I'm going to do whatever the hell I want with it. If the cable company doesn't like this, then they need to figure out a way to make money in another fashion.

Similarly, Starbucks is sending out a Wi-Fi signal which goes out beyond their property line. If they want to regulate what people do in Starbucks, thats cool. But when I'm sitting across the street and I still get a signal, I'm taking it, whether they like it or not.

AT&T Intentionally provides free WiFi to all.

[bughunter]

1 - Put your coffee money in a Starbucks Card.

2 - Take your laptop to Starbucks for a coffee.

3 - Profit!

Free

[jav1231]

Frankly, Starbucks should provide WiFi free. It's a great tool for them. Many small shops are doing it and I'd go to one of them before Starbuck's, obviously.

Re:Free

[qoncept]

Starbucks should also start charging 1/3 of what they do for their coffee. I don't think either is hurting them much, though.

Also, in my opinion, Starbucks should just go to hell. Aside from the fact that I think coffee is disgusting, my generalization of a Starbucks customer is a person I'd love to punch in the face. I can't decide if I dislike the yuppie small coffee shop goers more or less.

Re:Free

[drhamad]

Maybe they should, but that's their choice, not yours. It's their business decision.

In general, companies are afraid of wifi (and legitimately so, I believe) because it causes people to sit around, NOT consuming things. Sure I might go buy a drink at sbux and sit and read a book for 30 mins or something, but with wireless I'll sit there with that drink for 4 hours. I'm not going to buy more.

Re:Free

[spiffyman]

True story. Where I live, WiFi is ubiquitous. It's more shocking to me when a shop doesn't have it. And in the downtown area, there's pretty wide-area coverage. Apparently the city's doing some kind of experiment in conjunction with Cisco.

All this means that I'm spoiled. I suspect a lot of other /.'ers are spoiled, too. And if I've come to expect free WiFi, I most certainly won't go to a shop where they don't have it. On the other hand - and probably more importantly - if I haven't come to expect such a thing, and your shop provides it, then congratulations, you've just won another customer.

I could understand why SBUX went with T-Mobile back in 2000 or 2001, but it seems pretty inexplicable now.

Re:Free

[Lemmy Caution]

That's because the small shops are trying to catch up with Starbucks, and are willing to fill up their tables with people who aren't buying anything to do it.

Having gone to some indie cafes, bought a coffee, looked for a table to sit at, and found nothing but tables full of people sitting at their laptops, not drinking or eating anything, the wisdom of "free wifi for all!" started to seem a little dubious.

Re:Free

[Dancindan84]

Erm... 4 hours? Starbuck's coffee is bad. Cold coffee is horrible. Cold Starbuck's coffee? I'd rather eat regurgitated baby-food peas. I also drink around 6-8 coffee's a day so they wouldn't have to worry about me sitting around not buying drinks in any event.

Re:Free

[Mister Whirly]

The yuppies ARE the ones that go to Starbucks. Where I live, there are so many small independent coffee shops, no self-respecting person would ever go to Starbucks for coffee.

Also, I think you have some anger management issues. I would tell you to lay off the coffee a little, but...
(I am only jesting here. I generally want to punch yuppies too.)

Re:Free

[jav1231]

True. But these shops can also say, "hey, buy another cup or you have to go." I think by and large most people are willing to buy a cup of coffee to sit and have wifi (otoh, could they not just pay for the wifi?). Some shops would like to have the people there as a draw.

Re:Free

[techpawn]

"The more complicated the Starbucks order, the bigger the asshole. If you walk into a Starbucks and order a "decaf grande half-soy, half-low fat, iced vanilla, double-shot, gingerbread cappuccino, extra dry, light ice, with one sweet-n'-Low, and one NutraSweet," ooh, you're a huge asshole." - George Carlin

Re:Free

[drinkypoo]

Corollary: a coffeeshop that looks pleasantly busy is more likely to draw business than an empty coffeeshop. Most people have a neurotic need to be around people all the time, or so it seems. Also, a coffeeshop full of laptop users is not a coffeeshop full of people who will bother other customers. So all you have to do is figure out what the sweet spot in population is, and kick out people who don't buy anything, down to that number. If you have half a clue you'll kick out your regulars last and everything flows naturally from there.

Re:Free

[Slightly Askew]

Starbucks should also start charging 1/3 of what they do for their coffee. I don't think either is hurting them much, though.

I beg to differ.

Re:Free

[Anonymous Coward]

When will coffee shops finally get some sense together and simply use a time-limited system?

For every $X you spend, you get a login (printed on your bill) that lasts for Y minutes. Done. You want more time? Buy another coffee. For those that just want more time and no drinks/food, sell them miuntes.

Done, solved, free enough (for customers).

Re:Free

[PiSkyHi]

I'm not sure you should have that 7th. coffee...

Re:Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. I used to go to the Lakota in Columbia, Missouri back in 2000, and they had WiFi then. Yes, in 2000. Of course, I think they called it "Airport" because nearly the only folks with WiFi back them were Apple users.

Re:Free

[Blakey Rat]

Where I live, there are so many small independent coffee shops, no self-respecting person would ever go to Starbucks for coffee.

Me too, and yet I go to Starbucks. You know why?

Those small, independent coffee shops are all full of pricks. The baristas are pretentious, the menus are full of Italian gibberish, and the coffee isn't much better than Starbucks' at all. I don't like super-pretentious Italian coffeeshops, I never feel comfortable in them, like I'm not as good as everyone else there because I don't have the right brand of shoes, or because I'm not an "artist", or because I don't follow the Tour De France, or because I don't drive a Prius. Also I can't type their names on a standard US keyboard because they have 34 random accents from all over Europe. Fuck that.

I'd rather go to Starbucks where the line is short, the coffee might not be as good, but at least its a known quantity, nobody cares if I drive a Dodge, and the checker is as likely as not to call me "hun" or "darling." That makes me feel comfortable and in my element.

Oh, and I am a self-respecting person. So screw you. :) (Yes, I probably also have anger issues.)

Re:Free

[Mister Whirly]

I never said a self-respecting person would go into one of the indie coffee shops either, just that they wouldn't go to Starbucks. Self-respecting people brew their own damn java.

Re:Free

[Blkdeath]

The yuppies ARE the ones that go to Starbucks. Where I live, there are so many small independent coffee shops, no self-respecting person would ever go to Starbucks for coffee.

I go to Starbucks. I guess you could call me a yuppie.

Originally I was a fairly stereotypical geek. Social outcast, dressed "different" (wore black jeans and t-shirts, typically with some anti-social slogan or imagery worn for shock value), black boots (Doc Martins or Terra Military style), had long hair and didn't care for many social graces.

Then I got a better job. I cut my hair off, slacks, shirts and ties started to become my normal attire and shortly thereafter I became much more financially successful.

While my normal drink of choice is a large double-double from Tim Horton's I do also drink Starbucks. Generally a double shot latte.

As for the independent coffee shops; those are a bit of a double edged sword. Some are nice, quaint, and genuine. Others are horrifically pretentious, stuffy places. The thing I like about Starbucks is that it's pretty much generic at this point. I will grant you that the people placing massively complicated drink orders need to remove the stick from their ass, but a lot of the stuff they have to offer just plain tastes good!

Re:Free

[Blakey Rat]

Self-respecting people brew their own damn java.

Obviously not, I just told you I'm self-respecting and go to Starbucks. Pay attention. :P

Re:Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations. You totally sold out, and are completely ambivalent about it. If you from 10 years ago met you from today, what are the odds current you would get your ass kicked by former you?

Re:Free

[Blkdeath]

Congratulations. You totally sold out, and are completely ambivalent about it. If you from 10 years ago met you from today, what are the odds current you would get your ass kicked by former you?

Wow; spoken like a perfect anti-social clone. Yes, Marilyn Manson shirts make a person so individual. Just like the millions of others who buy and wear them. Yeah, I was an individual back then. I was morose, depressed, anti-social, no fun at parties and stuck in a rut.

So am I supposed to be happy living hand to mouth, not enjoying any of the finer things in life and being content in the knowledge that I'm in the lowest possible tax bracket? Is that what it's about? Being broke so I can stick it to the man?

FWIW; the me of 10 years ago would want to watch TV and play XBox on the me of today's 60" HDTV. He'd also rather drive my car than take the bus. He'd also rather live in my condo than share a place with 3 other people. Financial security and independence are fantastic rewards. From the tone of your message, obviously you don't understand any of that.

Still living in your parents' basement are we, or are you living in a craphole apartment you can barely afford? Does that make you a better person than me? Well, if that's the case I'll make a United Way donation in your name so you can have a decent meal tonight, hmmm-kay?

Re:Free

[Sentry21]

I'm inclined to agree on this one. I go to Starbucks, not because the drinks are great, but because the drinks are consistent. I've had better drinks at Second Cup, but so rarely, and most often all I get there is swill. This goes for other cafes as well, to the point where I've stopped ordering lattes at any other cafe, just because I don't like being disappointed.

The benefit at Starbucks is not quality, but consistency, and that's why I go there every day.

Re:Free

[Negadecimal]

For every $X you spend, you get a login (printed on your bill) that lasts for Y minutes. Done. You want more time? Buy another coffee. For those that just want more time and no drinks/food, sell them miuntes.

Caribou Coffee shops do something along those lines: everyone gets an hour free, but if you spend more than a few bucks, you'll get a one-time code that's gives you access all day long.

Re:Free

[Negadecimal]

you'll get a one-time code that gives you - sorry :)

Re:Free

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I own my own home thank you, and have for the past 8 years. And wearing a Marilyn Manson shirt makes you the same conformist idiot as jocks, emo kids, etc. I have always had my own style, and continue to dress in the same manner as I did 15-20 years ago, when I too was poor. I make decent money now, yet I still get to dress and act in the same manner I always have. Being successful does not require selling out. I'm sorry that you equate the two, but then again I'm sure you also thought you were unique when you were wearing phat pants and Marilyn Manson shirts too. What you don't understand is that you can make more money, be more successful, and still play by your own rules, not bending over for someone else's. Keep your charity - you need it more than I do. I am still perfectly happy doing what I have been doing, without the overwhelming need to conform to dress codes and such. But whatever. If you are happy putting on a monkey suit for the man, more power to you. You claimed that 10 years ago you were "morose, depressed, anti-social, no fun at parties and stuck in a rut". Do you really think a higher paying job and a suit and tie changed all that?? Sounds like you are still depressed and stuck in a rut to me.

Re:Free

[Blkdeath]

Wow. You just proved his point better than he ever could.

Oh, that dressing respectably and being successful... Sucks?!?

I wish I could subscribe to your and his attitudes about "the man", but since leaving my childhood I realized it was just as ridiculous a notion as any other silly non-conformist attitude and I moved on with my life.

You guys remind me of people who prattle on about how they knew about that band "before they became popular!" just so they can seem cool and unique and different. But hey, now that they're successful, they're no good. They've lost their edge!

Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere. The OP owns his own home. He pays property taxes like everyone else. He sold out. He's a giant hypocrite no matter what his wardrobe or CD collection says about him. Metallica cut their hair; get over it and stop prattling like an idiot. Nobody cares.

Re:Free

[geekoid]

Next time some thinks you live in your mothers basement, have never had sax, and have no social skills you would be hypocritical to accuse them of stereotyping.

Re:Free

[Lemmy Caution]

By "catch up," I don't mean in terms of offering Wi-Fi. I mean in terms of making money. Starbucks has cleared away a lot of indie coffee houses, who have to differentiate themselves to survive.

Most indie cafes actually serve crap coffee, in my opinion. Starbucks is generally "safely mediocre" - outside of a certain cities and neighborhoods, I'm more likely to go to a Starbucks than some ramshackle indie cafe the serves bad coffee created by bored art students who know nothing about coffee. A Cafe Greco, a Trieste (in SF), a Highland or Eagle Park coffee (LA) or a Borgia (NY) is another story. Outside the US, the patterns are different.

Re:Free

[fucksl4shd0t]

Heh, no. That it's much more fun to be successful and stick it to the man than it is to sell out and call it success.

...and a valid iPhone phone number?!

[erroneus]

Are you kidding me?! I'm not quite creative enough to know exactly what to do with it, but a phone number is like part of a person's identity. Using that as a form of identity in this instance can't be good.

Re:...and a valid iPhone phone number?!

[Dog-Cow]

That's a silly view of a phone number. Have you never looked at say, a NY City phonebook? That's a whole lot of "identity" available to the public right there.

Re:...and a valid iPhone phone number?!

[Anonymous Coward]

The number itself isn't secret, but pretending that it's your number when it's not is "identity theft", just like ordering stuff online and having the package (and the invoice) sent to someone else's address and intercepting the mailman. Addresses aren't secret either.

Re:...and a valid iPhone phone number?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Youre still sensitive about that time "someone" ordered pr0n and some "novelties" using your address aren't you.

Re:...and a valid iPhone phone number?!

[Dog-Cow]

The phone number isn't being used to identify an individual. It's being used to identify the type of hardware connecting to the network. If someone asks me for a phone number and I give them yours, how exactly have I stolen your identity?

Re:...and a valid iPhone phone number?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Using someone's phone number is not identity theft. Jesus christ shut the fuck up.

Think of the children in this age of identity theft (credit card fraud, hacking into someone's email, whatever...it's not IDENTITY THEFT!!!)...

Fuck off...you and everyone else who ever referred to this as identity theft.

... always been free wifi ...

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

Maybe its different (okay, it IS different) ... but it is very very very rare to see a café up here in canada that doesn't have free wifi. They limit the bandwidth per connection, and (attempt to) block non http / https requests, but I *never* pay for wifi when I'm at a café ...

It makes you wonder, what the world is coming to... or at least, what is going on in the USA.

Re:... always been free wifi ...

[ColdWetDog]

Maybe its different (okay, it IS different) ... but it is very very very rare to see a café up here in canada that doesn't have free wifi. They limit the bandwidth per connection, and (attempt to) block non http / https requests, but I *never* pay for wifi when I'm at a café ...

Yeah, you commies. Free this, free that. Gonna kill the economy. How is any multi billion dollar company supposed to make a living? Next thing you'll tell me is that you don't have to pay for things like medical care.. Sheesh.

Hoser.

Re:... always been free wifi ...

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

yup. free health care. free EEEs too.. Just for opening an account...

I'd have to say that Yup.. canada rocks. We now have the iPhone legally too... but it is way too common for people to just cross the border and buy (and unlock) an iPhone. Seriously. The iPhone has been here so long, it isn't even cool to own one anymore...

Re:... always been free wifi ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"free health care"

You get what you pay for. That is why anyone who needs any REAL medical attention either A) pays for it there or B) comes to the US. Good luck getting a "free" organ transplant or something more costly than a couple aspirins.

Re:... always been free wifi ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Next thing you'll tell me is that you don't have to pay for things like medical care.

Wow, doctors are unpaid slaves in Canada? How awesome!

Re:... always been free wifi ...

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

only an american thinks that way. or an albertan. but they're basically the same thing.

what's next

[gEvil (beta)]

Next you're gonna be telling us how to get free wifi from all those "Linksys" hotspots, aren't you?

Re:what's next

[imamac]

I always look for those "belkin54g" hotspots. They're everywhere!

Re:what's next

[SCHecklerX]

Hey! That's the name of mine at home! Well..the one on the DMZ that redirects all http traffic through a proxy that does interesting things with images, anyway.

How does Starbucks get away with charging?

[swb]

Here in Minneapolis we have two other chains competing with Starbucks, Dunn Bros. and Caribou, both starting out locally. Both of the competitors offer free Wifi. Caribou's is limited to an hour, but you can circumvent that pretty easily. I don't frequent Dunn Bros. often enough to know what kind of limit they might have.

Many other indie coffee shops, restaurants and other places offer free wifi.

I'm always amazed when I see people sitting in Starbucks using laptops (maybe they're not online) when they could go down the block or across the street and get free Wifi and probably better coffee.

Re:How does Starbucks get away with charging?

[pereric]

Maybe they use the free wifi from across the street?

Re:How does Starbucks get away with charging?

[Themer]

Best one is the local starbucks here, the small book store right next door offers free wifi. So you can sit in starbucks and use the free wifi from next door instead. ;)

Re:How does Starbucks get away with charging?

[$0.02]

Starbucks is everywhere. Dunn Bross and Caribou are not. When I am home I do not need hot spots. If I come to Minneapolis I know about Starbucks but not about the other guys. I guess that is the idea - I don't use any of them.

Re:How does Starbucks get away with charging?

[swb]

Caribou and Dunn Brothers combined outnumber Starbucks in Minneapolis. You can't turn around without finding a Caribou, they seem to have better or more visible locations.

Re:How does Starbucks get away with charging?

[steveo777]

Yup, there's Panera Bread and a thousand independent coffee shops with free wifi in the Twin Cities and metro areas. Heck, there are even bars with free wifi. Buffalo Wild Wings has free wifi! I've used it with my iPod touch (usually checking team scores and stats), but I don't think I'd get a lot work done while eating 12 mango habaneros. And I imagine the keys would get coated in wing sauce.

I mostly hit Caribou and anywhere but Starbucks. It used to be because Starbucks had bad coffee, but now it's because of the bad coffee and having to pay for wifi.

Now you can get municipal wifi from Minneapolis for $20/month. Coverage holes are still filling in, but it's far superior to $4 for two hours.

Re:How does Starbucks get away with charging?

[idlemind]

At Starbucks, when you purchase something, ask for a wifi code and they will give you one.

Re:How does Starbucks get away with charging?

[Colonel Korn]

I've never seen a Starbucks that charges for wifi, and I've tried in about 20 across 6 states, east, west, and middle of the country.

Re:How does Starbucks get away with charging?

[skiflyer]

Tmobile also has a plan where you get all the tmobile hotspots for some flat fee... starbucks is included in the list (or at least it used to be last I looked at the options, I didn't buy the plan).

Re:How does Starbucks get away with charging?

[swb]

I'm waiting to see how bad the service gets when spring finally arrives to our godforsaken artic plain. I've heard that the leaves coming out on the trees kill signal strength.

I also had a really random conversation with a client employee who said he has and likes it, but it crawls performance wise during evening "peak" hours and that you have to do browser-based authentication, which kills it for any kind of home LAN connectivity with a Wifi->ethernet bridge (which I'm sure is totally intentional, although I'm sure someone could come up with a bridge that featured an embedded browser for these kinds of things..).

Re:AT&T Intentionally provides free WiFi to al

[Megane]

4 - Drink bad coffee!

Theft

[davidwr]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. It may even be a violation of the law in some jurisdictions, but good luck finding a jury that will convict.

Morally speaking, if you know you aren't supposed to be getting free service, then going out of your way to get it is theft. Father PriestNeil says going rate for digital theft is 33h Hail Marys.

Re:Theft

[mr_matticus]

It's a violation of the law in all jurisdictions, and finding a jury is a cakewalk. The only person that needs luck is a defendant in finding an attorney who can get him out of it.

"Theft of service" is its own special category. Chances are that AT&T will just fix it to something a little more robust than a user agent string and won't bother to sue anyone about it, unless they just feel like being dicks this month.

Re:Theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm. The prosecutor will need quite a bit of luck to find the perp. And even more luck if there are 1000s of perps doing it all the time.

Re:Theft

[Mister Whirly]

So is jaywalking, but the point the OP was making is that it is a rarely prosecuted crime. I have only read about 1 case where someone was actually charged with this before. Not saying it hasn't happened more than that, just that I don't think it is very common.

Re:Theft

[mr_matticus]

the point the OP was making is that it is a rarely prosecuted crime No, it's not.

It happens all the time. We're not talking about wardriving or hopping on unsecured wifi. This is bypassing (however easily) access restrictions on a paid service. Also, skipping on restaurant bills, gaming the phone system, and splicing into cable systems are all also theft of service.

Jaywalking, further, in most places is not a crime. It's a citation.

Re:Theft

[Mister Whirly]

If it "happens all the time" as you claim, please cite some references. I seriously doubt that Starbucks or AT&T would risk the negative publicity going after "criminals" like this. For another unsuccessful model of suing your own customers, please see the RIAA strategy.

Re:Theft

[mr_matticus]

You already received examples. What good are citations going to do you for petty cases? You want citations for everyone who's ever skipped out on a bill at a restaurant and got sued for it? For people who got free cable and got busted? Messing with the PG&E meter?

Still, here's a couple to whet your indignant curiosity:

People v. Harden (2007), Case no. C050231
People v. Bowles (2004), Case no. B171234
People v. Crossdale (2002), Case no. S097222

There, some random selections from the first 10 results, all California.

I seriously doubt that Starbucks or AT&T would risk the negative publicity going after "criminals" like this. So do I, as previously stated. Why 'criminals' is in quotes escapes me, though. No matter how easy to pick the lock is or if you can just go in through the window, it's theft of service.

Re:Theft

[Mister Whirly]

No, I want examples of people who have accessed WiFi by circumventing security, and were subsequently charged. Not interested in all the other "thefts of service" examples, I know they exist but they have very little to do with the conversation. We were specifically speaking of unauthorized access to WiFi at Starbucks.

Re:Theft

[Shakrai]

and won't bother to sue anyone about it, unless they just feel like being dicks this month.

Hey, I agree with you that it's theft of service, but how would they go about suing/charging people even if they were inclined to do so? Logs on the Access Points? What are those going to reveal besides the MAC address of the users wireless card?

Unless someone is stupid enough to use their own iPhone number I really don't see how AT&T would go about tracking them down. And no, that doesn't justify stealing their service -- though is it really 'stealing' if you actually have an iPhone and are presumably paying for the service through that?

Re:Theft

[mr_matticus]

No, we were speaking about the existence and application of theft of service as a cause of action. Your bizarre and pointless narrowing of the criteria to force a rarity gets you nowhere.

If you want someone to put together a list of theft of service prosecutions for Internet service, you'll have to pay an attorney to do it (no, I'm not asking). They're out there, and moreover you know they are.

Your query is malformed, to boot. You're hoping to disprove the existence of the cause of action by suggesting that people are not often charged for using wireless access points without permission, but the fatal flaw is that most incidences of access are by way of unsecured APs or private devices. The ball game is quite different with a national service on commercial equipment. People have been sued for fraudulently accessing ISPs. It's not newsworthy, surprising, or remarkable in any way.

It's also a needless distraction from the original comment.

Re:Theft

[mr_matticus]

but how would they go about suing/charging people even if they were inclined to do so? Well, let's see...maybe blogs with instructions, photos, and videos of proof coupled with those logs to cross-check equipment. Hell, even just knowing the MAC address might well narrow it down, coupled with security footage if they really needed to nail someone.

It's unfathomable that they'd go through the effort and expense to do so, and it's highly unlikely that they even care that much. Someone will get fired for pushing out a ridiculous access control methodology, they'll put something more sophisticated in, and move on with it.

None of that really has any bearing on the fact that it's just plain wrong. There are plenty of legitimate ways to get onto AT&T wifi networks for free (being a Uverse customer for one; using a Starbucks card to purchase your drink for another) that there's no possible justification.

is it really 'stealing' if you actually have an iPhone and are presumably paying for the service through that? If it's free access for iPhones and you're not using an iPhone, then yes. To use a car analogy for Slashdot comprehension, if the valet is offering free parking for Audis, and you own an Audi and are driving a Subaru that day, well, then you've got to pay. Even if you think it's a pointless and arbitrary restriction (it is)--because it's their pointless and arbitrary decision.

People of the gimme gimme generation seem to have forgotten that freedom isn't just about them. If someone wants to charge for wifi, they can, even if a third person offers it for free--make a choice between free wifi and whatever reason it is that is driving you to Starbucks. You can't always get what you want (not you, specifically, but one mustn't foul lyrics).

Re:Theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, here in Phoenix it's the only way people seem to know how to walk across the street.
It makes the sign in southern california with the woman running with her child look like one of our jaywalkers.
Conversely there are probably 2 maybe 3 laptops in Starbucks max when I go. Ironically, never the same people that ran across the street....

Re:AT&T Intentionally provides free WiFi to al

[Anonymous Coward]

1 - Put your coffee money in a Starbucks Card.

2 - Take your laptop to Starbucks for a coffee.

3 - Profit!

It is free for two hours per day, but yes this is correct AT&T has partnered to provide free 2 hour access to Starbucks card holders when they make a purchase with their card.

//me

[Foamy]

//me rushes to starbucks before this manna from heaven ends.

That and a 6000 calorie super-mocha-frappa-venti-chino for $12.00.

Re://me

[imamac]

Twelve dollars?!?!?!?? Are they having a special sale??

Not a good idea

[MikeRT]

This sounds like a very simple and stupid way to run afoul of the federal anti-hacking laws. They prohibit you from using surreptitious means of gaining access to a network that you otherwise shouldn't have access to. That sounds like what you would be doing here. While the odds of you getting caught are pretty slim, it would probably be a pretty easy case for the government to take, and with prosecutors always looking for another notch in their belt, why risk it?

Re:Not a good idea

[UnknowingFool]

I have confirmed it works and surfing right now and . . . hold a sec there's some guys in dark suits wanting to talk-#%$)(*J*&^!@

[CARRIER LOST]

MAC Address

[suggsjc]

Why couldn't they have just used MAC address (a simple range) filtering? I would guess that there are a few ranges of addresses in use by the iPhones. Even if there was some overlap with other devices, I would think that possibly in addition to a user-agent check would be a lot more secure/efficient.

Re:MAC Address

[Deagol]

MAC addresses can be trivially spoofed. There's even a database of MAC ranges for manufactured devices, so you can pick and choose which device to masquerade as on the network.

Re:MAC Address

[appleguru]

Easily circumvented; on os x...

sudo ifconfig en0 lladdr 00:1B:63:00:00:00

Or using one of the other iphone prefixes:

00:1B:63
00:1D:4F
00:1E:C2

Re:MAC Address

[jrumney]

If someone is going to go to the trouble of spoofing an iPhone with a valid phone number, then they'll just spoof the MAC address as well. It'll be even easier to guess a valid one than for the phone numbers, as each batch of iPhones manufactured will tend to use a corresponding batch of WiFi chips, probably with a consecutive block of MAC addresses. Phone number allocation is more random, since its done at time of purchase, and people can port numbers from older devices or other networks.

Re:MAC Address

[Phroggy]

Presumably Apple can associate an iPhone serial number with an AT&T account and thus a phone number, and associate the serial number with the MAC address the device shipped with. Try guessing which MAC address to spoof that corresponds to the phone number you're using...

I have an iPhone

[confu2000]

I have an iPhone and I even *gasp* pay for AT&T service.
So would it be all that bad if I used this to get access to my laptop instead of my iPhone? If anyone came by, I could just pull it out like a cross and say "back, foul wifi police, I'm an AT&T customer."

Re:I have an iPhone

[jrumney]

The fact that you have an iPhone does not give you a right to steal their WiFi with your laptop. It does give AT&T an easy method of retaliation against you without dragging you through the courts though. They can simply cancel your contract for T&C violation, leaving you with an expensive but shiny brick.

Re:I have an iPhone

[sessamoid]

If you're already an A&T iPhone customer, this service is legitimately free for you. That's the service that is being stolen here--wifi meant for iPhone users at AT&T hotspots.

Re:I have an iPhone

[Phroggy]

They can simply cancel your contract for T&C violation, leaving you with an expensive but shiny brick. Until you hack it to work on T-Mobile's network. But yeah, fair point.

Might as well crack WEP

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother, you would have to be close to one of those locations to get a good signal plus they are highly insecure because you don't know who else is doing what on the network.... a little ARP spoofing maybe....

If you are going to circumvent the security on an AP, you might as well brake a WEP secured AP.
It takes me now 2 minutes to crack an active WEP64 or 128bit encrypted AP. While I am doing it I will also know who else is on the same network and can look for any packet stealing types.

It is also less like that you get busted because the private individual will never know but some have been busted for sitting on the parking lot for too long .... they got busted for stealing credit card numbers but COPs in the USA will cuff first and ask questions later....

Notice: Breaking WEP is illegal but so is the above hack posted on ZDnet.

The real wtf...

[Grelli]

The real wtf is that the iPhone's number is in the user agent string. How long till that is used to justify an "existing business relationship"?

Re:The real wtf...

[Jupiter Jones]

It's only a wtf if you didn't rtfa.

JJ

Re:The real wtf...

[Ioldanach]

I don't see any indication that the phone number is in the user agent string, it looks like the phone number needs to be entered to "log in". Looking for iphone HTTP_USER_AGENT strings elsewhere I don't see any examples with an embedded phone number.

Re:The real wtf...

[Anonymous Coward]

You misunderstood. The phone number is not in the UA.

You need two different things:
- An iPhone-like UA
- A phone number of a user on an iPhone contract to manually enter on the welcome page

Re:The real wtf...

[Grelli]

RTFA? I'm sorry, but that's just not how things are done around here.

I stand corrected.

Re:The real wtf...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1A537a Safari/419.3

Ain't in my UA string...

Re:The real wtf...

[runamok1]

No. You need an iPhone's owner's phone number to login as well as have your browser's user agent set to: Mobile Safari iphone 1.1.3 There are various firefox extensions to do this. I'm going to try this out at my local starbucks.

Re:The real wtf...

[The Cisco Kid]

Must be some other iPhone. It isnt in mine:

Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3

Re:The real wtf...

[Anonymous Coward]

The phone number is not in the user-agent string. If it sees an iPhone user-agent, it redirects you to a web form where you can type in an iPhone phone number to get access.

Re:The real wtf...

[Anonymous Coward]

The number isn't in the user agent. You need to enter your phone number on a web page to prove you aren't faking the user agent.

Re:The real wtf...

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging from comments on Gizmodo the phone number is not in the user agent; rather, if your user agent identifies you as an iPhone you are then prompted to login with your phone number and no password.

Re:The real wtf...

[Anonymous Coward]

The real wtf is that the iPhone's number is in the user agent string. No, the REAL WTF is where did you get the idea that the iPhone’s number is in the user agent string? It is not.

What's with the Yuppie hate?

[Blahbooboo3]

What is a Yuppie anyway? Someone who has a job and/or business that earns good money after spending a lot of time studing and/or working hard to become successful? Wow, what an awful person!

Oh right, this is Slashdot, where IT folks all work for free for the betterment of society.

Re:What's with the Yuppie hate?

[Mister Whirly]

From urbandictionary.com -

"a very arrogant well put together young urban professional who you more than likely will find wearing gucci and prada with a large bank account which they love to brag about. You can find them drinking Starbucks, living in a one bedroom apartment in a city where they will pay 1000-2000 a month for and spending another 3000 a month on their credit cards. They brag about their designer clothes and love to flaunt them , as well as their wealth. They look down upon anyone who isn't as wealthy or high status as they are. Men are likely to be found wearing designer suits, gucci preferably with slicked back or well cut hair. The women will be wearing prada/gucci and fendi. The most arrogant concieted fucks on the planet."

Nope, can't see any problems with that.

Re:What's with the Yuppie hate?

[JerkBoB]

I think I probably hated yuppies too...

Before I became one. And then I hated DINKs, before I became one. And then I was irritated by those annoying people who bring kids to restaurants, before I became one (hey, YOU try getting a reliable babysitter at the last minute!).

At the moment, I'm irritated by those old farts with no kids who want to cut back on taxes because THEY don't have kids in school.

Anyone else detecting a pattern? :)

Re:What's with the Yuppie hate?

[Jupiter Jones]

"Someone who has a job and/or business that earns good money after spending a lot of time studing and/or working hard to become successful?"

I'd like to think that the letter you left out of the above sentence is a 'd' instead of a 'y'.

It's the romantic in me.

JJ

Re:What's with the Yuppie hate?

[Blahbooboo3]

haha funny :)

Re:What's with the Yuppie hate?

[Blahbooboo3]

Wow, good think you're not relying on generalizations ... Shame that is the definition of yuppie, as it looks more like the definition of an asshole :)

Re:What's with the Yuppie hate?

[Blahbooboo3]

So true... :)

Re:What's with the Yuppie hate?

[Shakrai]

I think I probably hated yuppies too...

Before I became one

You don't 'become' a yuppie in the same way that you become a parent bringing the kids out to dinner. One can be successful and fairly well off without being a 'yuppie'. Yuppies are the ones that won't let you forget how successful they are and look down upon anyone who isn't living the same lifestyle that they are.

I know lots of well off people that aren't yuppies. I also know some broke people that use credit cards to finance a yuppie lifestyle they can't afford. As with all things ones actions speak louder then ones situation.

Re:What's with the Yuppie hate?

[Mister Whirly]

"Shame that is the definition of yuppie, as it looks more like the definition of an asshole "

Now you are getting it!

Re:What's with the Yuppie hate?

[JerkBoB]

Yuppies are the ones that won't let you forget how successful they are and look down upon anyone who isn't living the same lifestyle that they are.

Psst! Hey, your insecurity is showing...

I would imagine that most of those people who you claim "won't let you forget" have no clue that you're even looking. Yes, sure, there are some people who consciously flaunt, but do you really think that most so-called yuppies are really thinking about your perception of them? Get over yourself.

Speaking as someone who's been on both sides of the looking glass. No, really... We were on food stamps at one dark point in my childhood.

Re:What's with the Yuppie hate?

[Blkdeath]

You don't 'become' a yuppie in the same way that you become a parent bringing the kids out to dinner. One can be successful and fairly well off without being a 'yuppie'. Yuppies are the ones that won't let you forget how successful they are and look down upon anyone who isn't living the same lifestyle that they are.

I know lots of well off people that aren't yuppies. I also know some broke people that use credit cards to finance a yuppie lifestyle they can't afford. As with all things ones actions speak louder then ones situation.

I think if you replace "yuppie" with "snob" in the above you'll be correct. A yuppie is, by definition, a young, urban professional. The ones that have to wear designer clothes and strut their model of success as if it's the be-all, end-all are snobs, pricks, assholes; whatever vernacular you prefer.

Like you, I know a lot of yuppies who aren't snobs. I like to think of myself that way. I try to be humble and I respect the people who work at my company for minimum wage or just above because I remember that's exactly where I came from and I know full well that the gears of the company would grind to a halt without them. Rather than expecting them to eat Thai food and drink a soy-based beverage with me I'll be found more often sitting with them eating A&W or the $4.99 Chinese lunch special from around the corner. Hey, sometimes that stuff just hits the spot! :)

Yes, there are assholes in every demographic. For examples of same look no further than our own field! How many times have you submitted a bug report to a FOSS programmer only to be told "Fix it yourself, neophyte!"? How many times have you discussed an issue you weren't 100% versed in and been told off or cursed out for it?

Does that mean geek == asshole, or does that mean there are assholes who are also geeks?

Re:What's with the Yuppie hate?

[mrmagos]

You don't 'become' a yuppie in the same way that you become a parent bringing the kids out to dinner. Actually, you kinda do. I think you're confusing the slang definition of yuppie with its actual meaning. Your market demographic changes as you become gainfully employed (Yuppie), get married (DINK), and have kids (parent bringing the kids out to dinner). That's the point Parent was trying to make...

It's just not funny anymore once you have to explain it.

Re:What's with the Yuppie hate?

[geekoid]

I never see anyone in Starbucks like that.

Also, the problem isn't what they wear, and should be removed from the definition. It's there attitude that's the point.

Re:What's with the Yuppie hate?

[geekoid]

Sold out? WTF does that mean? took a higher paying job?

at least you are aptly named.

Re:What's with the Yuppie hate?

[fucksl4shd0t]

Sold out means compromising one or more of your ethics, morals, personal identity, family relations, friendly relations, artistic integrity, other integrity, etc, for money.

It's possible to receive large sums of money without compromising any of these values.

McDonalds

[Enderandrew]

Every coffee shop I go to has free wifi. So does McDonalds, truck stops, and a variety of odd places. I can't imagine paying for wifi hot-spot access at Starbucks.

Re:McDonalds

[Khyber]

McDonald's does *NOT* have free Wifi. You pay for it. The one right down the street from my house (with a lovely 50' Plasma TV in the dining area) has a WiFi spot, but it's locked down and you don't get on without a code. No code, no usage, even a VPN over UDP doesn't work.

Re:AT&T Intentionally provides free WiFi to al

[ivan256]

I find it difficult to believe that you find all of Starbucks coffee to be "bad". They have dozens of types. Some of them suck, and some of them are really good. Which ones don't you like? Did you even realize that there was more than one type?

"This can't last"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it absolutely won't with all the idiots blabbing about it!

Re:AT&T Intentionally provides free WiFi to al

[Anonymous Coward]

Dozens of types of coffee?! There's only one: Black, no sugar.

Re:AT&T Intentionally provides free WiFi to al

[FunkSoulBrother]

Your Starbucks only brews one variety of black regular coffee at a time? They should have at least two.

Stealing == They're giving it away?

[Anonymous Coward]

So people find a way to steal it, no matter how silly their security mechanism is, ATT is not giving this away, people are stealing it.

Re:AT&T Intentionally provides free WiFi to al

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they should make two for sure... Everytime I see Verona brewing I get an americano...

Throws off my barista...

why bother?

[bball99]

wifi is free at Panera and Apple stores...

besides, i wouldn't step inside a Starbucks even if they were offering free Wifi...

Amusing really

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Japan all I do is pay about $3 more on top of my usual ADSL fee (which is about $50/mo for 51Mbps/3Mbps service) to get wi-fi access covering a very wide area. (Sit down just about anywhere in Tokyo and it's available, unless you're in the subway.) I wouldn't think twice about "stealing" service, considering how easy and cheap it is to get legitimate service.

This probably says more about the AT&T service and pricing than it does about those stealing the service I guess...

OT: citations are for crimes in many US states

[davidwr]

In many parts of the United States, a citation is a charge of a crime, albeit a minor one. If you get a speeding ticket and plead guilty, you have a criminal record in those states. If you plead no contest you may or may not have a criminal record depending on how that state does things.

This is why some job applications say "please list all felonies, and all misdemeanors committed in the last 10 years except minor traffic violations." If it weren't for the "except" you would have to list all your recent traffic tickets.

In some US states traffic citations are considered civil matters not criminal.

Re:OT: citations are for crimes in many US states

[mr_matticus]

If you get a speeding ticket and plead guilty, you have a criminal record in those states. If you have a criminal record as a result, it's not a citation (irrespective of what the paper says at the top). It's a misdemeanor. It is true that in some places, jaywalking is a misdemeanor and not a simple citation.

This is why some job applications say "please list all felonies, and all misdemeanors committed in the last 10 years except minor traffic violations." If it weren't for the "except" you would have to list all your recent traffic tickets. Not quite. The "except" part does not apply to e.g. $12 expired meter tickets, infractions of the vehicle code, or jaywalking in most states, because they are neither felonies nor misdemeanors. The "except" part carves out traffic violations that are misdemeanors which you would otherwise have to report but can skip. It is not the case that without that clause, you would have to report citations, i.e. administrative infractions.

Re:OT: citations are for crimes in many US states

[davidwr]

Perhaps I should rephrase:

In some states, there is no such thing as a non-criminal citation for a moving violation.

Re:OT: citations are for crimes in many US states

[mr_matticus]

I am not aware any state that fails to separate violations, misdemeanors, and felonies into three categories. All moving violations may be classified as misdemeanors in a few states, but that has absolutely nothing to do with anything discussed thus far.

This is theft!

[sdsucks]

This is not any more free than stealing a chocolate bar from the store is getting a free chocolate bar.

The fact that it's lame security is irrelevant. Theft is theft.

Re:This is theft!

[argent]

I remember, as a kid, getting kicked out of a store for "stealing the air conditioning". I guess I was.

I wouldn't do this, like I won't "pirate" music or use shareware without paying, but pretty soon this is going to move from these elevated realms of petty crime to the equivalent of hanging out in a hotel lobby on a hot day, using a restroom at a store you're not shopping at, or listening to a concert from the parking lot. Eventually wifi will be free-as-in-toilet-paper too.

Uhm, It's no accident. AT&T sent an e-mail to

[dsyler]

No iPhone needed, but you may need to be an AT&T customer as the wording is a bit dodgy. http://www.att.com/gen/general?pid=11375

Re:AT&T Intentionally provides free WiFi to al

[ivan256]

Even Dunkin' has two types of roasts, decaf, and flavored beans. I understand that you were trying to make a joke, but you actually made an insightful comment. How can you bitch that you don't like something, yet refuse to make even a basic attempt to understand why?

Simple fix, once the API arrives

[nsayer]

Once the API arrives, I can imagine that all they have to do is write an 'enabler' app that does a magic handshake over the cellular interface to pass the phone's WiFi Ethernet interface address to the local hotspot. That would obviate the need to fill out their silly web form and everything.

Of course, if they're silly enough to write the app so that it enables the connection without performing a validation step (assuming that being able to run the app means it's running on an iPhone), then someone will rather quickly decompile it and they'll be in no better shape than they are now.

Re:Uhm, It's no accident. AT&T sent an e-mail

[nsayer]

That's a different thing. AT&T DSL customers have been able to log in to Starbucks hot spots for a while now. I'm both an iPhone owner and an AT&T DSL customer and have actually been using my DSL login stuff on the iPhone while waiting for the native connectivity. Actually, at the moment I am using my MacBook in a Starbucks to type this reply, believe it or not.

WIFI is becoming free, anyway

[natoochtoniket]

I have a friend who owns a small restaurant, selling smoothies and sandwiches. He has internet access from the back office, and uses it to communicate with vendors.

He doubled his breakfast and lunch business over the last few months by putting up a wireless router and giving away wifi access. The sign says "with any purchase" but there is no easy way to implement that, so he just leaves it unsecured. Most people buy something anyway.

It costs him almost nothing, and helps to sell food by making the location more welcoming to his customers. It won't take very long for other small food and beverage businesses to catch on.

It's kind of like "air conditioned" businesses used to be. Fifty years ago, air conditioning was unusual. But customers liked it, so the businesses that had it got the customers. Now, every business has it. The only real difference is that wifi is a lot cheaper to provide.

Re:WIFI is becoming free, anyway

[VAXcat]

Yeah...I'm just barely old enough to remember when airco started catching on (it took up to the late 50s to get going everywhere). Movie theaters, in the middle of hot Texas summers, would post big signs outside that said "30 degrees cooler inside!"...and people flocked in to cool off.

Re:WIFI is becoming free, anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

A small coffee shop in my area just (temporarily) shut down wifi access. Like the restaurant in your post, he offered free wifi, but found that, instead of coming in to buy something, people were hanging out in the parking lot or somewhere nearby just to access the network. I don't think the owner actually lost business (most people who go there would go regardless of internet service), but he was irritated enough by the leachers that he shut down the wifi until he could get someone to set up something more secure.

Re:AT&T Intentionally provides free WiFi to al

[Blkdeath]

Your Starbucks only brews one variety of black regular coffee at a time? They should have at least two.

Every Starbucks I've ever been to has atleast 2 or 3. I can always count on mild and bold flavours. (What their names are is beyond me; I drink Lattes.)

Should say "fails to separate citations"...

[mr_matticus]

A mistype to further confuse!

At this point, I feel it important to caution against the conflation of two words 'citation'.

A "citation" as in a ticket and court summons can be made for an administrative citation, a misdemeanor, or a felony.

A citation when used by name in practice refers to the administrative citation, not the document itself as it appears you may be using it. In some places administrative citations are also called infractions, ordinance violations, or regulation offenses; in no place is it a crime. One does not generally refer to a misdemeanor or felony ticket as a "citation".

Re:Should say "fails to separate citations"...

[davidwr]

Ah. Where I used to live the only common non-criminal citations were for parking or "code violations" like having a disabled vehicle in your driveway visible from the street or having your restaurant dishwasher at too low a temperature.

Everything dealing with a moving motor vehicle plus all pedestrian-related activities were at a minimum misdemeanor citations.

By the way, dictionary.com says a citation is:

3. a summons, esp. to appear in court.
4. a document containing such a summons.

In this usage, calling a traffic ticket a "traffic citation" is correct usage even if there is a criminal charge behind it.

Re:Should say "fails to separate citations"...

[mr_matticus]

In this usage, calling a traffic ticket a "traffic citation" is correct usage even if there is a criminal charge behind it. Again, you are conflating the two words which have developed in a subtle and complex field, the law. The paper is indeed a traffic citation. However, the paper and the offense are separate things, and there is also a citation (albeit a poorly-chosen homonym) on the offense side. When talking about the offense, a citation is a petty violation producing no criminal record. You are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies, but you aren't convicted of a citation. The citation, a paper notice or summons, is a completely different thing.

Re:Should say "fails to separate citations"...

[brm]

In this usage, calling a traffic ticket a "traffic citation" is correct usage even if there is a criminal charge behind it. Again, you are conflating the two words which have developed in a subtle and complex field, the law. The paper is indeed a traffic citation. However, the paper and the offense are separate things, and there is also a citation (albeit a poorly-chosen homonym) on the offense side. When talking about the offense, a citation is a petty violation producing no criminal record. You are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies, but you aren't convicted of a citation. The citation, a paper notice or summons, is a completely different thing. You seem very confident about this, but why should we believe you? Can you provide a citation from an authoritative source?

Re:Should say "fails to separate citations"...

[mr_matticus]

It's jargon. Some places call it a violation, an infraction, an ordinance offense, or an administrative citation. See e.g. http://www.co.kern.ca.us/code/PDFs/AdministrativeCitationInformation.pdf. They all mean the same thing: a legal penalty that is not a crime. It depends largely on your city which one is used, but because it's a municipal code, the penalties are not criminal. On the state level traffic code for non-criminal breakings of the law, it's often called an infraction. There is no dictionary that stores the particular terminology used locally to refer to the same basic concepts.

Were I in a legally sophisticated forum, I'd have used the term 'violation' instead, but the lay definition of that word lends no clarity. I would have thought that 'citation' would be easy enough to grasp for the lay community here, given that I assumed people would understand that if it ends with a citation, there is no criminal charge. At least three of you have failed at that.

Infraction, from Black's, 8th: "n. A violation, usu. of a rule or local ordinance and usu. not punishable by incarceration. See VIOLATION"

For violation:
"1. An infraction or breach of the law; a transgression. See INFRACTION. [...] 4. Under the Model Penal Code, a public-welfare offense. In this sense, a violation is not a crime. See Model Penal Code 1.04(5)."(emphasis added).

Moving violation: "An infraction of a traffic law while the vehicle is in motion."

If you are cited for an administrative citation, a violation, or an infraction where the penalty is a simple fine, there is not a criminal record because there has been no crime. You must specifically be charged with a misdemeanor in order for it to be a crime. There are both misdemeanors and felonies in the traffic codes of every state, but there is no state to my knowledge that has fully criminalized their traffic laws. The costs and burdens on the state would be tremendous.

As to jaywalking, you can check the penal code of your state and see if you can find a code charge for it. California, Hawaii, Washington, Arizona, and New York do not list the offense (including by any other name). I am not willing to invest the time to show the negative existence of such when no one has provided anything resembling evidence that it might.

Outrageous!

[hacksoncode]

Apple should demand that iPhone users not give their phone number to other people because they might abuse this!

Errrr...

Re:Outrageous!

[54mc]

Shouldn't be a problem - we all know iPhone users have no friends!

Context of jaywalking

[davidwr]

Let's go back several levels in this thread. I started the whole "citation" thing because someone said

Jaywalking, further, in most places is not a crime. It's a citation. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had not used the word citation at all in my reply, but said that in many parts of the United States, Jaywalking is a criminal offense.

Re:Context of jaywalking

[mr_matticus]

Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had not used the word citation at all in my reply, but said that in many parts of the United States, Jaywalking is a criminal offense. That might be more clear, but it is not true. Jaywalking is an administrative citation almost everywhere in the United States, and in fact I can't think of any state where it is currently classified as a misdemeanor without being coupled with reckless conduct.

Re:Context of jaywalking

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd still be wrong. In the vast majority of places in the United States, jaywalking is not a criminal offense, but a civil infraction. Civil infractions are by definition not criminal.

Re:Context of jaywalking

[davidwr]

Check the city codes of America's largest 100 cities. Some, possibly most, of them will describe crossing the street other than at a crosswalk in busy parts of town as a criminal offense. You may have to do some cross-referencing though: Some of the codes describe it simply as an offense then elsewhere describe "all offenses listed in sections ... through ..." as criminal offenses.

Alternatively, you can try jaywalking in these cities and find out the hard way.

Re:Context of jaywalking

[mr_matticus]

Check the city codes of America's largest 100 cities. In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about and can't be bothered even to suggest proof of your affirmative case.

You are simply not correct that jaywalking is commonly a criminal offense without recklessness, just as parking tickets and vehicle code infractions are not. If you really believe that to be a common case, you should have no trouble referencing a case in which a person was charged with simple jaywalking (not that they were stopped for jaywalking and were found to have committed a crime, and not reckless endangerment by jaywalking).

Your curiously amusing suggestion for statutory analysis neglects one basic fact: states establish criminal law. Municipal codes do not create additional crimes. Thus, unless you can point to more than one state vehicle code which authorizes criminal charges for simple jaywalking, you a making an untenable and implausible claim. If you had any proof, you'd have provided it.

For someone who has struggling to grasp the terminology and the threshold for criminal offenses (and even who determines them), it's not hard to reject your conclusion.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Seattle Is Sweet

[killjoy966]

In Seattle, I can get free wi-fi in the parks and even on certain buses! Now if only I owned a laptop...

How do they exempt Nintendo DSes?

[assassinator42]

I'm not sure if that's still only Wayport/McDonalds or all AT&T hotspots as well. They allow DSes to connect for Nintendo games, not sure about web browsing or homebrew. Anyone know how they implement that?
Not that it really matters to me, apparently I get free access by having a DSL account with them. Of course, I no longer have a laptop to actually use the WiFi.

Re:Check Mac addresses...

[klubar]

They could add a check to see if the MAC (not that Mac) address is in the valid range for an iPhone. Yes, you can change your MAC address, but it's one more step that makes it harder to steal access.

This /. article should be tagged . . .

[JSBiff]

jailbait.

Seriously. I don't know for sure that someone could be successfully prosecuted for this, but I wouldn't be too surprised if AT&T could press charges for this. Whether their security system is 'lame' or not, if they have some kind of security on the system, and you take steps to gain unauthorized access, you are seriously putting yourself in a place of at least risking arrest. There are all kinds of computer security and unauthorized access laws out there just waiting to be tested by ambitious prosecutors with the backing of 'deep pockets'.

Re:Uhm, It's no accident. AT&T sent an e-mail

[JSBiff]

"Actually, at the moment I am using my MacBook in a Starbucks to type this reply, believe it or not."

An Apple user, using their Apple Laptop. . . In a Starbucks, of all places. I just *cannot* believe it.

Re:AT&T Intentionally provides free WiFi to al

[wazza]

Although this is offtopic, the last line of your post, to me at least, sums up everything important that differentiates geeks/nerds from non-geeks/nerds.

I like it.

Get free wife-eye...

[A New Normalcy]

...and avoid corporate coffee. www.anchorfree.com The locally-owned joints are usually cooler.

www.AnchorFree.com...

[A New Normalcy]

...lists free wife-eye locations. Eschew corporate coffee!

Huh?

[sentientbrendan]

The last starbucks I was at had ATAT wifi for free... or at least it let me log on.

Few Free Wi-Fiers From Here

[PingPongBoy]

There are a good many places in my city advertising free Wi-Fi, but that's not bringing any customers with computers. However, many people go to the library with their laptops. Lots of reasons for the discrepancy: the lack of electrical outlets at the businessplaces, maybe people feel more private at the library, and the library's Internet is really quick.

If the Wi-Fi isn't supposed to be free, but is available for a fee, then there must be a fairly good demand! What makes people pay for their Internet outside the home, perhaps aside from not having Internet at home? I guess there are some places where the population density is so high, there's a signal even in the home from a pay-to-use hotspot.

It should be free anyway

[jgoemat]

Most coffee shops in my area offer free wi-fi to anyone, Starbucks is the exception. Once you have the connection and router purchased, there is no extra cost for more users. A lot of users might slow the connection down, but using bandwidth throttling would be a better solution. You could still be slowed down by one paying customer that was running bittorrent.

I guess I did just read that you can get two hours per day just for buying and using a Starbucks card for your coffee instead of cash, that's not too bad. It's about time the price went down though. It used to be $10 for a single day and $40 for a month, now I think it's cheaper. I wouldn't really know though because I rarely go to Starbucks since I can get absolutely free wi-fi (and better coffee) at my locally owned coffee shop, Friedrich's.

Seems to be fixed now

[jaredcat]

I'm at a Starbucks, and I just tried it. I set my user agent to Mobile Safari - iPhone, and all that got me was a iPhone formatted AT&T login page asking for my AT&T login and password. Changing my user agent back to default produced a similar page formatted for a desktop browser.

Re:Seems to be fixed now

[Knowzy]

I second that. And people in the above MacRumors thread are saying the same thing.

iPhone user agent

[GWBasic]

Here's the user agent that my iPhone sends:

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3

I love the fact that I wrote my own web server to spit out the client's header to the console...