MPAA Shuts Down Town's Municipal WiFi Over 1 Download

nam37 writes with this BoingBoing snippet "The MPAA has successfully shut down an entire town's municipal WiFi because a single user was found to be downloading a copyrighted movie. Rather than being embarrassed by this gross example of collective punishment (a practice outlawed in the Geneva conventions) against Coshocton, OH, the MPAA's spokeslizard took the opportunity to cry poor (even though the studios are bringing in record box-office and aftermarket receipts)."

Comments

There must be something more

[transparen]

I find it hard to believe that they would have shut down the Wifi simply because of a *possible* lawsuit.... Maybe they didn't really want the WiFi after all?

Re:There must be something more

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"Likelihood of being fired because the town lost its shirt in 'MPAA vs. All Humanity' on your watch" > "Likelihood of being fired because you shut down the wi-fi hotspot".

Re:There must be something more

[meerling]

ianal - I think you're right, since ISPs are protected by safe harbour provisions, and the MPAA has to file lawsuits against individuals, even if it's a jane/john doe discovery thing. Of course, if they can't identify who did it, which the article seems to indicate, they can't sue anybody, but that never seems to stop them from baseless threats and bluster.

(Or for that matter, lack of accuracy doesn't slow those rabid vultures down either...)

Re:There must be something more

[h4rm0ny]

Actually, it's more a case of something less. This is another Cory Doctorow nonsense-piece. What appears to have happened is that the town had a set up a single shared wifi network running from a single connection which they allowed anyone to use. The MPAA sent a letter saying that this connection was being used for downloading copyrighted material without permission and the Sheriff's office panicked and shut it down.

FOX News doesn't distort the facts for their agenda as much as this guy has. (Well, not all the time, anyway).

Re:There must be something more

[h4rm0ny]

I've found more information on this as well, actually. Far from being a whole town, the wireless network was a free network broadcast for ONE BLOCK around the county courthouse.

So real situation: Someone opens up a wireless network with open access in one block of the town. Someone (very probably) did something illegal with it. The people who pay for the connection get a letter saying there is illegal usage being made of it and decide to shut it down.
The Slashdot Headline and Doctorow Blog:MPAA shut down entire town's Municipal WiFi against their will. Contravention of Geneva Conventions.

This is utter garbage and the editors if they were doing their job would post an update on the story right now.

Re:There must be something more

[jd]

Bear in mind that politicos can get voted out very easily, so tend to be nervous types when accused of something that smacks of scandal. (Widespread fraud is one thing, but accusations in the press of sponsoring pirates or spending tax dollars in bringing down Hollywood... No sane politician would take that kind of risk.)

Also bear in mind that most politicians are technically ignorant and are unlikely to know the difference between aiding and abetting in an electronic crime versus being a common carrier.

Finally, you need to also consider that these places are full of backstabbers, some likely in the pay of ISPs that would be competing with the municipal system. (If the public sector is corrupt, it's the private sector that is corrupting it.)

Re:There must be something more

[TyroneShoe]

The problem is that Coshocton is a pathetic little hick town east of Columbus, OH. The primary product that it produces is poor people and poorer people. The last time I went there, the high points of my trip were a blizzard from DQ and leaving. The reason they didn't fight the case is because the town is SO freaking poor that they didn't stand a chance. It's sad too because for such a little podunk town, they actually did something smart and progressive: muni wifi. Their reward for doing so? The MPAA Whambulance.

Re:There must be something more

[DBCubix]

Coshocton County is mostly Amish. So I guess the bishop caught wind of wi-fi's, laptops and generator using Amish and put his foot down shutting down this devil-laden network!

Re:There must be something more

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I've found more information on this as well, actually.

Not to be an ass or anything, but if you just dug up this information in the time since your previous posting, perhaps you could share the links with the rest of us?

Re:There must be something more

[Achromatic1978]

And what utter horseshit. In neither the Boing Boing do the MPAA "cry poor". Unless "it's a common occurrence across the USA... used to instant access".

Never mind, Cory, it's not like the MPAA are bad enough by themselves, without you, and subsequently the submitter, making up bullshit claims to attribute to them (yes, I'm aware that in other situations, such claims may have been made).

Re:There must be something more

[T.E.D.]

FOX News doesn't distort the facts for their agenda as much as this guy has. (Well, not all the time, anyway).

Ooooooh. Now that's a low blow.

Re:There must be something more

[Achromatic1978]

Err, "In neither the Boing Boing 'article', nor the original source, do the MPAA..."

Re:There must be something more

[Anonymous Coward]

No they do it far worse, Cory isn't likely to get anyone killed with his rumor mongering...

Re:There must be something more

[SpaceLifeForm]

I wonder which MPAA employee did the drive-by download.

Re:There must be something more

[HeronBlademaster]

TFA links to the source, which does confirm your parent post's analysis.

I guess reading TFA is taboo.

Anyway, the original article doesn't mention the MPAA being involved in the shutdown at all. By all appearances, the MPAA notified the ISP, then the ISP notified the county, then the county shut down the access point.

Re:There must be something more

[HeronBlademaster]

Obviously you didn't RTFA.

Their "Municipal Wifi" covers a one block area around the courthouse, which probably just means the block that the courthouse is on. That's hardly "municipal". Maybe you can call a single open access point "progressive", but come on... TFA is obviously blowing things way out of proportion.

Furthermore, the MPAA didn't even ask them to shut it down. They simply notified the ISP of an illegal download, the ISP notified the access point operators, and then the AP operators shut down the access points. Basically, the politicians panicked.

Re:There must be something more

[TechnoGrl]

Cory Doctroll strikes again.

By the way, if you ever want to see some SERIOUS censorship - just get a BoingBoing account and mention something about the great work Violet Blue is doing for the sex positive community these days. Or mention anything at all negative about one of BB's sponsors. You'll be shut down faster than Sarah Conner at a Terminator class reunion.

George Orwell wept - Jesus just laughed.

Re:There must be something more

[Anonymous Coward]

One block around the county courthouse comprises the entire town of Coshocton.

Re:There must be something more

[kcbrown]

Their "Municipal Wifi" covers a one block area around the courthouse, which probably just means the block that the courthouse is on. That's hardly "municipal".

Well, for that particular town, one block probably does cover the whole town!

:-D

Re:There must be something more

[Marillion]

From the tone of the article, it seems like the courthouse maintained an unprotected access point. The article talks about it being available in the streets immediately surrounding the building. There is a huge leap from that to being an ISP. The community used it. Then someone abused it and the county got a nasty letter about it. I have no doubt that the County Solicitor advised the County Commissioners to deactivate or password protect the access point or risk severe legal exposure. It is a regrettable and loathsome decision for the community, but the right one for the county.

Re:There must be something more

[NoobixCube]

Wow... I've been playing with my calculator too much... I read "Err" not as the sound simliar to Uhh..., but as in Error...

Re:There must be something more

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been thinking about this whole issue between the internet community and RIAA/MPAA for awhile now. It's obvious we have to regain our ground against these dirty thieving usurpers, but what of the actual points they have? It's true that one shouldn't enjoy the work of another without giving them something for it. Since watching them suing college students, kids, and grandparents, I completely stopped buying music and movies. I also stopped going to theaters nearly as much. I stopped listening to radio as much.
So, I thought about it for a long time, and I think I've come to a solution that would work. Try this - you can download all you want, but in order to host a file for other downloaders, you have to buy it first. I think that this would be a solution that would be accepted across the board. Not only could people still try and buy, but a constant downloading community would have basis for existing, as well as being able to legally provide for a flourishing music community. If it was accepted by both sides, it could even be enforced with no hard feelings.

Re:There must be something more

[cpt kangarooski]

From the tone of the article, it seems like the courthouse maintained an unprotected access point. The article talks about it being available in the streets immediately surrounding the building. There is a huge leap from that to being an ISP.

Oh, I don't know.

There is a safe harbor (17 USC 512(a)) that protects service providers from being liable for indirect infringement on the basis that one of their users directly infringed, and the service provider (by providing Internet service) helped. The definition of an eligible service provider (subsection (k)(1)(A)) is:

[T]he term "service provider" means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received

Granted, they will have to have met the conditions required by subsection (i), but this is not particularly difficult. Given that there still are no "standard technical measures" and likely never will be, it's basically just a matter of having a policy for offenders in place, and not utterly ignoring it (though it may be possible to get away with mostly ignoring it).

So by providing the access point, they're a service provider. If they met the low standard for eligibility in 512(i), they're protected by the safe harbor. They may not have done that -- I haven't heard either way -- but how is this a huge leap?

Re:There must be something more

[geminidomino]

BoingBoing is a representative of the government now?! THAT might explain why the entire country is such a clusterfuck now.

What? It's not? Parent is just spewing off-topic bullshit about censorship to push an agenda that only she and three other people actually give a damn about?

Boy, is my face red...

Re:There must be something more

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. You might want to check a dictionary. Tell me where you find something about censorship being the exclusive province of governments.

BoingBoing is a piece of shit, and there's no harm in pointing that out.

Re:There must be something more

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in their defense, usually they just lie about stuff rather than distort it.

Re:There must be something more

[Anonymous Coward]

just get a BoingBoing account and mention something about the great work Violet Blue is doing

Not knowing anything about either BoingBoing or Violet Blue, and wikipedia being extremely sparse on information regarding what went on between them, would you happen to have more information about why Violet Blue is a divisive issue for BoingBoing?

Re:There must be something more

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What the fuck is your problem?

Re:There must be something more

[geminidomino]

I wasn't talking about the use of the word censorship. I was talking about the referencing of Orwell.

Might want to get some cortisone for that trigger finger.

Re:There must be something more

[h4rm0ny]

Not to be an ass or anything, but if you just dug up this information in the time since your previous posting, perhaps you could share the links with the rest of us?

No offense is taken by a request for citations. The Coshocton Tribune has a much more detailed article here. It details the area covered by the wifi point (the block containing the County Courthouse), the typical usage of the open network (from around a dozen people a day surging up to a hundred during county fairs held there) and the facts that they had no direct connection with the MPAA, but that Sony Pictures sent a notification of illegal usage to their ISP which then passed it on to the customer who decided to shut the network down. They're response - for a small town, under-resourced considering a network that is a useful but hardly critical public resource, actually seems reasonable. "Let's turn it off and think about what we can do." They're considering whether they need to spend a few thousand dollars (a lot of money for them) on filtering software. (I'd personally counsel them against that as it's merely throwing good money after an unguaranteed solution) Who's to blame for this? Well certainly not the council, and to be honest, not really Sony Pictures which sounds like they just sent one of their standard "you're doing illegal stuff, we know it, please stop and play nice" letters. So really, I think the most to blame for the withdrawal of the free service is the twat that decided to abuse their free service by helping himself to some copyrighted material.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. As you can see, a lot more facts and a strikingly different conclusion to the original "OMG! MPAA are depriving towns of Internet and Geneva Conventions are being violated" blog post.

Re:There must be something more

[h4rm0ny]

You've got me curious. I don't know much about BoingBoing. Who are the big sponsors that they dislike criticism of and I've heard of Violet Blue the porn star (she sounds quite entertaining, actually, what with the wicca and the "No Name" stuff), but I don't know if you're referring to her or the authoress that sued her for having the same name. Any chance you could spare Slashdot a few minutes to talk a bit more about these things? :)

Re:There must be something more

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Rather than filtering per se, I think they would be better off limiting the amount of data that any one user can consume over a period of time. Something like 10MB/hour would probably do it. Most users are only going to browse the web and read email, as long as they stay away from the likes of youtube they should be fine. But 10MB/hour would be prohibitively slow for even just one super-compressed 600MB movie. Unless the guy is an employee in the court house. In which case, he's probably violating at least one condition of employment.

Re:There must be something more

[h4rm0ny]

That's a very good idea. Any people with a legitimate need for more can go and request it. In fact, it's a *really* good idea. You'd still have the potential for the odd song to be downloaded and someone like you or I could script something to get "a piece an hour" if we happened to live in range of it, but in practical terms, that would solve the issue. I wonder what the chances of their admin reading Slashdot are? Probably pretty good on this story, actually. ;) They should try this. It would also be a (very) rough way of spotting illegal downloads if they cared to look.

If they do get another attempt at illegal downloading with this system in place, they'd at least have tried some measure which should hopefully prevent immediate legal action from the rights holders.

Re:There must be something more

[h4rm0ny]

I don't think he was calling your post horseshit. I think he was referring to the original story / coryrant. His post doesn't seem to quite follow on from yours so he might have just been posting somewhere visible in rough agreement with my post, or hit reply to yours instead of mine. At anyrate, I don't think he intended to denigrate your post.

Re:There must be something more

[Anonymous Coward]

they would rather spend their time killing my post

Re:There must be something more

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to know about Drama, check Dramatica, not Wikipedia.
(NSFW) http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Violet_Blue

Re:There must be something more

[Firethorn]

Consider that coffee shops, B&N, various malls, etc... All offer open hot spots.

THEY aren't liable for what a customer does with their wifi service, they're acting as a (free) ISP.

I don't see why the courthouse would be any different.

Re:There must be something more

[Anonymous Coward]

Geesh. I'm sorry I asked.

But thanks for the link.

Re:There must be something more

[fudgefactor7]

Should not the response been "Prove it."? Then DMCA takes over and they have to follow all that mess, meanwhile the wifi connection would remain operable until final discovery and remediation.

Re:There must be something more

[h4rm0ny]

Should not the response been "Prove it."? Then DMCA takes over and they have to follow all that mess, meanwhile the wifi connection would remain operable until final discovery and remediation.

That doesn't quite apply in this case. The provision of the DMCA you're talking about is about providing content. I.e. if YouTube has your movie on it, you send them a DMCA take down request. In this case, it was about the users of their network downloading without permission rather than hosting without permission. You could apply it to Bit Torrent technically, though I'm not sure anyone has mounted that defense in that case. We don't know for certain what technology was used to download so can't say for certain in this case whether it would be usable. In any case however, there are other reasons you wouldn't do that. For a start, the downloading had presumably finished by this point, being downloading of individual work(s) rather than sustained distribution. Secondly, it would be no bother at all for Sony Pictures to prove that they were the owners of movie X which puts the ball right back in the customer's court. All it achieves is a momentary delay. But the biggest point is that the providers of the wifi access point don't actually want to facilitate piracy. They're offering the service, as far as I can see, for people to do a bit of emailing and for some people to verify credit cards (I know, I know) during a local fair. If they can find who the culprit is, they'll probably want to give him a smack round the head - the pirate has, after all, pissed in the public well. And that's really the biggest consideration here. They don't see Sony Pictures or their ISP as the bad guys. They're probably fine with people protecting their property. Their interest is in preventing their public network from being misused, rather than fighting it. There's an even chance they might actually appreciate being informed that their connection had been misused.

Re:There must be something more

[DJRumpy]

Mod this man up +1 Insightful...

Re:There must be something more

[orasio]

So real situation: Someone opens up a wireless network with open access in one block of the town. Someone (very probably) did something illegal with it. The people who pay for the connection get a letter saying there is illegal usage being made of it and decide to shut it down.

You are right, too much spin.
Anyhow, it's interesting to stop and think what we are talking about, like if we weren't used to this kind of thing.

Several people lost their free internet access because in their country it is illegal to _download_ a movie.
That kind of law does not seem to be doing much in favor of the advancement of society.
I understand that it's their country, and they can go wherever they want with their laws, but it seems a braindead srategy, from the outside.

Maybe I underestimate the importance of the entertainment industry, or overestimate the importance of a medium like the internet, but it seems ridiculous to me.

Re:There must be something more

[mdwh2]

The Slashdot Headline and Doctorow Blog:MPAA shut down entire town's Municipal WiFi against their will.

Neither TFS nor TFA say it was shut down against their will - so you're the one guilty of misrepresentation.

The connection was shut down in response to an action by the MPAA - yes, it's ambiguous as to whether they were forced, but it's still factually correct. And since the MPAA don't have the power to shut down people's connection themselves, it ought to be obvious that that meaning wasn't intended.

Perhaps a better summary might be "Town's Municipal WiFi Shut Down After MPAA Complain Over 1 Download", but that's still a worrying event.

Re:There must be something more

[CapnStank]

"since ISPs are protected by safe harbour provisions, and the MPAA has to file lawsuits against individuals, even if it's a jane/john doe discovery thing"

Tell that to AFACT (a company representing multiple major media corporations battling a lawsuit against a Australian ISP [iiNet] over infringements of their customers)

Re:There must be something more

[lanes]

Cory Doctorow being sensationalist over a mundane "civil liberties" story? Well I never! Next you'll be trying to tell me that Mike Arrington is anything but calm and levelheaded.

Re:There must be something more

[drquoz]

Wow, you have no clue about Coshocton. It's actually a pretty nice town. I've watched it grow a lot over the years, but even back in the day I wouldn't call it a pathetic poor hick town. I'd liken it more to Mayberry than Podunk. BTW, do you have any American flags? Chances are they came from Coshocton's Annin & Co, the nation's oldest and largest flag manufacturer.

Re:There must be something more

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the condition of the town has nothing to do with the issue any more than the crap in the summary about how much money is being made by the movie companies.

Stealing from the rich is still stealing. Punishing others for the actions of one is stupid.

Re:There must be something more

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you're funny!

that is all

Re:There must be something more

[Ungrounded Lightning]

FOX News doesn't distort the facts for their agenda as much as this guy has. (Well, not all the time, anyway). ...

Well, in their defense, usually they just lie about stuff rather than distort it.

And this is different from CBS, NBC, ABC, Reuters, UPI, New York Times, Time-Warner, and CNN how?

Re:There must be something more

[Anonymous Coward]

If they have a filtering firewall, they are not eligible for 512(i) protection.

Re:There must be something more

[Anonymous Coward]

They do an at least remotely reasonable job of feigning objectivity in their stories.

In fact, most of those mentioned do so to the extreme of NOT calling out blatant bullshit (especially from the right) as such, and instead "present both points of view". Even for stories that are entirely factual.

Whereas Fox News is pure and simple partisan cheerleading. And thats about the nicest thing to be said about it.

Re:There must be something more

[bootup]

Give me a break. Shutting services down never works. Nobody every succeeded in restricting stuffs on the Internet this way. It just doesn't work that way. When you shut one down another pops up. The internet is global and you can't possibly control what goes in it to any significant degree. Thus it makes no sense to try. It is just a waste of resources. ISPs shouldn't have to respond to these complaints. Period.

Re:There must be something more

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you aren't me but you put it better than I could have.

I'll cite Bill O'Reilly repeatedly telling his audience that he'd had won multiple Peabody Awards, and when it became news that he had not, he not only did a piece on "attack journalism" but loudly denied ever having said it at all, and challenged people to find instances of him doing so (he did).

Then there's more recent example of Hannity passing off footage of the much earlier 9/12 rally as relating to Bachmann's rally, and when called out on it by The Daily Show, saying it was a "mistake" (sure thing) and taking the opportunity to trot out the FNC trope about their shows not having writers while TDS does (sure thing).

Then there's the fact that they blamed Fort Hood on "political correctness" and what amounts to the lack of a ban on Muslims being in the military.

And Glenn Beck, the zoo crew radio host who figured out that by fake crying and not talking about he could drill into the emotional center of a continent's worth of disaffected rednecks. Remember when Burt Young said he was the "unsilent majority" in Rocky IV?

There's no point even being tactful about it, or about what kind of person can watch it without losing massive amounts of bile. It's a 24-hour parade of scumbags and their lies. I picked a few of my favorite things but you can literally turn it on at any moment of the day and hear someone say something disgusting or illogical.

(not a liberal, just someone who remembers what news used to be like)

Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Saxerman]

Wow, talk about misrepresenting the facts. I hate the way the MPAA is using copyright law as much as the next digital rights activist. But, for the record, the MPAA didn't take down the network. They just sent their usual infringement notice to the ISP, who then forwarded it on to Coshocton County. The county then made the decision to shut down the wifi service, they weren't ordered to by any judge or MPAA executive/lawyer/asshat.

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=117273

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Monkeedude1212]

Which I mean, given the circumstances - was probably the best course of action. If someone is doing something illegal on your public network, you better cut that off ASAP so that you aren't liable. And if the people clammer about how they don't have their internets, you can tell them that one of them ruined it for the rest of them.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[TubeSteak]

I RTFA and I can't be the only one who sees a discongruence between "an entire town's municipal WiFi" & "the 300 block".

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Monkeedude1212]

Denying people a public service such as Wifi hardly seems like "Collective Punishment".

They were trying to take themselves off the liability list. Something illegal going down? Don't aid it.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Anonymous Coward]

Punishment in what way? You're acting like publicly provided wireless internet access is a right. Let's not get out of hand about this.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[C10H14N2]

I am going to guess this had something to do with certain officials owing a favor or two to something relating to this:

"This short-range service is entirely separate from the wireless broadband being deployed throughout the county by Lightspeed."

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[pavon]

No, it's an example of elected officials doing their job poorly.
Deciding to which public services the county does and does not want to offer is a legitimate function of government. Choosing to end one is not a "punishment".

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[radtea]

Wow, talk about misrepresenting the facts

Well, it is boingboing after all, which is the 'Net's equivalent of Orwell's "Two Minutes Hate": the editors post inane stories in the most inflammatory language possible, the crowd all goes apeshit for a short time, and then moves on to the next thing, having done nothing, accomplished nothing, and learned nothing.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[tacarat]

That's what the common carrier principle is for. You wouldn't be liable. From a tech standpoint, though, you might want to know what is dragging down the bandwidth in a specific area. It might be indicating a problem other than a heavy file download.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Applekid]

Sure pulling the plug is easier, but, really, how hard would it have been to just stop routing packets to that MAC address?

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Disgruntled Goats]

But ISPs aren't common carriers. How many times does this need to be repeated?

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Disgruntled Goats]

I RTFA and I can't be the only one who sees a discongruence between "an entire town's municipal WiFi" & "the 300 block".

But telling the truth isn't quite as sensationalist! I mean he even said that this was against the Geneva Convention! THE GENEVA CONVENTION!!!!1111ONE

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Adrian Lopez]

This is part of the reason why I think government-funded Internet access is generally a bad idea. Governments are too trigger-happy with regard to avoiding liability, and are otherwise too censor-prone to properly deal with the significant responsibility of administering the local population's Internet connection.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[tacarat]

Really? Then why is it the RIAA has to do John Doe lawsuits over file sharing rather than just suing the ISP itself? There might be a bit of legal terminology that's mixed up in this discussion, and I haven't participated in the conversations that ISPs aren't Common Carriers. They are shielded to some degree regarding the actions of their users. I can surmise that for a whole town of people, and only one downloading a movie, the action was drastic compared to what's probably happening on the normal home accounts.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[MarkvW]

It doesn't "need" to be repeated that ISPs are not common carriers, but if it feels good to do so, please continue to repeat it.

Your efforts toward establishing logically coherent groupthink are appreciated.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[jythie]

While that clears up the mechanics, it still points to the MPAA being too powerful since it is an example of a private company being able to control a public government though simple fear of ending up in the crosshairs.

When governments fear corporations, we have gone through full circle though capitalism and can arrive on the other side of communism.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Disgruntled Goats]

Really?

Yes. This is just an oft-repeated falsity by the Slashtard horde.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Captain Splendid]

Well, it is slashdot after all, which is the 'Net's equivalent of Orwell's "Two Minutes Hate": the editors post inane stories in the most inflammatory language possible, the crowd all goes apeshit for a short time, and then moves on to the next thing, having done nothing, accomplished nothing, and learned nothing.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[tacarat]

Awesome. Then you can explain or link the principle under which the RIAA doesn't sue the ISPs directly? Help me learn, please :)

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[ePhil_One]

Sure pulling the plug is easier, but, really, how hard would it have been to just stop routing packets to that MAC address?

Brilliant. That downloader will never be able to get a new Mac address. Unless he types one in.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Disgruntled Goats]

The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and I bet if someone is caught speeding on a county road, they'll shut down all of the roads too. After all, speeding is illegal.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[AndersOSU]

in a nutshell, common carriers have to deliver (almost) anything you ask them to deliver, so ISPs really don't want that designation because they would like to maintain the right to throttle or deny service to anyone for any reason (telephone networks and the postal service are examples of common carriers.)

ISPs are shielded under the safe harbor provision of the DMCA which basically says that you'll take down infringing content on your network once you're provided notice, or else you end up liable.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[icannotthinkofaname]

Denying people a public service such as Wifi hardly seems like "Collective Punishment".

Someone who was deemed to be doing something that is disapproved of had some favorable condition, and it was taken away in order to discourage the behavior that is disapproved of. That is the definition of negative punishment.

And this punishment was imposed on a collective of people because of the actions of a single person, so that seems to imply that it was a collective punishment in the same way that p -> p in logic.

So yes, it was collective punishment by definition.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[jimicus]

Sure pulling the plug is easier, but, really, how hard would it have been to just stop routing packets to that MAC address?

Technical issues aside (it's easy enough to fake a MAC but we'll assume that this isn't the issue here) it doesn't take an enormous amount of foresight to see that in so doing you're essentially going to spend the rest of your life playing whack-a-mole at the behest of the MPAA.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[tacarat]

Thanky.

That's what the DMCA safe harbor provision is for. You wouldn't be liable. From a tech standpoint, though, you might want to know what is dragging down the bandwidth in a specific area. It might be indicating a problem other than a heavy file download.

Not quite a fixed post, but close enough.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Applekid]

If they were dumb enough to use a public, city-owned router for illegal activity, you really think they'd be smart enough to set a new address? Smart enough for that sidestep but not smart enough to encrypt the torrent traffic or use an anonymous proxy or any of the other dozens of common sense moves to avoid broadcasting what's being downloaded?

I'm sure all the other citizens they shared a network with appreciated the use of discretion to avoid minimal disruption of service.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[LandDolphin]

government-funded Internet access is fine (even with issues like this) when there is still a non-government-funded option.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[tsm_sf]

Well, it is boingboing after all

How do the unicorns fit into your rant?

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Moryath]

By your logic we should shut down all the roads and confiscate all the cars. After all, some people use them to smuggle drugs...

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Anonymous Coward]

So they threatened someone into shutting it off for them. What is the diff? Sort of like the school bully grabbing your hand and playing "Stop Hitting Yourself".

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[icebraining]

Yeah, companies are known to fight for their clients...

Maybe we need TPB owners to run our public Wifi networks.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Imrik]

They are one and the same, the 300 block is the only section of the town serviced by the municipal WiFi.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Anonymous Coward]

in a nutshell, common carriers have to deliver (almost) anything you ask them to deliver, so ISPs really don't want that designation because they would like to maintain the right to throttle or deny service to anyone for any reason (telephone networks and the postal service are examples of common carriers.)

If I recall, it is possible to pay for premium services through telephone networks and postal services. If I want a dedicated connection, I pay for it. If I want speedier delivery of a parcel, I pay for it.

Why would "common carrier" status prevent ISPs from charging for enhanced data delivery (e.g., through higher priority packets or dedicated back-end routing lines), with regular delivery defaulting to "best efforts" (what everything is with strict net neutrality)? And why is there so much angst with the possibility of allowing certain services (such as streaming of videos, telephony, or gaming) with low-latency requirements to be given higher priority than services which can tolerate higher latency (e.g., most web pages, IRC, P2P software, etc.)?

If the concern is that big ISPs who also provide content will not provide access to enhanced delivery services at reasonable prices, then bust them over their heads with the antitrust statues or regulate them. Why demand that the Internet be governed by a strict ideology of "net neutrality?"

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[icebraining]

No, it was shut down to prevent the city being sued; if they didn't had cut off the access to the downloader (as this is the only safe way to do it, as MAC filters can be easily bypassed), the MPAA could sue them based on DMCA law.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[bugnuts]

Denying people a public service such as Wifi hardly seems like "Collective Punishment".
They were trying to take themselves off the liability list. Something illegal going down? Don't aid it.

I heard there was someone speeding down the 300 block!

The city tore up the street because of one person misusing it. They did not want to aid criminals.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether it's one block or a whole town, don't you agree these kinds of tactics are just designed to pick low-hanging fruit? They're not going after pirates, they're marking easy targets who can't argue a lawsuit against them.

When they bust some guy running a server farm's worth of uploads from his home, and prove it, then maybe I'll support actions like this.

This was just publicity hounding and witch hunting. It's all about trying to set a precedent so they can control media distribution instead of creating a model that provides consumers with affordable access to what they want (and would be willing to pay for, under a reasonable distribution model). It's why they want to disable our televisions' ports, too, so they don't have to provide an appropriately-price on-demand content model, and contiue gouging us.

First it's an individual user. Then it's one city block. MPAA and RIAA have got the chalk and pickaxes, and are climbing the slippery slope one elevation at a time. The article is right to be alarmist, because it just gets more aggressive and increasingly more stupid each time the industries file motions like this.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Trails]

Not sure how "a public, city-owned router for illegal activity" is dumb though? Makes it very hard to link the perpetrator to the activity. Strikes me as rather smart. Dumb would be doing it from home.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Pitawg]

When the WiFi is dhcp for all that connect, and they all share a single valid internet IP address for internet traffic, the one IP address is the entire WiFi network as far as the internet is concerned.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[icannotthinkofaname]

If that's true, and the reason really was to avoid a DMCA lawsuit, then that IT guy needs to be fired for serious and obvious incompetence. This is not the solution to the "problem" of 1 illegal download.

The proper solution would be to blacklist the guy's MAC address and kick him from the network. Okay, so I have never seen such tools, but if such an administrative move is not possible, then someone else REALLY screwed up when implementing wireless networking admin tools in general.

Sure, MAC addresses are spoofable, but put enough obstacles in this guy's way and block him fast enough when he resurfaces, and he might just give up. And I don't think this would bother anyone else on the network. Again, if it doesn't block duplicate MAC addresses, then someone really screwed up the general system.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Nefarious Wheel]

The county then made the decision to shut down the wifi service, they weren't ordered to

Yes, a local government organisation caved in due to a single threat from a highly feared organisation.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[icannotthinkofaname]

By the way, I'm assuming that the administrator can get into the access point itself and administer the local side of the network from there.

Again, if such basic tools are missing...

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[KlomDark]

Where did you see that? I don't see it on the article.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Mister Whirly]

Well, they went with the "quick and easy" solution rather than the "complex and proper" one. With the size of the town, I am guessing their annual municipal IT budget is around $50/year, so the solution they came up with is well within the budget. Besides, they block the one MAC address, and then another "pirate" downloads something from a different machine using the same wifi connection. All the MPAA sees is another violation from the same place after it had already sent out a warning letter. It it has already been established that having an open wifi is NOT a defense in these types of cases.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Anonymous Coward]

If you make it all the way to the original source, the Coshocton Tribune says:
"About five years ago, the county made a free wireless Internet connection available in the block surrounding the Coshocton County Courthouse at 318 Main St."
So the internet at the "300 block" was the municipal WiFi; there is no incongruity (discongruence being, so far as I am aware, a word you made up).

I grew up in Coshocton. The shocking part for me is that there ever was municipal WiFi. And for what it's worth, the 300 block - the area around the courthouse - makes up most of the city of Coshocton's downtown. This is a tiny city we're talking about.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[HTH NE1]

The Internet is just ISPs on the backbones of other ISPs all the way down.

The MPAA would have it that only the end licensor of a routable IP address can be considered an ISP. If your service only gives out NATted addresses, no matter how many users you have you're not an ISP and thus have no safe harbor protection.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Hurricane78]

Uuum, you apparently don't no a thing about psychology. No problem, I did think all my life, that humans are not the weak spineless obeying losers that they are.
Most humans will with a high likeliness, obey whatever you tell them to do. Even torture and murder a person.
As long as they think it must be right, because someone who dominates them with his strong (view of) reality, thinks it's right.

So it is an entirely expected strategy for intelligence people and similar professional spin doctors, manipulators, etc, to just draw others into their reality, and thereby make them act in their will. There is an entire industry for that out there. Social engineering. The hackers of the human mind. Grown from a fusion of psychology, con men, marketing firms, etc.

What do you think how many average people quickly break under the pressure of "devastating consequences" for them (that never really happen, buy hey...)?
County government workers are no different. I bet I could get them to shut down the power system, if I took it really serious, and would create really scary "high official" letters, etc.
I know someone who had genuine federal watermarked paper that the federal police used in Germany. And he was able to forge the signature of the director of the federal police. So to put it into perspective for Americans: It was like he could forge letters from the FBI director that were indistinguishable from genuine ones. Which he used to remove its nurses and get him out of the madhouse. (Luckily he now is in a closed facility where he can't even make a call. Which is also sad, because I prefer to actually heal people.)

But it shows how powerful social engineering is.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Artifakt]

It's the ISP's decision, for now. An ISP would have to decide to want common carrier status, set up its contracts so it could possibly legally qualify, and then present that claim to the government, including going to court if needed (where it becomes the court's decision). It's not the government's decision for now, because no part of the government is going to consider such a case as a hypothetical, only once a real ISP asks for it.
    As you put it, ISPs don't really want that designation. It's not that "the system" has told them they can't have it, it's that they haven't asked, and I doubt that any will. OTOH, if complying with the DCMA to be shielded under its safe harbor rule becomes onerous enough, an ISP could decide common carrier protections are worth it.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[gad_zuki!]

Exactly. I cant tolerate the site. Its just self-righteous muckraking. The MPAA lawsuits are bad enough. Why do these sites, slashdot included, misrepresent facts, overblow everything, and dont bother following up with corrections? Hmm, ad impressions? Theres your real corporate conspiracy. Perhaps we can throw kdawson and cory doctorow down the well we end up throwing the MPAA down. One can dream...

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[philipgar]

That's crap... What the MPAA did was completely legitimate. Someone illegally downloaded their movie, and they informed them of the infringement. It would be no different than if a local government was pirating copies of MS Office, and MS demanded that they either removed the software or pay them for it.

A government that DOESN'T fear corporations and its constituents is what I consider scary. I'm not saying corporations are always in the right, and that the government doesn't have the right to smack them down when they misbehave... a corporation is BY LAW given many of the legal protections individuals are given. As such, the law applies to them, and they are protected by the law. It's a two way street. If corporations fear the government and the government does not fear the corporations, then there are no longer checks on what the government can do, as there IS no recourse that the companies have if the government wrongs them. I am not arguing that it's better to have corporations not fear the government and the government fearing the corporations, as that means the corporations are above the law, however there is plenty of middle ground, and this case falls squarely in it. While much of what the MPAA does is shady, this particular action was completely within the law, and was their appropriate response.

Phil

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's an example of elected officials doing their job poorly.
Deciding to which public services the county does and does not want to offer is a legitimate function of government. Choosing to end one is not a "punishment".

No, it's an example of elected officials doing their job poorly.
Deciding to which public services the county does and does not want to offer is a legitimate function of government. Choosing to end one is not a "punishment".

Here and I thought those people were crazy from drinking the water......

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[TubeSteak]

They are one and the same, the 300 block is the only section of the town serviced by the municipal WiFi.

My points was that by most definitions, one building or block rarely qualifies as "Municipal WiFi".
Especially (according to wikipedia) in a town of ~11,682 people.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[hedwards]

N+1

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[hedwards]

But ISPs aren't common carriers. How many times does this need to be repeated?

N+1

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Anonymous Coward]

When governments fear corporations, we have gone through full circle though capitalism and can arrive on the other side of communism.

Communism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Corporatism leading to Fascism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascism_and_corporatism

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Anonymous Coward]

The hackers of the human mind. Grown from a fusion of psychology, con men, marketing firms, etc.

I know you didn't intend this to be an exhaustive list, but school should be listed first here. The first lesson of every class for 12 years is "obey", because without that the class can't function. Necessary as it is to institutional schooling, it still has the very negative effect of programming the population to mindless obedience. Yes, mindless, the obedience has to come before the lesson.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Imrik]

It's a service provided to the citizens by the county in exchange for taxes, I think it qualifies as municipal WiFi.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[Anonymous Coward]

Then its not the Towns Wifi, its the block WiFi contracted by the Town

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[hedwards]

Eh, off topic isn't the appropriate mod for this. And at some point they need to fix the site so that comments don't go missing only to randomly reappear later.

Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network

[StikyPad]

I see an incongruence between English and that imaginative word you used.

Reciprocity

[iamacat]

Let the town pass an ordinance that requires explanation of the facts and recommendation of content from less onerous publishers in every place MPAA affiliated content is sold or performed. Imagine a local movie theater showing foreign and indy films and recommending one when someone asks for a ticket to Transformers.

Re:Reciprocity

[Dynedain]

That sounds like a good way to kill the entertainment businesses in your town and watch the tax revenue move across the city limits to the town next door or unincorporated county.

Re:Reciprocity

[iamacat]

Yeah, almost as bad as killing off business of all the vendors that have been relying on WiFi to process credit cards.

Re:Reciprocity

[Disgruntled Goats]

Actually it would probably be far worse to do what you recommend.

Re:Reciprocity

[h4rm0ny]

I don't want a lecture from my local government on what I should be watching every time I buy a ticket to something I do want to see. Local government wastes enough tax money without taking it upon themselves to start cultural policing. If I want to watch a film, it's not wise for anyone to lecture me about it. I expect you would feel the same if you thought about it.

Re:Reciprocity

[vcgodinich]

You think that real businesses use a free city wifi to process their credit cards? I would like to see (and make sure not to shop at) that business.

Re:Reciprocity

[Anonymous Coward]

The Whistles go Whoo-Whoooooooooooosh!

Geneva Conventions

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to be pedantic.. but the fourth Geneva Convention (which OP was referring to) sets forth protection for civilians in times of war. Last I checked, there is not a war going on in Coshocton, OH and the MPAA is not a sovereign authority (as much as it might like to be). I always cringe when people reference the Geneva Conventions like this in such an overly dramatic and misrepresentation way.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[Anonymous Coward]

Incidentally, this is why cops get to use chemical weapons and soldiers don't...

Re:Geneva Conventions

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to be pedantic.. but the fourth Geneva Convention (which OP was referring to) sets forth protection for civilians in times of war. Last I checked, there is not a war going on in Coshocton, OH and the MPAA is not a sovereign authority (as much as it might like to be). I always cringe when people reference the Geneva Conventions like this in such an overly dramatic and misrepresentation way.

Cmon, its the shameless self promoter and huckster, Cory Doctrow who referenced the Geneva Convention. Would you expect anything less?

Re:Geneva Conventions

[vekrander]

So the MPAA is clearly then allowed to treat civilians worse than people being occupied in wartime by any country that has signed the Geneva Convention?

Re:Geneva Conventions

[alecto]

Why wouldn't they? The people using it that way have probably been hearing that we are "at war" on something since they were children: the "War on Poverty," the "War on (some) Drugs," the "War on Terror."

Re:Geneva Conventions

[Anonymous Coward]

War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Filesharing, War on common sense.
At least one of these if going on right now!

Re:Geneva Conventions

[Volante3192]

But we ARE in a war. A couple actually. The war on terror, the war on drugs... Probably more.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[hypergreatthing]

How could someone forget the ongoing war on drugs that's taking place there?

Re:Geneva Conventions

[tacarat]

So civilians are entitled to less protection during times of peace? Granted, bringing up the Geneva Convention in this isn't fully appropriate for the topic, but it's probably the only cited example they could think of. Group punishment isn't allowed in the US legal system when it concerns normal citizens, is it? I've never heard of a case where the Judge arrested or penalized an entire store of people only because one of them was a shoplifter.

"Don't do the time if you didn't do the crime". I think the TV cop phrase is "if you're innocent , then you have nothing to worry about".

Re:Geneva Conventions

[faloi]

If you don't like it, seek out politicians that are taking MPAA money and get them out of office. Then it's less likely lawmakers will turn a blind eye toward them when they go nuts.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[tacarat]

War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Filesharing, War on common sense. At least one of these if going on right now!

I wonder which one is closest to being "won".

Re:Geneva Conventions

[dkh2]

So the MPAA is clearly then allowed to treat civilians worse than people being occupied in wartime...

You can bet your ass they can.

As the preceding Anonymous Coward response points out - your state and local police force may be permitted to use weapons your national militia may not.

There are certain unspoken legal advantages to NOT being a branch of any sovreign national government. Take note that many (not all) of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib were committed by private contractors. That doesn't excuse the official government personnel who were supposed to have control but the penalties for the contractors are very different.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[lymond01]

Last I checked, there is not a war going on in Coshocton, OH

You think not? We are all, every one of us, not spectators, oh no, but soldiers in the war for freedom! Be it in the high desert of Afghanistan, the cities of Iraq, or the wi-fi spectrum of Coshocton, Ohio, we will fight the enemies of freedom wherever they raise their malignant heads. We will fight them on the internets; we will fight them in the courtrooms; we shall never surrender!

This post brought to you by a ghost named Churchill.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[shentino]

As the entire issue is completely internal to the United States, the international community has no jurisdiction whatsoever.

A pity though that the only folks who DO have jurisdiction have already been bought.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[dkh2]

The War on Sanity finished decades ago. Unfortunately, we all lost.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[Disgruntled Goats]

This isn't group punishment. The city shut down a WiFi connection they ran for 1 city block around a courthouse. The vast majority of the city wasn't even effected.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[Aphoxema]

If you don't like it, seek out politicians that are taking MPAA money and get them out of office. Then it's less likely lawmakers will turn a blind eye toward them when they go nuts.

Good thinking, except it will be the candidates who have the most financial backing who will likely be elected to replace them.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[91degrees]

Well, technically, yes, assuming there's something legal under US law that's banned in the Geneva convention. In practice, they tend not to have the ability to do this.

Incidentally - the rule works two ways. We can treat the MPAA worse than an invading army treats civilians in exactly the same way.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[selven]

The Korean War, technically (gogo, almost 60 years now!)

Re:Geneva Conventions

[selven]

War on common sense? Isn't that like declaring war on Troy?

Re:Geneva Conventions

[tacarat]

The actions of one individual caused a reaction that removed a public resource, thus denying it's use by others? Sounds like group punishment to me, even if the scale isn't city wide.

It's not different than revoking the drivers license of everybody on your street because one person might have been speeding. You didn't do anything wrong, but you're being penalized. That'd be considered group punishment, right?

Re:Geneva Conventions

[Anonymous Cowpat]

well, yes and no. Normally during a war, all bets are off - if you can't keep, in peacetime, to the minimum standards expected during wartime, you're doing something wrong.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[Anonymous Coward]

The war on evil movie pirates that are going to bankrupt the movie industry...

completely unrelated:
I think the MPAA should show how much $ they are spending on copyright protection and then how much they are losing via lost DVD sales & rentals and movie tickets...

Re:Geneva Conventions

[LandDolphin]

Technically, no. Technically there was no declaration of war by Congress; Hence no war.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[fm6]

Don't confuse misrepresentation with stupidity. Nam37, like most slashdotters, considers himself a legal expert.

What is it about geeks that make them think they understand the law better than lawyers? Usually to their detriment, as Randal L. Schwartz, Shane Becker, and Hans Reiser can all testify. Or they could, if they could admit to their own stupidity.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[Imrik]

War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Filesharing, War on common sense.

I wonder which one is closest to being "won".

Definitely the last one, the other three would have trouble even showing their progress.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[Locke2005]

You mean the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Gang Violence" are not covered by the Geneva Conventions?!? Perhaps we should refer to it as something like the "Civilian Police Effort against Drugs" instead...

Re:Geneva Conventions

[Dunbal]

Last I checked, there is not a war going on in Coshocton, OH

      Well actually the US is a country at war. Fighting TWO wars, as a matter of fact. I know the point you're trying to make - that part of the Conventions was mostly about rounding up people in a town and shooting them for being Belgian (I don't see a problem with that but never mind), not using that well known grade-school teacher tactic of "if someone doesn't tell me who did this, the whole class is getting detention!" but still...

Re:Geneva Conventions

[Anonymous Coward]

Incidentally, this is why cops *are allowed* to use chemical weapons and soldiers *aren't*...

fixed for you ;)

Re:Geneva Conventions

[PhxBlue]

But where are the front lines on the Global War on Terror(TM)? No, I don't agree with that reasoning, but given the spurious shit that our government has done in the name of national security, don't be surprised to see that argument come from a government spokesperson.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[Anonymous Coward]

I read declaring war on Tony....

Do not fuck with Tony

Re:Geneva Conventions

[Anonymous Coward]

Go after the MPAA/RIAA with rico act violations - put them ALL in prison...

Re:Geneva Conventions

[adolf]

Ballot box, soap box, ammo box.

Use the first two of these to help influence elections. (And, FYI, Slashdot doesn't count for a soapbox - you'd just be preaching to the choir.)

Re:Geneva Conventions

[syousef]

Last I checked, there is not a war going on in Coshocton, OH

You forgot the war 'gaint 'Terra

and the MPAA is not a sovereign authority (as much as it might like to be).

They're working on it. Stay tuned.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[jmac_the_man]

The phrase "War on Drugs" originated with critics of Federal drug policy who wanted to compare it to Vietnam. It's not a war, and we should be calling it that.

I've never heard of the "War on Gang Violence," although I've heard of police efforts against gang violence. (For the record, I'd argue that eliminating gang-related violence is EXACTLY why we should have police.) Can you reference it being called that?

Re:Geneva Conventions

[AK Marc]

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&rls=en&q=%22War+on+Gang+Violence,%22&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 gets me 257,000 hits. And I've also heard "war on terrorism" and that war is being fought internally and internationally.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[AK Marc]

Depends on who gets to define it. If a non-American defines it, we are at war. If an American defines it, we are performing war-like activities without a declaration of war. Technically, we are at war, even if undeclared.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a War. It's a Conflict.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[hedwards]

I must have missed when the government declared martial law and all the massive public fire fights on civilians.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[LandDolphin]

Using that measure, would anyone consider the US to be at war with N. Korea? When was the last "war-like activity" between the U.S. and N. Korea?

Re:Geneva Conventions

[Martin Blank]

If you're going to get into bad analogies, it's more akin to blocking use of a road commonly used for street races, something that could be perfectly reasonable and rational. There are plenty of other places to drive, and plenty of other places to get free wireless internet access.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[tacarat]

I'd disagree with that one. How about taking everybody's cellphone within a certain radius and only returning it when they left that area because one person was accused of having an improper conversation?

Re:Geneva Conventions

[Tuoqui]

Dont forget the WAR ON TERROR!

Re:Geneva Conventions

[david_thornley]

The phrase "War on Drugs" originated with critics of Federal drug policy who wanted to compare it to Vietnam.

Why, in the name of all that's pasta-like, would any government official want to liken anything to Vietnam? That war cost over fifty thousand lives, oodles of money, caused civil political dissension on a scale not normally seen in this country, and didn't accomplish anything.

Or was that a case of honesty in government?

Re:Geneva Conventions

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to do with gov't honesty. That should have been your cue to re-read it, and realize that it was initially a term used by the CRITICS of the Federal drug policy.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[jmac_the_man]

That's exactly the point. Vietnam War = Bad. Therefore, Some Other War = Bad. Therefore, War on Drugs = Bad. So let's start calling it the War on Drugs. That's the logic.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[jmac_the_man]

Well, the War on Terrorism is a real war being fought by the United States military in two countries right now. The Geneva Conventions apply in the foreign locales in which it is being fought. (Of course, according to the Geneva Convention, to qualify for most Geneva Convention protections, you have to be either a civilian or a uniformed soldier of a warring power.) The War on Terrorism is being supported by civilian law enforcement in the United States. US cops are going after spies and saboteurs (nowadays more commonly known as terrorists) who, under the Geneva Conventions, do not qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions.

This is EXACTLY the way the War on Nazi Germany and Axis Japan was fought, for the record. (Well, except that we're not rounding up every Muslim because they "might be disloyal.")

Re:Geneva Conventions

[AK Marc]

And we have a winner. For all the tight controls on official definitions of "war" it is a meaningless term that means anything the person using it wants it to. The international definition doesn't match the Constitutional definition, which doesn't match the definition used by the politicians, which doesn't match the definitions used by the people. So saying something happens only in "war" is a useless statement because there is no definition of "war" agreed upon by anyone.

And a declared war with a cease fire (even one lasting 100 years) would still be a war. At least by someone's definition.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[AK Marc]

Well, the War on Terrorism is a real war being fought by the United States military in two countries right now. The Geneva Conventions apply in the foreign locales in which it is being fought.

There are no warring parties. The US government may be in Iraq and Afganastan, but is not fighting against either of those countries. The US isn't fighting anyone. Sure, people attack the US, but as far as anyone can tell, there are numerous, uncoordinated groups that are all pissed at the US for various reasons, and not great terrorist overlord like Cobra or Hydra or whatever to wage a war against. It would be like waging a war against mosquitos. You may not like them. But there is no way to identify a leader or structure to attack or a way to declare victory until all flies are eliminated.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[jmac_the_man]

Well, in Iraq, at one point, there was an organized Iraqi military opposed to the United States. The Geneva Convention applied to them. Since the overthrow of Saddam's regime, that's no longer the case. Now, there a number of warring parties. The US and Iraqi led Coalition are the only ones who are protected by the Geneva Conventions. They are required to wear uniforms, not massacre civilians, etc. Other parties in the conflict (i.e. Al Quaeda in Iraq, Sunni insurgent groups, Iran, etc.) aren't aligned with each other, necessarily, but they're mainly considered warring against the Coalition as opposed to against each other. Geneva Convention protections don't apply to these other parties because they don't follow Geneva Convention rules about wearing uniforms, not massacring civilians, etc.

As far as Afghanistan goes, there were two main groups, the Taliban and Al Quaeda. The Taliban was hiding Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Quaeda, after that group committed the September 11th terrorist attacks. bin Laden may not be up there with Cobra Commander, but he definitely existed and led a group that committed a fairly large terrorist attack. His group and its allies are paying for that now.(Since Al Quaeda doesn't wear uniforms or refrain from attacking civilians, they don't get Geneva Convention protections either, which is really what we're allegedly talking about in this thread.)

Out of curiosity, how would President AK Marc have responded to the September 11th attacks?

Re:Geneva Conventions

[AK Marc]

Out of curiosity, how would President AK Marc have responded to the September 11th attacks?

I'll give you a hint. It wouldn't include lying to the American public to rile up support so I could murder American soldiers in a revenge war against the guy I blame for Daddy not getting reelected. And for some reason, lying in order to kill American soliers and Iraqi civilians is perfectly OK, but follow the judges orders answering whether you had sex with someone (admittedly, the judges orders were bad) and they impeach you...

In a world like that, I'd have stepped down long before 9/11 because the presidency can't be handled effectively by a sane person (see Jimmy Carter, the best man to hold the office in our lifetimes, and arguably the worst president [yes, including Nixon]).

Re:Geneva Conventions

[jmac_the_man]

There's so many things wrong with your post that I don't know where to begin. The 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by allies of Afghanistan and NOT Iraq. With respect to the people who actually attacked us (Al Quaeda) and their allies who were defending them (the Taliban), what should the United States have done?

When I said "how would President AK Marc have responded," I was referring to what the national response should be. If we're going to have nations, there has to be a national response to getting attacked, even if that's "Pretend nothing happened." You disagreeing with the concept of having a President at all, though interesting, doesn't help me understand what you're thinking. Now I'm curious how you think executive power should be wielded too.

Clinton told the court that he didn't have sex with Lewinski. He did. The judge's orders were "Tell me whether you had sex with Lewinski. By the way, lying is a high crime or misdemeanor." I'd argue that he didn't follow the judge's order.

I agree with you that Carter was the worst President of our lifetimes (unless you were alive for James "I'm pissed that the American people didn't re-elect me so I'm not going to do anything as the South leaves the Union" Buchanan.) However, I'd have to say the best man to be President during that span was Reagan. (Shocking, I know.) He's got the whole self-made, built himself from nothing vibe without any of that nasty antisemitism you've got to deal with with Carter.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[AK Marc]

There's so many things wrong with your post that I don't know where to begin. The 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by allies of Afghanistan and NOT Iraq. With respect to the people who actually attacked us (Al Quaeda) and their allies who were defending them (the Taliban), what should the United States have done?

I gave an answer. It was to not invade Iraq. There were references in your post regarding Iraq, and so I wanted to be clear that, as a president, I wouldn't have lied in order to kill my countrymen for a personal vendetta. Is that not clear? What part did you miss?

As for my response, I would have more intelligence as president then than I have now, even after the fact, in order to base that decision on. If we are playing hypotheticals, I'd have caught Osama for one. For another, I'd have kicked the UN in the ass to wage the war on terrorism. Why? Because the US is a target for massively stupid decisions (a good many by Reagan, for his meddling in the Middle East). Invading multiple countries, one of which based on known lies in order to extract personal revenge, is not the way to get in the good graces of those that think us imperialist swine. Let the UN do its job and enforce international laws and be the target for the terrorists. The US should have played innocent victim a little better (At least internationally), rather than the schoolyard bully.

I'd have probably gone after the Saudis that actually staged the attack, rather than given them more free money. It's not like they don't already have so much they are funding terrorists out of their spare change. But again, that depends on the intelligence that isn't available to me now, even this many years after the attacks. It was Saudis that actually attacked the US, so how the hell did we end up in Iraq? Oh yeah, it was Bush wanting to take the opportunity to abuse his power to kill in revenge. Two terms? Are Americans really that stupid? I really hope the election was rigged. I really do. At least then that means we weren't that dumb. Rewarding a lying murder with a second term...

Re:Geneva Conventions

[jmac_the_man]

There's so many things wrong with your post that I don't know where to begin. The 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by allies of Afghanistan and NOT Iraq. With respect to the people who actually attacked us (Al Quaeda) and their allies who were defending them (the Taliban), what should the United States have done? I gave an answer. It was to not invade Iraq. There were references in your post regarding Iraq, and so I wanted to be clear that, as a president, I wouldn't have lied in order to kill my countrymen for a personal vendetta. Is that not clear? What part did you miss? As for my response, I would have more intelligence as president then than I have now,

I hope so, because that part of the post must have taken a massive amount of intelligence to post. I asked about Afghanistan, you tell me about Iraq. Even in THIS post you don't mention Afghanistan.

I'd have caught Osama for one.

To do that, you'd have to invade Afghanistan. Just like Bush. But is the Afghan war a good thing? I DON'T KNOW, BUT IRAQ SURE ISN'T.

For another, I'd have kicked the UN in the ass to wage the war on terrorism... Let the UN do its job and enforce international laws and be the target for the terrorists.

According to Wikipedia, 47 countries other than the US and Afghanistan were are involved in Operation Enduring Freedom. Also, what city does the UN General Assembly meet in? Has it been attacked by terrorists recently?

Why? Because the US is a target for massively stupid decisions (a good many by Reagan, for his meddling in the Middle East).

So you're for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but against the American one? Got it.

Invading multiple countries... is not the way to get in the good graces of those that think us imperialist swine...

So you'd invade between 0 and 1 countries. Just Afghanistan (where you'd catch bin Laden) then? OK.

I'd have probably gone after the Saudis that actually staged the attack, rather than given them more free money.

Wait, Afghanistan plus Saudi Arabia is TWO countries. As in multiple. That's no way to get in the good graces of those that think us imperialist swine.

But again, that depends on the intelligence that isn't available to me now

Right. No intelligence. Finally something that makes sense.

The fact is that you have no solutions and no answers other than BAWWWW BUSH ADMINISTRATION. Luckily, our real political leadership knows that there is now way to endear ourselves to "those who think us imperialist swine" and we have to kill the people who are trying to do us harm. While avoiding killing civilians. As required by the Geneva Convention, which, for the record, is what you and I are allegedly talking about.

Up to now I've been asking you questions, because I was seriously interested in your opinion and thought maybe we could have a healthy debate. But since you haven't described clearly what you would do, and only seem to want to talk about Iraq, which I already know what you think about it, I'm starting to doubt that, I'm done arguing with you, but since your sig makes it look like you're from Alaska, I'd be remiss not to thank you for Sarah Palin.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[AK Marc]

I hope so, because that part of the post must have taken a massive amount of intelligence to post. I asked about Afghanistan, you tell me about Iraq. Even in THIS post you don't mention Afghanistan.

You originally brought up both. I addressed both. I guess you find Iraq annoying, so you are avoiding it all together. Why? Why not accept my comments on both? Oh, because you know Iraq is a stuid war where Bush lied in order to kill people. So you focus on something else. It was stated (and the administration stood by it after it was shown to be functionally false) that Iraq had ties to 9/11 and that was one of the reasons for invasion. So when you bring up 9/11, Iraq is linked. You talked about both. I brought up both. You ignored Iraq completely, so I brought it up again. Tell me why you are ignoring it. Tell me whether you think we should be there, or comment on my reasons why we shouldn't or something. But to bring it up then ignore it when convenient, then turn around and accuse me of bringing it up when you were first to bring it up is utterly absurd.

That's intellectual dishonesty. That makes you a liar in my book. I have no time for liars.

And, from a quick skimming of the rest of your reply, you don't address what I said, but lie in order to make it worse (straw man) then effectively attack the lies you put in my mouth. Liar.

Up to now I've been asking you questions, because I was seriously interested in your opinion and thought maybe we could have a healthy debate. But since you haven't described clearly what you would do, and only seem to want to talk about Iraq, which I already know what you think about it, I'm starting to doubt that, I'm done arguing with you, but since your sig makes it look like you're from Alaska, I'd be remiss not to thank you for Sarah Palin.

You brought up Iraq first. Clearly, you didn't like my response to that, so you tried to carefully guide the conversation away from that. I didn't bite on your rhetorical games. You don't talk issues, you brig up things like Palin, like that has something to do with my opinion. Quit making up things (most call such a practice lying) and attacking them. I can't converse with someone that plays such games, because it isn't a conversation. It's me posting, and you attacking because you have some point to prove to yourself. If you had a point to prove to anyone else, you'd be offering information, rather than asking questions that you will attack the answers to, no matter what the answer is. All you have is lies and attacks. When you are interested in a conversation, let me know. I'll think you are still lying, but I may humour you.

Safe Harbor

[spun]

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

Re:Safe Harbor

[Monkeedude1212]

But it goes both ways.
It'd be easier to argue that they stopped providing Wifi to stop illegal activity (In good faith)
than it would be to argue that they were providing Wifi (In Good Faith) knowing that it was helping someone perform illegal downloading.

Re:Safe Harbor

[ground.zero.612]

But it goes both ways. It'd be easier to argue that they stopped providing Wifi to stop illegal activity (In good faith) than it would be to argue that they were providing Wifi (In Good Faith) knowing that it was helping someone perform illegal downloading.

So will this set precedence for cities refusing to sell gun dealers a license in their town? You know, because one could argue "that they were providing guns (In Good Faith) knowing that they were helping someone perform illegal murders/robberies."

Please try to grow a spine, and a brain to sit atop it.

Re:Safe Harbor

[Monkeedude1212]

I would be all for that, actually.

Re:Safe Harbor

[bl968]

Only applies to content hosted on their network. If the ISP is not directly hosting the content on servers they own, then they have no requirement to take it down. When the content is hosted on the customers system the ISP has no legal liability regardless of claims to the contrary, Why? Because the they can take legal action against the person directly at that point, and they have a legal obligation to minimize the affects. That would be like me forcing LEVEL3 to take down Comcast because one of Comcast's customers is hosting a file for download on a machine outside of Comcast's direct control.

512. Limitations on liability relating to material online
(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications.-- A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if--
(1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;
(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;
(3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;
(4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and
(5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.

Notice there is no absolutely no requirement to terminate the user.

Re:Safe Harbor

[ground.zero.612]

I would be all for that, actually.

Citation needed! All for growing a spine and a brain? Or all for basically making guns illegal by exploiting and manipulating people without spines and brains?

Re:Safe Harbor

[Monkeedude1212]

The making guns illegal part. Spines and brains irrelevant.

Re:Safe Harbor

[spun]

How is municipal wifi different from any commercial ISP? Would a commercial ISP shut itself down if it found one of it's users engaging in illegal activity? No. Of course not. And why not? Because of the safe harbor provisions, no ISP is liable for the illegal activity of its users. Just like the phone company isn't liable when someone calls up a hit man and orders an execution.

Not to be insulting, but your argument simply makes no sense. It shows that you don't understand the purpose of the safe harbor provision, how it operates, or what terms like 'in good faith' mean.

Re:Safe Harbor

[spun]

Eh? What?

Uhm, what exactly did you think my purpose was in bringing up the safe harbor provision?

I am very interested in the thought process that lead to the conclusion that I was arguing that the ISP was liable or the customer should be terminated.

Re:Safe Harbor

[timmarhy]

no numbnuts, they are saying the public office running the wifi didn't understand the law so they shut down access. point being it was the local government office that made the call to shut it off, not the MPAA as the summary attempts to mislead you into thinking.

Re:Safe Harbor

[hufman]

I think we've discussed this already. If you make guns illegal, than the only people who will have them are scofflaws who are more likely to shoot you.

Re:Safe Harbor

[spun]

Who said anything about who shut down the service? Not me. Furthermore, you imply the reason the service was shut down was lack of knowledge of the law. You have no reason to suspect this was the case. The public servant in question could have been bribed.

I don't understand how your angry little outburst even applies to what I said. It's just raining idiots with reading comprehension problems today. Sigh.

Re:Safe Harbor

[afaik_ianal]

Yes, because that's exactly the experience of the rest of the developed world, right?

Re:Safe Harbor

[geminidomino]

A disarmed populace is only a good thing for an armed criminal or an armed government (possible redundancy noted).

Re:Safe Harbor

[hedwards]

In one very important way, a commercial ISP would go out of business if it didn't have some sort of access control to keep people off that didn't have permission to use the connection. I'm guessing this particular AP lacks that capability, which is a very important distinction to make.

Re:Safe Harbor

[afaik_ianal]

You're just regurgitating an NRA pamphlet there. If you looked at other countries, you'd see that an armed armed populous makes one hell of a target for both armed criminals and armed govenments.

In countries with stricter gun control, sure, criminals that *really* want guns can still get them, but they tend to just shoot each other. In the cases that guns are used to rob banks or whatever (although in practice that's normally done with replicas), it's just money - it's not worth someone dying over. Rather than being a Hollywood hero today, let the police deal with it tomorrow.

It's the police forces' job to deal with them. The moment you have vigilantes running around trying to police the criminals, you end up with more dead criminals, vigilantes and innocent bystanders alike.

What tighter gun control does, is prevent the guy who decides to pop one in his neighbour for looking at him the wrong way. He's forced to thinks about how he's going to do the job, and realises 5 minutes later than it's not worth it.

If you think a few hicks with hunting rifles and handguns are going to have any chance against a modern defence force with their missile launched from a couple of hundred miles away, you're just deluded.

Your second amendment was meant for a different time, when the only difference between an army and a militia was the uniform they wore. The world has changed in the past 200 years, and the rest of the world has moved on.

Re:Safe Harbor

[Anonymous Coward]

Good to see the NRA mods are out in force.

"I shoot and I mod."

Re:Safe Harbor

[geminidomino]

You're just regurgitating an NRA pamphlet there

Actually, I've never read an NRA pamphlet in my life. I'm basing it on an undergrad knowledge of world history and massive empirical data on human nature.

The crux of your argument is that the government can be trusted with your safety. I can't imagine what would possibly give you that idea, but you're welcome to hold it.

If you think a few hicks with hunting rifles and handguns are going to have any chance against a modern defence force with their missile launched from a couple of hundred miles away, you're just deluded.

Never said I did. A moment's reflection might reveal that this is probably by design.

The world has changed in the past 200 years, and the rest of the world has moved on.

The world may have changed. The people haven't.

Re:Safe Harbor

[ground.zero.612]

Good to see some people with guns and brains still exist out there!

Personally, I think everyone should be issued a powerful handgun at birth and be required to carry it as an adult. I am quite sure that after 1 generation, the violent criminals testicular fortitude in committing violent crimes would be completely castrated. It would be nice to live in a world where rapists and murders feared being shot to death by every single one of their potential victims, etc. Rock on people!

Re:Safe Harbor

[shentino]

Funny thing about the law is that it doesn't stop a big heavyweight bruiser of a corporation from suing you into the ground anyway.

With the prospect of eating shitloads of legal costs even if the law is completely on your side, it's never a sure thing to stand up for yourself if you are sued.

Consequently, corporations have every incentive to, when dealing with those smaller enough to fold, use lawsuits the way bullies use fists.

Conclusion: As far as big corporations are concerned, there is no such thing as a law to break.

Non-story

[Dog-Cow]

Another troll by Cory. The WiFi was using a single IP address and NAT. The one connection was shutdown, that's all.

Re:Non-story

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Can we please not shift anymore traffic to Boingboing? It's not a reliable news site. It's just a goofy hipster version of Engadget.

Re:Non-story

[Hurricane78]

How do the number of IP addresses matter? I bet there are entire areas/cities in East Asia that only have one IP address and twice or triple NAT.

Hold your horses.

[FlyingBishop]

Put yourself in the IT admin's shoes. The city asks you to provide free, unencumbered wireless to everyone downtown.

If you're smart, you implement a registration system, etc. but of course nobody wants to deal with registration, so you just leave it open. Then you get slapped by the MPAA. You can magically secure funding / time to deal with this and make sure that you have a means to identify and disconnect infringers (which is what you need to get the MPAA off your back.)

Or you can turn the thing off. Odds are, the admin doesn't have resources for option A. And it makes sense: no one wants to be operating a network when they don't know who is using it.

Help Me Understand ....

[quangdog]

I don't drink Alcohol, and have never spent time in bars while others around me get plastered - so I'm honestly curious:

What responsibility or culpability does the bar owner / bar tender have if someone leaves their bar totally drunk and kills someone on their way home?

I know that bars and such are private entities, but I fail to understand how the municipality would think that they are responsible for the actions taken by those using their goods or services. I say let the MPAA come after them - prove culpability or get off my lawn.

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[musikit]

they don't however to have bartenders better enforce the "uhh sry dude your already drunk i cant serve you" they force bars to be responsible. also this helps enforce the bar cutting someone off when they've helped them too much and the bar helping them find a ride when they get too drunk.

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[dkh2]

In the case of bars - the premise is that by serving you drinks, or making them available to you the bar assumes a certain level of responsibility for what you might do while drunk.

In the case of an open WiFi gateway - the same premise applies. The gateway provider is perceived to have assumed some responsibility for what users do with the service.

I ain't sayin' it's right... that's just the argument that is getting people in trouble.

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy.

Bar Owner = small-time, laws apply to them.
MPAA = big time, laws do not apply to them.

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[SensitiveMale]

"What responsibility or culpability does the bar owner / bar tender have if someone leaves their bar totally drunk and kills someone on their way home? "

The bar owner has money, assets, property, and a business that can be seized if sued. Usually the drunk doesn't.

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[Anonymous Coward]

in the usa .. the bartender ( the server personally ) can be held liable. If it can be shown that the owner encouraged the server to allow people to drive when it is obvious they are not in any condition to .. the owner can be also held ..

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[Disgruntled Goats]

Actually the MPAA has case law on their side. If the ISP and the city are informed that someone is using the connection to infringe copyright and they do nothing about it then they become liable as well. This came about from a ruling around 30 years ago.

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, related to someone who owns a bar - I know for a fact that bars ARE IN FACT held responsible, at least in washington state, when they over serve a person, and they go out and cause some sort of dangerous consequence due to them being so inebriated.

So yes, when a business provides the opportunity for something bad to happen, and doesn't at least attempt to mitigate the damages, they will be held responsible.

Bars get fined heavily for excessive serving.

Obviously, these guys didn't want to get fined, jailed or whatever else, for excessive free wireless networking :P

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't drink Alcohol, and have never spent time in bars while others around me get plastered - so I'm honestly curious:

What responsibility or culpability does the bar owner / bar tender have if someone leaves their bar totally drunk and kills someone on their way home?

I don't drink, either, nor do I hang around in bars, but as I understand it, bar owners/tenders DO have at least some responsibility to make sure their patrons don't get drunk to the point of a risk to their healths (i.e. alcohol poisoning) or to the bar or whatever's nearby it (i.e. cutting someone off if they start getting rowdy or otherwise uncontrollable).

I'm not sure if said responsibility is just out of the bar owner/tender's altruistic attempts to not explicitly make his/her establishment a hazard or if there's some precedent where they CAN be held legally responsible for what happens to their customers if served in excess, but I've got a feeling it's the latter.

Whether this applies to a municipality's WiFi access, of course, is a different matter.

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[nomadic]

Depends on the state, google dram shop laws.

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[Dunbal]

What responsibility or culpability does the bar owner / bar tender have if someone leaves their bar totally drunk and kills someone on their way home?

      In the litigation-happy US, I know that bartenders have been successfully sued for just that. But then again, crooks can sue the owner of a car they stole because the brakes are faulty.

      A criminal case, however, is another thing entirely.

      Common sense, however, would say that no one forced the person into the bar, and no one forced the person to drink that alcohol. The bartender merely provides a service, and can't be responsible for all the wrongs in the world. However litigation has very little to do with common sense.

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[bws111]

Look up dram shop laws. If you over serve someone, and they go out and kill or injure someone, you are liable. Depending on what state you live in even a private individual has this liability if the overserve someone at their house.

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[Dunbal]

case law

      One of the HUGE flaws in the legal system.

      Just because some idiot judge made some decision X years ago, now like little sheep, everyone has to cite that case. Effectively this gives judges the power to "make" laws, or at least an interpretation of it. Instead of the system working as DESIGNED, where each and every person gets judged on a CASE BY CASE basis, considering the changing times and technology, the individual nuances of this particular case: nope, let's pull out A vs B in 1978 and yes, there it is - let's fuck this guy over.

      Why even bother paying judges?

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[Locke2005]

The "Joint and Several Liability" legal principle states that even if you are found to be 1% liable for an injury, you can be made to pay 100% of the actual and punitive damages in a lawsuit. This is more commonly known as the "Deep Pockets" principle: always sue the entity with the most money, not the entity most responsible. Yes, I believe it would apply to the provider of free WiFi as well, should the MPAA decide to file a lawsuit.

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[mea37]

Well, there's two problems with what you're saying:

First, that's not how case law works. Only decisions from certain (higher) levels of court are binding on future decisions (and if the legislature sees case law heading in the wrong direction they can head it off by changing the underlying law).

Second, the system was not designed to have every individual case decided independently. Aside from being a waste of time, that would lead to a less just system in which two people have identical circumstances but different outcomes. If there is case law covering a matter and a new case comes along with differing circumstances, then it may be decided differently - but the lawyers have to show a substantial reason why the eariler ruling doesn't apply instead of just playing on the fact that maybe they have a more sympathetic jury or a more likable client.

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[quangdog]

Several of the comments mention that the bar could be held liable *if they overserve* someone and something nasty happens. How is this measured or enforced? I assume that someone can get drunk enough that they are over the legal driving limit but not too drunk to be cut off by the bartender. Is the bar released from liability in this instance?

Similarly, is the city really culpable for the actions of one user of their public access wifi network?

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[belmolis]

The doctrine of joint and several liability governs the allocation of damages among those liable for the commission of a tort. The the users of a wifi connection or the other customers of an ISP are not liable for a wrongful act committed by just one of them. "joint and several liability" has nothing to do with this.

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[winomonkey]

What responsibility or culpability does the bar owner / bar tender have if someone leaves their bar totally drunk and kills someone on their way home?

Well, laws do vary by state, but a bar can lose their liquor license if they over serve a customer at the very least, and can be liable for various civil and criminal offenses in accordance with the "dram shop liability laws" of the region. This link to an article from Massachusetts discusses a 1.9 million dollar suit that was settled out of court due to liability issues - http://www.bostonaccidentlawyerblog.com/alcoholliquor_liability/

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[Dunbal]

"Binding on future decisions" conflicts with "it may be decided differently".

      Anyway, IANAL, and therefore I can't argue like one nor do I have the training to back up my claims. I think that any law that's "open to a degree of interpretation" is a badly written law, and can be - no, IS abused. Maybe I haven't seen enough cases, but I doubt that you are likely to find absolutely identical situations, ever. Maybe similar, but never identical.

      Like that stupid example that always gets shoved into my face here on slashdot about corporations being OBLIGED to maximize profit because of some ruling in shareholders vs. Doge or Ford or something in 1930-odd. Usually this is thrown back at me when I point out a corporation acting irresponsibly in manufacturing or selling a product, this is justified because corporations HAVE to make as much money as possible - because of case law.

      It's not right. When I was younger there was something called being a responsible citizen - corporate or physical. There are certain things you don't do because they are WRONG - and not necessarily all WRONG things are illegal (thank god). Take for example "cyber bullying". This is an up and comer. Some idiot posts inflammatory remarks on the internet and some depressive committed suicide and now suddenly it's becoming a CRIME to be RUDE. If you're a decent person, you won't set out to intentionally upset someone else. However any number of people WILL get upset by anything you can possibly say - that's just the way the world is. Hell, some people are probably pissed at this post. But wait - give the legislators room to make new laws (when they're not printing money for their banker buddies), and give some judges a chance to set precedents, and soon you won't be able to say anything on the internet for fear of being sued or even better - arrested... that's case law for you.

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[Disgruntled Goats]

Just because some idiot judge made some decision X years ago, now like little sheep, everyone has to cite that case.

It was a ruling by the Supreme Court.

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[Anonymous Coward]

The bar owner has strict liability.

Strict Liability.

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the bar owner has a responsibility (at least in AUS) spelled out in his liquor licensing, and also in in law, that he responsibly serves alcohol to patrons. These responsibilities (punishable by fines, license revocation, and in extreme cases jail time) include :

1. no serving of alcohol to minors.
2. no serving to intoxicated persons
3. no supplying alcohol for consumption off the premises
4. no selling of alcohol to people who are buying on behalf of a minor.
5. no selling of alcohol beyond the times the premises is licenced for.
6. limits on the number of people
7. if a night club, a certain number of security people need to be present also (and be licensed as such)

and probably more. How this relates to this WiFi issue isn't really clear. But I think in the US that the owner of the network is liable for all traffic? eg if someone uses my unsecured WiFi to download stuff I am still liable yes?

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[Martin Blank]

I think that any law that's "open to a degree of interpretation" is a badly written law, and can be - no, IS abused.

It's very hard to write a law that is not open to a degree interpretation, or else you write loopholes in. For example, it's illegal to cross US borders with $10,000 or more in cash without declaring it, so small-time cash mules routinely carry ~$9900 so that if they get caught with a mass of cash, they can get by on a technicality. Laws that allow for a degree of interpretation also allow extenuating circumstances that may allow fairer justice. (Of course, it may also allow some tilting of justice, but that may be a price of the system.)

Re:Help Me Understand ....

[mea37]

"Binding on future decisions" conflicts with "it may be decided differently".

"Picking out individual phrases and juxtaposing them" conflicts with "reading and understanding what was said".

But I suppose the more direct answer is - no, generally there is no conflict between the idea that the decision process is bound by prior rulings, and the idea that the outcome may differ. In the special case where all substantial facts are the same as the prior case, there would be a confilct - but in that case the outcomes should be the same, that's the whole point.

"I think that any law that's "open to a degree of interpretation" is a badly written law, and can be - no, IS abused."

Well, interpretation of the law is the entire purpose of the judicial branch. I suppose if you could write laws that don't require interpretation you could do away with an entire branch of government; but you'll never assemble a legislature with the precision to write laws like computer code. I'm not so sure it's a desirable goal, anyway.

"Like that stupid example that always gets shoved into my face here on slashdot about corporations being OBLIGED to maximize profit because of some ruling in shareholders vs. Doge or Ford or something in 1930-odd. Usually this is thrown back at me when I point out a corporation acting irresponsibly in manufacturing or selling a product, this is justified because corporations HAVE to make as much money as possible - because of case law"

I disagree with attributing that to case law. The responsibility of corporations to shareholders existed before any particular court case. The court case is just the example that draws attention to that particular bit of regulation.

An attourney I know who is familiar with corporate law has told me that in fact the status of shareholder lawsuits has changed considerably since that ruling, by the way. I do take this information with a grain of salt as I consider her position biased by the jobs she's held, but according to her it's actually much harder to win a lawsuit on those grounds today than it was then.

Also, don't forget that people (especially around here) love to over-state claims as absolute to bolster their claims. Corporate responsibility to shareholder wallets has always had limits. (A company would not be compelled to break the law, defy regulatory authority, or act against its own corporate bylaws, for example.)

In short: Just because people on /. use it as an example, doesn't make it true.

"However any number of people WILL get upset by anything you can possibly say "

I'd be the first to say that the reaction to the Drew case was inane, but I hardly think the messages she allegedly sent can be said to fall under the "people get upset at anything" heading.

Anyway, if you can point to a law against "being rude", I'd honestly be interested in seeing it.

What we deserve

[MrKaos]

I guess we are going to get this sort of treatment because let the media conglomerates and other corporate interests treat us this way. I wouldn't be surprised if the were just testing how far they could go this time around.

This should've never come out of the firehose...

[mmell]

The town had ONE, count 'em, ONE wireless router left unsecured for public use - by the courthouse. They weren't providing an 802.11n wifi computing mushroom over the city, it was ONE wifi router left open. I'm quite sure that the city still has use of that item of hardware, which I'm quite sure is still connected to the same internet in the same way using the same equipment connected to the same Internet Service Provider it was before. I'm sure all they did was to secure their wifi hotspot. I might choose to do the same if I were running an open wifi hotspot and got a takedown notice from the Mafiaa.

I don't think the existence of an open wifi hotspot was a matter voted into existence by the people of Coshocton, OH, nor do I think it came to be as a result of a lawful mandate. Somebody decided it could be kind of nice, opened it up, smiled broadly at the general sense of doing something good, and was unceremoniously educated into the potential issues connected with what I'm sure somebody thought was a simple idea. "Hey, I turned this on, I can turn this off if there's a problem" sure beats "I think I'll get the city involved in a deep-pockets lawsuit over something which isn't our responsibility".

Now, if the presence of an open wifi hotspot were something the citizens had voted for, or even if there was a city budget entry specifying funds to support an open wifi hotspot, that'd be one thing (and turning it off would be a very difficult proposition at that point). Not the case here. To quote Lieutenant Starbuck, "I can turn you on, I can turn you off". I guess in this case, Cy was left "off".

Am I reading correctly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even worse than the MPAA, I think the most offensive part of this article is that vendors use a completely unsecure wireless network to check status on CREDIT CARD purchases. WTF, mate?

Re:Am I reading correctly?

[Valdrax]

Hey, nice catch. I didn't even think of that. Presumably the communications between the POS terminal and the credit card company are encrypted, but a little extra doesn't hurt considering how much easier it is to "wiretap" wireless connections than wired connections.

Geneva Convention? WTF?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Geneva Convention applies to international conflict bud, not private corporations.

Re:DON'T FUCK WITH THE MAN, MAN !!

[Anonymous Coward]

DON'T FUCK WITH THE MAN, MAN, BECAUSE FUCKING WITH OTHER MEN MAKES YOU GAY!

P.S.: Darn. Tried to preview this, like, 5 times. Stupid filter won't let me yell over the Internet at all. Why won't it let me yell over the Internet with perfect spelling, but it will let me write in all lowercase letters while endlessly confusing your/you're, its/it's, and their/there/they're? If I can type a coherent English sentence, the ratio of capital letters to lowercase letters shouldn't be such a big deal. Stupid site is stupidly broken.

Re:Geneva Convention? WTF?!

[Disgruntled Goats]

Cory doesn't let facts get in his way. Things like how this was a WiFi connection for a block around the city courthouse, not a WiFi connection for the entire town.

Well then,

[buttfscking]

I bet you that guy feels like an ass.

In a sense, yes, but that's hyperbole.

[Valdrax]

So the MPAA is clearly then allowed to treat civilians worse than people being occupied in wartime by any country that has signed the Geneva Convention?

Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention only applies to "protected persons."

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

In short, a state can punish its own citizens collectively, at least as long as there's no actual war -- and all you smarty-pants who think the "War on Drugs" is an actual war are impressing no one, least of all an international criminal court. (It's worth nothing that the US doesn't recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC either.) This is why, no matter how much I still resent her, my 4th grade teacher isn't a war criminal.

It's also worth noting that turning off a service one party provides for free to multiple third parties is not generally recognized as a punitive act towards the third parties in the US. "Punishment" is reserved for actions taken directly against an individual or group. So closing a soup kitchen for health code violations is not "collective punishment" of the homeless nor is imprisoning a father collective punishment of his family.

Lastly, I think you've got a really sad sense of entitlement and pathetic, comfortable ignorance if you think that cutting off free Wi-fi at the park is equivalent to the kind of collective punishments that happen during war. Read up on Stalin's Order 270 or Sherman's March to the Sea.

And then stop your whining about Wi-fi. The MPAA is being a bunch of jerks, but they're not engaging in war crimes. People need to get some goddamned perspective.

Re:In a sense, yes, but that's hyperbole.

[AK Marc]

In short, a state can punish its own citizens collectively, at least as long as there's no actual war -- and all you smarty-pants who think the "War on Drugs" is an actual war are impressing no one, least of all an international criminal court.

For Vietnam, I expect that an international court would consider it a war, even though it wasn't declared. And the War on Drugs is a declared war (even if not strictly by the Constitutional standard, as there has been no congressional vote on it). The President declared it a war and asked Congress for funding. Congress agreed to fund the war. So it is a declared and fully funded war. And that fact has been used to violate the Constitution. Many people have had posessions taken with no court action and no possibility of return when they were never charged with a crime. That's depriving someone of property without due process, but because it's spoils of drugs, it's ok. You can break the Constitution if it's war.

Re:In a sense, yes, but that's hyperbole.

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch your filthy mouth!

okay

[ClioCJS]

If I had the power to, I'd love to end your water supply from the city and see if you feel punished.

Re:okay

[b4dc0d3r]

Ah yes, your counterargument technically meets the criteria, however is so unlikely that you have outed yourself as a complete idiot.

Running/potable water is one of those things that sets "developing" countries from "world power" countries, and no governmnet would shut that down without a really good reason.

You're talking about a monarchy where you decide to shut off the water. That's no government, and completely unrelated.

Re:okay

[h4rm0ny]

And what sort of punishment do you think would be appropriate for you after you'd deprived someone of water for expressing an opinion you didn't like?

Re:okay

[dontmakemethink]

Contrary to popular belief around here, you can't actually die or contract serious disease from a lack of internet access. To deny water to residents where functioning facilities exist and where wells cannot reasonably be dug would be tantamount to punishment.

It's not like the city banned all ISP's from servicing local residents either. And city-wide wi-fi isn't really intended to be the primary ISP for residents. It's there so students can get online on the bus, tourists can look up points of interest on their smartphones, etc. If anything the residents should be scolded for complaining about having to pay for internet access like the rest of us.

(just to be an ass, I posted this over a neighbor's unsecured wi-fi ;)

Re:okay

[kramerd]

If I had the power to, I'd love to end your water supply from the city and see if you feel punished.

In response to the water utility plant sending notice that parent had been downloading water?

Re:okay

[HTH NE1]

Contrary to popular belief around here, you can't actually die or contract serious disease from a lack of internet access.

Even if you've discontinued telephone service and are relying on Internet telephony with your registered location for 911 service, your house is ransacked by thugs, your family tied up in the basement with socks in their mouths, you try to open the door but there's too much blood on the knob....

Re:okay

[bugnuts]

In response to the water utility plant sending notice that parent had been downloading water?

No, some unknown individual was flooding a downstream site.

Re:okay

[pete6677]

There are some cities that will actually disconnect you from the sewer system if you have a stormwater system that drains into the sanitary sewer as opposed to the storm sewer. Often times older homes are set up this way since they were built before the installation of storm sewers. The owners get a surprise repair bill if the city finds out.

i hope they apply it to their business next...

[Mishotaki]

If the MPAA closes every single cinema because one person snuck in a camera to record the movie... It would be the same kind of punisment, the only difference would be that it would affect their business this time instead of slaughtering an entire town's user base...

actually, we are at war.

[ClioCJS]

At least, that was the excuse given when they put Jose Padilla, an American citizen on American soil, in jail without allowing him a lawyer or a fair hearing. Your rights are already gone due to the "war" on "terror" we are engaged in. So don't be so naive. The fact that we are "at war" has already been used to take away our rights, therefore the Geneva Convention does indeed apply.

Re:actually, we are at war.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Geneva Convention does not apply to this situation nor was it ever intended to. It was intended to control what happens when two sovereign powers fight. A little more hyperbole please.

Re:actually, we are at war.

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know Virginia Tech provided email accounts for the mentally retarded. How very civic minded of them.

hack for great justice

[jollyreaper]

Let's get some of them illegal pr0n bots and install them on MPAA computers, see how they like dealing with the shit end of the stick.

Re:hack for great justice

[geekmux]

Let's get some of them illegal pr0n bots and install them on MPAA computers, see how they like dealing with the shit end of the stick.

No, remember if you really want to fuel the fire, it needs to be a "competing" organization, like the RIAA and BSA. Therefore, forget porn. Fill their hard drives with a truckload of MP3s, along with a few dozen illegal installs of Adobe CS4 and stand back.

Why are you surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

the MPAA's spokeslizard took the opportunity to cry poor (even though the studios are bringing in record box-office and aftermarket receipts)

      Hollywood. Jews. Enough said.

Maybe the the town should ...

[Skapare]

... shut down all movie theatres.

Re:Maybe the the town should ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just pass a local law making it illegal for any MPAA/RIAA owned content to pass through the town's internet service. Then set the score straight.. That if the MPAA/RIAA didn't produce the content, it wouldn't be available to download. Show that it's really the MPAA/RIAAs fault that the data was made *available*.

If making available is enough to convict someone, then the MPAA/RIAA members are all 100% guilty for making content available in ANY form...

Re:Geneva Convention? WTF?!

[Dunbal]

Geneva Convention applies to international conflict bud, not private corporations.

      Actually IANAL but:

      International treaties and conventions ARE the law of the land if your country is a signatory, and said law must be respected by all persons - physical or judicial. Corporations are NOT above the law.

      There's a little clause in the US constitution that says:

      "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

      Most constitutions of other countries do the same - after all, it's the only way a government can make an international treaty binding on all its citizens.

Uh, how exactly did the MPAA "find" it?

[geekmux]

Am I the only one here wondering just how the MPAA was able to locate a "lone" downloader sitting on a municipal wi-fi network feeding an end-user count that would rival my local library in the middle of nowhere, USA?

I guess I'm just a little more concerned as to just how in the hell they found this and which half-dozen Constitutional Rights/Amendments did they trample over or ignore to get the information?

I mean it's bad enough when you've got lawyers representing organizations with more money than God suddenly crying poor...It's like they do this shit for fun.

This is Cool!!

[Virtucon]

Make Friends and Influence People Now!

Here's how you do it.

You don't like your neighbor's barking dog? No Problem, just War Drive their WAP and then download movies. Next, send
an "anonymous tip" to the MPAA. Next thing you know, it's a takedown letter and a demand for money. Now they'll have to take
that little dog to the pound because they can't afford the dog food anymore.

I've seen the other comments and one more analogy.. The Roads will need to be torn up because somebody sped down them while fleeing the scene of a crime. We don't know who the criminal was, but he was fleeing.

Use nuclear device to kill mouse.

[Neanderthal Ninny]

This is great example of "Using a nuclear explosion to kill a mouse". The keyword is singular mouse and not many mice.
MPAA doesn't care about collateral damages and they sounds like a Dick Cheney and Don Rumfield method of war.

Re:This should've never come out of the firehose..

[Imrik]

I suspect that you are mistaken, the wireless hotspot was capable of handling more than a hundred users at once and the county is considering purchasing filtering hardware and software so they can bring it back up.

Geneva c onvention?

[mea37]

Yet another zealot can't oppose bad behavior without exageration. I have to wonder if the moron who submitted this understands the term "human rights violation". Suffice it to say the Geneva Convention's prohibition on collective punishment was not written out of concern that you might not have the internet connection you want.

It's not that you shouldn't want the **AA's abuses to stop. It's that you shoudln't be trivializing real crimes against humanity by comparing them to weak-ass shit like this.

That is all.

Original article gives the solution

[RevWaldo]

LaVigne has done some homework and found a program that would prevent the illegal downloads from happening in the future; however, it would cost the cash-strapped county about $2,900 to implement, $2,000 for equipment and then $900 annually for the filtering program

There you are then. The MPAA pays for the hardware and the software subscription. The cost to the MPAA and its members is readily offset by the potential millions upon millions of profits that could be lost from illegal downloads from this small town's one-block-radius municipal's WiFi connection. Everybody wins!

Re:Original article gives the solution

[TBoon]

There you are then. The MPAA pays for the hardware and the software subscription. The cost to the MPAA and its members is readily offset by the potential millions upon millions of profits that could be lost from illegal downloads from this small town's one-block-radius municipal's WiFi connection. Everybody wins!

You're not thinking big enough. Given their "lost revenue" due to piracy, installing this equipment in every single home would clearly be in their interest. A small price to pay for the sudden increase of several thousands in sales per household a year by eliminating piracy. (According to their own numbers.) They should be given the choice to either do that, or stop whining about piracy...

$2900 to block sites ???

[deathguppie]

FTA

LaVigne has done some homework and found a program that would prevent the illegal downloads from happening in the future; however, it would cost the cash-strapped county about $2,900 to implement, $2,000 for equipment and then $900 annually for the filtering program.

Man have I got some stuff I would love to sell them. Like my amazing crypto software that hides all of your important data in a jpeg!!!

Shut down the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Quck, someone shut down the internet, there's been an illegal download!

Only one way to stop things like this

[petrus4]

The cartels rely on the fact that 95% of the public who see this story, will have one of two reactions.

a) They won't care. It will simply be irrelevant background noise. "It doesn't interfere with my ability to get up, get coffee, go to a meaningless job for 16 hours, come home, eat, sleep, and then repeat, does it? In that case, it's not my problem. I've got other things to worry about."

b) They will have swallowed the cartels' PR kool aid, and will make the assumption that the cartels are in the right, simply because the cartels say so.

The only way that the cartels are going to be prevented from continuing to rape ordinarily people, in the various ways that they do, is if the majority of human beings a) start viewing it as their problem, and make a decision that it is unacceptable, and b) realise that the entire manner in which the cartels try to frame the issue is a lie, based on self-destructive greed, and is therefore to be discarded entirely.

The few people who will read this on Slashdot, and feel outraged by it, represent a number of people which the cartels can very safely ignore. It has to be the majority, and it has to be the will of the majority that the cartels are entirely smashed.

Re:Only one way to stop things like this

[Criton]

Who the fuck is stupid enough for b? I know some real dumb fucks but even they are not that stupid everyone I know feels the MPAA/RIAA are crooks and the copyright laws are broken. What about c? they'll steal more because they effing hate them or just copy net flix DVDs.

umm.....

[Anonymous Coward]

"this gross example of collective punishment (a practice outlawed in the Geneva conventions)"

The Geneva Conventions apply at times of war and armed conflict to governments who have ratified its terms.

Re:umm.....

[sowth]

So it is not okay to do that during wartime, but if you do it during peacetime, it is okay? How? Allowing collective punishment is insane.

So you think if a store owner know one out of a group of ten people must be the shoplifter, you think it is okay for the police to lock up all ten people?

Or how about if two people are suspected for murder. They know for a fact one has to be the murderer and one is completely innocent of the crime. So, according to you, both of them should be punished for the murder?

Absurd!

One thing I don't understand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people use the fact that they are making so much money as an excuse? Granted they try to falsely skew the numbers to their favor, but still. Just because they are making billions of dollars doesn't give everyone a free pass. You can argue all kinds of other angles, but this one is pretty lame.

.gov trying to do to much...

[CrAlt]

This may not be a popular opinion here on ./ but I do not blame the town for ditching the wifi... Its to bad they didnt think this whole system out fully before they wasted the tax money on it. This is what happens when you let politicians and PHB's make IT decisions.

You cant have a big city wide open wifi with no authentication and expect no one to misuse it. They are opening up the town/tax payers to a big liability.

What was their plan if some users started downloading/uploading child porn? What about people setting up warez bittorrent nodes?
NAT with one outside IP? What happens when some troll gets that IP blacklisted all over the place?

They should have spun the wifi system off as a non-for profit organization and just charge users a small fee for access...

This is not a story, this is sensationalistic bs

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the kind of utter CRAP that makes me wonder why I waste time reading Slashdot.

For God's sake, a smaller number of stories which are actually of substance would
be infinitely preferable to garbage like this.

Maybe.

[mmell]

In which case, it's the city/county's fault for not having a mechanism in place to prevent abuses. Still have to agree with them taking it down until they're technically prepared to bring it up correctly, and I still don't see how this is newsworthy.

Although - if they intend to offer an unsecured wifi hotspot, they can't possibly hope to prevent abuses. I don't care if they install the Great Firewall of China, if they permit unauthenticated access they're opening the door to abuse. Even if they catch MAC address 00:01:02:03:04:05 using BT and TOR to download Jenna Jameson flix, just how do they plan to stop it? Ban that MAC? Hey, look - now someone at MAC 00:01:02:03:04:06 is BT'ing that same JJ flick over TOR. I wonder if the two computer users see each other every time one of them passes a mirror?

This leaves what they've (seem to have) tried to avoid - having to register users and that in turn means having to secure their website somehow. Maybe the way Iowa 'secures' the wifi they provide at some rest areas along the interstate - your initial web surf after connecting to wifi is redirected to their local site where you're notified of a one-hour time limit. After that, you can surf for an hour at the end of which their proxy breaks your connectivity for twenty-three hours (unless you spoof your MAC address and reconnect - but I would never do that ;^).

Corporation forced Public Utility to shut down

[Culture20]

It's like Evian or Fiji called up and said the Municipal Water System was being used to share some of its water (people dumping it down the drain, and others using it after its recycled in the treatment plant), and then the town shutting down the water. Dumbest move ever.

MPAA "success!"

[huwgently]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

In other news...

[radpole]

Bank robbers used the local highway to getaway this morning. The highway has been closed until further notice.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't that one of the arguments against building the interstate highway systems in the fifties?

This is gone on for too long.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, some body needs to shoot the MPAA motherfuckers in the head.

how is that different?

[ChipMonk]

Are you saying we should still abide by the Dred Scott decision?

Re:how is that different?

[Disgruntled Goats]

No. That precedent was overturned.

Re:how is that different?

[ChipMonk]

Only in part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

no requirement to terminate the user

[Mike Rice]

I'm so glad of that!

halloween came late this year

[JackSpratts]

cory may be hyping the type, but even he missed the most chilling aspect of this issue. elected officials grappling with software expenses for blocking transfers on their network are now considering spreading the costs out beyond the little municipality and WATCHING THE ENTIRE COUNTY. "Commissioners questioned whether the investment would be justified for the free service, but [IT director Mike] LaVigne said it could be put to use on the entire county system to monitor activity."'It would be beneficial to both realms,'he said."

beneficial? now that's scary.

- js.

I call Bullshit!

[517714]

If they know it was a single user, then they would have to know who that user is. If they don't know who the user was it then could have been more than one. As much as I hate those RIAA bastards, the statements made by others in this event are simply not credible.

Shove it back in their faces!

[Anonymous Coward]

Organize a mass movie download day!

Wonder what happens

[teknosapien]

When one of these town counsel persons/mayors/whatever elected official moves up to Congress or Senate. what if this has adversely affected 911 services for this municipality. would the MPAA then be held accountable for endangering the lives of thousands of innocent citizens ( i guess according to them no one is innocent)

Re:DON'T FUCK WITH THE MAN, MAN !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Or bisexual, at least.

It doesnt matter

[madcat2c]

IT does not matter if you steal 1 diamond from a rich diamond store, you are still a thief.

Re:It doesnt matter

[Criton]

Better a thief then what they are a Satan suckler.

Mod parent up as Insightful

[ProteusQ]

That's an exact analogy for this situation, IMHO.

That's why you don't build centraliced networks

[Casandro]

You don't build munchipal networks in a centraliced fashion, you make meshed networks which are in the hands of their users. That way there is no way anybody could turn them off. Maybe someone would decide to not offer Internet anymore, but turning of the network as a whole is impossible.

You can get cheap routers, install the Freifunk firmware and off you go.

Still not impressed.

[Valdrax]

For Vietnam, I expect that an international court would consider it a war, even though it wasn't declared. And the War on Drugs is a declared war (even if not strictly by the Constitutional standard, as there has been no congressional vote on it).

Clearly it was an armed conflict, and Article 2 states that the convention applies both in declared war and any other armed conflict. Furthermore, the US and both the governments of North & South Vietnam were parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Drugs on the other hand are not a Party to the convention, and police actions against one's own citizens are not generally considered "armed conflicts" regardless of the fact that guns may be employed in them. The world of international law (and law in general) is ruled far more by common sense than wordplay than a lot of laymen think. Honestly, you make yourself look totally divorced from reality if you think that kind of argument would impress any court or other international body.

The Geneva Conventions govern real wars not poorly-named domestic policy initiatives.

And that fact has been used to violate the Constitution. Many people have had posessions taken with no court action and no possibility of return when they were never charged with a crime. That's depriving someone of property without due process, but because it's spoils of drugs, it's ok. You can break the Constitution if it's war.

Maybe you should look up how forfeiture works sometimes. Criminal forfeiture only happens after someone has been convicted of a crime. Civil forfeiture happens when the government establishes probable cause that someone's property is either the fruit of criminal activity or a tool used in criminal activity. After that point, the person whose property is seized has the ability to seek judicial review of the seizure. The burden of proof is on the person who wants to claim their property is not subject to forfeiture, and I'm not happy with that nor with how rarely a person prevails, but the Supreme Court has ruled that due process is still satisfied.

stop them...

[twoHats]

Somebody needs to stop these creeps before they destroy the internet in the never ending quest for the almight buck.

This kind of blatantly outside the law corporate behavior should make us take a closer look at the less whining greed-heads (Some coal companies, among others, come to mind...). The fact that some judge says it's legal is BS. We all know the difference between right and wrong, and are going to have to start making our own decisions on obvious issues.

I do this all the time!

[Anonymous Coward]

I do all my illegal downloading from dunkin donuts.

Gotta go, need a refill.

This is sicking

[Criton]

The MPAA's greed seems to know no end and this does violate every law on the books. Seriously sometimes I wish Hollywood would get taken out a 3000ton meteor or the Russians deorbit something funny onto it.

I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it.

How does "this was ONE BLOCK" make it not a complete clusterfuck of an overreaction by the MPAA and a completely whiney yellow move by the city to close it?

Does it have to affect a certain number of people before it becomes wireless?

Re:I don't get it

[HeronBlademaster]

Because the MPAA didn't ask for the network to be shut down, which you'd know if you had bothered to read past my second sentence.

All the MPAA did was notify the ISP - they didn't even track down who the user was, they just told the ISP "$IP on your network downloaded a movie".

The ISP told the county, the county shut down the network. The MPAA was barely involved.

My point is, Doctorow is acting like thousands of people are now without internet because of some evil MPAA lawsuit. That doesn't even vaguely reflect the situation.

And the drugs aren't being arrested

[Anonymous Coward]

And the drugs aren't being arrested. Neither are the cars, computers and other effects seized in the "War On Drugs" drugs.

You're not impressed because your whole point relies on you not being impressed.

This doesn't impress on anyone that you are correct.

It's funded as a war, it bypasses constitutional protections as a war and it's declared as a war.

And it is definitely an armed conflict: do ANY of your police officers NOT have guns???

Do us all a favor, and please ignore Cory Doctorow

[kklein]

The man is a complete hack, and frequently exaggerates his headlines and summaries to the point of actual deceit. He makes any rational discussion of the pressing need to revamp copyright a descent into stupid name-calling.

Can we please just all ignore him?

Don't worry, you just got had by Cory Doctorow

[Anonymous Coward]

Cory Doctorow is a fucking asshole who writes bullshit like this for notoriety. He also likes to think he's in control of the utter clusterfuck which is boingboing, and likes to call himself "Doctor O" and actually named his hair.

Yet we're discussing an article in a serious tone by this guy? You've been had by Cory's attention mongering skills. He's an opportunistic fuck and I can think of one time I could read one of his articles without feeling the need to smash my head against the desk. It's pure filth.

Communist wifi nowisit?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you need it for besides stealing movies by circumventing installation of a Walmart like the rest of the Free World(tm)?

-Beve Stalmer

Someone needs to organise a boycott.

[Anonymous Coward]

A don't-go-to-the-movies weekend should stop this BS.

C.

Enough MPAA stuff already

[Strych9]

Sorry folks,

We really should stop posting all the MPAA crap on this site. No one is doing anything about it. Where are the protests? Where are the letters being written to your elected official?

If you, that means You reading this, are not willing to do anything about it then I'm tired of hearing about it.

When we were going to get a DMCA like act about to be passed we crashed the Xmas party of the Minister in charge to get our point out.
So either put up and fight back or shut up.

Of course it's the whole town

[mdwh2]

...and as for "whole town", again you are misrepresenting it. As long as the town only has one public WiFi, then it's true to say that it's the entire town's municipal WiFi. The extent of the coverage is neither here nor there.

If a town had a library which got shut down, it would be perfectly accurate to refer to it being the entire town's library. Or would you be quibbling that if the library isn't physically the size of the entire town? Or if we referred to the entire country's gold supply, would you be saying it doesn't count because the gold is only located at Fort Knox, and doesn't cover the entirety of the USA?

You didn't answer the question

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't answer the question.

In what way does "ONE CITY BLOCK" make it not an overreaction of the MPAA and a yellow bellied bending over by the city.

Your "because" doesn't answer it.

Re:You didn't answer the question

[HeronBlademaster]

Because the MPAA didn't ask for anything to be shut down? I did say that, and yes, it does answer the question.

Yes, the county overreacted. It didn't need to shut down the network. But that was the county's decision, not the MPAA's, and it's counter-productive for Doctorow to claim the MPAA maliciously tried to shut down "municipal wifi".

The only thing the MPAA did was notify the ISP that someone on that IP address downloaded a movie. It was probably a form letter. The form letter doesn't request that the customer's account be shut down.

Furthermore, the ISP did not shut down the internet access, the county merely turned off the publicly-accessible wireless network.

Again, the MPAA was barely involved, and it's stupid to call the county's overreaction "an overreaction of the MPAA".

Calling it "yellow-bellied bending over by the city" implies that the MPAA threatened the city. There is absolutely no evidence that the MPAA even contacted the city, let alone issued a threat, and they certainly didn't start a lawsuit.

Re:Geneva Convention? WTF?!

[shentino]

"Corporations are NOT above the law."

Um, when they're big enough and have large enough legal muscles to sue anyone they like into submission, then yes they are above the law at least as far as us small folk are concerned...including companies and government units with small budgets.

Re:This should've never come out of the firehose..

[shentino]

Just require registration and login.

Apart from getting better security on WPA2, authentication and logging will allow the city to properly trace offenders.

Having unsecured wifi is just asking for trouble anyway.

hhhmmm

[Meest]

I think this village just found their idiot!

Use a Yagi and it's a square mile.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Their "Municipal Wifi" covers a one block area around the courthouse, which probably just means the block that the courthouse is on. That's hardly "municipal".

It's a block around the courthouse for the internal WiFi in a laptop.

Point a yagi at the courthouse and it's easily a square mile.

Point a 24 dB dish at the courthouse and it's about three hundred square miles (less building and other obstruction shadows and electrically noisy areas).

Both are available online for less than a hundred bux last I looked.

Seems to me that, for a small town, that qualifies as "municipal WiFi".

Re:Use a Yagi and it's a square mile.

[HeronBlademaster]

Oh, come on. That's ridiculous. By that logic, anyone with an open wireless access point is running "municipal WiFi".

And it's even more ridiculous to use that as an excuse to refer to what happened as "OMG THE MPAA KILLED A TOWN'S MUNI WIFI", because that doesn't even vaguely reflect reality.

Ignoring consequences, common sense, and more.

[Valdrax]

It's not a war or armed conflict as any international body would define it, and one of the main reasons your argument would never prevail in a court is that it expands the scope of the law of war to cover actions completely unrelated to war. If you think it does, then I'd love to see you cite something authoritative instead of just blathering on with spurious logic that ignores the consequences of holding what you do.

It's funded as a war, it bypasses constitutional protections as a war and it's declared as a war.

It's not funded through the military apparatus of the nation but instead is handled by the police. It's only as "funded as a war" as our agriculture policy is (i.e. via tax dollars).

I've already explained why were wrong on the Constitutional issue (not that you apparently read anything I said).

It's not declared as a war by Congress, and Presidents have as much authority to declare war as Bugs Bunny does. (Not that this has significant bearing on the Geneva Conventions because they include any other "armed conflict." So once again, you're raising a red herring.)

Are you just trying to stack up ways to be wrong here?

"Armed conflict" is undefined in the Geneva Convention, but you're going to have a hard time getting the international community to accept your broad definition. If you want to read the Geneva Conventions as broadly as you do, then RenFest jousters, paintball games, and street gangs would all be governed by the Convention, and people involved could be subject to war crimes.

Hell, as I alluded in my first response on this, my fourth grade teacher liked to give homework to the whole class when someone acted up. Are you going to argue that she's a war criminal just because there's a so-called war on drugs? Because that's what you're arguing if you're arguing that the MPAA or the government are violating the Geneva Convention because of a penal action against one entity that just happened to affect people that were getting free stuff from that entity over a matter completely unrelated to (a) any armed conflict and (b) drugs in specific.

Your argument is madness. It ignores any common sense interpretation of the intent and purpose of the Conventions and relies on shaky wordplay. It expands the power of the law of armed conflicts to cover police actions that have nothing at all do with war, and it expands the laws to cover completely unrelated matters like disputes over copyright. And it relies on a shaky definition of "collective punishment" that embraces any potential impact of punishing one person on other persons.

Basically, you've made an argument that international law prevents enforcement of any laws unless the penalties cannot affect more than one person even indirectly. Well good luck getting the international community to embrace your interpretation! Because international law is only as good as the international will to enforce it. Have fun living in your own little legal bubble world that has no connection to reality.

Re:Ignoring consequences, common sense, and more.

[AK Marc]

It's not funded through the military apparatus of the nation but instead is handled by the police.

So the name of the organization fighting the war determines whether it is a war. Oh, and did you count the numerous times the US Army was deployed in the declared and officially funded War on Drugs?

Re:Ignoring consequences, common sense, and more.

[Valdrax]

So the name of the organization fighting the war determines whether it is a war.

Yes, it can. National and international law treats police and military forces differently. However, police action in an occupied territory is still governed by the Geneva Conventions, but I'm getting off-topic here.

I do find it ironic, though, that you're pillorying me for considering the name of an organization important but you're totally 100% behind the notion that the War on Drugs is an actual war whose conduct requires treating any action by the US government (specifically its courts) that could affect more than one person as a war crime, just because it's called a "war" by politicians wanting to sound tough on crime.

I mean, can you not at least admit that it would be an absurd result of your interpretation of the War on Drugs and the Geneva Convention to treat the MPAA sending a letter to an ISP to deactivate on IP address where filesharing occurred as something on par with concentration camps and orders to ship the families of soldiers that surrender to the other side to a Gulag?

I mean, have you really considered that howling "war crimes!" at little civil tiffs like this only diminishes the importance of the suffering of people who suffer from actual war crimes? That equating losing a single free WiFi AP to having your entire neighborhood razed because some jerk launched a rocket from it is likely to make people simply ignore those of us trying to shed light on real human suffering?

Oh, and did you count the numerous times the US Army was deployed in the declared and officially funded War on Drugs?

Those would not be part of a declared war under the Conventions. They would however be armed conflicts, most likely, and the US government must follow the Conventions in their conduct of such conflicts. However, since the military is always (with rare exception) cooperating with the countries that host drug activities, no Party to the Convention is involved, and the restrictions are pretty light.

Regardless, I doubt anyone sane would consider the Convention to apply to matters that have absolutely nothing to do with that conflict. Filesharing has nothing to do with the "War on Drugs," and if the world isn't going to do anything about the way the Israelis treat the Palestinians in overt violation of the Conventions, then you can expect the tiniest fiddle in the world to be played for this.

Re:Ignoring consequences, common sense, and more.

[AK Marc]

I do find it ironic, though, that you're pillorying me for considering the name of an organization important but you're totally 100% behind the notion that the War on Drugs is an actual war whose conduct requires treating any action by the US government (specifically its courts) that could affect more than one person as a war crime, just because it's called a "war" by politicians wanting to sound tough on crime.

I presented that as an example. I did not state my personal opinion on it. I used it to show that the President of the United States of America (a number of them, actually) as well as Congress, disagree with your statements. I'm trying to define war. Nothing more. You are trying to define what is covered by the Geneva Convention, regardless of whether it is a war. That is why you are so confused. I've never addressed the Geneva Convention and what may or may not be covered. I was addressing the point of what is or is not a war.

Re:Ignoring consequences, common sense, and more.

[Valdrax]

I'm trying to define war. Nothing more.

And then I just have to point back to the fact that this ignores the consequences of such a definition. Courts almost never set a definition or interpretation without considering the consequences of such an action, and no court or tribunal is going to accept your definition if it has the impact that it will.

Sorry, but that's all that matters for considerations of "collective punishment" which is the topic we're all talking about in this article. If you want to imagine that war means something else in other contexts, feel free, but don't waste people's time having them chase down rabbit holes only to find out that the whole argument has been pointlessly off-topic.

Re:Ignoring consequences, common sense, and more.

[AK Marc]

no court or tribunal is going to accept your definition if it has the impact that it will.

I agree. My definition is that everyone should agree on a definition, or not use the word. The politicians want to use a charged word for something other than its real meaning. The courts want to use it for various reasons that differ based on their jurisdiction. No one wants to use the word in a clear manner, and thus the word has no meaning. If it doesn't accurately describe a concept, it isn't language. I'm just asking that it be used clearly or not at all, and just about anyone using the word "war" doesn't want clarity.

Sorry, but that's all that matters for considerations of "collective punishment" which is the topic we're all talking about in this article.

That's nice. Talk about that all you like. But I never commented on it, and have no opinion on it. I was commenting on War. It's relevant to the discussion at hand because actions are legal or not depending on how people thousands of miles away define a word. But I'm certainly not restricted to only using the word in that context.

If you want to imagine that war means something else in other contexts, feel free, but don't waste people's time having them chase down rabbit holes only to find out that the whole argument has been pointlessly off-topic.

I've been clear about it. Saying something is ok in war or not in war, and not ok at other times, or vice versa depends explicitly on the definition of war. And so I'm questioning the definition of war and the usage thereof. That you seem to disagree with me, but can't come up with anything other than "because they said so" for it. I've never been good with that explanation. If politicians want to use the "war" word, then they should be held to the tightest standards regarding it. They declared a war, and when people examine their actions in relation to it and find it's a direct violation of the rules of war, their response is that it's a war, and they deserve protections, but not their enemies, who aren't playing by the rules. Interestingly, that isn't a new complaint, but has been used for the past 30+ years for wars all over the world.

Corporatism.

[unity100]

the biggest enemy of mankind is corporatism. they took the place of aristocracy. now they are more harmful than dukes and counts and their fiefdoms.