Slashdot Mirror
Police Investigate Offensive Wi-Fi Network Name
An anonymous reader writes "Police in Teaneck, New Jersey, with apparently too much time on their hands, are investigating an offensive wireless network name. Although the police didn't reveal the name, the New York Daily News reports that it was anti-Semitic and racist in nature. The incident is being investigated as a possible 'bias crime.' It's definitely not what proper people do, but a 'bias crime?'"
That's not what TFA says.
Its now illegal to dislike anything in America.
It's a shame the word "anti-semitic" has been rendered virtually meaningless lately. It used to mean something about hating or discriminating against Jews.
Which in itself is a shame because being Jewish, on it's own, doesn't make one Semitic, and the Hebrew people aren't the only Semitic peoples who get hated and discriminated against. But don't tell an Israeli that. You'll be called anti-semitic.
Bastard. you actually made me go read TFA.
After reading it, I'm about 99% sure that what they've got there isn't a real racist. What they've got is some /btard or the like who named the router that for amusement value, and succeeded in trolling the public beyond his wildest dreams.
I have a hard time getting worked up over stuff like this.
I mean, I'm all for free speach and I get that this means having to hear things you don't want to hear (otherwise who decides where the line is).. however racism in this day and age is just astounding and I have a hard time defending a jackass.
So, even though you say you're for "free speach", you're really only for the free speech of people with whom you agree? Unpopular opinions are precisely the ones you should be fighting for. That's the whole and the entirety of the point of having free speech.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Another reason to have a closed network. Not so much a security issue, but avoids snooping authorities. Sure they could wardrive, but at least one has a possible affermative defense.
As it stands, this type of thing is clearly indicates immature people who crave attention, much like people who put huge subwoofers in their car, or loud exhausts on their bikes, or over the top and distracting decorations on their lawns. I support the police giving them the attention they desire.
Who says that it was the government snooping? TFA says it was a passer by who caught it in her phone. Please do not invent thinks out of thin air.
As if it is worth investigating, well... The test should be "If someone would write the same thing on his own property, would we punish him?" If it is yes, then it should investigating because he is painting it every time his WiFi broadcast. If it is not, then what would you when you find him? Tell him to please change the SSID?
So, mostly it should be a question of it falls under free speech or not, and act in consequence. The fact that the data is not transmitted with visible light but with higher frequencies is irrelevant.
Also, is it too much asking to The Fine Editor to put less emotional summary. If he has already decided that it is a waste of time, no sense in us being allowed to comment. Just put the text and disable the commenting, if that is what he/she wants. This site quality is going down fast.
Why can't
FTFA: 'Police received similar complaints about the signal Friday during a "teen night" event at the center, the woman said she was told.'
So, rec-center-owned wifi access point is found on teen night to have an offensive SSID. The likely scenario is that, with a bunch of teens there, many of whom are carrying wifi-enabled devices, one kid noticed that the AP was not password-protected (or possibly had an obvious default password) and decided to log into it and, well, be a dumb kid by changing the SSID to something that made his friends laugh.
Password protect the AP. Lesson learned. Everybody move on.
It's important to note that this isn't somebody's home wifi SSID, this was the SSID of the public recreation center's wifi network. As in, there's a sign outside that says "Free WiFi" and it's funded by the town. These "snooping authorities" are policing public resources, not people's home networks.
No one is safe from the constant bombardment of visciously named SSID's
I saw one this morning, "festivus". A term from a sitcom that belittles the celebration of the birth of our baby lord Jesus Christ.
But I didn't call the police.
...is if there was a target. Like if the WiFi signal was near a Jewish family's home, and let's say the family was named "Cohen". If the WiFi signal overlapped their home and was broadcasting an idea with a threat such as "CohensRKikes" or "DieJewScum" or similar, I can see a crime being involved. But just something like "JewsSuck" or whatever? I'm Jewish. Everyone hates us. It's just part of life. :)
Sugapablo
Everyone's a jackass to someone. If the First Amendment doesn't protect jackasses, it won't protect you.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Although I am not an iPhone user, the article makes it sound like the SSID just "popped up on the person's iPhone" as if to imply that they weren't scanning for a WiFi connection at the time. If this is truly the case, then Apple should be the one charged with exposing this poor victim to this hateful speech. They should either not display SSIDs as they do or they should pass the names through a "politically correct" filter before it reaches the user's eyes.
Festivus actually pre-dates Seinfeld. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festivus
As it stands, this type of thing is clearly indicates immature people who crave attention,
Hah.
My SSID is: "I fucked your wife!", but that's because I actually fucked my neighbor's wife.
I like to name my mobile hotspot "FBI Surveillance Van" and drive around. Clears out the local coffee house in a jiffy!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Since when being anti-semite is a crime in US ?
The fact that the data is not transmitted with visible light but with higher frequencies is irrelevant.
What is this, WiFi over Gamma Rays or something?
Last time I checked, radio frequencies were well BELOW the visible spectrum...
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Except Republicans, conservatives, Christians, people who respect the constitution. They're all free game.
Oh, cry me a river. If you think the last 6 or 8 years have been bad for the right, try the last 30 as a liberal, socialist, or (the group most discriminated against of all) an athiest. Republicans and evangelists got a free ride for 20+ years spewing hate but receiving mostly reason and thoughtful discussion in return. Eventually they abused their position too much, and triggered a small taste back of what they've been dishing out since the early 80s, if not earlier.
Hating anyone on the basis of their religion, ethnicity, political stance, etc. is wrong, but for you to wax self-righteous over the backlash against the group most responsible for delivering such hatred (c.f. just about any talk radio, not to mention fox or the politicians themselves, e.g. Mr Frothy Mix Santorum).
In short, Republicans, conservative, and Christians like to dish it out in droves, but can't take the heat when they get even a tiny percentage of it back. As for your disingenous "respect the constitution" crap, they only respect their one narrow interpretation of the constitution, no one else's. Not unlike certain organizations who interpreted the bible one narrow way, and fought a hundred-year war to burn everyone else as heretics.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
It has to be a male whitey though...
I think almost everyone commenting in here missed that very important fact.
So, here it is repeated directly from the article:
The offending signal was coming from a router connected in the Richard Rodda Community Center in the the township, located 10 miles outside New York City.
Why the "religion" tag? Is everything that slashdotters don't like "religion" now?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I changed the bluetooth ID of my car's hands-free unit to "POLICE" and whenever I'm stopped in rush-hour traffic I try connecting my "car" to people I see nearby who are (illegally here) holding their cell phones to their ears. Fun times. The reactions I get are priceless.
Probably I should stop doing that...
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
Another way of putting it: A private citizen putting a sign reading "Romanes ite domum" on their front lawn is perfectly fine. The mayor putting "Romanes ite domum" on the lawn of the town hall in a town that's in the middle of a zoning dispute involving the Catholic Church, not so much.
I am officially gone from
Your use of the word "our" is rather arrogant and pompous. Perhaps this is why your faith is such a target of comedians - the arrogant and pompous has long been a staple of the comedy diet.
Thank you, my work is done here.
So now the question is, was I modded troll because I wasn't being sarcastic, or because I was?
It's actually correct either way, I didn't make up the "festivus" SSID, just my reaction to it.
Someone in an apartment above my local Starbucks named their network "This coffee sucks". It certainly gave me a smile.
Nobody would believe that The Police are anybody's favorite band.
My cousin's neighbor's SSID is 8===D
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The last time I checked the 1st amendment didn't contain an exemption for asshattery. How is this any different from the KKK arranging a public protest and shouting the word "nigger" at the top of their lungs? The former is protected free speech but an offensive wi-fi network name is investigated as a crime? Seriously? From TFA, the mother of all overreactions:
“I was shocked, hurt. I felt harassed."
“This should not be tolerated in this town. They should see jail time for it," the mom of two said.
Really? They should go to jail because you felt "harassed" over an offensive SSID that popped up on your iPhone?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I've never had any interest in in-car bluetooth.
Until now.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Rich whitey" is essentially the ruling class. If they weren't ruling, they wouldn't be rich in the first place. There's no entity out there randomly doling out cash and letting you keep it. And the white bit... well, with one or two exceptions, that's just how it's working out.
Should we "hate" (or rather, criticize) them? I don't "hate" many of these guys but I don't think there's anything wrong with distrusting, criticizing, and attacking those in power.
In fact, unless they're working to spread the power down to all of us, I see it as a moral duty.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
The last time I checked the 1st amendment didn't contain an exemption for asshattery. How is this any different from the KKK arranging a public protest and shouting the word "nigger" at the top of their lungs? The former is protected free speech but an offensive wi-fi network name is investigated as a crime? Seriously? From TFA, the mother of all overreactions:
“I was shocked, hurt. I felt harassed."
“This should not be tolerated in this town. They should see jail time for it," the mom of two said.
Really? They should go to jail because you felt "harassed" over an offensive SSID that popped up on your iPhone?
That lady is going to be totally fucked when she leaves her carefully crafted bubble and enters into the real world someday. She'll likely fall apart completely right there on the sidewalk somewhere and require years of therapy.
It is funny to see how gross generalization of replies is suddenly okay. From reading this thread one can gather that ALL Israelies think that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitism. Surely, we are not all made from just one mold?
It is possible to claim Israel is an illegitimate state without being anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic, but mostly this is done by being ignorant to the facts. The arguments usually go to "Israel displaced a bunch of Palestinians in 48, and is therefor illegitimate", without any context (or a simple repetition of the Palestinian propaganda as fact) as to how many Palestinians were actually displaced, what were the circumstances, how many Jews were displaced and massacred in that very same war, the Zionists attempts, in the preceding 60 years, to reach an amicable solution, or how other countries did similar or worse, and yet did not lose their legitimacy to even exist.
I sometimes take the time to enter such discussions, and the end result, when balance is brought in the form of actually looking at what the accepted standards say and what international law actually says (as opposed to what Israeli critics would wish it to say), that Israel is illegitimate because a "Jewish state" is fundamentally morally wrong.
I have never once heard a good argument why that should be the case, while "Greek state", "English state", "Finnish state", "Chinese state", "Russian state", "Arab state" and a whole bunch of other nation states, none of which have their legitimacy questioned, are fine.
Shachar
I read that as "comb over" (which still works for CS)
sag
I don't think it takes a doctorate in etiquette to realize that this is a pretty inappropriate joke.
Possibly. Probably even. But if people were jailed for inappropriate jokes, there would be no one left to post on slashdot.
That should silence you assholes posting like it's no big deal or something.
Still no big deal - Sticks and stones, "get butch, bitch". And, I'd rather know my enemies than have them quietly work to sabotage our attempts at civil society.
or, more likely, someone messed with an improperly secured router.
I will agree completely that this one point makes the present issue comparable to an act of vandalism. And thanks to a massive overreaction by everyone involved, some 3th-rate digital "tagger" has gotten national media coverage of his stupid little prank. Congrats, he couldn't have dreamed of a more successful outcome.
but you do not have a right to put a sign out on your lawn preaching hate speech
Yes, actually, I do. I don't have the right to put such a sign on your lawn.
Or do you not consider every church I pass on my way to work condemning me to an eternity in Hell as "hate speech"? Because I do, oddly enough, and the fact that they belong to an socially acceptable religion doesn't make a damned (no pun intended) bit of difference in that.
What if it was owned by a porn company and that was simply their mission statement?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
The problem is that they called the police out twice, and wasted taxpayer money on someone exercising their freedom of speech. That lady was not harmed in any way. Offended maybe, but I doubt she is worried they will be placing buying artifacts on her lawn while she sleeps.
The asshat who put that as their SSID is just that: An asshat. That doesn't make it illegal. It just makes him or her a douche.
She'll likely fall apart completely right there on the sidewalk somewhere and require years of therapy.
All your other friends couldn't come either, because you don't have any other friends. Because of how unlikeable you are. It says so here in your personnel file: Unlikeable. Liked by no one. A bitter, unlikeable loner whose passing shall not be mourned. 'Shall not be mourned.' That's exactly what it says. Very formal, very official.
Fear is the mind killer.
As an ex-Brit, I can tell you that there's no real strong wish for a "British state" there (I assume you meant that rather than English) - self government, yes, but on the basis of those who live in Britain, not simply people who trace their heritage to King Arthur or, for that matter, members of the Church of England. Britain's mostly fine with immigration, and the desire is that people who come in join in with the community, practice good citizenship, and contribute culturally and economically. While the Church of England has a constitutional position in United Kingdom Government, the UK government does not, in practice, allow it to control UK policy, or discriminate against those who live under its dictates.
In fact, countries that have decided to govern in support of one group of people who live there over another has, in fact, always been condemned in recent International history, with the exception of Israel, and kinda-sorta the Vatican.
Personally speaking, I think the idea of a large piece of land with people living on it since birth being given over to a "race" or, slightly less evily, those who practice a specific religion, is distasteful. The government of that land needs to represent the people who live there, not a particular group. I understand the sentiment that the Jews are a special case in that they've suffered centuries of discrimination, ultimately resulting on pogroms and the holocaust, but I'm not convinced that the right way to correct an injustice and deal with centuries of hatred is to create a new injustice. I am not, personally, a Zionist.
All of which is somewhat beside the point. With few exceptions, the legitimacy of the state of Israel is not questioned by those being smeared. The people who are branded "anti-semitic" are rarely, actually, anti-Zionist. What they generally criticize are:
1. The policies of the State of Israel, with particular regard to its treatment of a group of people who were born on land, and whose parents and grandparents, were born on land, now controlled by Israel.
2. The unqualified support given by some US politicians to Israel's security, on occasion apparently at the expense of the US itself.
These criticisms, even when qualified with a general feeling that "The Jews have been discriminated against for centuries, they deserve somewhere they can consider a safe home", cause writers who state them to be branded anti-semitic. The end result is damaging to our discourse and our ability to do the right things. And it's arguable that, in the end, the mentality does not help Israel in the slightest. In the long run, without pressure to move forward, Israel risks becoming a South Africa.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
And the white bit... well, with one or two exceptions, that's just how it's working out.
Guns, Germs and Steel. That's pretty much why white Eurasian culture rules the modern world, because they were in the right place at the right time...
My take on it was that either some employee did this, or that someone simply hacked the router. Not hard to believe as most come without any password protection, and generally use something asinine like 'Admin' for the login name, or even worse, a blank value.
In any case, it would be an internal matter for the community center that may or may not justify police involvement at some point. It should not involve calling the police and having a car sent out to calm some hysteric woman who was offended by something she read. It does not justify the waste taxpayer money sending a policeman out. What exactly was he going to do? Unplug it? I think pretty much any employee of the community center could do that and effectively solve the situation short term.
Have you ever been credibly attacked by being called a slur on Jews?
I've been called all sorts of things; you try living in the Bible Belt as a Yankee Agnostic Jew/Native-American and get back to me on how fun it is. It still doesn't change the old adage about sticks and stones.
The rabbi and family firebombed nearby a couple weeks ago won't be protected by "thicker skin"
Firebombing is violence and already illegal regardless of the underlying motivation.
But they will be protected by intolerance of the intimidation that happens much more often by racist words.
If you want to be intolerant towards racism be my guest; I'll stand beside you. If you want to legislate against it while trampling all over the First Amendment I'm getting off the bus and opposing you with every means at my disposal. Once we get into the business of regulating what kinds of speech are protected we no longer have free speech. I sincerely hope you see the pitfalls of the Government prohibiting speech that represents a minority opinion. And please, for the love of $deity, do not make the tired old "fire in a theater" analogy.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Suburban NYC-area where people are getting firebombed these days by people who say what that WiFi SSID said are not in a carefully crafted bubble. They're in the real world, where those kinds of statements are part of the violence.
It's you in your Slashdot posting pod who is in a carefully crafted bubble.
Those kinds of statements, along with any other kind of statement are not part of violence, they're statements (as you stated). They're also protected by the U.S. Constitution, and the UN Declaration of Human rights. I know, I know.. lots of folks these days only believe in free speech when they agree with what is being said... C'est la vie.
Not at all. When Jesus came around he said he would 'fulfill' the laws of Moses, which the Jews of his day were presently living.
The law of Moses went out to a people who were pretty wild, so it fit the time. Keep in mind, the retribution-based justice of Ten Commandments are thought to date to about the same time frame as the Code of Hammurabi, so when they were 'new,' they actually were a big step forward for civilization - a written law based on justice. And in more modern times, this system was pretty crude and similar in ways to Sharia law. The law as set out in the Old Testament also includes things like spelling out religious/cultural ceremonies, practices such as not drinking blood and cooking meat, capital punishment by society (they didn't have jails worked out in 5000BC), rules on freedom for slaves and debt every so many decades, and so on.
Like the saying, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, Jesus came around and said we need to stop this and start incorporating mercy and other good principles into our theocracy or it isn't really God's system. And a lot of that stuff in the books just isn't really the important idea - you're missing the point of it all - so let's just start by having everybody try to play nice and see how far we get.
Believing in Christianity means you believe Jesus was right and those ancient laws need mercy as well as justice to be right. And a lot of other things, like it doesn't much matter what you eat, but rather what you do. Without believing in Christianity, most first world citizens probably feel the same. That changes what the Old Testament is used for. Since Christians believe many of those old rules no longer apply since they believe what Christ said was correct, those parts of the book becomes a historical record for Christians.
I'm not going to stone any adulterer because the Jewish culture was commanded to back in 3000 BC. Jesus kind of made a stand on that particular one. I'm not ignoring the Old Testament; it just doesn't apply anymore.