To assume that some government entity can protect you at all times from any variation of opposition is ignorant. A free society is one where the people are empowered to enforce their perspective without marginalizing anothers right to the same.
This concept requires (or assumes) that any person willing to exercise this right will stand up in court to defend their actions, and accept the consequences, resulting from it.
Unfortunately we (Americans) have become a nation of cowards and sycophants. We do not recognize our responsibilities to this concept, nor do we behave in a manner that exemplifies it.
You must be prepared to do what you think is right, and to suffer the consequences of those actions as dictated to you by the society at large. If you curb your behavior to conform with that of the perceived majority, you will never realize how much power you really have.
Quite often, doing the right thing equates to being analyzed by police forces, imprisonment by "peace keeping" forces, and ostrization by the socially accepted.
The choice is yours. Exhibit behaviors congruent with your beleifs, or be subdued in order to continue acting "freely."
You are marked as foe because it is easier to filter you out that way.
The arguments on public and private are moot as the circumstances of the situation are clearly defined.
Repetition of poor analagies is left to those who throw out bs arguments that I have dealt with in this thread already.
If you want open debate, fine - I'm cool with that. If your only intent is to "be right" instead of actually fleshing out the points of the matter, then no - I have no time for it.
You are a perfect example of smart people arguing stupid shit. There is no need to even debate this any farther than you. You have ignored every logical argument I have made and have turned this into a scemantic fuck fest.
If you broadcast unprotected wireless to an area where I can be legally, I am well within my rights to use it. It's an unlicensed frequency band.
Ok, were getting to a more focused argument here. If you read my posts concerning this, you would know that if you are on public property you can pretty much do whatever you want in this case.
If people can't set up their hotspot without at least an attempt at security, I agree that you will get people using it, but that doessn't justify the behavior behind it. I can legally sue someone if I break into their house and hurt myself - it doesn't make it right. And the ability to do something doesn't justify the behavior either.
No, it isn't at all anything like that. See, in order to let me use your cellphone, you actually have to give me something. In order for me to use your wireless network on public property, I have to be on public property, and you have to be retarded enough not to have secured it.
You changed your argument here. You didn't qualify public property. You want to add that little tidbit in now so you can be correct in your original statement? Whatever.
They are using public frequencies, and any other member of the public has exactly the same right to use those frequencies that they do.
This isn't directed at you, but this type of argument.
The use of public frequencies was asked for by the people developing the technology in order to create a usable standard for inter device communication at a cheap cost. If you had to license the frequencies that these devices transmit on, then what do you think the costs of that would be?
If it was required to get a license to put up a wifi spot, no one would purchase the technology for home use. The organizations whe developed the protocol created it with the intent of giving us geeks the freedom we had been asking for - no wires.
Does someone who sets up a WiFI hotspot have the ability to license the frequency? No, they don't. The standard is based on a public frequency. Leveraging the design of the protocol to justify the obviously parasitic behavior of this guy is ridiculous. There is no other option than to use a public frequency.
The use of this frequency isn't even whats up for debate. It is the use of public frequency to access a PRIVATE resource with a TOS attached to it. If someone sets up a hotspot for everyone without requirements, fine. If someone set up a hotspot with requirements, but doesn't know how to lock it down - it is ACCESABLE, but not because of any persons RIGHT to it. The ignorance or inability of someone to protect their interests is not an invitation to take those interests from them, or use them for your own purposes without permission.
It is the behavior of the geek culture as a whole that gets us the shit we get from businesses. There was no DRM before people started infringing copyrights on a mass scale. There was no issue with people probably leeching this coffee shops WiFI until he started going out of his way to do it all the fucking time.
Are we really so ignorant, or so self appointedly superior to everyone else because of our technical know how, that we really feel justified in this behavior. Are we so used to debating any point, whether we believe it or not, because we like making people feel like their wrong - that we are willing to actually believe our own bullshit? Maybe, if as a whole, we exhibited any form of self control - the ignorant backlash wouldn't be as severe. But no - any chance we get we say "FUCK YOU! You can't stop me" to anyone without the skills to prevent us from behaving in ethically and morally questionable behavior using a technology that most people don't understand.
And you wonder why the rest of the world resorts to having people arrested, utilizing DRM schemes, and monitoring ALL digital communication traffic. We have established a track record, and now we are paying for it.
Not irrelevant. If you live in a town with no free wifi access, and you magically get a signal from a source that isn't yours - you can safely assume its from a private source.
Some of us use operating systems that aren't quite so retarded. Whatever. If your system finds all available signals and then chooses one itself, it still has to be configured. The fact that you didn't manually do it is irrelevant. If your system is set to grab the best available signal, regardless of the signals source - you're a jackass.
Cellphones don't use unlicensed frequency bands. They also employ authentication for billing purposes. Thats a weak response. Thats like saying if I let you use my cell phone for free that I have to give any jackass who wants to use it a go also.
Just because they are a business doesn't mean they won't exhibit basic human decency. Allowing soomeone to use a restroom in an emergency and allowing someone to suck up your free WiFi are not even in the same boat.
This guy did this for a month. I bet any business would have a problem with some random person who used their bathroom constantly for a month without purchasing anything.
Plus, I know plenty of businesses that won't let you touch their restrooms - paying or not.
And if you're going to claim that that's different, you need to specify exactly why I should be bound by a TOS posted inside your business that I've never seen when I access a public, unencrypted signal.
Because the coffe shop exists in a town that doesn't have free city wide WiFi access.]
Because in order to receive them you have to configure your system, its not as passive as you put it.
Because the signal isn't public. Thats like saying a cell signal is public, it's not.
I think being arrested involves a loss of freedom.
On this point I completely agree. I was refering more to the GP's perceived stance that the WiFi was the issue.
If someone breaks the TOS, you ask them to leave. Breaking a TOS is not a crime.
Once again I agree, but I'm not refering to the arrest, I was refering to the fact that the shop dictates the rules of use concerning its hub. They should have asked him to leave, then arrested him for tresspass if he didn't.
It is not a crime to be on a shop's property that is open to the public, and to use their service which they make open to these people, just because I don't abide with whatever rules they have set.
Actually, yes it is. A private business has the right to refuse service to anyone. This covers any service they provide - from Wi-FI to coffee. I think the free Wi-Fi issue brings up an interesting question. Is it illegal for someone to syphon off of signal you pay for without permission? Technically, there probably is not a law against that at this time - but there might be others that could be used in regards to this scenario.
Then comes the issue of when is it a crime. Reporters cannot sit on your front lawn and take pictures of you, but they can sit on the public street outside and do it. Does this type of approach work here also? Should it be illegal if the syphon is on your property, but not if the syphon is on public property? Does your control of your signal become moot when your signal passes into "public" areas? Frankly, I don't know where to start.
While I think the guy doing this was an ass, I think arresting him may have been a little much.
If you don't want someone to use it then you have to keep the radio waves out of his property. He was pretty much using the service that was trespassing on public property. I'm pretty sure the article said he was sitting in the parking lot, and that is most definitely NOT public property. Now, out on the street - the experiment the news team did - that's a different story. Also, transmissions can't tresspass.
Also, the article didn't say anything about whether or not the coffee shop had a TOS for their internet service. To say one doesn't exist is ridiculous. The person who owns the wireless hub and pays for the signal dictates what the rules are.
It is just another freedom being infiltrated because I let my wireless network be used by anyone and many others do the same. Soon this might be illegal thanks to the shop.
What the hell are you talking about? No one is infiltrating any freedoms here. If you own the hub, you can set up any rules you want to who uses it. You have no constitutional right to open Wi-Fi signals provided by private businesses.
You need a few things. First, a class in communication - because your original post sounds nothing like your reply. Second, you need a class in economics.
How the hell are you supposed to raise E-1 pay up to $80,000 a year (and scale up), offer duty free goods, AND not tax the hell out of the civilian population? The military and government agencies get different healthcare because essentially they are providing a service to the people. We receive something in return for our tax dollars. Also, why should your employer pay for your healthcare anyway? Your health is ultimately your responsibility.
Employers offer healthcare as a "perk", a way of attracting the best employees they can. There are numerous jobs in America where the base requirements are the ability to breathe and respond to simple stimuli. In these situations, employers don't offer healthcare because there is no difficulty in filling these positions.
Overall, I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about.
I'm not rebuting anything. I'm calling you out for being an asshat who thinks he should get the same healthcare as someone in the military without having to pay the extraneous costs - such as having to serve.
OK, all you have to do is pay the extra 2+ years of servitude at a job that carries with it elevated risk for harm and you can have the health benefits they enjoy.
Oh, you thought the only cost was tax dollars. Get a clue.
No you are not the only one. I tried to speak out once and all of my posts were modded troll and flamebait.
Trying to educate this crowd on the fact that they are the product is difficult at best and hellish at worst. Let's not get into trying to enlighten people that Google is quickly becoming a monopoly. You immediately get hit with at least 3 responses of "You can't have a monopoly on search" and one troll. Never mind that the monopoly is on online advertising - not search.
Sorry for replying twice, submit is not preview - and I'm hasty.
Your statement, a quote from Milton Friedman, is not a law. While I will acknowledge it is a major school of economic thought concerning the roles and responsibilities of public companies, it has never been legislated directly as such.
Legislation concerning public companies generally (varies by state) focuses on the allowance of shareholders to vote on issues concerning the company as a whole, the proportionate owership of assets in a company by a stock holder, the allowance of a stock holder to transfer shares, the payment of dividends, access to corporate books for your shareholders, and the possibility of being sued for wrongful acts.
I have yet to find a law stating that a public company MUST do everything in its power to make money for its shareholders.
Would a search engine that included no hardcore pornography be "worthless" if the person using it was trying to find information about chemistry?
This is a valid point, and one that I'm not denying - but in this discussion it somewhat of a moot point.
The overall point of the GGP/GP was that a censored Google is better than no Google at all for China. I didn't really clarify my rebuttal, and looking back at my post it looks like I think any censored search engine is completely useless - a ridiculous stance to take. In the context of China though, Google isn't doing anything that other search engines are already doing. The stance that Google is doing "some good" are just fanboi declarations because they hate having their darling ripped to shreds for its hypocrisy. Can you use it for search, sure. But the way a search engine was being employed in his argument was as some tool for democratic change. A censored google is useless in that regard.
Search results are subjective. Because you think Google is great doesn't mean jack. Becuase you would still use google's search if it became censored here in America doesn't mean jack. Your opinions are not fulcrums of logical arguments. Your only standing argument is boils down to "I like Google."
No, I wouldn't prefer a crippled anything to the real deal.
First, as has been rightly pointed out in previous debates on this subject, Google is a publicly-traded American corporation. This means it is under a legal obligation to make business decisions that maximize the value of the stock to its shareholders.
No. Google is obligated by law to behave in a manner dictated to it by its voting shareholders. While this most often is "make money" it doesn't have to be so. Since Sergey and Larry own 66.2% of the voting stock, they can do whatever they feel like, without being sued.
Pulling out of the world's largest market, even on a matter of principle, is a poor business judgment decision that would likely result in Google getting sued by the stockholders down the line.
If you could sue a company for not profiting, the stock market wouldn't work. You sue when a company directly ignores or acts in direct opposition to the directives given to it by the voting shareholders. Bad business decisions are not one of those things.
Additionally, every time the Chinese engine returns censored results, isn't there a note to the effect that the document has been redacted? This would seem, in my mind, to contribute to a heightened public awareness in China as to just how pervasive the censorship regime is. This will in turn spawn more, not less, dissent, tending more towards democratic reform in the long term.
You assume the Chinese have no clue they are being oppressed. Come on. These people are fully aware of how fucked up things are in their country. A little tag on Google results is not going to motivate shit. Google's presence isn't going to change a thing. All it is going ot do is make the largest Internet userbase in the world available for marketing the shit they just made back to them.
If you were in China would you rather have a censored google or no google at all? Not living in China you could probably say no google, but I'm sure if you didn't have it, you would take the opposite opinion
This stance is so tired. Google is doing no good in China. Google doesn't have the ability to change a thing in China. Good search results (subjective) do not feed starving peoples, unseat oppresive leaders, or aid in revolts and protests. Especially if these results are pre-emptively censored.
I have yet to hear a Chinese citizen say "If only we had Google to search from we could change our nation."
As a search company, their job is to make as much content accessibly to as many people as possible.
Wrong.
Google isn't a search company. Google has a search engine. Google is an advertising company selling searchers to advertisers. Google presents itself as a "Search Company" to the public eye because its a better PR stance.
Thier job is to get as many searchers as possible to sell advertising to, not to get content to them. They attract these searchers by providing content, it is a means to an end - not the driving purpose.
Once you understand the fact that the searchers are the product, you will see that there is nothing positive about Google going into China. Its meerly a matter of making the largest Internet userbase in the world available to advertisers.
Slashdot Mirror
This is absolutely correct.
To assume that some government entity can protect you at all times from any variation of opposition is ignorant. A free society is one where the people are empowered to enforce their perspective without marginalizing anothers right to the same.
This concept requires (or assumes) that any person willing to exercise this right will stand up in court to defend their actions, and accept the consequences, resulting from it.
Unfortunately we (Americans) have become a nation of cowards and sycophants. We do not recognize our responsibilities to this concept, nor do we behave in a manner that exemplifies it.
You must be prepared to do what you think is right, and to suffer the consequences of those actions as dictated to you by the society at large. If you curb your behavior to conform with that of the perceived majority, you will never realize how much power you really have.
Quite often, doing the right thing equates to being analyzed by police forces, imprisonment by "peace keeping" forces, and ostrization by the socially accepted.
The choice is yours. Exhibit behaviors congruent with your beleifs, or be subdued in order to continue acting "freely."
You are marked as foe because it is easier to filter you out that way.
The arguments on public and private are moot as the circumstances of the situation are clearly defined.
Repetition of poor analagies is left to those who throw out bs arguments that I have dealt with in this thread already.
If you want open debate, fine - I'm cool with that. If your only intent is to "be right" instead of actually fleshing out the points of the matter, then no - I have no time for it.
You are a perfect example of smart people arguing stupid shit. There is no need to even debate this any farther than you. You have ignored every logical argument I have made and have turned this into a scemantic fuck fest.
No, you did when you pointed out my cell was private. Asshat.
If you broadcast unprotected wireless to an area where I can be legally, I am well within my rights to use it. It's an unlicensed frequency band.
Ok, were getting to a more focused argument here. If you read my posts concerning this, you would know that if you are on public property you can pretty much do whatever you want in this case.
If people can't set up their hotspot without at least an attempt at security, I agree that you will get people using it, but that doessn't justify the behavior behind it. I can legally sue someone if I break into their house and hurt myself - it doesn't make it right. And the ability to do something doesn't justify the behavior either.
No, it isn't at all anything like that. See, in order to let me use your cellphone, you actually have to give me something. In order for me to use your wireless network on public property, I have to be on public property, and you have to be retarded enough not to have secured it.
You changed your argument here. You didn't qualify public property. You want to add that little tidbit in now so you can be correct in your original statement? Whatever.
They are using public frequencies, and any other member of the public has exactly the same right to use those frequencies that they do.
This isn't directed at you, but this type of argument.
The use of public frequencies was asked for by the people developing the technology in order to create a usable standard for inter device communication at a cheap cost. If you had to license the frequencies that these devices transmit on, then what do you think the costs of that would be?
If it was required to get a license to put up a wifi spot, no one would purchase the technology for home use. The organizations whe developed the protocol created it with the intent of giving us geeks the freedom we had been asking for - no wires.
Does someone who sets up a WiFI hotspot have the ability to license the frequency? No, they don't. The standard is based on a public frequency. Leveraging the design of the protocol to justify the obviously parasitic behavior of this guy is ridiculous. There is no other option than to use a public frequency.
The use of this frequency isn't even whats up for debate. It is the use of public frequency to access a PRIVATE resource with a TOS attached to it. If someone sets up a hotspot for everyone without requirements, fine. If someone set up a hotspot with requirements, but doesn't know how to lock it down - it is ACCESABLE, but not because of any persons RIGHT to it. The ignorance or inability of someone to protect their interests is not an invitation to take those interests from them, or use them for your own purposes without permission.
It is the behavior of the geek culture as a whole that gets us the shit we get from businesses. There was no DRM before people started infringing copyrights on a mass scale. There was no issue with people probably leeching this coffee shops WiFI until he started going out of his way to do it all the fucking time.
Are we really so ignorant, or so self appointedly superior to everyone else because of our technical know how, that we really feel justified in this behavior. Are we so used to debating any point, whether we believe it or not, because we like making people feel like their wrong - that we are willing to actually believe our own bullshit? Maybe, if as a whole, we exhibited any form of self control - the ignorant backlash wouldn't be as severe. But no - any chance we get we say "FUCK YOU! You can't stop me" to anyone without the skills to prevent us from behaving in ethically and morally questionable behavior using a technology that most people don't understand.
And you wonder why the rest of the world resorts to having people arrested, utilizing DRM schemes, and monitoring ALL digital communication traffic. We have established a track record, and now we are paying for it.
Irrelevant.
Not irrelevant. If you live in a town with no free wifi access, and you magically get a signal from a source that isn't yours - you can safely assume its from a private source.
Some of us use operating systems that aren't quite so retarded.
Whatever. If your system finds all available signals and then chooses one itself, it still has to be configured. The fact that you didn't manually do it is irrelevant. If your system is set to grab the best available signal, regardless of the signals source - you're a jackass.
Cellphones don't use unlicensed frequency bands. They also employ authentication for billing purposes.
Thats a weak response. Thats like saying if I let you use my cell phone for free that I have to give any jackass who wants to use it a go also.
Got any other knee jerk dumb ass responses?
Just because they are a business doesn't mean they won't exhibit basic human decency. Allowing soomeone to use a restroom in an emergency and allowing someone to suck up your free WiFi are not even in the same boat.
This guy did this for a month. I bet any business would have a problem with some random person who used their bathroom constantly for a month without purchasing anything.
Plus, I know plenty of businesses that won't let you touch their restrooms - paying or not.
And if you're going to claim that that's different, you need to specify exactly why I should be bound by a TOS posted inside your business that I've never seen when I access a public, unencrypted signal.
Because the coffe shop exists in a town that doesn't have free city wide WiFi access.]
Because in order to receive them you have to configure your system, its not as passive as you put it.
Because the signal isn't public. Thats like saying a cell signal is public, it's not.
How can you steal that which is given away freely?
Because it's not given away freely. Its a service provided by the Coffee shop to its paying customers. Complementary only applies to patrons.
I think being arrested involves a loss of freedom.
On this point I completely agree. I was refering more to the GP's perceived stance that the WiFi was the issue.
If someone breaks the TOS, you ask them to leave. Breaking a TOS is not a crime.
Once again I agree, but I'm not refering to the arrest, I was refering to the fact that the shop dictates the rules of use concerning its hub. They should have asked him to leave, then arrested him for tresspass if he didn't.
It is not a crime to be on a shop's property that is open to the public, and to use their service which they make open to these people, just because I don't abide with whatever rules they have set.
Actually, yes it is. A private business has the right to refuse service to anyone. This covers any service they provide - from Wi-FI to coffee. I think the free Wi-Fi issue brings up an interesting question. Is it illegal for someone to syphon off of signal you pay for without permission? Technically, there probably is not a law against that at this time - but there might be others that could be used in regards to this scenario.
Then comes the issue of when is it a crime. Reporters cannot sit on your front lawn and take pictures of you, but they can sit on the public street outside and do it. Does this type of approach work here also? Should it be illegal if the syphon is on your property, but not if the syphon is on public property? Does your control of your signal become moot when your signal passes into "public" areas? Frankly, I don't know where to start.
While I think the guy doing this was an ass, I think arresting him may have been a little much.
You need a few things. First, a class in communication - because your original post sounds nothing like your reply. Second, you need a class in economics.
How the hell are you supposed to raise E-1 pay up to $80,000 a year (and scale up), offer duty free goods, AND not tax the hell out of the civilian population? The military and government agencies get different healthcare because essentially they are providing a service to the people. We receive something in return for our tax dollars. Also, why should your employer pay for your healthcare anyway? Your health is ultimately your responsibility.
Employers offer healthcare as a "perk", a way of attracting the best employees they can. There are numerous jobs in America where the base requirements are the ability to breathe and respond to simple stimuli. In these situations, employers don't offer healthcare because there is no difficulty in filling these positions.
Overall, I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about.
I'm not rebuting anything. I'm calling you out for being an asshat who thinks he should get the same healthcare as someone in the military without having to pay the extraneous costs - such as having to serve.
OK, all you have to do is pay the extra 2+ years of servitude at a job that carries with it elevated risk for harm and you can have the health benefits they enjoy.
Oh, you thought the only cost was tax dollars. Get a clue.
Commercial Realestate
Yeah, but as far as the government is concerned - if you can't vote, who gives a fuck what you think?
No you are not the only one. I tried to speak out once and all of my posts were modded troll and flamebait.
Trying to educate this crowd on the fact that they are the product is difficult at best and hellish at worst. Let's not get into trying to enlighten people that Google is quickly becoming a monopoly. You immediately get hit with at least 3 responses of "You can't have a monopoly on search" and one troll. Never mind that the monopoly is on online advertising - not search.
Sorry for replying twice, submit is not preview - and I'm hasty.
Your statement, a quote from Milton Friedman, is not a law. While I will acknowledge it is a major school of economic thought concerning the roles and responsibilities of public companies, it has never been legislated directly as such.
Legislation concerning public companies generally (varies by state) focuses on the allowance of shareholders to vote on issues concerning the company as a whole, the proportionate owership of assets in a company by a stock holder, the allowance of a stock holder to transfer shares, the payment of dividends, access to corporate books for your shareholders, and the possibility of being sued for wrongful acts.
I have yet to find a law stating that a public company MUST do everything in its power to make money for its shareholders.
In the manner directed to them by the voting shareholders.
This is a valid point, and one that I'm not denying - but in this discussion it somewhat of a moot point.
The overall point of the GGP/GP was that a censored Google is better than no Google at all for China. I didn't really clarify my rebuttal, and looking back at my post it looks like I think any censored search engine is completely useless - a ridiculous stance to take. In the context of China though, Google isn't doing anything that other search engines are already doing. The stance that Google is doing "some good" are just fanboi declarations because they hate having their darling ripped to shreds for its hypocrisy. Can you use it for search, sure. But the way a search engine was being employed in his argument was as some tool for democratic change. A censored google is useless in that regard.
Yay for your choice of search engines.
Search results are subjective. Because you think Google is great doesn't mean jack. Becuase you would still use google's search if it became censored here in America doesn't mean jack. Your opinions are not fulcrums of logical arguments. Your only standing argument is boils down to "I like Google."
No, I wouldn't prefer a crippled anything to the real deal.
Yes, a censored search engine is worthless.
No. Google is obligated by law to behave in a manner dictated to it by its voting shareholders. While this most often is "make money" it doesn't have to be so. Since Sergey and Larry own 66.2% of the voting stock, they can do whatever they feel like, without being sued.
If you could sue a company for not profiting, the stock market wouldn't work. You sue when a company directly ignores or acts in direct opposition to the directives given to it by the voting shareholders. Bad business decisions are not one of those things.
You assume the Chinese have no clue they are being oppressed. Come on. These people are fully aware of how fucked up things are in their country. A little tag on Google results is not going to motivate shit. Google's presence isn't going to change a thing. All it is going ot do is make the largest Internet userbase in the world available for marketing the shit they just made back to them.
What, they don't have Star Wars in your country? Do you live in China? Well, you might be able to Google it. Or maybe not.
If you were in China would you rather have a censored google or no google at all? Not living in China you could probably say no google, but I'm sure if you didn't have it, you would take the opposite opinion
This stance is so tired. Google is doing no good in China. Google doesn't have the ability to change a thing in China. Good search results (subjective) do not feed starving peoples, unseat oppresive leaders, or aid in revolts and protests. Especially if these results are pre-emptively censored.
I have yet to hear a Chinese citizen say "If only we had Google to search from we could change our nation."
As a search company, their job is to make as much content accessibly to as many people as possible.
Wrong.
Once you understand the fact that the searchers are the product, you will see that there is nothing positive about Google going into China. Its meerly a matter of making the largest Internet userbase in the world available to advertisers.