So 10 access points costs $5M....I want to be the guy who gets paid to install those...
From TFA: "Each bubble will include about 15 public access points at schools, city facilities and community organizations within the area."
Also, it's not $5 million, it's $3.5 million: "The company had to pay the city $5 million after defaulting on a contract to build a citywide wireless Internet network last year. On Monday, Mayor Bill White announced the city will use about $3.5 million of that money to build 10 free wireless network "bubbles" in low-income parts of Houston to give residents access they otherwise might do without." And I'm sure that money includes more than just the access point: think all the infrastructure, etc. to support them.
1. Ask your network guys to move off the proprietary Cisco concentrators and use a standards based VPN server. Then you can use the Windows VPN client, and it will 'just work'.
2. Tell your Cisco rep to get off their asses and upgrade the client.
For me, the "network guys" were the university IT staff, and I was a student. Anyway, my stop-gap solution was to run XP 32-bit in a VM, and run the Cisco Client from there. It was annoying, but it worked.
I did a BA in government, and now I've got a year left before I finish my MA in an equally liberal artsy field. I'm really torn as to what to do next, though. A steadfast hobby for me over the past several years has been playing with electronics. I really like the hands-on side of things: I like soldering, I like PIC projects (interfaced to magnetic stripe and RFID card readers so far, this summer I want to experiment with writing to 125 kHz RFID cards using a kit). I've been progressively learning more about using a CNC router over the past three years at my summer job.
I'm seriously considering going back and doing a BS in computer engineering after I finish my Master's degree. It would take at most three years, or possibly 2.5 if I pass the programming exemption tests. But I'll be really disappointed if there's no hands-on work to be done.
While it doesn't warrant physical destruction of the memory modules, data can be recovered from DRAM for "seconds to minutes" after power has been lost.
quick stop working on that cure to cancer, light pollution is SERIOUS, man
I can't believe people are modding you insightful. First, where does it say that anyone is stopping work on curing cancer? I must have missed that in the article.
Second, this thing saves power, which is typically a good thing (TM). Why, with the power we save, we might even have more resources to look for a cure for cancer!
You realize the purpose of streetlights is also so pedestrians can see where the fuck they're walking, right? Lights suddenly turning off is a hazard, not a benefit.
I think the parent had in mind adjusting the duty cycle of something like LEDs, which you can turn on and off many times per second. As I understand, this has the effect of making the lights look dimmer, and uses less power.
Second of all, do some basic research before talking out your ass. While both Brin and Page went to Stanford for graduate school, for undergrad, Brin went to the University of Maryland, and Page went to the University of Michigan.
Yeah, I wasn't paying attention to exactly what the update said, and much to my surprise, I noticed a Safari icon on my desktop. "WTF - I didn't even know they had Safari for Windows." But really, what is my incentive to use it? I like Firefox, it's all set up the way I want... goodbye, Safari.
Not really, have you ever tried installing Windows from a CD that wasn't OEM? It is an absolute pain, you thought Debian's text installer was bad or Gentoo's install took forever, this is worse. Not only do you have to track down every single last driver but the install itself takes ages. I haven't tried installing Vista and I don't expect it to be much better.
I call FUD. I have installed Windows (95, 98, 2000, XP, XP x64, and Vista Business x64) many, many times from non-OEM CDs, and I assure that you that all of those are certainly no worse than, and usually better than, my experiences with Debian, Gentoo, or pretty much any Linux distribution.
Drivers? The last time I had to look for drivers to get normal hardware working was with Windows 98. Sure, I had to supply a third-party driver for software RAID on my machine, but normal users don't have to deal with that sort of thing.
Finally, Vista actually does improve on the install process by letting you provide third-party drivers on USB (before you could only provide them on floppies). Of course, I don't deal with any install issues anymore, as I've made a custom slip-streamed CD for my own machine:-)
Sorry for the yelling, it's just really frustrating to have 95% of the comments in the discussion be totally oblivious to what the bill actually says. And the thing about iPhones was left over from a reply to someone else that I pasted. You're right, I don't know if that would actually count, but it's irrelevant to the current discussion anyway. The bill is written to address people who turn on their computer, and find they are on the internet, and unwittingly they are using their neighbor's open wifi. That's criminal under the current code. It's intentional, willful, and without authorization. Yet, they are still without knowledge that it is unauthorized access - this is the part the bill addresses, by adding a few lines to say that if you didn't have knowledge that the access was unauthorized (which would definitely be the case with the iPhone, but that's probably also unintentional and not willful), you're not a criminal.
That said, I still think it's way too conspiracy-theoryish to chalk this up to telcos. I mean, the delegate says exactly why he's proposing the changes, and they amount to a couple of lines that simply decriminalize something. I think telcos have bigger fish to donate to than random Western Maryland delegates, and if these changes are what they are paying for, they'd better be praying, too.
OK, so I didn't read TFA. So I'm probably completely off base here. I mean, I get the idea behind the law - internet access is like any other consumable utility (gas, water, electric).
Don't waste time reading the article, which is completely misleading. Instead, read the actual bill.
You don't at all get the idea behind the law. This bill is SPECIFICALLY designed to address what happened to you - when someone connects to a network without authorization, and without knowing that they were unauthorized. Ignore the/. groupthink, and read my other comment that explains the bill in detail. Ignore the summary, and the title. THEY ARE ALL WRONG. Unauthorized access to a network is ALREADY ILLEGAL, and this bill simply tries to add an exception for when that happens without you realizing that it is unauthorized.
Sounds like you need to take 2 minutes and put on a WEP key... The problem with this law is that it assumes that if you access an OPEN network, you are nreaking a law. A law that makes more sense is one that states if you actively seek to break into an ENCRYPTED network, you are commiting a crime. Which is, as I understand, the way the law is already written.
Sounds like you need to take 2 minutes and READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it.
The problem is not with this law, the problem is with the current law. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.
BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.
Stealing someone's internet bandwidth (their porn came down slower than usual!) is now worth up to three years in the slammer?
No. Just no. People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail. The "three years" you state is ALREADY IN THE CURRENT LAW - this bill doesn't add it.
BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.
Are you sure that it isn't? Ask yourself, why did the Maryland government feel a need to address this issue at all? Because they had been flooded by emails from constituents who were furious over their stolen bandwidth? Or because telcos/cablecos/ISPs realized how easy wireless makes it to share a connection with your neighbor? I can't say for sure either way, but I know which of the two groups has more pull with most politicians.
Of course you can't say either way, because it's complete bullshit. What you fail to realize is that "squatting" (using a wireless network without authorization) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL UNDER CURRENT MARYLAND LAW.
People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.
BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it
Telecommunications companies are asking for this bill because by criminalizing squatting, ppl are more likely to pay $$$ for their own connection.
While that sort of nonsense will get you modded up, it's complete bullshit. First, cite your source. I bet you don't have one, because you just pulled that out of your ass. Second, what you fail to realize is that "squatting" (using a wireless network without authorization) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL UNDER CURRENT MARYLAND LAW.
Despite the hundreds of ill-informed comments to the contrary (yours included), this bill does no such thing. People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.
BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.
iPhones automagically associate with open wifi access points. This would make everyone with an iPhone a criminal.
Despite the hundreds of ill-informed comments to the contrary (yours included), this bill does no such thing. People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.
BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.
This bill turns people into unwitting criminals because some people are idiotic enough not to protect their router, and Vista will automatically connect to these routers without asking. So, if it gets passed, the one question here is: if Vista forces me to break the law by automatically "hijacking" an unsecured wireless network, can Steve Ballmer be charged as an accessory to the crime?
Despite the hundreds of ill-informed comments to the contrary (yours included), this bill does no such thing. People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.
BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.
Don't we already have laws against "intentional unauthorized access to another person's computer, network, database, or software?" What the hell does the fact that it's wireless have to do with it?
Yes, yes we do. What pretty much every other comment in this discussion has totally missed is that this bill decriminalizes unauthorized access done without the knowledge that it is unauthorized. This bill makes fewer things illegal, not more. See my other comment, which explains in greater detail.
Unfortunately, pretty much everyone has succumbed to the groupthink on this one, jumping on the bandwagon of "omg he's trying to make piggybacking illegal" without realizing that IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. I hope some mods come by and figure this out.
IANAL, but I have been looking at this bill I have just come to the same realization that you have. Practically every post in this discussion has COMPLETELY misunderstood the bill.
First, people need to read the actual proposed bill, which they can do here (NB: PDF). Note that the CAPITAL parts are being ADDED to the existing law.
Next, people need to understand that under existing Maryland law unauthorized access to a computer network is already illegal. This clearly includes wireless networks. This means that your iPhone / XP / Vista / whatever that automatically connects to an insecure network is technically breaking EXISTING law. The current law reads:
A person may not intentionally, willfully, and without authorization access, attempt to access, cause to be accessed, or exceed the person's
authorized access to all or part of a computer network, computer control language, computer, computer software, computer system, computer services, or computer database.
This delegate wants to amend that section to exclude wireless internet access. It would instead read:
A person may not intentionally, willfully, and without authorization access, attempt to access, cause to be accessed, or exceed the person's authorized access to all or part of a computer network, computer control language, computer, computer software, computer system, computer services OTHER THAN WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE, or computer database.
This would mean that your device that automatically connects to an insecure network would no longer be breaking the law. But in order to keep purposeful, intentional access to a wireless network (or "wireless internet service") illegal, they have added this section to the bill:
(4) A PERSON MAY NOT INTENTIONALLY, WILLFULLY, AND WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION ACCESS, ATTEMPT TO ACCESS, CAUSE TO BE ACCESSED, OR EXCEED THE PERSON'S AUTHORIZED ACCESS TO WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ACCESS IS UNAUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED BY LAW.
THIS PROPOSED BILL MAKES FEWER THINGS ILLEGAL. Now I know a lot of people think that unauthorized access to an insecure network, even when purposeful and intentional, shouldn't be illegal, but it already is. This bill would simply decriminalize unintentional unauthorized access.
PLEASE, SOMEONE BEAT THE/. GROUPTHINK AND MOD THE PARENT POST UP, OR THIS ONE.
AT&T's network (as a telecommunication service) may be a common carrier, but their Internet service (an "information service") is not a common carrier (at least, according to this).
Slashdot Mirror
I think in the context of the article, "money" simply means cash (paper currency).
That's okay, it also gives me a chance to be modded up :-)
From TFA: "Each bubble will include about 15 public access points at schools, city facilities and community organizations within the area."
Also, it's not $5 million, it's $3.5 million: "The company had to pay the city $5 million after defaulting on a contract to build a citywide wireless Internet network last year. On Monday, Mayor Bill White announced the city will use about $3.5 million of that money to build 10 free wireless network "bubbles" in low-income parts of Houston to give residents access they otherwise might do without." And I'm sure that money includes more than just the access point: think all the infrastructure, etc. to support them.
2. Tell your Cisco rep to get off their asses and upgrade the client.
For me, the "network guys" were the university IT staff, and I was a student. Anyway, my stop-gap solution was to run XP 32-bit in a VM, and run the Cisco Client from there. It was annoying, but it worked.
Cisco Systems VPN Client doesn't. That's (one of) the deal-breaker(s) for me.
Well, that's kind of a depressing story for me :-(
I did a BA in government, and now I've got a year left before I finish my MA in an equally liberal artsy field. I'm really torn as to what to do next, though. A steadfast hobby for me over the past several years has been playing with electronics. I really like the hands-on side of things: I like soldering, I like PIC projects (interfaced to magnetic stripe and RFID card readers so far, this summer I want to experiment with writing to 125 kHz RFID cards using a kit). I've been progressively learning more about using a CNC router over the past three years at my summer job.
I'm seriously considering going back and doing a BS in computer engineering after I finish my Master's degree. It would take at most three years, or possibly 2.5 if I pass the programming exemption tests. But I'll be really disappointed if there's no hands-on work to be done.
With sails unfurled :-)
Maybe.
While it doesn't warrant physical destruction of the memory modules, data can be recovered from DRAM for "seconds to minutes" after power has been lost.
I can't believe people are modding you insightful. First, where does it say that anyone is stopping work on curing cancer? I must have missed that in the article.
Second, this thing saves power, which is typically a good thing (TM). Why, with the power we save, we might even have more resources to look for a cure for cancer!
I think the parent had in mind adjusting the duty cycle of something like LEDs, which you can turn on and off many times per second. As I understand, this has the effect of making the lights look dimmer, and uses less power.
First of all, it's Stanford, not "Standford."
Second of all, do some basic research before talking out your ass. While both Brin and Page went to Stanford for graduate school, for undergrad, Brin went to the University of Maryland, and Page went to the University of Michigan.
Yeah, I wasn't paying attention to exactly what the update said, and much to my surprise, I noticed a Safari icon on my desktop. "WTF - I didn't even know they had Safari for Windows." But really, what is my incentive to use it? I like Firefox, it's all set up the way I want... goodbye, Safari.
I call FUD. I have installed Windows (95, 98, 2000, XP, XP x64, and Vista Business x64) many, many times from non-OEM CDs, and I assure that you that all of those are certainly no worse than, and usually better than, my experiences with Debian, Gentoo, or pretty much any Linux distribution.
Drivers? The last time I had to look for drivers to get normal hardware working was with Windows 98. Sure, I had to supply a third-party driver for software RAID on my machine, but normal users don't have to deal with that sort of thing.
Finally, Vista actually does improve on the install process by letting you provide third-party drivers on USB (before you could only provide them on floppies). Of course, I don't deal with any install issues anymore, as I've made a custom slip-streamed CD for my own machine :-)
Sorry for the yelling, it's just really frustrating to have 95% of the comments in the discussion be totally oblivious to what the bill actually says. And the thing about iPhones was left over from a reply to someone else that I pasted. You're right, I don't know if that would actually count, but it's irrelevant to the current discussion anyway. The bill is written to address people who turn on their computer, and find they are on the internet, and unwittingly they are using their neighbor's open wifi. That's criminal under the current code. It's intentional, willful, and without authorization. Yet, they are still without knowledge that it is unauthorized access - this is the part the bill addresses, by adding a few lines to say that if you didn't have knowledge that the access was unauthorized (which would definitely be the case with the iPhone, but that's probably also unintentional and not willful), you're not a criminal.
That said, I still think it's way too conspiracy-theoryish to chalk this up to telcos. I mean, the delegate says exactly why he's proposing the changes, and they amount to a couple of lines that simply decriminalize something. I think telcos have bigger fish to donate to than random Western Maryland delegates, and if these changes are what they are paying for, they'd better be praying, too.
Don't waste time reading the article, which is completely misleading. Instead, read the actual bill.
You don't at all get the idea behind the law. This bill is SPECIFICALLY designed to address what happened to you - when someone connects to a network without authorization, and without knowing that they were unauthorized. Ignore the /. groupthink, and read my other comment that explains the bill in detail. Ignore the summary, and the title. THEY ARE ALL WRONG. Unauthorized access to a network is ALREADY ILLEGAL, and this bill simply tries to add an exception for when that happens without you realizing that it is unauthorized.
Sounds like you need to take 2 minutes and READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it.
The problem is not with this law, the problem is with the current law. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.
BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.
No. Just no. People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail. The "three years" you state is ALREADY IN THE CURRENT LAW - this bill doesn't add it.
BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.
Of course you can't say either way, because it's complete bullshit. What you fail to realize is that "squatting" (using a wireless network without authorization) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL UNDER CURRENT MARYLAND LAW.
People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.
BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it
While that sort of nonsense will get you modded up, it's complete bullshit. First, cite your source. I bet you don't have one, because you just pulled that out of your ass. Second, what you fail to realize is that "squatting" (using a wireless network without authorization) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL UNDER CURRENT MARYLAND LAW.
Despite the hundreds of ill-informed comments to the contrary (yours included), this bill does no such thing. People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.
BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.
Despite the hundreds of ill-informed comments to the contrary (yours included), this bill does no such thing. People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.
BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.
Despite the hundreds of ill-informed comments to the contrary (yours included), this bill does no such thing. People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.
BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.
Yes, yes we do. What pretty much every other comment in this discussion has totally missed is that this bill decriminalizes unauthorized access done without the knowledge that it is unauthorized. This bill makes fewer things illegal, not more. See my other comment, which explains in greater detail.
Unfortunately, pretty much everyone has succumbed to the groupthink on this one, jumping on the bandwagon of "omg he's trying to make piggybacking illegal" without realizing that IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. I hope some mods come by and figure this out.
IANAL, but I have been looking at this bill I have just come to the same realization that you have. Practically every post in this discussion has COMPLETELY misunderstood the bill.
First, people need to read the actual proposed bill, which they can do here (NB: PDF). Note that the CAPITAL parts are being ADDED to the existing law.
Next, people need to understand that under existing Maryland law unauthorized access to a computer network is already illegal. This clearly includes wireless networks. This means that your iPhone / XP / Vista / whatever that automatically connects to an insecure network is technically breaking EXISTING law. The current law reads:
A person may not intentionally, willfully, and without authorization access, attempt to access, cause to be accessed, or exceed the person's authorized access to all or part of a computer network, computer control language, computer, computer software, computer system, computer services, or computer database.This delegate wants to amend that section to exclude wireless internet access. It would instead read:
A person may not intentionally, willfully, and without authorization access, attempt to access, cause to be accessed, or exceed the person's authorized access to all or part of a computer network, computer control language, computer, computer software, computer system, computer services OTHER THAN WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE, or computer database.This would mean that your device that automatically connects to an insecure network would no longer be breaking the law. But in order to keep purposeful, intentional access to a wireless network (or "wireless internet service") illegal, they have added this section to the bill:
(4) A PERSON MAY NOT INTENTIONALLY, WILLFULLY, AND WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION ACCESS, ATTEMPT TO ACCESS, CAUSE TO BE ACCESSED, OR EXCEED THE PERSON'S AUTHORIZED ACCESS TO WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ACCESS IS UNAUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED BY LAW.THIS PROPOSED BILL MAKES FEWER THINGS ILLEGAL. Now I know a lot of people think that unauthorized access to an insecure network, even when purposeful and intentional, shouldn't be illegal, but it already is. This bill would simply decriminalize unintentional unauthorized access.
PLEASE, SOMEONE BEAT THE /. GROUPTHINK AND MOD THE PARENT POST UP, OR THIS ONE.
AT&T's network (as a telecommunication service) may be a common carrier, but their Internet service (an "information service") is not a common carrier (at least, according to this).