librarian.net

*Hello to all of the folks from librarian.net who followed the link from there to here.

In July, I took advantage of one of the WiFi Hotspots in Nantucket and I posted a blog entry from outside of the Atheneum Library. Apparently I was breaking the law...possibly even violating the ironically named "Patriot Act." AKMA tried to do the same thing and was harassed by the Nantucket Police.

The comments section of AKMA's post debates the legality of enforcing the supposed law.

Right now, if I turn on my Powerbook and leave it on as I drive down Olympic Boulevard, I can detect dozens of signals from offices, homes and even bluetooth phones (if they happen to be on and in cars close enough.) Isn't it the responsibility of the signal or device owner to password protect their signal or device? I could pull into a parking space next to an industrial park and browse other bluetooth enabled devices, surf the net and send e-mail via any of the many signals that appear in my airport pull-down menu. Obviously, that's theft of signal.

But the library? They are providing their service at no charge and in my case, I asked to use it. They made no qualification that I stay within the walls of the library. I don't see how that can be illegal.

I'm sure we have not heard the end of this debate. Wireless is just getting warmed up.

Comments

[Abby]

Wow, this will definitely be an interesting issue to follow. As you probably know, we used my laptop all over the U.S. this summer and would often "mooch" wireless internet from hotel lobbies and other places. But a library??? Jeez, what's next? The irony of the library being located in Massachusetts.

[Barb]

Bluetooth is different from Wi-Fi. Just b/c you can find devices using Bluetooth that does not mean you have access to their services. There's a tad bit more security there than with Wi-fi.

As to the issue of theft of services, it becomes more of an issue when the individual stealing the services is also committing a crime. At what point does the person in control of the device emitting wi-fi have responsibility for leaving their Wi-Fi connection open and unprotected.

[Shane]

Barb-

Good point. I understand the difference between Bluetooth and WiFi, although perhaps that's not clear in my post. I simply meant that if I detect other Bluetooth devices with my Powerbook, I can at least browse portions of their hard drive in some cases. For example, in OSX, I can browse their "Drop Box." Also, I think you're right. NOT password protecting a device should not necessarily makes someone liable for crimes committed over that access point, however why take the risk of leaving an open connection available to whomever might be within range of the signal?

[Tony]

I'm a little late to this discussion, but this article from PC Magazine (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1565274,00.asp)">http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1565274,00.asp)">http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1565274,00.asp) seems to make the best case for placing the burden of protecting a wireless internet connection on the transmitter, as opposed to requiring the receiver to avoid using it. Other connections regularly pop up on my laptop whenever I'm at work or home. The number of available connections is so copious that I usually turn the wireless off unless I need to browse the internet on my own connection (which is password protected, unlike most of the others bombarding my laptop). The legal issues here need to be resolved with common sense before fear takes over completely. Or is it too late?