Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
So, let me get this straight, you are equating racism and/or racial profiling with the fairly technically straightforward task of identifying the location of a router being used for a particular online activity?
Are you really, seriously, suggesting that knocking on the door of the house where a router has been identified (not just because it's open, but because you can see it being used) is equivalent to a racist police officer pulling someone over for driving-while-black?
The over-the-top response is really not relevant at all. The cops got the wrong house. Whether they got the wrong house by knocking on the door, or by knocking the door down, is not really relevant. Either way, they picked the house based on the router being used, and that is potentially a risk one assumes when using an open router. Someone might see your router being used for a particular activity, and, fairly reasonably, deduce that you are the one using it.
If you're just interested in stories of cops being too gung-ho, then there are plenty of stories that have nothing at all to do with tech issues - and, actually, this is one of them.
Again, it seems the cops did go into ths with way too much adrenalin (assuming there are no other facts which would explain their tactics here), and they should have acknowledged that. However, the lesson for Mr. Open Router is no less valid for the fact that the cops went Rambo on him.
If a particular router is being used to conduct illegal activity, it's only logical to first look to the place where the router is located - not next door.
His open router didn't "cause" anything, but you gotta expect that if someone takes your car for a joyride when you leave the keys in it will result in YOU getting a knock on your door when it's discovered the car was used in some illegal act before it was returned to you.
Absolutely. The cops could have taken some additional steps to try to confirm the download was happening in that particular house/apartment/whatever, rather than next door. Whether they SHOULD have, though, I'm not quite as sure. If all they had done was get a search warrant and knock on the door (which seems like the more appropriate tactic here, rather than the shock-and-awe approach), I suspect few would have cried foul. It's the over-the-top behavior of the cops that is triggering the extra scrutiny here.
I view the two issues as distinct. However, the post clearly discounts the security lesson to be learned in order to focus on the argument that criticizes the cops. Sure, the cops seem to bear some need for criticism here, but that doesn't minimize the homeowner's situation AT ALL. If you set up an open router, you just might have to deal with a knock at the door when someone with a badge needs to find someone using your open router. In this particular case, it just so happens the cops knocked so hard the door fell down.
Yes, it seems to have been overkill, but the only one claiming the reason for the raid was the open router (as opposed to the illegal activity they were actually responding to - albeit in what appears to be a way over-the-top manner) is Mr. Masnic.
Yes, the pot analogy was supposed to include the fact that the farm's owner didn't know the back corner had been co-oped. And the fact it doesn't work is exactly teh point. Lack of a security system is not the reason for the raid. It was what happened in the absence of said security system.
As for breaking down the door and pointing guns and so forth, that's exactly what the last part of my post addressed. I agree it seems very weird. Not that downloading child porn is OK, but not sure how that (by itself) justifies a full frontal assault like that.
My point is that the lesson to be learned by people setting up their home networks is VERY valid, and should not be discounted, as it was here. If you set it up so that someone can do bad things in a way that looks like it might be you, you have to expect to be questioned when those bad things happen. The fact that the police resposne here seems over-the-top is an independent (and irrelevant) issue.
Apparently, the raid was NOT because of an open router, but because a child porn download was taking place there. The apparent reason the download was able to take place there was because the router was open.
It's like saying a farm got raided for not having a fence when the cops show up to address a pot crop in some out-of-view back corner of the property.
I think it really is a good argument for making sure your router is locked down, especially since, as has been advocated by Mr. Masnick previously, having an open router is seen by some as essentially an invitation for others to use it. So, I'm not sure what the problem is with the concept that use of your router to commit a crime will result in the cops knocking on your door to ask you some questions about it. You would logically have some 'splainin' to do.
That being said, having the SWAT guys break down the door and manhandle the suspect really does seem on odd choice of tactics for this sort of thing. As others have said, I suspect we don't know quite all the relevant facts here.
The pricing isn't a "mistake" if people are paying it and the seller watches and adjusts the price as competition acts.
Since there aren't any practical competitors for ebooks on Kindle at the moment, perhaps Amazon has the advantage of a much longer run before having to respond to a change in demand which would serve to drive the price down. Even if the book is available in other electronic forms, those of us with Kindles are in a bit of a walled garden. Right now it's generally a nice walled garden, but the walls are there, nonetheless.
It seems to me that the basic law of supply and demand trumps any other observations, such as pricing being generally driven toward marginal cost of production. If the demand is right, you can stave off that trend for a long time.
And value is a huge part of the pricing of a product, as you yourself point out a lot. You laud performers who do things like sell autographs (or whatever - being simplistic here) to make their art more valuable in the face other, cheaper (whether or not legitimate) sources for their content. That is entirely based on the "value" of the add-on, not the artist's cost in producing it. Who argues that it only took the artist three seconds and a negligible volume of ink to scrawl his/her name on the album cover as a rejection of the extra ten (or fifty or hundred) bucks for the special personalized edition of the album?
I find it sad that so many people seem to adopt the slant that the case is about criticizing the Winklevii for wanting more than they got, rather than asking if they got what they bargained for.
If the Winklevii were misled, then they should get whatever amount represents what accurate information would have gottn them to, regardless of whether others think it's "too much" or somehow would represent some sort of great undeserved windfall.
That being said, the 9th Circuit ruled that, under the circumstances, it was the twins' own fault they didn't have a better understanding of the Facebook financial situation, so the court is not now going to require any recalculation. Kozinski's criticism of the greed he perceived in them was really not appropriate.
Of course, the 9th Circuit is also the one most often overturned - by a very long shot.
There may very well be nothing at all nefarious in not inviting the press. Perhaps the PTO wanted to do some info-gathering, and not have to spennd time fielding questions from reporters, as opposed to the peolpe they think will actually be using such a branch office.
And it sounds like the attendees were not in any way prohibited from talking about it.
I thought KFC had already done that, and that's why they had to change their name from Kentucky Fried Chicken, since they weren't selling "real" chicken anymore.
I'm not sure why you think the time lag between writing and publishing is relevant. I suspect the writer drew a NYT paycheck when he wrote the bulk of Ms. Taylor's obit. If the NYT paid him when he wrote it, why should the NYT be subject to criticism for charging when they finally run the piece merely because the original writer is now deceased?
Didn't the "Girl Who Payed With Fire" books get written by a guy who croaked pretty much right after he sent the manuscripts off to be published? Should the publisher be criticized for charging for those books because the writer, as a dead man, is no longer a "quality [author]"?
I'm really not sure how you think this advances your arguments about the NYT at all.
I've lived in Ohio, and I would not be at all surprised if the guy really didn't know "photocopier" was the more accurate generic term for "Xerox machine". Honestly, I would shake my head in dismay, but I wouldn't be particularly surprised. And, yes, I know he's supposed to be the IT guy for the county.
However, it appeared that (according to the County's attorney), photocopying technology was potentially an issue in the case, so he possibly instructed his client to not answer questions about "photocopiers" unless it was about a specific kind of photocopying technology or something.
And, of course, we're all happy to point to the other guy as being difficult and/or stupid, but just wait until you believe your side of a dispute depends on a particular interpretation of a word or concept.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why should it be legal to hop onto open WiFi signals?
While there may be a valid question as to whether it should be illegal, I hardly think it's "preposterous".
Sure, many PCs automatically connect to open routeres (though I'm not sure how many do that by default these days). So, we might consider the difference between stumbling across an open router, versus identifying one and intentionally returning to it repeatedly. Your wireless-promiscuous PC can only connect automatically if you take it somewhere suitable. It doesn't move around on its own.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why should it be legal to hop onto open WiFi signals?
Actually, an interesting perspective. If you are "emitting" something from private property that is detectable in a public space, is it reasonable to assume you are therefore entitled to receive the emissions for your own purposes? Stated this way, I am almost persuaded.
Certainly, it's a serious breach of etiquette to intentionally position yourelf to hear conversations in your neighbor's house or so that you can look in through your neighbor's window to survey what's inside - all from outside your neighbor's property. But, admittedly, that which is inconsiderate is not necessarily illegal.
Of course, there's a difference between stumbling upon such a thing and purposely seeking it out to take advantage of it. Should you be able to use binoculars from the sidewalk in order to look through an uncovered window? That might be more analogous. It's not like people are naturally equipped to perceive wifi signals.
Anyway, I don't find the "implicit invitation" concept persuasive, because the state should more likely err on the side of a citizen not acting against his own privacy interests. However, I might be persuaded by more of an "if it's out there, it's out there" argument, and just look down my nose at those who have the bad manners to snoop in what is actually none of their business.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why should it be legal to hop onto open WiFi signals?
The owner can easily use an SSID that says "Use me". I'm happy to say that a passerby should be entitled to rely on that kind of an SSID and not be tricked into breaking the law. So, I would make this an "opt in" situation for router owners, rather than "opt out".
Most routers come with some sort of default password, like "admin". If the owner didn't change that, is it the same as leaving it open?
Clarification - the guy who mooched my cable didn't need to enter my property. The cable connection was on the common exterior of our duplex.
On the post: SWAT Team Raids Home Because Guy Had An Open Wireless Router
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
Are you really, seriously, suggesting that knocking on the door of the house where a router has been identified (not just because it's open, but because you can see it being used) is equivalent to a racist police officer pulling someone over for driving-while-black?
HM
On the post: While TSA Sexually Assaults Miss USA... It's Letting Other Passengers Through Without Clearance
Re: Hot women are terrorists
HM
On the post: SWAT Team Raids Home Because Guy Had An Open Wireless Router
Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
If you're just interested in stories of cops being too gung-ho, then there are plenty of stories that have nothing at all to do with tech issues - and, actually, this is one of them.
Again, it seems the cops did go into ths with way too much adrenalin (assuming there are no other facts which would explain their tactics here), and they should have acknowledged that. However, the lesson for Mr. Open Router is no less valid for the fact that the cops went Rambo on him.
If a particular router is being used to conduct illegal activity, it's only logical to first look to the place where the router is located - not next door.
HM
On the post: SWAT Team Raids Home Because Guy Had An Open Wireless Router
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
HM
On the post: SWAT Team Raids Home Because Guy Had An Open Wireless Router
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
I view the two issues as distinct. However, the post clearly discounts the security lesson to be learned in order to focus on the argument that criticizes the cops. Sure, the cops seem to bear some need for criticism here, but that doesn't minimize the homeowner's situation AT ALL. If you set up an open router, you just might have to deal with a knock at the door when someone with a badge needs to find someone using your open router. In this particular case, it just so happens the cops knocked so hard the door fell down.
HM
On the post: SWAT Team Raids Home Because Guy Had An Open Wireless Router
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
HM
On the post: SWAT Team Raids Home Because Guy Had An Open Wireless Router
Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
HM
On the post: SWAT Team Raids Home Because Guy Had An Open Wireless Router
Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
As for breaking down the door and pointing guns and so forth, that's exactly what the last part of my post addressed. I agree it seems very weird. Not that downloading child porn is OK, but not sure how that (by itself) justifies a full frontal assault like that.
My point is that the lesson to be learned by people setting up their home networks is VERY valid, and should not be discounted, as it was here. If you set it up so that someone can do bad things in a way that looks like it might be you, you have to expect to be questioned when those bad things happen. The fact that the police resposne here seems over-the-top is an independent (and irrelevant) issue.
HM
On the post: Big Patent Holders & Big Patent Law Firms Bring Judges To Belgium For Boondoggle...
Turnabout is fair play
HM
On the post: SWAT Team Raids Home Because Guy Had An Open Wireless Router
Headline a bit misleading
It's like saying a farm got raided for not having a fence when the cops show up to address a pot crop in some out-of-view back corner of the property.
I think it really is a good argument for making sure your router is locked down, especially since, as has been advocated by Mr. Masnick previously, having an open router is seen by some as essentially an invitation for others to use it. So, I'm not sure what the problem is with the concept that use of your router to commit a crime will result in the cops knocking on your door to ask you some questions about it. You would logically have some 'splainin' to do.
That being said, having the SWAT guys break down the door and manhandle the suspect really does seem on odd choice of tactics for this sort of thing. As others have said, I suspect we don't know quite all the relevant facts here.
HM
On the post: 'Economics In One Lesson' Apparently Doesn't Include Pricing; Kindle Version Most Expensive
Re: Re: Come on TechDirt...
Since there aren't any practical competitors for ebooks on Kindle at the moment, perhaps Amazon has the advantage of a much longer run before having to respond to a change in demand which would serve to drive the price down. Even if the book is available in other electronic forms, those of us with Kindles are in a bit of a walled garden. Right now it's generally a nice walled garden, but the walls are there, nonetheless.
It seems to me that the basic law of supply and demand trumps any other observations, such as pricing being generally driven toward marginal cost of production. If the demand is right, you can stave off that trend for a long time.
And value is a huge part of the pricing of a product, as you yourself point out a lot. You laud performers who do things like sell autographs (or whatever - being simplistic here) to make their art more valuable in the face other, cheaper (whether or not legitimate) sources for their content. That is entirely based on the "value" of the add-on, not the artist's cost in producing it. Who argues that it only took the artist three seconds and a negligible volume of ink to scrawl his/her name on the album cover as a rejection of the extra ten (or fifty or hundred) bucks for the special personalized edition of the album?
HM
On the post: Winkelvi Officially Ask 9th Circuit To Rehear Their Case About How $160 Million For Not Doing Much Is Not Enough
Re: Re: Who's to say what's "enough"?
HM
On the post: Winkelvi Officially Ask 9th Circuit To Rehear Their Case About How $160 Million For Not Doing Much Is Not Enough
Who's to say what's "enough"?
If the Winklevii were misled, then they should get whatever amount represents what accurate information would have gottn them to, regardless of whether others think it's "too much" or somehow would represent some sort of great undeserved windfall.
That being said, the 9th Circuit ruled that, under the circumstances, it was the twins' own fault they didn't have a better understanding of the Facebook financial situation, so the court is not now going to require any recalculation. Kozinski's criticism of the greed he perceived in them was really not appropriate.
Of course, the 9th Circuit is also the one most often overturned - by a very long shot.
HM
On the post: Patent Office Wants To Open Up Shop In Silicon Valley... But Doesn't Want The Press To Know
Maybe 'cause the press is not always helpful?
And it sounds like the attendees were not in any way prohibited from talking about it.
HM
On the post: DailyDirt: You Have Won Second Prize In A Beauty Contest! Collect $10.
In vitro chicken. . . .
HM
On the post: Reason #247 Why You Should Pay For The NYTimes: To Keep Its Dead Obituary Writers Employed
I"m sure they paid him while he was alive
Didn't the "Girl Who Payed With Fire" books get written by a guy who croaked pretty much right after he sent the manuscripts off to be published? Should the publisher be criticized for charging for those books because the writer, as a dead man, is no longer a "quality [author]"?
I'm really not sure how you think this advances your arguments about the NYT at all.
HM
On the post: Great Moments In Legal Questioning: IT Boss In Cuyahoga County Cannot Identify A Photocopier
Yeah, not so unbelievable, actually.
However, it appeared that (according to the County's attorney), photocopying technology was potentially an issue in the case, so he possibly instructed his client to not answer questions about "photocopiers" unless it was about a specific kind of photocopying technology or something.
And, of course, we're all happy to point to the other guy as being difficult and/or stupid, but just wait until you believe your side of a dispute depends on a particular interpretation of a word or concept.
HM
On the post: Dutch Court Says Breaking Into An Encrypted WiFi Router To Use The Connection Is Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why should it be legal to hop onto open WiFi signals?
Sure, many PCs automatically connect to open routeres (though I'm not sure how many do that by default these days). So, we might consider the difference between stumbling across an open router, versus identifying one and intentionally returning to it repeatedly. Your wireless-promiscuous PC can only connect automatically if you take it somewhere suitable. It doesn't move around on its own.
HM
On the post: Dutch Court Says Breaking Into An Encrypted WiFi Router To Use The Connection Is Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why should it be legal to hop onto open WiFi signals?
Certainly, it's a serious breach of etiquette to intentionally position yourelf to hear conversations in your neighbor's house or so that you can look in through your neighbor's window to survey what's inside - all from outside your neighbor's property. But, admittedly, that which is inconsiderate is not necessarily illegal.
Of course, there's a difference between stumbling upon such a thing and purposely seeking it out to take advantage of it. Should you be able to use binoculars from the sidewalk in order to look through an uncovered window? That might be more analogous. It's not like people are naturally equipped to perceive wifi signals.
Anyway, I don't find the "implicit invitation" concept persuasive, because the state should more likely err on the side of a citizen not acting against his own privacy interests. However, I might be persuaded by more of an "if it's out there, it's out there" argument, and just look down my nose at those who have the bad manners to snoop in what is actually none of their business.
HM
On the post: Dutch Court Says Breaking Into An Encrypted WiFi Router To Use The Connection Is Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why should it be legal to hop onto open WiFi signals?
Most routers come with some sort of default password, like "admin". If the owner didn't change that, is it the same as leaving it open?
Clarification - the guy who mooched my cable didn't need to enter my property. The cable connection was on the common exterior of our duplex.
HM
Next >>