The Great Change: Turning Cathy into a Lawyer

I agree with you that criminalizing the type of wifi usage you are referring to is probably not the best idea. Alsp, it wouldn't suprise me if the broadband providers wouldn't do their best to make this sounds like some sort of privacy or security issue-- since ultimately they don't particularly like folks sharing services.

However, I think that you are interpreting the word "tap" wrong. The notion of "tapping" into a utility isn't necessarily the same as the notion of "wiretapping" a communication line.

Wiretapping is about evedropping. Tapping is about use of services. For example, people can (and do) "tap" into their neighbor's electrical and cable lines (and even water pipes). There are all sorts of questions about whether this sort of tapping is a crime against either the utility user or the utility-- but it isn't really a privacy issue.

Mark

I'm not misinterpreting anything, Mark. I'm saying that people are using the "tapping" word sloppily, and thus are blurring the meanings.

What term would you prefer?

No. I'm not having this conversation. In fact, I withdraw my earlier comment about meanings getting mixed because, as usual, it has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. I'm tired of getting sucked into your rabbit holes, where you find *something* to take issue with, no matter how small or irrelevant to the larger point, in nearly every. single. legal post I make.

I'm sorry that you think I'm picking on you. It isn't my intent.

In general, I post only when I pretty strongly disagree with your conclusion.

Here, one of the main points you make is:

"What most concerns me about the Florida article, however, is the language associating WiFi usage with "tapping." I feel quite strongly that wiretapping – of phone or computer communications – is an extremely bad thing, and the sanctity of those communications deserves the utmost privacy protections the law (civil and criminal) can provide."

I was pointing out that the article wasn't using the word "tapping" in the sense of "wiretapping" or even eavesdropping. It was saying that people can surrepetisiously "tap" into other's wifi services without their knowledge. It was pretty clear that the article is refering to tapping in the utility sense, not in the evesdropping sense. Why? Because the article's main point about why a high speed services subscriber might not want someone to tap into their wifi was that a surrepeticious user might use the connection for some illegal purpose (ie hacking) and then the illegal use would only be traceable to the landline of the legal subscriber.

I would say that this is pretty good evidence that the author of the article was _not_ using "tap" in the sense of eavesdrop, but in the sense of "surrepeticiously obtain service." Unlike you, I found this use of the term "tap" to be accurate and neither sloppy nor innapropriately pejorative. Therefore I disagreed with a major point of your post, and thought that my alternate understanding of the article (and its use of the word "tap") might be useful to you.

As for the larger point in your post-- I certainly do think that the service providers would love to criminalize (or discourage) open wi-fi use, since they want to make a buck, and they don't make extra money when extra people use a single node. And, while I agree that the Florida prosecution seems a bit extreme, I think there may be a place for the law in wi fi use. For example, purhaps wifi networks should come with a flag that says "come in" or "don't come in"-- and connecting to a node with the "don't come in" flag should be a crime. If folks don't want to make their wifi nodes open to the public, the law shouldn't require them to have technical sense in order to keep people out.

Of course, this would lead to a couple of issues such as: (i) should the default for this flag be "come in" or "don't come in" (which would be a critical question, since most people probably would stick with the default) and (ii) should service providers be able to require that their users set the flag to "don't come in" and/or be able to charge higher rates to those who make their networks legally available to the public. My pref would be for the default to be "come in" and there to be a rule against descrimination against people who maintain that setting. However, frankly, I wouldn't object to the opposite rule-- the key is that the rules be better publicized. Right now many people have open wifi's without their knowledge, simply because they don't understand the decisions they made when they set up their networks.

As for your characterizing my comments in general as a "rabbit hole", I strongly disagree that my posts in general have been nitpicky or off topic. On the evicted renter who had been shot by her boyfriend, I strongly do feel that the landlord should have the right to evict her-- though I certainly hope that the landlord would choose not to. This was a direct (and well thought out) disagreement with the crux of your post. Similarly, after looking at what was actually happening with the broadcast of "muddy rivers" (the huck finn musical), I did feel that the copyright owner should have been well within its rights (while your post was arguing that he was overreaching). I think that you will find the same tenor to all of my posts on law topics.

If you don't want to read or react to comments that disagree with you on substantial points, so be it. At time you have complained that no one posts comments. I enjoy reading your blog and reacting to your posts (which I often do disagree with. But if you don't like my posts, or wish to tap into my commentary-- I'll stop.

But please don't do me the insult of acting as though my posts are somehow being trivial or silly. They really arn't...

Mark

incidentially-- in case you didn't get it-- I found your rabbit hole comment extremely rude...