var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Nick1693
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

I don't think I like the idea of personal info being sent over a public WiFi network, especially incident reports or credit card info.

I do see how this could be convenient though, but why does the MPAA have this much control over what can happen to a network?

Reply
11 replies
\"user-pic\"
2 replies
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nick1693: \"why does the MPAA have this much control over what can happen to a network?\"

Because politicians and law-makers let them. :-(

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nerdtalker
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nick1693: Lots and lots of FUD on this thread.

Ever heard of VPN? Anyone? We're what, 18 comments in and nobody even brought up that using any service over a VPN makes the untrusted public wifi link completely secure.

No doubt in my mind that's what the cops and vendors are using, otherwise they're plain stupid.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RandomZero
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nerdtalker: Maybe because any security professional will laugh the moment you say \"completely secure\". There's good security, but total security is a myth. Even AES has some surprising attacks against it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Persistence - Long viv revolisyon an konsomatè yo!
November 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nick1693: My internship deals specifically with law enforcement software and wireless networks. We use Verizon cards, but we still have to use a VPN for security which is surely what this police dept. is using. As it's run by the municipality, the police force may even have QoS preference. The information is likely also encrypted heavily on top of the VPN.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PølάrβǽЯ
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nick1693: Incident reports are public records. I can stroll into the police station, ask for the report of the accident you got into last week, and they HAVE to give it to me (eventually, anyway).

Credit cards (and related technology), on the other hand, have so many inherent security flaws that IMHO one more way to exploit them doesn't really matter.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rat_Race
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: That is completely wrong. To even begin to get access to a wired line, you will have to go through walls, pavement, piping, etc. Also, wired connections can and are encrypted. Which only gets harder if that line happens to be fiber optic and you are in view of security cameras and other people.


Wifi on the other hand just requires you to get within range of it, and you can easily fit in with an entire crowd with no knowing. And WEPs are a joke; a WEP can be cracked within an hour, ten minutes even, with enough traffic on the line with programs that anyone could learn to use and require no knowledge of how networks or encrption work. Not to mention there was a paper recently published about reseachers craking a WPA in under a minute.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AngryK9
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nick1693: Because the MPAA has very deep pockets that contain lots of politicians with grabby hands.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Keen314
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AngryK9: The non-cynical answer is: the DMCA.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kryndar
November 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Keen314: I don't know about you but I would call that a cynical answer too.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GitEmSteveDave_IsSlacking
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nick1693: If it's encrypted on both sides, what's to be afraid of? Do you ever log onto your email from a computer besides your own?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jeff-er-ee
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_HurtHisKnee: ...which of course isn't encrypted (email). However, you're absolutely right. As long as they're using decent encryption, I'm not worried.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Nick1693
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_IsSlacking: Encrypted means it can be decrypted if someone wanted to.

Also, I use Gmail with SSL always on, but yes. =)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RvLeshrac
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nick1693:


Yes, but a decent level of encryption means that the person decrypting the information needs either


a) Warehouses on top of warehouses filled with the most powerful systems available and several years


or


b) An entire lifetime in which to crack the decryption key


or


c) Incredibly, astronomically good luck.


Distributed computing projects have shown that *good* encryption is nearly impossible to crack in the amount of time necessary to make use of the encrypted information.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bwcbwc
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RvLeshrac: Or warehouses on top of warehouses filled with a huge dictionary of haschcodes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GitEmSteveDave_IsSlacking
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nick1693: Transmitting over any medium means it can be intercepted and recorded. That goes for talking, writing, wifi, wired, semaphore, smoke signals, etc...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DH405
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nick1693: Are you under the impression that anything done over the Internet is not subject to snooping? It's not just Wifi. Do a traceroute sometime and see how many snooping points there are.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TechnoDestructo
November 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DH405:

Depending on the means of transmission, it could be intercepted in between those points, too.

But intercepting data doesn't mean you can do anything with it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Nick1693
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DH405: I know how many possible points there are to snoop, but I don't recall Lifehacker ever posting an article of using a wired network for snooping. (I've never tried any snooping, so I have no idea.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nick1693: snooping on a wired network is actually easier than a wireless network. On a wireless network, you need to crack the wep/wpa key, on a wired network you just plug in, which is normally very easy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bwcbwc
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: You're assuming a public network would use an encryption key. The real encryption to use on a public WiFi is a VPN + SSL/TLS after you've logged in. Same applies to wired, although the VPN is overkill if you are on a network subnet that you control (i.e., your home router). If someone steals your information by plugging into your wired router and packet-sniffing your home network, you've got a home security problem, not an internet security problem.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
acasto
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nick1693: That makes no sense. What would be the purpose of encrypting information if it couldn't be decrypted? Of course it can be decrypted, but not just \"if someone wanted to\". That is of course assuming they are following current practices.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
November 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@acasto: that's how passwords work. IN AN IDEAL SETTING... when you first make a password, your computer takes a hash of that password, and sends it to the consumerist.com database, along wiht the rest of your registration info. when you go to log in, your username is sent unencrypted, but your computer will re-hash your password, and send it back ot the consumerist server. a login script will look up your password hash from the database, and compare it to the password hash you sent - this way, they never actually know your password.

(Hashing is a form of 1-way encryption)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Nick1693
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@acasto: Hashing passwords, like Gawker did. (Why we need to add a valid email to our accounts if we want to keep our name on the new Consumerist platform.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Nick1693
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_IsSlacking: It's not really feeling secure, just a little more protected than a normal login.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
GitEmSteveDave_IsSlacking
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So what movie was it? Hopefully it wasn't the Love Guru. That movie has been ruining and destroying lives for years.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
plim
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_HurtHisKnee: we went in to watch a different movie, and all of a sudden, the love guru shows up. we told the theater people, they stopped it, only to bring it back up again.


luckily they finally figured it out and moved us to another theater to watch our movie (luckily, from the beginning).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
digisplicer
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dohtem: Which is why he constantly appears in movies in disguise, hoping we won't notice.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@digisplicer: I remember seeing him in Inglorious Basterds and doing a double take. It kind of took me out of the movie, because then I expected him to be playing a Mike Myers-ish character, like Dr. Evil or Fat Bastard. He was just a British general, no laughs. No volcano lair.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
delphi_ote
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's an idea: ignore the MPAA and keep the service up. We don't permanently shut down the roads when one person uses them to commit a crime, do we?

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
PølάrβǽЯ
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@delphi_ote: Nice analogy, delphi. My personal favorite, however, is that nobody has ever sued Smith & Wesson for a murder. Why shut down an ISP for a users' SUPPOSED* infringement?

*(I say supposed because without a judgment or conviction, there's no proof that the MPAA's allegations are true.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ursus Maritimus:


Oh but the gun manufacturers *have* been sued many timesfor others using their products to commit crimes. Not saying I agree with the theory of liability, but the lawsuits are quite real.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Mecharine
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@treimel: They have been, that's true. But all the lawsuits failed to show any liability.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mecharine:


Still cost them a pretty penny to litigate, but yes, I don't know of any taken sucessfully to verdict.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ursus Maritimus: the analogy is wrong. Suing cisco would be the equivalent of suing smith and wesson.The ISP is actively allowing content to illegally being transferred across their network, so if they don't want to be sued, they do their part to stop it. Their network, their responsibility

full disclosure: worked for an ISP for several years.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DrLumen
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter:

ISP's have a Safe Harbor and can't be sued for copyright infringement by a customer (well like anything you can be sued for whatever but it doesn't mean you will lose). They can be sued to release the name of the person that transferred copywritten files but they can't be sued for someone using their network to do so. ISP's are not the intended guardians of the web even though some think they are...

The issue here is that the city may technically be an ISP but they are a pseudo-private entity providing connectivity to others. Like the article said, there is only one IP for the city so it looks like the city is acting like Pirate Bay.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned MPAA and RIAA can go eat a big steaming pile of excrement with a nice chianti! (well maybe a nice Thunderbird instead)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ktetch
November 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter:
Bigger disclosure first. I worked as a copyright enforcer for a record company. I more recently worked for the Pirate Party (Us and internationally, hence the avatar) and for the last 7 years, I've been doing research on P2P systems.

Ok, the ISP is actively doing nothing. It is actively allowing ALL content. It has no way to tell what content is being transfered without wiretapping it (and yes, I know about the loophole that email, while being stored, is then tehcnically not intercepted in trasit and so isn't a wiretap, and the other loophole that was the FISA amendment act last year). Also there's another problem, bittorrent, the most popular P2Pmethod, is non sequential, and doesn't contain filenames in the data transfer. You can't tell, looking at the data packets, what it contains or refers to. So the ISP has no way to tell if the content is a movie, or a linux ISO.
Thirdly, even if it was a movie, they have no way to tell if it's an infringemnt or not. I actually have limited distribution and performance rights for 3 seasons of a Comedy Central show (which ran for 5) plus one of the pilots for it. If they block my transfer, when they're wrong, they violate their common carrier status. Comcast was dragged into hearings about this very issue 2 years ago, when their sandvine equipment dropped bittorrent and other similar network traffic.

In fact, There's a trial just wrapping up in Australia right now, because AFACT, and the ISP iinet. Torrentfreak has great coverage of it.

In short, it's actually not the job of the ISP to prevent it (and can be a felony to do so), and copyright infringement is a civilly actionable situation, not criminal. The MPAA actually prefers civil suits to criminal, because their cases wouldn't stand up in criminal trials (higher burdon of proof, you can't just outspend the defense team) the claims made by the MPAA don't ever add up (a record summer at the box office this year, you don't say!)

Oh, and the system the city is looking to buy, doesn't work. If you want proof, just ask Edwyn Collins.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
classic10
November 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: The problem here is that we don't have an internet police as we have a highway police. You still can't shut down the read because someone died from a car accident. You don't shut down the water supply because someone drowned. Internet is more and more becoming public utility. Just because it is harder to police the information is not a reason to shut down the pipes. Go after the culprit and leave the roads open.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GitEmSteveDave_IsSlacking
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@delphi_ote: No, only for
Raptors
, Zombiesand when the Princess is in the other castle.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
celeb8
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

ouch dammit i just used the road analogy at that local news site. EFB!@delphi_ote:

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
flyingember
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They don't have any sort of proxy they have logs on?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Coyote
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@flyingember: No, but I don't see small towns hiring a full time IT staff, purchasing proxy servers, and updating their equipment to the overpriced \"corporate\" versions.

Sadly the $20 the MPAA might have lost here could cost the tax payers and citizens of that town millions.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
j-o-h-n
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@flyingember: Often these little WiFi spots are not run by professional IT staff, they just buy some appliance and plug it in. And of course, the appliance doesn't log because that would mean it would run out of space to log and then that would means it \"broke\".

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's not clear that the MPAA did anything more than just notify the city. Since when does the MPAA have judicial powers? The proper response by Mr. Lavine would be to tell the MPAA that the town shares the MPAA's goal against piracy and would happily do something to prevent it. Maybe the MPAA would dig deep into its very deep pockets and come up with $2,900 instead of buying another Congressman.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
charodon
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: Lots of conspiracy theorists here, but yes, it looks like Sony Pictures just sent a notice. I doubt the town had to shut down the free Wi-Fi to avoid liability, but that's what they did.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ktetch
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: \"Since when does the MPAA have judicial powers?\" Since they bought the politicians that control the police and judiciary.

The police have regularly involved investigators from the MPAA and RIAA into cases where they were the alleged victims. In SWeden, the lead Police investigator for the pirate bay trial went to work for WArner bros for 6 months, in the middle of investigating the pirate bay case (warner was one of the accusers)

In the UK this past week, the high court ruled that despite a criminal prosecution being dropped on an alleged copyright case, the police can keep siezed equipment because the one of the British Lobby Groups (FACT, I believe) is debating a private prosecution.

Again, in the UK, a police raid was made on a mans house for running a torrent site (oink) they eve n 'happened' to ahve a BBC camera crew with them. The BPI (UK's RIAA) had told the police that they were selling pre-release music, and earning thousands in membership fees (both false). 2 years later, the guy's still on bail, awaiting trial, for 'conspiracy to defraud the music industry'

I wish I were joking. I should also mention that in the UK, music sales are UP 50% over 10 years ago.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
digisplicer
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: The MPAA threatens to sue the ISP. The ISP tells the city to take it down or they will shut down the access on their side.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
G.O.B.: Come on!
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What a bunch of coshocton. Did they bother using the filter Nazis at Websense? I know I've encountered their shit at work when I browse legitimately innocuous sites at work. There's nothing like getting an e-mail from the network admin because key words in a style script triggered a porn alert. Anyway, if they used filtering a la public library-esque then they would have been fine.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
selianth
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@G.O.B.: Come on!: Actually, I think most public libraries (in towns around me at least) don't have any kind of filtering due to 1st amendment concerns (at least, I think that's why.) Which is why my friend who works in the Children's section of her library often has to chase perverts away who are looking at (and showing off) porn on the computers meant for the kids.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chatterboxwriting
November 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@selianth: My public library had a really strict filter at one point. It blocked Consumerist! I was going there to do my work when my PC was in for repairs (I'm self-employed), and I couldn't even get my work done. I am a content writer, and I was trying to do articles on breast cancer and related topics, and I couldn't open any page with the word breast.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thisistobehelpful
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@selianth: Why does that fall under first amendment rights? You can say whatever you want but downloading/viewing content on any website at a library isn't exactly your free speech or even freedom of the press depending on the site? Congress can't make the law, and neither can a municipality below it, but a director of an institution could make a user TOS about the internet they provide. I'd think even doubly so since generally you need membership log in info via your library card for this sort of thing.

Also I hope your friend gets a good punch in now and then and calls the cops.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JediJohn82
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thisistobehelpful: So you want a public internet filter? Move to CHINA!!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
katstermonster
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JediJohn82: +1

@thisistobehelpful: See, the library is a government entity. And the funny thing about the government is that it has a pretty hefty set of TOS. It's called the Constitution. So yeah, I'm pretty sure that's covered under free speech.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thisistobehelpful
November 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: Yes I understand that. However viewing porn in a public area is probably against most public decency/obscenity laws. If google can manage to filter out things that are pornographic, there's no reason a library couldn't (and shouldn't) filter out that specific content. I'm not even talking about pornographic words, just pictures and videos.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Framling
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thisistobehelpful: soooo... you want libraries to have filters for pornographic images and videos? I'm really interested in your deep understanding of image recognition technologies.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thisistobehelpful: Google isn't the government. They can filter what they want.

It's obviously a touchier subject when it comes to government censorship.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
CompyPaq
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: Yes, but still following the current interpretation of the Constitution, they can block sites in children's section of the library.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheUncleBob
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thisistobehelpful: While I don't like it, since libraries are (typically) government resources for the public, if they decide to start blocking websites, they they are denying people the ability to view those websites and censoring the content of those websites.

It's a questionable area and I don't think I've ever read anything about any actual court cases...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, the MPAA sure has an awful lot of power. They can shut down an entire network just on their say-so that someone pirated a movie on it? If this is permissible, why don't they just order the entire Internet shut down?

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
charodon
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PsiCop: They can't shut down the network just on their say-so. Sony Pictures sent a letter. The county pulled down the network.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ktetch
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PsiCop: They're trying to. It's called ACTA. You might have heard of it, but probably not, since for the last 2 years its been negotiated in secret, with the contents classified as a national security issue (unless you're the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, ESA, IFPI, or other copyright-oriented trade group, who HAS been allowed to see it)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
digisplicer
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PsiCop: The MPAA would love to do that but even their deep pockets can't afford the legal costs of suing ALL the ISPs in the world.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bwildrick
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PsiCop: Please, please, PLEASE do not give them ideas.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catnapped
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bwildrick: Yeah, not enough pockets greased yet. But they ARE working on it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
celeb8
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Fear of big-money liability makes this stuff happen all the time. Also possible is that people in charge of wireless decisions get convinced by cash in the dead of night that this is an excellent reason to shut thiungs down. Coincidentally next month or next week there will be an announcement that it would be more cost effective for the city to hire this kind of work out to a company that does wireless. This is usually accompanied by a no-bid dead-of-night decision on which company it should be.


Maybe I'm just being a little cynical...

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
DanKelley98
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Think the headline is a bit misleading. It should have read \"town over-reacts to MPAA notice and shuts down free wireless\".


Coshocton needs a to grow a pair...

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cant_stop_the_rock
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DanKelley98:

It also shouldn't refer to a single wireless router at a courthouse as \"municipal wifi\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Walkallovaya
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DanKelley98: @sven.kirk: I don't get how this download was unforeseen. If they're going to react by shutting down the system, I must say they should have known people would be getting porn, music, and movies with it - at the very least. It looks more like they didn't do their homework before spending public money to setup this wi-fi.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
golddog
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DanKelley98: Exactly. There's nothing in the article that says the MPAA forced the shutdown of the service.

However, if Coshocton is so cash strapped that they can't figure out how to prevent this on their public WiFi or at least set up a terms of use page before allowing people on, they SHOULD disconnect it b/c they're in way over their heads.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
calamari
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This story stunk of dishonesty from the very headline, and if you read the letter itself, it's obvious what really happened. 'Municipal wifi' is apparently a single access point that the administrators of the town's IT decided they'd be nice and leave unsecured. Someone downloaded something illegally from that AP, the MPAA's investigators saw it, and they did what has always been a reflex for them - sent a letter to the ISP informing them of the piracy and asking for the identity of the user. The IT dude, rather than go through the trouble of fighting it or trying to comply, just shut down that AP. A quote from the Commissioner suggests there may have also been a tiny bit of kindergarten-teacher-punishing-the-class. That's all. The RIAA is one of the most evil corporate organizations on the planet, but they simply didn't do anything spectacular or even unusual here.

I actually just registered an account because of this post. Consumerist, I've been reading for a while now, and I'm pretty disappointed in this one. Please don't jump into panic parties like this; I count on you guys as a generally level and reliable source of info. Thanks for at least not using Cory Doctorow's references to the Geneva convention - sometimes I am embarrassed to be on the same side of the issue as he is.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
dvdchris
November 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@calamari: Surely you don't suggest Consumerist posted a misleading, sensational headline. Surely.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zandar
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@calamari: Ha, I thought the exact same thing you did when this story came up on BB. Geneva convention?!?! First they came for the wifi, and I said nothing..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wrjohnston91283
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@calamari:
I count on you guys as a generally level and reliable source of info
Don't read Phil's posts then.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wait, a private company can shut down a municipal service just by complaining? This is so wrong.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
treimel
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian:
No, they most certainly can not, and did not in this case--the municipality decided to shut it down on the basis of the notice they received--the MPAA has no judicial powers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
doctor_cos wants you to remain calm
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: Didn't Comcast do that in Philadelphia already? Or did they just prevent them from putting it in in the first place?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Craig
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

That's ridiculous...it's the equivalent of shutting down public roads because someone snuck their friends into a drive-in movie in the trunk.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
haoshufu
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Private industry now has judicial power over government?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
catnapped
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@haoshufu: The MPAA could sue you right now for complaining about them if they really wanted to.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
admiral_stabbin
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catnapped: The transverse is also true. You and I can sue them for being asshats too. Speaking for myself, I don't have have a multi-billion dollar-a-year industry willing to foot the tab... ;-)

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
zerok00l420
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

the mpaa can kiss the hariest, whitest part of my @$$
i hope they have very pain full deaths/homicides.

Reply
1 replies
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
sven.kirk
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

MPAA did not ask them to shut the network down. The county shut it down themselves.
[www.coshoctontribune.com]
LaVigne has done some homework and found a program that would prevent the illegal downloads from happening in the future; however, it would cost the cash-strapped county about $2,900 to implement, $2,000 for equipment and then $900 annually for the filtering program.
Commissioners questioned whether the investment would be justified for the free service, but LaVigne said it could be put to use on the entire county system to monitor activity.
[www.dslreports.com]

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
ktetch
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sven.kirk: I've asked the county about the system. Given the price structure, I've got an idea what system they're looking at, and my testing of it has found it worthless.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
golddog
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sven.kirk: Did the Geek Squad at Best Buy give him that quote? I'm not an IT guy, but I know it's not that hard to set up filters that put limits on bandwidth rate and amount, and block certain sites and packet types. And that is within the capabilities of an OS like Windows Server, simple firewalls and the routers and switches they should already have in place for the ~300 employees the article said they have.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Megalomania
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@golddog: It is bloody impossible to stop 100% of the people from doing it 100% of the time. There's always a workaround, and taking this sort of approach is insanity on both ends.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
zerok00l420
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

the mpaa can kiss the hariest whitest par of my @$$. hope they have painful deaths/homocides.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Pixelantes Anonymous
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why would the county shut it down just for that?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
IamBort
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

the ability to use any technology for anything illegal means many things could soon be banned, google, cars, guns, cameras, construction equipment, food...
Obviously no one would let this happen, but heres a slippery slope we are getting on

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
srh
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sensationalize much?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
IamBort
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@srh:
the point is banning items that can be used for illegal activities is self defeating

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
LatherRinseRepeat
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If I was the IT director of that town, I'd tell the MPAA that the situation was under investigation, and that the issue was being taken very seriously.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Matthew Hughes
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

BREAKING: MPAA shuts down highway I-7 after kids on road trip sing \"Free Fallin\", thereby committing an unauthorized public performance of the soundtrack for the 1996 film \"Jerry Maquire\".

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Ryan_W
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So this basically sets a legal precedent (if the shutdown was the result of legal action and not voluntary) for private companies to shut down public utilities because they believe the utilities are being used to harm their profits.


I supposed next McDonalds will ban gas stoves because they violate their intellectual property with home-made value meals.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Shivver
November 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ryan_W: Did you read the article? The city voluntarily shut down a single access point after an infringement notice from the MPAA. The thinking behind it was that it was easier to shut it down than to be held responsible every time someone used it to illegally download content.

Infringement notices are fairly common, but a first offense rarely leads to any actual legal action. Some ISPs won't even turn over your info without a court order (thank you Verizon), which means you're off the hook unless you're a serial violator and the MPAA really wants to get you. This town made a rational decision to shut down their access before it got to that stage.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
sevenwhitehorses
November 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Consumerist frustrates me when they post things and use an acronym and do not put in parentheses what it stands for. This is basic writing etiquette and it happens here all to often.

I digress, this sounds like a corporation actually taking responsibility for the action of a member rather than saying, hey it is not the cities fault. However, that said, it is a sad commentary that one individuals actions could be responsible and why is MPPA (Motion Picture Association of America) going after one individual for a singular act in this instance?

BOOoo for tyranny of the minority!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
donovanr
November 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I bet the MPAA letter made it sound like the FBI was setting up a special task force to investigate the town and that with luck they would all get reductions in their sentences and get to keep the shirts on their backs.

As opposed to the fact that since the MPAA would never be able to show who used an open network and would therefore never be able to get any legal action going against anyone ever in a million years.

Has anyone tried to shut the MPAA down yet. They must be guilty of some RICO law or something.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
333 (only half evil)
November 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My home town on the Consumerist! Coshocton is a very small town with only two places with public access to the internet - the library and a coffee shop. I know this from checking around because my mom does not have an internet connection. The local hotel has internet access for guests, but they don't allow dogs. Anyone in town could get to the free Wi-Fi hotspot after a five minute drive (or less). Also hard to find a place to send a fax there. And until I switched to Verizon, no reliable cell service (Cingular, AT&T, Sprint). But I still love going home to visit.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
antoineawwad
November 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

i would like t c that happening in d.c or nyc. shut down the whole city for an hour or so :s

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
sevenwhitehorses
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If this works then might they expand it and say an isp provider needs to be shut down since it allowed this movie to pass through? wouldn't anonymity of the individual be the same if this were to occure on a private system and they would have to prove who did it wouldn't they?

WAIT... they should sue the company that made the movie for making an inviting temptation. after all, if one has a pool and a neighbor comes and drowns in it that person can be sued for having an attractive nuisance

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
MrHacks
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Over ONE dowload. I wonder what he downloaded? \"Dude Where's My Car?\"? \"Bio-Dome\"? \"Xanadu\"? \"Plan 9 from Outer Space\"? \"Howard the Duck\"?

\"There's the bastard! So you though you could get away with downloading 'Howard the Duck', did ja? You are going to jail for a long time!\"

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
scootinger
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They did this over one MPAA nastygram? It's not like they are getting sued or anything. This happens all of the time...my university probably gets one or two dozen a week.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
darkrose
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Y hallo thar safe harbor provisions to the DMCA....

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
suburbancowboy
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The download was \"This Film is Not Yet Rated\".

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Loias calls you out if you can't RTFA
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Someone pirated a DVD. Solution: shutdown the entire network


A Few Equally Ridiculous Parallels:
Someone keyed a car. Solution: destroy all cars
Someone lied. Solution: eliminate all forms of communication.
Someone shoplifted. Solution: eliminate consumerism
A kitten peed on your bed. Solution: KILL ALL KITTENS!

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
maruawe42
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

this is so typical of the music and film industry's abuse of people that support their industry. the answer is to boycott the entire industry until they come to understand that by this type of action that the only hurt themselves.
As to the IT in this town, If it belongs to the town then the city council should step in and stop this nonsense and restore power to the wifi for the town.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
verbatim613
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

MPAA = out of control

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
axiomatic
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Dear FCC,

Neuter the RIAA and MPAA please? Those two rabid dogs are a menace to society.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
sevenwhitehorses
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A cleaver rouse?! Is it true, did MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)really just put one of their people in the town for an afternoon to do an illegal download so they could use this small innocent town as a platform to sue so they could set a precedent to use later when the game gets bigger in cities?

Oh the machinations of these corporations is frightening!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
duckfat
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Last I checked the MPAA is NOT a law enforcement entity. This town is run by morons or cowards (probably both).

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
UrinalGum
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Jesus, haven't these people seen the anti-piracy ads before movies? Stealing a movie is the same thing as raping your mother! If we keep stealing from Hollywood, how will they come out with Austin Powers 4?


/vomited in my mouth a little
//perfectly fine with stealing from Hollywood if they keep putting out crap like this: [www.urinalgum.com]

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Tvhargon
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Between you and me, the MPAA needs a good kick in the balls. Right in the testicles, the source of their commie power.

Reply
","","","","");