18 ms·

I'm living in France, and "just" sharing the WIFI password is a very common practice in bars, coffee-shops, etc.. I only know of few places that actually use a

I'm living in France, and "just" sharing the WIFI password is a very common practice in bars, coffee-shops, etc.. I only know of few places that actually use a compliant captive portal that requires some PII (name, email, phone...) to let you use the free WIFI. My problem with these kind of laws is that they get ignored most of the time and then allow for selective enforcement when the police/local-gov has issues with you.

dogma1138 6y ago
Most laws are ignored most of the time and selective enforcement is essentially the corner stone of modern policing, there are many more laws that can be effectively enforced and which laws exactly are at any given time is based on available resources and public policy.
- FpUser 6y ago
  >"Most laws are ignored most of the time and selective enforcement is essentially the corner stone of modern policing" In this case it is not a law, not in spirit. Rather a tool for "law" enforcement to nail inconvenient people.
- everybodyknows 6y ago
  >based on available resources and public policy You missed a few criteria: - Cultural, political, racial grievances of police. - Cultural, political, racial prejudices. That is, maybe no ill will per se toward a citizen who looks a certain way -- but assumed guilt by association. - Personal ambition, to be pursued by making lots of arrests, on maximal charges. - Fear. End of month approaching, and beat officer is behind on quota of citations/arrests. Punishment expected from chief or DA, if revenue from fines, or prestige from high-profile arrests are lacking. So, it's the selection of offenders, rather than of offenses due to resource constraints, that makes selective punishment so ethically offensive.
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    These technically fall under public policy, poorly aligned incentives and or insufficient judicial/executive oversight. If officers feel that they need to make their quota or even have an arrests/infraction quote then that's a clear failure of policy, if they feel that they can settled their own grievances by abusing their power it's again a failure of policy.
- TrackerFF 6y ago
  I remember watching this interview segment with some retired cop from Baltimore - he's now using his time to advocate stricter rules on law enforcement, or something like that - he got fed up with what he saw during his time in BPD. But, to the point: He drove the interviewer through the streets in Baltimore, and argued that it was close to impossible for any driver in Baltimore to simply drive down a street, without breaking some kind of law - or at the very least giving police probable cause for checking your vehicle. edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HyKlFUMBiA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HyKlFUMBiA Starting around 4.05
anm89 6y ago
I think this is used as an intentional strategy of control, at least somewhat. Make a jillion tiny little laws that are impossible to keep track of or follow, that way you know everyone is a criminal if you want them to be. Then if someone is acting up, it's only a matter of figuring out which unrelated laws they are already breaking. It feels like this is the defining premise of the US tax code.
- cmehdy 6y ago
  This is mentioned in the famous "Don't talk to the police" youtube video (from this point[0] and a minute on): there are just enough laws that even lawmakers and experts don't have an actual count, can't keep track of all of them, and they can say nearly anything. (These are my words, not the video:) In the bigger scheme of things, you're likely to be guilty of something almost at all times. Whether or not people know, care, or come down on you depends on a variety of factors. This is pretty much true in any country, it's just that the richest ones have codified it to give the madness more legitimacy. [0] https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=279 https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=279
  - anm89 6y ago
    Funny I think I internalized that rant from that video, because I had forgotten about that video but I'd definitely seen it before.
  - baskire 6y ago
    It doesn’t help that politicians face as much hardship in removing old laws as adding a new one. Leading to us always creating laws and rarely removing them.
    - curtis3389 6y ago
      All laws in a democracy should have to be re-affirmed by the populace on a regular basis. That is, every law should be required to have a sunset date. It's insane that we can be born into the tyranny of rotting corpses.
pyrale 6y ago
> I only know of few places that actually use a compliant captive portal that requires some PII (name, email, phone...) to let you use the free WIFI. Cost is about 15€/month for a compliant off-the-shelf solution. I understand that there can be some tolerance in the beginning, but at some point, you can't look elsewhere, especially when the log is actually needed in an investigation.
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  People won't enter their real info, especially if they are doing shady stuff worthy of investigating.
  - pyrale 6y ago
    I understand your position, but the judge is probably going to answer that it's not a bar owner's job to decide which laws are good enough to be respected.
    - np_tedious 6y ago
      Due to the cost and risk involved, few cases go to jury trial... BUT if it's anything like the US a jury technically could consider things like this and refuse to render a guilty verdict.
      - salawat 6y ago
        In France, if I recall, isn't it usually a panel of judges? I don't think they use a jury. Quick perusal indicates Cour d'assises is the only court with a jury analog, and it only deals with matters where the penalty would result in a >10 year sentence if I'm reading it correctly.
      - pyrale 6y ago
        Man, this is the french justice system, not the US. Jury trial (assises) doesn't happen for anything short of blood crimes. On the other hand, plea deals are not a thing either, so if the state decides to press charges, you're definitely going to see a judge.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
My problem with these kind of laws is, they are a violation of privacy. Pervasive surveillance is worrisome all on its own, without worrying just how it's enforced.
Nextgrid 6y ago
Why would someone with malicious intentions ever provide their real details? Why would someone provide their real details anyway when they will most likely be used for advertising/marketing tracking and spam?
- _notreallyme_ 6y ago
  They might have been interested in having the MAC addresses to check some suspects alibi, or even to find some links between groups of persons, not specifically PII. Grenoble is under scrutiny for some time now, it has a bad reputation regarding drug trafficking and the government uses it to show its "strength" with police operations covered by the media. This might be linked.
  - NeutronStar 6y ago
    MAC addresses are easily falsifiable...
  - iso947 6y ago
    Don’t people scramble with MAC address every day anyway?
    - Daniel_sk 6y ago
      iOS and I think Android are randomly changing the MAC address in recent versions and this is enabled by default.
      - aksss 6y ago
        Win10 does this on open networks and maybe even protected but Public networks as well unless you override it or your hardware doesn’t support it (e.g. old). Source: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-intarea-5.pdf https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-intarea...
GTP 6y ago
Just sharing the password is common practice also in Italy, and I would guess in most of Europe.
bazzargh 6y ago
I spent 3 months cycling all over france back in 2013, and long trips in subsequent years - pretty much every campsite I stayed at used captive portals. A handful handed out password cards to guests only, but those ones were almost always <place name>2013. Back then I didn't have much choice as mobile phone reception in the Alps was non-existent. The campsite owners were aware of the law, they'd often mention that they weren't happy about it. Last year I was in Paris, but didn't have to fight the system any more, 4G reception was fine. So, no idea what it was like in cities, but in the countryside they followed the law.
BurningFrog 6y ago
*“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
- m3at 6y ago
  Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    It must be. The passage does not mention orcs.
joosters 6y ago
But does the law actually require PII? 'Logging' might just require a record of source IP/MAC address and destination IPs. So, just having a wifi password that is shared might still be OK.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Unfortunately, it seems that one purpose of the law is to make sure every citizen is always breaking at least one law a day. Then when you are in power, you can yield the law and do what you will to your enemies.
aksss 6y ago
> selective enforcement Living in America, this is all too often a problem. One segment of society says “there should be a law” often enough that we have more laws on the books in the federal space alone than the GAO can count. Now we add on state and municipal laws and we’re probably all guilty of something each day. Not having enough resources to enforce all of the laws we get the situation you describe exactly - selective enforcement and too often an unjust distribution of enforcement. Add to that the fact that all laws are ultimately enforced with physical force and we get situations like Eric Garner - a situation instigated by the enforcement of a stupid municipal law - selling untaxed cigarettes. A state interest hardly worth exposing someone to a beatdown or in Eric’s inexcusable case, death.

dogma1138 6y ago

Most laws are ignored most of the time and selective enforcement is essentially the corner stone of modern policing, there are many more laws that can be effectively enforced and which laws exactly are at any given time is based on available resources and public policy.

FpUser 6y ago
>"Most laws are ignored most of the time and selective enforcement is essentially the corner stone of modern policing" In this case it is not a law, not in spirit. Rather a tool for "law" enforcement to nail inconvenient people.
everybodyknows 6y ago
>based on available resources and public policy You missed a few criteria: - Cultural, political, racial grievances of police. - Cultural, political, racial prejudices. That is, maybe no ill will per se toward a citizen who looks a certain way -- but assumed guilt by association. - Personal ambition, to be pursued by making lots of arrests, on maximal charges. - Fear. End of month approaching, and beat officer is behind on quota of citations/arrests. Punishment expected from chief or DA, if revenue from fines, or prestige from high-profile arrests are lacking. So, it's the selection of offenders, rather than of offenses due to resource constraints, that makes selective punishment so ethically offensive.
- dogma1138 6y ago
  These technically fall under public policy, poorly aligned incentives and or insufficient judicial/executive oversight. If officers feel that they need to make their quota or even have an arrests/infraction quote then that's a clear failure of policy, if they feel that they can settled their own grievances by abusing their power it's again a failure of policy.
TrackerFF 6y ago
I remember watching this interview segment with some retired cop from Baltimore - he's now using his time to advocate stricter rules on law enforcement, or something like that - he got fed up with what he saw during his time in BPD. But, to the point: He drove the interviewer through the streets in Baltimore, and argued that it was close to impossible for any driver in Baltimore to simply drive down a street, without breaking some kind of law - or at the very least giving police probable cause for checking your vehicle. edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HyKlFUMBiA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HyKlFUMBiA Starting around 4.05

anm89 6y ago

I think this is used as an intentional strategy of control, at least somewhat. Make a jillion tiny little laws that are impossible to keep track of or follow, that way you know everyone is a criminal if you want them to be. Then if someone is acting up, it's only a matter of figuring out which unrelated laws they are already breaking. It feels like this is the defining premise of the US tax code.

cmehdy 6y ago
This is mentioned in the famous "Don't talk to the police" youtube video (from this point[0] and a minute on): there are just enough laws that even lawmakers and experts don't have an actual count, can't keep track of all of them, and they can say nearly anything. (These are my words, not the video:) In the bigger scheme of things, you're likely to be guilty of something almost at all times. Whether or not people know, care, or come down on you depends on a variety of factors. This is pretty much true in any country, it's just that the richest ones have codified it to give the madness more legitimacy. [0] https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=279 https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=279
- anm89 6y ago
  Funny I think I internalized that rant from that video, because I had forgotten about that video but I'd definitely seen it before.
- baskire 6y ago
  It doesn’t help that politicians face as much hardship in removing old laws as adding a new one. Leading to us always creating laws and rarely removing them.
  - curtis3389 6y ago
    All laws in a democracy should have to be re-affirmed by the populace on a regular basis. That is, every law should be required to have a sunset date. It's insane that we can be born into the tyranny of rotting corpses.

pyrale 6y ago

> I only know of few places that actually use a compliant captive portal that requires some PII (name, email, phone...) to let you use the free WIFI. Cost is about 15€/month for a compliant off-the-shelf solution. I understand that there can be some tolerance in the beginning, but at some point, you can't look elsewhere, especially when the log is actually needed in an investigation.

bonoboTP 6y ago
People won't enter their real info, especially if they are doing shady stuff worthy of investigating.
- pyrale 6y ago
  I understand your position, but the judge is probably going to answer that it's not a bar owner's job to decide which laws are good enough to be respected.
  - np_tedious 6y ago
    Due to the cost and risk involved, few cases go to jury trial... BUT if it's anything like the US a jury technically could consider things like this and refuse to render a guilty verdict.
    - salawat 6y ago
      In France, if I recall, isn't it usually a panel of judges? I don't think they use a jury. Quick perusal indicates Cour d'assises is the only court with a jury analog, and it only deals with matters where the penalty would result in a >10 year sentence if I'm reading it correctly.
    - pyrale 6y ago
      Man, this is the french justice system, not the US. Jury trial (assises) doesn't happen for anything short of blood crimes. On the other hand, plea deals are not a thing either, so if the state decides to press charges, you're definitely going to see a judge.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

My problem with these kind of laws is, they are a violation of privacy. Pervasive surveillance is worrisome all on its own, without worrying just how it's enforced.

Nextgrid 6y ago

Why would someone with malicious intentions ever provide their real details? Why would someone provide their real details anyway when they will most likely be used for advertising/marketing tracking and spam?

_notreallyme_ 6y ago
They might have been interested in having the MAC addresses to check some suspects alibi, or even to find some links between groups of persons, not specifically PII. Grenoble is under scrutiny for some time now, it has a bad reputation regarding drug trafficking and the government uses it to show its "strength" with police operations covered by the media. This might be linked.
- NeutronStar 6y ago
  MAC addresses are easily falsifiable...
- iso947 6y ago
  Don’t people scramble with MAC address every day anyway?
  - Daniel_sk 6y ago
    iOS and I think Android are randomly changing the MAC address in recent versions and this is enabled by default.
    - aksss 6y ago
      Win10 does this on open networks and maybe even protected but Public networks as well unless you override it or your hardware doesn’t support it (e.g. old). Source: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-intarea-5.pdf https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-intarea...

GTP 6y ago

Just sharing the password is common practice also in Italy, and I would guess in most of Europe.

bazzargh 6y ago

I spent 3 months cycling all over france back in 2013, and long trips in subsequent years - pretty much every campsite I stayed at used captive portals. A handful handed out password cards to guests only, but those ones were almost always <place name>2013. Back then I didn't have much choice as mobile phone reception in the Alps was non-existent. The campsite owners were aware of the law, they'd often mention that they weren't happy about it. Last year I was in Paris, but didn't have to fight the system any more, 4G reception was fine. So, no idea what it was like in cities, but in the countryside they followed the law.

BurningFrog 6y ago

*“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

m3at 6y ago
Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  It must be. The passage does not mention orcs.

joosters 6y ago

But does the law actually require PII? 'Logging' might just require a record of source IP/MAC address and destination IPs. So, just having a wifi password that is shared might still be OK.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Unfortunately, it seems that one purpose of the law is to make sure every citizen is always breaking at least one law a day. Then when you are in power, you can yield the law and do what you will to your enemies.

aksss 6y ago

> selective enforcement Living in America, this is all too often a problem. One segment of society says “there should be a law” often enough that we have more laws on the books in the federal space alone than the GAO can count. Now we add on state and municipal laws and we’re probably all guilty of something each day. Not having enough resources to enforce all of the laws we get the situation you describe exactly - selective enforcement and too often an unjust distribution of enforcement. Add to that the fact that all laws are ultimately enforced with physical force and we get situations like Eric Garner - a situation instigated by the enforcement of a stupid municipal law - selling untaxed cigarettes. A state interest hardly worth exposing someone to a beatdown or in Eric’s inexcusable case, death.