5 ms·

> We affirm our strict adherence to all relevant regulations and service terms throughout this project. Except if you bypassed payment and used the service in

> We affirm our strict adherence to all relevant regulations and service terms throughout this project. Except if you bypassed payment and used the service in a manner that was not intended, most likely you were by definition not undertaking "strict adherance" to service terms ?

VladVladikoff 1y ago
Yeah I am a bit confused about posts like this. It’s bragging about breaking the law. There was a particularly bad one a few months ago where a kid had hacked Monster’s employee training site, and was sharing all this internal media in the post. I don’t understand how they don’t end up getting in some seriously annoying trouble with law enforcement. Well I looked it up just now and the post was deleted, I guess maybe he did get in trouble. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44997145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44997145
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  Could also just be lack of knowledge. Weren't we all a bit more risky and playful with other people's websites when we were kids and the internet was still accessed via modems? Remember talking about that with both other kids and adults without getting in trouble, but it was also decades ago. Once I saw others getting in real big trouble (like prison), then I kind of tried to find more beneficial ways of learning programming and computers.
  - traceroute66 1y ago
    > Could also just be lack of knowledge. Huh ? DNS tunneling is not exaclty something you do "by accident". And if the person doing it on the flight "did not know" (which, given the text of the blog, I doubt) , then you can bet your botom dollar that the "roommate" that was summoned for remote assistance knew very well what was going on.
    - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
      Didn't claim so either, but a lack of knowledge about that it is in fact illegal, hence the parallel to at least my previous experience where I've most surely have committed crimes in the past, because I didn't know it was illegal in the first place. I don't know the age of the author, but it almost doesn't matter, sometimes people don't know (lack of knowledge).
      - anigbrowl 1y ago
        Come on now. $31 for inflight wifi is a ripoff, but even a 6 year old understands that if there's a price tag it's not an invitation to help yourself.
  - gus_massa 1y ago
    > Remember talking about that with both other kids and adults without getting in trouble. A few kids doesnt matter. A few adults is only a problem if it's their stuff (If they are teachers, they will care more about unautorized changes of the wallpaper in the computer of the school that anything in a remote computer.) And yuo can even later claim they misunderstood or you were exagerating. But here is an in written report in front of thousands of persons and about planes that is a sensitive topic.
- eps 1y ago
  > breaking the law Not law per se. More like contractual obligations taken upon by connecting to the flight's WiFi.
  - traceroute66 1y ago
    > Not law per se. More like contractual obligations taken upon by connecting to the flight's WiFi. Well, being pedantic, you could be said to be breaking Civil Law. :) Jest aside, IANAL but most western countries have some sort of Criminal Law relating to mis-use of computers. A brief search for Canada reveals Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)[1]. Again IANAL, but from my reading in this scenario it would be (c) -> (a), "uses or causes to be used ... a computer system" to "obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service". [1]https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-342.1.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-342.1....
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - gruez 1y ago
    Isn't this pretty straightforwardly "theft of service", like "stealing" cable TV service?
  - Aurornis 1y ago
    Most countries will have laws covering cases of unauthorized access, theft of services, and computer misuse. The user agreement helps define the service as a paid service with defined access cases. Going around those would put the user in violation of some laws. An analogy would be showing up to a paid event venue and noticing a back door was left open. Going into the building without paying is not okay, even though you never engaged with the ticket office to agree to anything.
    - ballenf 1y ago
      If the user routed all traffic through a WeChat or other messaging service, they would just be using messaging.
- jxf 1y ago
  IMO a certain amount of youthful indiscretion that takes the form of challenging systems and structures feels like it's both tolerable and important. Agitation prevents calcification.
  - bigbinary 1y ago
    Wait till that guy figures out what the hacker in hacker news means
- ohyoutravel 1y ago
  I didn’t see this, but the monster hacker blog post is up on archive. Honestly the person sounds like a kid: https://web.archive.org/web/20250823174801/https://bobdahacker.com/blog/monster-energy https://web.archive.org/web/20250823174801/https://bobdahack...
- pavel_lishin 1y ago
  I was about to correct you and say that bobdahacker hacked McDonald's, but I guess he did both, and bragged about both.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  I wouldn't go as far as 'breaking the law', and I agree with the author that the contractual terms ($31 for wifi) are a shitty offer to a captive audience. But I'm also tired of pseudolegalism being employed as figleaf for bragging about the ability to bypass access controls and presumably making everything run a bit slower for all the other passengers (the author mentions that they gave up using it after a while because the bandwidth was so limited). Yes, long flights are miserable and air travel is a bit of a ripoff. I choose to cope by treating it as an internet break and enjoying a dense book.
  - Zak 1y ago
    Laws penalizing theft of services usually work even if they haven't accounted for the exact manner in which someone might steal the service in question. The author knew there was a fee for the service; the author devised a way to obtain the service without paying the fee; the author knew this action was not authorized by the service provider.
CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
Say you're on a plane from Canada to Hong Kong (random example), which country's laws would be applicable here? The country where the airplane is registered?
- traceroute66 1y ago
  > which country's laws would be applicable here? The country where the airplane is registered? For all intents and purposes it is the country of registration of the aircraft. There are one or two exceptions to the rule, but they would not be applicable in this scenario. Mostly stuff relating to air safety. For example, if the aircraft did something against the aviaition laws of the country being overflown. Or hijackings etc.
- Traubenfuchs 1y ago
  Same country that would be responsible if you stab your seat neighbor for taking too much space I‘d guess.
  - traceroute66 1y ago
    > if you stab your seat neighbor for taking too much space IIRC the way it works is that when you land (destination or forced landing elsewhere) the offender is delivered to the local competent authorities. They then undertake an initial investigation and decide either to exercise their own jurisdiction or undertake extradition proceedings to send the offender to the country of registration of the aircraft. In a scenario of (attempted)murder, I suspect that it is highly likely it would be dealt with in the local courts unless there was a specific external push for extradition. The point of the convention is to ensure there is never no jurisdiction, i.e. the country of registration to the aircraft is always there as the ultimate fallback. The wording doesn't seek to strictly define the jurisdiction, which is why in most cases the delivery country has the option to take jurisdiction.
- jan_Sate 1y ago
  It depends on which jurisdiction region wants to enforce the law. If someone wants to enforce a law, and it succeed, then the law of that jurisdiction region applies.
somehnguy 1y ago
Counterpoint: who cares? Wake me up the first time someone gets into legitimate trouble over a little harmless computer fun like this. Until then..who cares?

VladVladikoff 1y ago

Yeah I am a bit confused about posts like this. It’s bragging about breaking the law. There was a particularly bad one a few months ago where a kid had hacked Monster’s employee training site, and was sharing all this internal media in the post. I don’t understand how they don’t end up getting in some seriously annoying trouble with law enforcement. Well I looked it up just now and the post was deleted, I guess maybe he did get in trouble. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44997145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44997145

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
Could also just be lack of knowledge. Weren't we all a bit more risky and playful with other people's websites when we were kids and the internet was still accessed via modems? Remember talking about that with both other kids and adults without getting in trouble, but it was also decades ago. Once I saw others getting in real big trouble (like prison), then I kind of tried to find more beneficial ways of learning programming and computers.
- traceroute66 1y ago
  > Could also just be lack of knowledge. Huh ? DNS tunneling is not exaclty something you do "by accident". And if the person doing it on the flight "did not know" (which, given the text of the blog, I doubt) , then you can bet your botom dollar that the "roommate" that was summoned for remote assistance knew very well what was going on.
  - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
    Didn't claim so either, but a lack of knowledge about that it is in fact illegal, hence the parallel to at least my previous experience where I've most surely have committed crimes in the past, because I didn't know it was illegal in the first place. I don't know the age of the author, but it almost doesn't matter, sometimes people don't know (lack of knowledge).
    - anigbrowl 1y ago
      Come on now. $31 for inflight wifi is a ripoff, but even a 6 year old understands that if there's a price tag it's not an invitation to help yourself.
- gus_massa 1y ago
  > Remember talking about that with both other kids and adults without getting in trouble. A few kids doesnt matter. A few adults is only a problem if it's their stuff (If they are teachers, they will care more about unautorized changes of the wallpaper in the computer of the school that anything in a remote computer.) And yuo can even later claim they misunderstood or you were exagerating. But here is an in written report in front of thousands of persons and about planes that is a sensitive topic.
eps 1y ago
> breaking the law Not law per se. More like contractual obligations taken upon by connecting to the flight's WiFi.
- traceroute66 1y ago
  > Not law per se. More like contractual obligations taken upon by connecting to the flight's WiFi. Well, being pedantic, you could be said to be breaking Civil Law. :) Jest aside, IANAL but most western countries have some sort of Criminal Law relating to mis-use of computers. A brief search for Canada reveals Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)[1]. Again IANAL, but from my reading in this scenario it would be (c) -> (a), "uses or causes to be used ... a computer system" to "obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service". [1]https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-342.1.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-342.1....
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- gruez 1y ago
  Isn't this pretty straightforwardly "theft of service", like "stealing" cable TV service?
- Aurornis 1y ago
  Most countries will have laws covering cases of unauthorized access, theft of services, and computer misuse. The user agreement helps define the service as a paid service with defined access cases. Going around those would put the user in violation of some laws. An analogy would be showing up to a paid event venue and noticing a back door was left open. Going into the building without paying is not okay, even though you never engaged with the ticket office to agree to anything.
  - ballenf 1y ago
    If the user routed all traffic through a WeChat or other messaging service, they would just be using messaging.
jxf 1y ago
IMO a certain amount of youthful indiscretion that takes the form of challenging systems and structures feels like it's both tolerable and important. Agitation prevents calcification.
- bigbinary 1y ago
  Wait till that guy figures out what the hacker in hacker news means
ohyoutravel 1y ago
I didn’t see this, but the monster hacker blog post is up on archive. Honestly the person sounds like a kid: https://web.archive.org/web/20250823174801/https://bobdahacker.com/blog/monster-energy https://web.archive.org/web/20250823174801/https://bobdahack...
pavel_lishin 1y ago
I was about to correct you and say that bobdahacker hacked McDonald's, but I guess he did both, and bragged about both.
anigbrowl 1y ago
I wouldn't go as far as 'breaking the law', and I agree with the author that the contractual terms ($31 for wifi) are a shitty offer to a captive audience. But I'm also tired of pseudolegalism being employed as figleaf for bragging about the ability to bypass access controls and presumably making everything run a bit slower for all the other passengers (the author mentions that they gave up using it after a while because the bandwidth was so limited). Yes, long flights are miserable and air travel is a bit of a ripoff. I choose to cope by treating it as an internet break and enjoying a dense book.
- Zak 1y ago
  Laws penalizing theft of services usually work even if they haven't accounted for the exact manner in which someone might steal the service in question. The author knew there was a fee for the service; the author devised a way to obtain the service without paying the fee; the author knew this action was not authorized by the service provider.

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago

Say you're on a plane from Canada to Hong Kong (random example), which country's laws would be applicable here? The country where the airplane is registered?

traceroute66 1y ago
> which country's laws would be applicable here? The country where the airplane is registered? For all intents and purposes it is the country of registration of the aircraft. There are one or two exceptions to the rule, but they would not be applicable in this scenario. Mostly stuff relating to air safety. For example, if the aircraft did something against the aviaition laws of the country being overflown. Or hijackings etc.
Traubenfuchs 1y ago
Same country that would be responsible if you stab your seat neighbor for taking too much space I‘d guess.
- traceroute66 1y ago
  > if you stab your seat neighbor for taking too much space IIRC the way it works is that when you land (destination or forced landing elsewhere) the offender is delivered to the local competent authorities. They then undertake an initial investigation and decide either to exercise their own jurisdiction or undertake extradition proceedings to send the offender to the country of registration of the aircraft. In a scenario of (attempted)murder, I suspect that it is highly likely it would be dealt with in the local courts unless there was a specific external push for extradition. The point of the convention is to ensure there is never no jurisdiction, i.e. the country of registration to the aircraft is always there as the ultimate fallback. The wording doesn't seek to strictly define the jurisdiction, which is why in most cases the delivery country has the option to take jurisdiction.
jan_Sate 1y ago
It depends on which jurisdiction region wants to enforce the law. If someone wants to enforce a law, and it succeed, then the law of that jurisdiction region applies.

somehnguy 1y ago

Counterpoint: who cares? Wake me up the first time someone gets into legitimate trouble over a little harmless computer fun like this. Until then..who cares?