Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

bryceboe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

#41

Post by gfodor »

kleiba wrote: post #37
burnstek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You obviously don't fly much. This is you stealing access from me when you're on a platform meant to have just a handful of paying users.

(This will be my last post on this thread because I think I've now gotten into a mode where everyone's just downvoting whatever I say.) I would just like to point out that I said more than once that I am not trying to justify the behavior described in the original article. Maybe I just didn't make myself clear enough, or people really just disagree. But all I've been trying to say that this illegal behavior does not…

The entire thesis of why illegal filesharing is not theft is because it is a victimless crime (presuming the pirate was not going to purchase the software anyway.) Stealing bandwidth on an airplane is not a victimless crime, since it reduces the amount of bandwidth for everyone who has paid for it. This is a pretty elementary concept and I'm not really sure why you are twisting things around so much. It's no different than if there was a 10 gallon jug of water on a desert island and you were supposed to pay $5 to take a drink, and some guy comes over and starts chugging it down without paying. That person is stealing since they are using a scarce resource that others are required to pay for.

Re: Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

#42

Post by jonafato »

kleiba wrote: post #37
burnstek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You obviously don't fly much. This is you stealing access from me when you're on a platform meant to have just a handful of paying users.

(This will be my last post on this thread because I think I've now gotten into a mode where everyone's just downvoting whatever I say.) I would just like to point out that I said more than once that I am not trying to justify the behavior described in the original article. Maybe I just didn't make myself clear enough, or people really just disagree. But all I've been trying to say that this illegal behavior does not…

I don't normally take sides in these arguments, but I think you're misunderstanding the economics of this situation. This isn't analogous to file sharing, because file sharing doesn't affect the availability of the original file. Consider these numbers (made up, but probably not wildly inaccurate):

- Access costs $10

- Total bandwidth available is 5Mbps

- 10 users purchase access for an average of .5Mbps per user

If 10 more users pay for service, the original 10 are getting half of what they used to for the same price. In response to this (see other comments about "gouging"), airlines raise the prices of access. This act preserves some minimum level of service for those who are willing to pay.

If, instead of the scenario above, the second 10 users go on to use the service without paying, the first are "cheated" out of being able to get their minimum acceptable level of service even if they would choose to pay a higher price. When this happens, prices can be set arbitrarily high without having the intended effect of reducing the strain on the network.

Based on this logic, I disagree with your analogy to file sharing, but I also agree with you that this is not theft. It's more akin to pollution than anything else. If one chooses to smoke in a bar that doesn't allow smoking, everyone else suffers. In the same vein, if I access this service without paying, all of the paying users really do get less than they're purchasing.

The airlines are left with two choices here:

1) Plug the hole so this is no longer possible. This is the path they'll choose because it's profitable and it satisfies the already-paying users.

2) Open it up for everyone. This is impractical. If you've ever used Wi-Fi on a Bolt or Mega bus, you know that it can be painfully slow. There's no incentive for the provider to upgrade, because they can't profit by doing so.

This isn't really about taking from the big, bad corporations. It's about taking from your neighbor. It would be great if we had in-air broadband, but until that day, we'll have to find some way to regulate the use of a limited resource to prevent it from becoming over-saturated.

-----

Edit: formatting, clarity.

Re: Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

#44

Post by logn »

burnstek wrote: post #33
kleiba wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you steal something from someone then you'll have the item in question in your possession afterwards while the original owner does not have it any more. Access to the internet is nothing you can steal. Of course that is no justification for using the provided service without paying for it, but it's fundamentally different from theft.

You obviously don't fly much. This is you stealing access from me when you're on a platform meant to have just a handful of paying users.

And driving in the carpool lane alone is exactly like stealing too.

Re: Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

#45

Post by encoderer »

Firehed wrote: post #19
maxjus wrote: post #16

You could also change your user agent to that of a mobile device and pay $5. Dishonesty is always an (unethical) option. The technical complexity of getting a seamless Wifi connection 30,000 feet above ground warrants its $12.00 in my opinion.

On my last flight, the price had been raised to $20 or so. I'm not sure if it was holiday price-gouging or they've simply raised their prices, but in either case I was not pleased - especially as the service quality seems to have gone down recently.

Yeah, uber engages in "price gouging" on NYE and other high volume days.

It's called surge pricing, and it....... Works. It works really well. It preserves a scarce resource during periods of high demand for the users who get the most value out of it. You're the second person to make this comment. It sounds so petulant, like Gogo has suddenly been subjected to common carrier status.

The service suffering is a sign that they should charge even more next time. But it was certainly better than it otherwise would have been. A lower price point means more users getting a smaller piece of pie. I've been on several flights with free wifi. It's horrible.

Re: Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

#46

Post by bbzbryce »

vtail wrote: post #7

I'm amazed by some of the comments like "Wow great article. I knew there must be a way to avoid paying." and by author's apparent believe that contacting the support several times via twitter and not getting a response morally justifies sharing his recipe with other people and wishing them "Happy “free” surfing, for now anyway". Stealing is stealing, no matter what "justification" one may have about high prices. edit…

> I'm amazed ... by author's apparent believe that contacting the support several times via twitter and not getting a response morally justifies sharing his recipe with out people and wishing them "Happy “free” surfing, for now anyway".

The article alludes to further conversation via the image containing the Gogo employee's email. I established contact with Gogo via email and made my intentions clear about my desire to post such an article. After receiving an initial reply that another Gogo employee would contact me, I heard nothing from them after a number of days -- note the eight days between initial twitter contact and article posting.

The primary purpose of the article was not to provide a formula for free Internet (that was just the "cover" to the article), but rather to detail how allowing access to any one Google service can result in access to the entire Internet. In retrospect, I admit the comment at the end of the article is not consistent with the point I attempted to convey.

Re: Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

#47

Post by markokocic »

gfodor wrote: post #41
kleiba wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(This will be my last post on this thread because I think I've now gotten into a mode where everyone's just downvoting whatever I say.) I would just like to point out that I said more than once that I am not trying to justify the behavior described in the original article. Maybe I just didn't make myself clear enough, or people really just disagree. But all I've been trying to say that this illegal behavior does not…

The entire thesis of why illegal filesharing is not theft is because it is a victimless crime (presuming the pirate was not going to purchase the software anyway.) Stealing bandwidth on an airplane is not a victimless crime, since it reduces the amount of bandwidth for everyone who has paid for it. This is a pretty elementary concept and I'm not really sure why you are twisting things around so much. It's no differen…

By the same analogy, downloading multigig torrents is also not a victimless crime, since it also reduces bandwidth available to those that paid for their internet access? Heck, even downloading anything reduces bandwidth for everyone else, because bandwidth is not unlimited.

Re: Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

#48

Post by Zombieball »

jonafato wrote: post #42
kleiba wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(This will be my last post on this thread because I think I've now gotten into a mode where everyone's just downvoting whatever I say.) I would just like to point out that I said more than once that I am not trying to justify the behavior described in the original article. Maybe I just didn't make myself clear enough, or people really just disagree. But all I've been trying to say that this illegal behavior does not…

I don't normally take sides in these arguments, but I think you're misunderstanding the economics of this situation. This isn't analogous to file sharing, because file sharing doesn't affect the availability of the original file. Consider these numbers (made up, but probably not wildly inaccurate): - Access costs $10 - Total bandwidth available is 5Mbps - 10 users purchase access for an average of .5Mbps per user If…

I like your scenario. I am curious though, lets say this issue went to court and the airline was charging the wifi 'thief' with stealing.

The case would only pertain to the single flight the thief stole internet access on. And on that particular flight, regardless of whether or not the thief paid or didn't pay he would be reducing the available bandwidth to other customers. Sure in the long run the airline can play with the pricing of their service to try and limit the number of active users on any given flight, however the price of the service would be locked for any single flight.

So doesn't kleiba's analogy of illegal file sharing still stand?

Re: Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

#49

Post by gfodor »

markokocic wrote: post #47
gfodor wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire thesis of why illegal filesharing is not theft is because it is a victimless crime (presuming the pirate was not going to purchase the software anyway.) Stealing bandwidth on an airplane is not a victimless crime, since it reduces the amount of bandwidth for everyone who has paid for it. This is a pretty elementary concept and I'm not really sure why you are twisting things around so much. It's no differen…

By the same analogy, downloading multigig torrents is also not a victimless crime, since it also reduces bandwidth available to those that paid for their internet access? Heck, even downloading anything reduces bandwidth for everyone else, because bandwidth is not unlimited.

Downloading multigig torrents on a connection you are not paying for would fit the analogy just fine.

Re: Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

#50

Post by rexreed »

logn wrote: post #44
burnstek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You obviously don't fly much. This is you stealing access from me when you're on a platform meant to have just a handful of paying users.

And driving in the carpool lane alone is exactly like stealing too.

Only to the extent that one would have to pay to enter the carpool lane and free drivers would be excluding those who have paid. Otherwise, there's no theft going on, but rather just a violation of any traffic laws.
Post reply on HN