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

Choose hotels by the quality of their WiFi

hotelwifitest.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 240 posts

Re: Choose hotels by the quality of their WiFi

#211

Post by DanBC »

wtallis wrote: post #209
peteretep wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very, very first clause: > he causes a computer to perform any function with intent > to secure access to any program or data held in ***any*** > computer

No. That's not sufficient to classify the action as illegal. If you're accessing a public website, but through a wireless router that the owner doesn't want you using without paying for, then the data you're accessing is still data you're authorized to access (it being a public website, after all). To get charged under this law, you would have to be accused of the unauthorized access of something on the router itself…

You're talking about computer misuse law - there are existing cases in UK and probably US that cover this.

Here's one BBC article that talks about it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6960304.stm

> The Communications Act 2003 says a "person who (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and (b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service, is guilty of an offence".

Seems pretty clear. A person is paying for hotel access; notices their Apple-device using colleague is not paying; spoofs the user agent; - these seem to cover all the points of dishonesty with the intent to avoid paying for a service.

Even if the hotel is in a country that doesn't have that particular law there is probably some fraud law that covers the actions. (I realise now that I should have mentioned the fraud because that's the more serious offence and it seems some people missed my point).

Re: Choose hotels by the quality of their WiFi

#212

Post by antocv »

dspillett wrote: post #165
antocv wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is stopping them from offering a parallel much faster WiFi? They dont have to break their contract - pay the "external service provider" their fees, and still have money left over to pay for a real service - fast and non-shitty WiFi. When it comes to 4 or 5 star hotels, I am surprised by this bullshit. What they are in effect saying to you is "we made a bad business deal and it costs us too much", to which I rep…

> What is stopping them from offering a parallel much faster WiFi? Exclusivity clause in the contract possibly. They could buy out the rest of the contract, but that could be quite expensive (and the other party is under no obligation to agree unless there is already an option defined in said contract). Even if the WiFi exclusivity is not explicitly stated there might be a clause about the hotel ensuring there is min…

> They could buy out the rest of the contract, but that could be quite expensive (and the other party is under no obligation to agree unless there is already an option defined in said contract

What kind of dumbmass businessman signs such a contract? No matter the price, the contract should have included "responsibility to meet customer expected speeds and availability of the wifi service provided". And then cut the contract because they arent in fact providing a usable wifi.

I think its just a bullshit excuse to keep paying very little while not giving a crap about their customers - since they got the 4 or 5 star rating anyway.

This website is great - I will use it.

Re: Choose hotels by the quality of their WiFi

#213

Post by antocv »

logicallee wrote: post #170
antocv wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is stopping them from offering a parallel much faster WiFi? They dont have to break their contract - pay the "external service provider" their fees, and still have money left over to pay for a real service - fast and non-shitty WiFi. When it comes to 4 or 5 star hotels, I am surprised by this bullshit. What they are in effect saying to you is "we made a bad business deal and it costs us too much", to which I rep…

Your parent stated clearly "But until then they're, by contract, obliged to offer their guests only their contract partners awfully slow internet." So it's in the terms. I considered replying to that comment stating how I would write the telco's legal department to get them to release this provision but to be honest given the way lawyers feel they need to represent their companies the answer would probably be, "no."…

Well, if they have such shitty people to sign such a one-sided contract... I doubt they could get their thumb out of their ass to try your worthy piece.

Seriously, to include "no parallel service" in a contract but also not to include "contract is invalid when or if telco does not keep up the speed, availability and reliability to the following requirements X and Y and Blah". Requirements such as "to provide a stable connectin with throughput X% of latest wifi standard after at least 6 months and latency Y to Z*1.2 amount of rooms.".

Sure, a hotel can mess it up, and us as guests can mess up as well and happen upon a 4 or 5 star hotel that costs a leg and doesnt have wifi. This website/application we will mess up less.

Re: Choose hotels by the quality of their WiFi

#214

Post by driverdan »

sanswork wrote: post #43
eli wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't you just get a mobile hotspot? Or are you traveling to places with poor cell reception?

Mobile hotspots are good but expensive. My wife and I have been working/living off one for the past 6 weeks and we're averaging around $100/week on internet costs even with extremely limiting our usage.

I have a Clear hotspot that costs me $55/m for 10/2 Mb and is unlimited use. The only time they've throttled me was when I watched Netflix for 8h straight.

Re: Choose hotels by the quality of their WiFi

#215

Post by driverdan »

Larrikin wrote: post #143
konspence wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An external ethernet dongle is more likely to break or get lost. Sure, but it's replaceable for the cheap cost of ~$10 - 20. > There's no VGA port either which is a necessity for me. 2007 called, they want their already-deprecated video standards back. > No CD drive either. 2000 called, they want their already-deprecated media storage standards back. >Is this thing a laptop or a big smartphone with no touch screen?…

Personally I think its absolutely ridiculous I paid $3000 for my Mac Book pro and I don't have a numpad with crucial keys like home, end, page up and down because they wanted the the track pad in the center. My old vaio laptop that was the same size fit the numpad just fine. I ended up buying having to buy one just because I was much slower at programming without it.

Learn OS X's shortcuts and you'll never miss home, end, etc again. They keep your hands closer to the home row which makes them faster to use.

Re: Choose hotels by the quality of their WiFi

#216

Post by driverdan »

jimmaswell wrote: post #114
zevyoura wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thickness generally has a very strong correlation with weight. Weight is probably the single most important factor in a laptop for me. I didn't realize how much of a difference it made until I switched to an Air.

I'm dangerously out of shape and carrying around my laptop bag with >10lbs of stuff in it doesn't bother me. Functionality is worth the weight unless you're averse to carrying a few extra pounds I guess.

You'd be surprised how noticeable a few pounds are, especially when you travel frequently. I work out and can lift a lot of weight but would (and did) pay extra for a thinner, lighter laptop all other things equal. Thickness can also make a big difference when trying to work in tight spaces (eg an airplane) or packing a carry on bag.

Re: Choose hotels by the quality of their WiFi

#217

Post by wtallis »

DanBC wrote: post #211
wtallis wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. That's not sufficient to classify the action as illegal. If you're accessing a public website, but through a wireless router that the owner doesn't want you using without paying for, then the data you're accessing is still data you're authorized to access (it being a public website, after all). To get charged under this law, you would have to be accused of the unauthorized access of something on the router itself…

You're talking about computer misuse law - there are existing cases in UK and probably US that cover this. Here's one BBC article that talks about it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6960304.stm > The Communications Act 2003 says a "person who (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and (b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service, is guilt…

That's an entirely different law from the one that peteretep cited. His assertion that it's illegal may in fact be correct, but his justification was complete bullshit. The fact that you've found a law that is relevant doesn't make him any less wrong.

Re: Choose hotels by the quality of their WiFi

#218

Post by DanBC »

diminoten wrote: post #210
DanBC wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In criminal matters, you typically need both intent and some act forbidden by statute before a finding of guilt. You can't indict someone for ill will. Obtaining goods by deception seems to cover this. Especially with the public admission of "I siged on, and had to pay, but discovered that my colleague did not have to pay so I was deceptive about the equipment I used, and the only reason I was deceptive was to avoi…

Can you find an example in case law where someone's been prosecuted for obtaining access to a system by spoofing their MAC ID or user agent string? Surely this has come up before now, yes?

Are you making an oblique reference to Aaron Swartz?

http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/

But no, I probably can't find cases in courts. But then, I probably wouldn't be able to find cases where people steal the pillows, but that happens although it is a different law.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/10223157/What-c...

> I spoke to the Metropolitan Police on the law regarding towel-lifting. “It is a crime,” its spokesman said. “If we were to receive allegations, we would follow them up.” In reality, it appears most hotels would be more likely to blacklist a guest over a petty theft, charge the items to their card, and save the police the trouble.

This is likely to be the case with fraud, which is both civil and criminal. The criminal fraud is probably tiny (unless you do it in every hotel you go to) and the hotel probably doesn't want the negative publicity. And they probably don't want to encourage the practice of user agent spoofing. So if hotels do care, and do take action, they'll just charge the credit card and block-list the user.

Re: Choose hotels by the quality of their WiFi

#219

Post by diminoten »

DanBC wrote: post #218
diminoten wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you find an example in case law where someone's been prosecuted for obtaining access to a system by spoofing their MAC ID or user agent string? Surely this has come up before now, yes?

Are you making an oblique reference to Aaron Swartz? http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ But no, I probably can't find cases in courts. But then, I probably wouldn't be able to find cases where people steal the pillows, but that happens although it is a different law. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/10223157/What-c... > I spoke to the Metropolitan Police on the law regarding towel-lift…

There's probably a reason for the fact that there has never been a criminal case such as you've described, and it's for that reason the above poster is safe in writing what he did.

Re: Choose hotels by the quality of their WiFi

#220

Post by DanBC »

diminoten wrote: post #219
DanBC wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you making an oblique reference to Aaron Swartz? http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ But no, I probably can't find cases in courts. But then, I probably wouldn't be able to find cases where people steal the pillows, but that happens although it is a different law. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/10223157/What-c... > I spoke to the Metropolitan Police on the law regarding towel-lift…

There's probably a reason for the fact that there has never been a criminal case such as you've described, and it's for that reason the above poster is safe in writing what he did.

So, you ignore the bits of the Swartz case which were about his access of a network by spoofing MAC address and user agent?

You also ignore all the "piggybacking" cases?

Here are a few: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking#Unite...

Here's the Met Police saying that they intend to prosecute all such behaviour: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/22/us-britain-wireles...

Still: I'm not sure how you conclude that it is not fraud just because no-one has been to court yet.

Post reply on HN