51–60 of 99 posts
In relation to the legal questions raised elsewhere on this thread, I'm guessing that it's a non-issue when it's a built-in feature of the device. I think the argument could be logically extended to using plug-ins that switch user agent strings?
Ugh, a bit.ly link? Can someone change the URL to point to the actual address of the page? http://viktorpetersson.com/2011/09/25/how-to-get-50-discount... I love that people get up in arms about the change to google's privacy policy but have no trouble funneling traffic through bit.ly and other link shorteners...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They were unable to recover the money, because there was no way to prove which of their guests at that time was responsible. That's exactly why in all likelihood, they would've won. It's the perfect setup and - in germany - an argument for securing the wlan not better than the default-setting suggests. I am always surprised by the "there is a chance we might loose and pay more, so we will pay"-attitude that seems to…
I don't know about the current climate for copyright cases in Germany, but I don't think that the board of a hotel chain will have or want any stake in the copyright fight as that is so far from their own business interests. By choosing to pay €1000 this month they save a lot of money.That small amount of a settlement is pocket change for a hotel compared to the lengthy legal process that may be drawn out for months,…
I still think that it would now be a better idea to fight. It's a sure 1000€-loss + the unhappy customers (cause of missing free wlan) vs a maybe-loss and a chance to continue the free wlan. But I understand the tought-process you described, and it was maybe a different legal situation.
Ugh, a bit.ly link? Can someone change the URL to point to the actual address of the page? http://viktorpetersson.com/2011/09/25/how-to-get-50-discount... I love that people get up in arms about the change to google's privacy policy but have no trouble funneling traffic through bit.ly and other link shorteners...
this is some other link shortening service, which the admins haven't gotten around to banning yet. but it's just a matter of time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it legal to charge people different rates for the same service on different devices? I would argue it certainly isn't moral. Switching user agent is perfectly legal.
It's legal to price discriminate based on age (discounted cinema tickets for children and pensioners), gender (free entry to certain nightclubs for women), occupation (teachers get educational discounts on some software, even when they only use it at home), not to mention the tricks aeroplane/train companies pull. So why not legal to price discriminate net access based on the device you're accessing it with?
In the UK, price discrimination by gender (e.g. by nightclubs) is illegal: see http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/your-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is changing your UserAgent string fraud?
You are implying you are something you are not.
Is it fraud to use a battery charger or electrical plug with an adapter? After all, the particular plug is a way of "identification", even when easily circumvented. How about using aftermarket parts for your car or camera. They are implying by their similarly spaced and shaped connections that they are genuine parts after all... What about console cartridge identification chips?
These are somewhat interesting questions, if the HN crowd could have other opinions between "fraud" and "not fraud".
And if you can't trust Norwegian folk with your data, then you can roll your own "Turbo" with Ziproxy or at least SOCKS proxy over gzipped connection.
I'm looking forward to the day when I stay in a 100$/night hotel and I don't have to pay for my fricking internet. Every motel/hostel has it for free as it should. To me charging for internet (in hotels/resturatns) in 2012 is the same as charging for using the shower or lights.
Here in Israel free wifi access is the norm, but in DE? They charge an arm and a leg. Switzerland (if we're talking about Swisscom anyway)? They are _insane_. The hotels already rip you off with prices like there's no tomorrow and charge for internet on top.
I fire up iodine on my client. If it works: Great. The network was obviously created by morons (it could easily be prevented). Morons won't be able to track me down the short while I'm on their network, on a trip, with a mac address like 'deadbeef' or somesuch nonsense.
If it doesn't work? I don't go online and leave to have a couple beers..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think those cases are even comparable. Lying that you paid (through whatever means) is different from using a different user agent, which has no (direct, expected) relation to money. But if you think changing the user agent is somehow wrong, you could also go all the way of emulating the iPad browser on your laptop, and use that to sign in for the service.
You'd still have trouble explaining that to a judge. The hotel has a reasonable expectation that if the traffic says it is coming from an iPad, it's actually coming from an iPad, and you don't have any non-infringing excuses to be using an iPad browser on your laptop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are implying you are something you are not.
"You are"? It's just a browser "identification". It's widely known to be approximate, random and unreliable. It's common to try different agents because the web is full of bad pages which try to use it for something inappropriate. That's why user agent switching is a feature in all these browsers in the first place. It's like disabling CSS. Is it fraud to use a battery charger or electrical plug with an adapter? Afte…