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

Save money on wifi using user agent switching

cld.sg

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: Save money on wifi using user agent switching

#91

Post by jiggy2011 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #41
wladimir wrote: post #15

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.

pedantic issue but if your are advertising the service as "ipad" then would you be allowed to use it with (say) an android tablet?

It seems a little arbitrary otherwise espeically since people use the word ipad synonymously with "tablet" like "ipod" for mp3 player.

Re: Save money on wifi using user agent switching

#92

Post by jiggy2011 »

sanswork wrote: post #22
CWIZO wrote: post #12

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.

Every motel/hostel that I've been to with free internet has ended up with internet so slow that its unusable. I'm happy to pay for it to be able to access at faster than dialup speeds. As for why they charge it's because they can. Their target markets are already paying a premium for a room so a small extra charge for internet isn't that much of a deal. People looking for the savings of a hostel are just as likely to…

Just because they charge does not mean they re-invest any of that in infrastructure.

If you stay at a hotel with paid wifi and it is full of people who are either tethering from their phones or not using the internet then it will be fast.

Stay at a posh hotel where everyone pays out of their expense account and it's likely to be just as slow as if it was free.

Not to mention that you only need one person streaming 1080p to put serious strain on the bandwidth.

Re: Save money on wifi using user agent switching

#93

Post by pyre »

amirmc wrote: post #79
pyre wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the difference is knowledge and intent. He knew that they were using the User Agent string to differentiate iOS devices, and he used that knowledge to get a cheaper price. It would be different if he were randomly browsing the web with that User Agent for kicks, and didn't realize that he had gotten a deal.

I think that's a weak argument in this case. It's not like the author 'cracked his way in'. He got a cheaper price because he learned something from a friend and tried an experiment, which worked. Using something you've learned to get a better price seems fine with me. Especially, if it's 'ok' for someone stumbling around with the wrong user-agent. To me, it just feels like a form of arbitrage.

  > Especially, if it's 'ok' for someone
  > stumbling around with the wrong user-agent.
Huh? So there's no difference between me purposely selling you a bad stock, and accidentally doing so?

Re: Save money on wifi using user agent switching

#94

Post by tptacek »

amirmc wrote: post #79
pyre wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the difference is knowledge and intent. He knew that they were using the User Agent string to differentiate iOS devices, and he used that knowledge to get a cheaper price. It would be different if he were randomly browsing the web with that User Agent for kicks, and didn't realize that he had gotten a deal.

I think that's a weak argument in this case. It's not like the author 'cracked his way in'. He got a cheaper price because he learned something from a friend and tried an experiment, which worked. Using something you've learned to get a better price seems fine with me. Especially, if it's 'ok' for someone stumbling around with the wrong user-agent. To me, it just feels like a form of arbitrage.

In most states, the to make a fraud case, you need some combination of:

(a) a representation made of some fact

(b) the materiality of that fact (the fact has to matter)

(c) the representation has to be false

(d) the person making the representation has to know it's false

(e) and they have to lie with an intent that someone else act on it

(f) and someone else has to actually be be fooled

(g) and rely on the lie

(h) and the lie has to be about something they had a right to ask (ie, not about marital status in a job interview)

(i) and thus incur damage.

You weaken a fraud case by saying the dispute is over an opinion and not a fact (a), or that the person who got something for nothing didn't realize they were lying (b), or they lied, but without intent (maybe they always lie about this question) (e).

But if all the elements fit, as they do in this case, you do not in fact have a weak case. You can, oh yes, you can, have "paid=true" in your URL and count on fraud statutes to have your back.

A lot of legal stuff becomes clearer when you realize that the court do not buy --- not even a little bit --- the nerdly tenet that "there is no way to prove intent because you can't really know what someone was thinking and maybe they weren't intending to do anything wrong". The courts have 2 centuries of case history of judging intent.

Re: Save money on wifi using user agent switching

#95

Post by pyre »

tptacek wrote: post #94
amirmc wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a weak argument in this case. It's not like the author 'cracked his way in'. He got a cheaper price because he learned something from a friend and tried an experiment, which worked. Using something you've learned to get a better price seems fine with me. Especially, if it's 'ok' for someone stumbling around with the wrong user-agent. To me, it just feels like a form of arbitrage.

In most states, the to make a fraud case, you need some combination of: (a) a representation made of some fact (b) the materiality of that fact (the fact has to matter) (c) the representation has to be false (d) the person making the representation has to know it's false (e) and they have to lie with an intent that someone else act on it (f) and someone else has to actually be be fooled (g) and rely on the lie (h) an…

Doesn't help when you post your intent in a public forum too.

Re: Save money on wifi using user agent switching

#96

Post by tptacek »

pyre wrote: post #95
tptacek wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most states, the to make a fraud case, you need some combination of: (a) a representation made of some fact (b) the materiality of that fact (the fact has to matter) (c) the representation has to be false (d) the person making the representation has to know it's false (e) and they have to lie with an intent that someone else act on it (f) and someone else has to actually be be fooled (g) and rely on the lie (h) an…

Doesn't help when you post your intent in a public forum too.

It wouldn't matter, because you can't convince a reasonable judge or a reasonable jury that tampering with a computer system that puts (for instance) a credit card form in front of you for service in order to not pay for service doesn't constitute "intent".

Re: Save money on wifi using user agent switching

#97

Post by rb2k_ »

icebraining wrote: post #80
Drbble wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that work, when DNS always resolves to the paywall IP?

Not always. The three captive portals I've tried resolved DNS just fine, but then redirected any HTTP requests to their web server instead.

I've never encountered one that didn't have working DNS resolution

Re: Save money on wifi using user agent switching

#98

Post by DougBTX »

onli wrote: post #47
DougBTX wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of ISP protection is to say that some particular other person is responsible, instead of the ISP, so that they can get sued/fined/imprisoned instead. Looks like these guys were not tracking that.

That's simply false (in germany!). The keyword is Access-Provider. See http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tmg/__7.html and http://www.it-recht-kanzlei.de/providerhaftung-stoererhaftun...

My German isn't good enough to understand those articles, and I'm finding it a bit tricky to understand the Google translation. The jist I'm getting from those two pages is that the access provider isn't liable for what is transmitted if the transfer is initiated by another user.

I think the bit I'm referring to would be covered by § 15 paragraph (4), which Google translates to "To comply with existing legal, statutory or contractual retention periods, the service provider may block the data." I think "block" here means "store", in the sense that the user data which includes "Information on the beginning and end and the extent of each use" (paragraph 1) needs to be recorded (and retained) for a period of time required by a different statute.

I feel like I only understand about 30% of those documents, I might make more progress with a better translation!

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tmg/__15.html

Re: Save money on wifi using user agent switching

#99

Post by onli »

DougBTX wrote: post #98
onli wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's simply false (in germany!). The keyword is Access-Provider. See http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tmg/__7.html and http://www.it-recht-kanzlei.de/providerhaftung-stoererhaftun...

My German isn't good enough to understand those articles, and I'm finding it a bit tricky to understand the Google translation. The jist I'm getting from those two pages is that the access provider isn't liable for what is transmitted if the transfer is initiated by another user. I think the bit I'm referring to would be covered by § 15 paragraph (4), which Google translates to "To comply with existing legal, statuto…

Sorry, i oversaw your reply. That paragraph is about what a provider may store, and it is pretty rigid. As far as i know, in practice they save more (that law is not fully followed).

>(4) Der Diensteanbieter darf Nutzungsdaten über das Ende des Nutzungsvorgangs hinaus verwenden, soweit sie für Zwecke der Abrechnung mit dem Nutzer erforderlich sind (Abrechnungsdaten). Zur Erfüllung bestehender gesetzlicher, satzungsmäßiger oder vertraglicher Aufbewahrungsfristen darf der Diensteanbieter die Daten sperren.

This informally translates to: "The provider may use data about the usage after the usage, if those data are necessary to calculate the billings. He may save those data to fulfill existing deadlines, coming from law or contract"

There don't seem to exist an english translation of that law.

Post reply on HN