Has ethernet become illegitimate? A librarian flipped out after spotting me using ethernet

DoomBot5 , 24 days ago

I plugged into ethernet (as wifi w/captive portal does not work for me). I think clearnet worked but I have no interest in that. Egress Tor traffic was blocked and so was VPN. I’m not interested in editing all my scripts and configs to use clearnet, so the library’s internet is useless to me (unless I bother to try a tor bridge).

Yeah... Trying to bypass their security by using ethernet instead of Wi-Fi to use your own stuff that's being blocked is tantamount to abusing the library's services. Someone should let the IT staff know so they can properly block those services on ethernet as well.

coffeeClean OP , 23 days ago (edited 22 days ago)

Someone should let the IT staff know so they can properly block those services on ethernet as well.

Someone should let the IT staff know that wi-fi does not work for everyone, including:

• People running a free software platform that lacks support for a wifi NIC that needs a proprietary driver and firmware
• People running free software who ethically object to running the proprietary non-free driver and firmware their wifi NIC requires
• People without a mobile phone to perform the captive portal-mandated SMS verfication
• People with a mobile phone but who want to exercise their GDPR right to data minimization
• Climate activists who prefer not to spend 30 times more energy needed for wi-fi radios
• People who want the security of other wi-fi users not eavesdropping on their traffic by simply pointing a yagi antenna from a block away (on a network that blocks the VPNs that would protect them from that on wi-fi)

(edit)

• People who cannot get past the captive portal for other reasons, such as the captive portal imposing TLS 1.3 on older software (forced obsolescence), or anything else that fails technically, like DNS breakage preventing the captive portal’s hostname from resolving.

And because simply turning on Wi-Fi in public enables all iPhones in your range to automatically snoop, collect your wi-fi params including SSIDs your device looks for before sending it to Apple, along with GPS fix and timestamp (according to research), there are people who:

• for privacy reasons object to being snooped on generally in this way
• boycott Apple already for any number of reasons, and who have enough discipline and resolve to oppose feeding profitable data to Apple -- regardless of whether they actually care about the disclosure.
• boycott the fossil fuel industry, including Google who supplies AI to Totaal Oil to find drilling locations, and thus oppose feeding Google by way of Androids in range doing the same collection as Apple. (note it’s disputed whether Google actually mirrors Apple on this to the extent of Apple)

catloaf , 23 days ago

You're welcome to use the library PCs (if available) or get your own ISP connection.

Buelldozer , 23 days ago

Someone should let the IT staff know that wi-fi does not work for everyone, including:

HI there. I'm someone in IT for a Public Library so let me review these points.

People running a free software platform that lacks support for a wifi NIC that needs a proprietary driver and firmware

That's a you and your hardware problem, not a public library IT problem. You need to purchase hardware that is adequately supported by your chosen Operating System.

People running free software who ethically object to running the proprietary non-free driver and firmware their wifi NIC requires

This is a you and your hardware problem. Buy hardware that is adequately supported by your chosen Operating System.

People without a mobile phone to perform the captive portal-mandated SMS verfication

This one is a semi-serious complaint however I've never seen a portal system where the Librarian's didn't have the ability to issue a day pass for use. Aside from that you sound like someone who should be technically able to stand up an ephemeral phone number for the purpose of receiving SMS.

People with a mobile phone but who want to exercise their GDPR right to data minimization

Same as above.

Pro-environment people who prefer not to spend 30 times more energy needed for wi-fi radios

What an absolutely petty complaint.

People who want the security of other wi-fi users not eavesdropping on their traffic by simply pointing a yagi antenna from a block away.

I'd bet that as soon as you enter a code your VPN stops being blocked. They're not trying to block VPN they are preventing you from sidestepping their ToS.

I've dealt with Patrons like you before and the instant someone starts yammering at me about ClearNet / Tor I know exactly what kind of person I'm dealing with.

You selected your path for whatever reasons you chose and the inconveniences that come with that path are yours to deal with. Suck it up buttercup, you weren't promised that a privacy respecting internet lifestyle would be easy or convenient.

BTW if you'd plugged your laptop into one of my systems you'd have gotten vlan'd into the same Captive Portal System that the WiFi has which is precisely how any publicly available Ethernet port should function. Your little length of wires coated in vinyl with plastic shoved on the ends still wouldn't have gotten you where you wanted to go.

lemmyreader , 23 days ago

I’ve dealt with Patrons like you before and the instant someone starts yammering at me about ClearNet / Tor I know exactly what kind of person I’m dealing with.

You selected your path for whatever reasons you chose and the inconveniences that come with that path are yours to deal with. Suck it up buttercup, you weren’t promised that a privacy respecting internet lifestyle would be easy or convenient.

I guess Meta, Google, Amazon and countless other companies are with you on this one for the ad and tracking riddled mass exploitation Internet of today.

Buelldozer , 23 days ago

I began my struggle with F/OSS and its drivers with Slackware V3 shortly after it's release. I long ago memorized absolutely every argument you could possible come up with and have myself repeated many of them over the years. That doesn't change the fact that Networks and Systems are not configured for your convenience and YOU are responsible for how your own damn hardware works.

Now get the hell off my lawn.

mark3748 , 23 days ago

Now get the hell off my lawn LAN.

Buelldozer , 23 days ago

I really missed my opportunity on that one!

lemmyreader , 23 days ago

Now get the hell off my lawn.

We are in a public community on the open Internet here where the following is written in the sidebar :

• Be kind

Tor was created by the USA military and the USA government has funded with millions of dollars. Many years ago Tor had a negative word association to it. But not so much anymore. Countless volunteers run Tor nodes from home, and Tor is not that slow anymore as it used to. I use Tor myself because I strongly dislike all the tracking, snooping and scandals by large and even small companies. The Clearnet Internet has become a disastrous place :(

coffeeClean OP , 7 days ago (edited 7 days ago)

It’s a good point about the irrational Tor hostility. But note the more perverse absurdity with his comment: that a public library is “his lawn”. If his inability and unwillingness to equally serve the whole public would be just in the private sector, there would be no issue because everyone he disservices can refuse to do business with him.

What’s sickening here is he said “I’m someone in IT for a Public Library”. So he is operating a public service in an exclusive manner telling people /get off his lawn/, which was financed with public money. And ~7+ of 8 people are okay with that.

lemmyreader , 7 days ago

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

coffeeClean OP , 6 days ago (edited 6 days ago)

In that sense, it implies that we were encroaching on his space, when in fact he entered this thread (like his handle: a bulldozer) to demand that people recognize an approach to sysadministration that does not respect equal rights, privacy, or the environment, and ultimately undermines human rights and promotes consumerism to ease his job at his competency level, as if the public is expected to serve him. It’s not his lawn in either sense of the meaning.

He made it quite he expects everyone to go through hoops to make his job convenient when he said:

“That doesn’t change the fact that Networks and Systems are not configured for your convenience”

I can imagine that the guy wants to secure his network and is maybe paranoid about people breaking in which seems fair to me,

It would be a malpractice of security. Security is about confidentiality, integrity, and availability. To reduce availability needlessly is to work against security. If availability were not essential to security, then you would just unplug the all machines, making the internet unusuable to everyone, and call it “secure”. A competent admin can securely offer internet service to people without phones, and people without a wifi card.

coffeeClean OP , 22 days ago (edited 22 days ago)

That’s a you and your hardware problem, not a public library IT problem. You need to purchase hardware that is adequately supported by your chosen Operating System.

Forcing people to buy more hardware is yet another variation of discrimination against the poor. Imposed needless consumerism is also reckless from an environmental standpoint. If you choose not to step your competency up to the level needed to serve the public without costing them more money, you’re only getting off the hook in the view of right-wing conservatives who are happy to have library service cheapened at the expense of equal rights.

Not being “your problem” is simply a problem of an ill-defined contract that allows irresponsible policy.

This is a you and your hardware problem. Buy hardware that is adequately supported by your chosen Operating System.

It’s not a hardware problem. It’s an ethics problem, and the problem is on your part whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. If you lack the higher level of competency needed to practice your trade ethically, you should try to gain the competency you need to be inclusive of people in different economic standings and diverse hardware.

This one is a semi-serious complaint however I’ve never seen a portal system where the Librarian’s didn’t have the ability to issue a day pass for use.

Not a single public library in my area has a day pass option as an alternative authentication. If the patron has no phone, the library helpless and the user is not getting online with their own device.

Aside from that you sound like someone who should be technically able to stand up an ephemeral phone number for the purpose of receiving SMS.

There is no way to get a phone or an active SIM chip gratis in my area. The only difference between a burner phone and a non-burner phone in my area is you quit using the burner phone early. It has all the same problems as a permanent phone. You can get a pinger number online, but it only works if you’re already online. Apart from that, your suggestion is absurd as an official policy in response to public complaint about phoneless people being officially excluded.

Same as above.

It fails here too, for the same reason.

What an absolutely petty complaint.

What an absolutely pathetic failure to support a claim to the contrary.

I’d bet that as soon as you enter a code your VPN stops being blocked. They’re not trying to block VPN they are preventing you from sidestepping their ToS.

This is not a /me/ problem. You are responding to a list of demographics of people who are excluded from a public service. If not every single person has a gratis VPN (and they don’t), this is a broken argument. To say every user must acquire a VPN because you cannot provide a means of access that thwarts the most trivial MitM possible is a reckless abandonment of duty.

I’ve dealt with Patrons like you before and the instant someone starts yammering at me about ClearNet / Tor I know exactly what kind of person I’m dealing with.

So your emotional bias adversely hinders your judgement and ability to service a diverse range of users. It shows.

You selected your path for whatever reasons you chose and the inconveniences that come with that path are yours to deal with. Suck it up buttercup, you weren’t promised that a privacy respecting internet lifestyle would be easy or convenient.

Inconveniences are borne out of the kind of incompetent infosec that you’re peddling. A competent tech firm can do this job without violating data minimisation principles and without violating Article 21 of the UDHR.

BTW if you’d plugged your laptop into one of my systems you’d have gotten vlan’d into the same Captive Portal System that the WiFi has which is precisely how any publicly available Ethernet port should function. Your little length of wires coated in vinyl with plastic shoved on the ends still wouldn’t have gotten you where you wanted to go.

And that would still be violating peoples’ Article 21 rights to equal access. Imposing a mobile phone is among the injustices I’ve mentioned. I would still favor the ethernet regardless of the captive portal for many of the reasons I’ve mentioned. In the very least it avoids discriminating against people without functioning wifi h/w.

DoomBot5 , 23 days ago

Yeah, this argument is bullshit once you actually know what you're talking about instead of following some cult videos that teach you to repeat them.

deweydecibel , 23 days ago (edited 23 days ago)

They should just be disabling the ports, frankly. The overwhelming majority of visitors will never miss them. If you need to use a computer on an Ethernet connection because you can't/won't use the Wi-Fi, most libraries provide desktop stations for you to use.

Keep some Wi-Fi USB dongles in the drawer at the front desk for people whose Wi-Fi isn't working, or the extreme edge case where somebody has some sort of device that can only use an ethernet connection, and for some reason they brought it to the library.

DoomBot5 , 23 days ago

Yeah, I agree that's the easiest path to take in properly securing it.

cooopsspace , 23 days ago

To be fair. That's your ethernet jack and your security that you're abusing.

xor , 8 days ago

it's clearly there to be used, a lot of places have ethernet jacks for that...
the librarian is just a luddite and you probably had a black hoodie and a
terminal open so she assumed you were selling fentanyl to pedophile ransomware communists...

alex_02 , 15 days ago

Idk what I read because it is so stupid.

LoamImprovement , 21 days ago

I mean, I asked at a library if I could plug into the Ethernet because my laptop had an RJ45 port and I needed to download something sizable for work and the WiFi was dropping it. They let me hook up on one of the library computer ports and I left it the way I found it.

coffeeClean OP , 21 days ago

Yeah I’ve done the same in one case. Librarian green lit me plugging into the rj45 but it turned out to be a dead port. I might have been able to get permission to hijack an occupied port to an unoccupied machine but just opted to bounce instead.

thelasttoot , 22 days ago

The wifi is for public use. The Ethernet isn't. How is that so hard to understand?

coffeeClean OP , 22 days ago (edited 21 days ago)

The wifi is for public use. The Ethernet isn’t. How is that so hard to understand?

How is it hard to understand that those two undisputed facts are actually a crucial part of my thesis? Of course I understand it because it’s the cause for the problems I described and my premise. It’s why this thread exists.

If that weren’t the case, the only notable problem would be with the mobile phone precondition on captive portals.

apotheotic , 22 days ago

You need to really, deeply consider what your stance is when you're painting libraries and librarians as the bad guys.

coffeeClean OP , 22 days ago (edited 22 days ago)

You’ll have to quote me on that because I do not recall calling them baddies. I have spotlighted an irresponsible policy and flawed implementation. It’s more likely a competency issue and unlikely a case of malice (as it’s unclear whether the administration is even aware that they are excluding people).

If they are knowingly and willfully discriminating against people without mobile phones, then it could be malice. But we don’t know that so they of course have the benefit of any doubt. They likely operate on the erroneous assumption that every single patron has a mobile phone and functional wifi.

apotheotic , 22 days ago

You have, throughout your comments, repeatedly spoken down toward librarians and libraries. You might not be painting them as malicious, but you're certainly not painting them as "trying their best" or "worth having an adult conversation with instead of misrepresenting my situation intentionally".

coffeeClean OP , 22 days ago (edited 22 days ago)

You have, throughout your comments, repeatedly spoken down toward librarians and libraries.

Again, you’re not quoting. You’ve already been told it’s not the case. You need to quote. You replied to the wrong message.

but you’re certainly not painting them as “trying their best”

There are many librarians with varying degrees of motivation. I spoke to one yesterday that genuinely made an effort to the best of their ability. I cannot say the same for all librarians. When I describe a problem of being unable to connect, some librarians cannot be bothered to reach out to tech support, or even so much as report upstream that someone was unable to connect.

“worth having an adult conversation with instead of misrepresenting my situation intentionally”

This is a matter of being able to read people. I don’t just bluntly blurt out a request. I start the conversation with baby steps (borderline small talk) describing the issue to assess from their words, mood, and body language the degree to which they are likely to be accommodating whatever request I am building up to. Different people get a different conversation depending on the vibe I get from them. Even the day of week is a factor. People tend to be in their best mood on Fridays and far from that on Mondays.

apotheotic , 22 days ago

I'm not writing a research paper, if you're unable to identify the things you've said which align with the things I've described then that's fair enough and perhaps we can end this interaction here.

Truck_kun , 23 days ago

My first reaction is yeah, you don't just plug into random Ethernet.
The wi-fi is likely a visitor network setup for guests to the library. That ethernet port could provide access to their private intranet, and be a security risk to the library. Worst case scenario, it could result in malware, ransomware, and/or millions of dollars in expenses to recover (on a library budget, that could mean permanently shutting down the library even).
After reading your post, I would say, no harm intended, just don't do it again.
After reading your comments about intentionally being vague about 'plugging in' to lead the librarian to think you were asking to plug in a power cord, and not specifically meaning ethernet connection.... yeah, you're clearly in the wrong. Just be up front; if they say no, so be it. They may be able to direct you to a visitor ethernet plug-in, or maybe not.
If this were an AITA thread, i'd say yes, YTA in this case.
Asking in an security community.... I would assume some level of technical awareness, and you are likely well aware of network segmentation, and that no IT department would be happy about a guest plugging their laptop into random rj-45 jacks around the building. Maybe it's not well designed, and that actually has access to firewall administration?

coffeeClean OP , 22 days ago (edited 21 days ago)

After reading your post, I would say, no harm intended, just don’t do it again.

You may be misunderstanding the thesis. This is not really about staying out of trouble. Or more precisely, as an activist up to my neck in trouble it’s about getting into the right trouble. The thesis is about this trend of marginalising people with either no phone and/or shitty wifi gear/software and a dozen or so demographics of people therein who do not so easily give up their rights. It’s about exclusivity of public services funded with public money. Civil disobedience is an important tool for justice outside of courts.

The security matter is really about competency and cost. The main problem is likely in the requirements specification conveyed to the large tech firms that received the contract. From where I sit, it appears they were simply told “give people wifi”, probably by people who don’t know the difference between wifi and internet. In which case the tech supplier should have been diligent and competent enough to ask “do you want us to exclude segments of the public who have no wifi gear and those without phones?”

acastcandream , 22 days ago (edited 22 days ago)

How many times do we need to tell you that you can’t lie about your intentions and then expect people to respect your perceived “rights“? This is like anti-maskers who would walk into places with mask mandates intentionally and then take off their masks just to make a scene and record it for the Internet. You’re pot stirring.

Just ask like a normal human being. For all you know they would’ve said “right this way“ and shown you to a port. You walked in looking for trouble.

Truck_kun , 22 days ago

Also, it is a library.. very real possibility they have actual computers you can use/borrow for people that cant use their wifi for whatever reason (such as not having a laptop/tablet/smartphone).

charonn0 , 23 days ago

Does the library provide ethernet jacks for patrons to use? If not then I can understand why a librarian would be surprised.

casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer , 23 days ago

yeah OP needs to provide this detail specifically as it changes everything.

If the Ethernet jack was not on a desk, then it wasn't there for them to use. If they unplugged a cable to make it accessible, that is unfortunately enough to be considered tampering.

If an Ethernet jack was not expressly provided, unoccupied, at the technology access station then yes the access to Ethernet information facilities was unauthorized and illegitimate and could carry legal ramifications. Say what you want about proprietary wifi drivers, you get the access you are given and any attempts to gain further access without authorization are defined as intrusion attempts and will more likely than not be treated as such to some degree. Because honestly, the libraries aren't funded enough to have great security and Ethernet security is harder than WiFi security in practice, despite the challenges being characterized by the same principles.

PM_Your_Nudes_Please , 23 days ago

Yeah, any half decent city IT department will at least be using port filtering for their switches anyways. Unless a port is specifically set up to provide open access to the internet, all OP would be able to do is bonk against the city IT’s MAC address filter until the port was disabled for having an unrecognized device/suspicious activity.

In my building, (and pretty much any city building I’ve ever worked in,) only specific ports were set up to provide open internet access. And usually those ports are in places that need to be unlocked, and which OP wouldn’t have ready access to without a fun little bit of breaking and entering. Because those ports aren’t intended for the general public to use; They’re meant for presenters, speakers, clients who have rented a room for the day, etc… The general public is meant to use the free wifi. Because there’s a different level of service expected if you’re renting a room, vs simply camping out all day in the quiet study area.

When OP tries to bypass that by plugging straight in, the switch will just go “lol git fukd loser” and disable the port. Of fucking course they weren’t able to access anything, because the port isn’t there for OP; It’s for the IT department to be able to use whenever they need to set up a new computer, or book checkout station, or simply to plug their city-owned laptop in to be able to use the city network.

just_another_person , 23 days ago

It's not the librarians issue to worry about. It's the IT team supporting your library. If there wasn't a sign that said "not for customer use", then it's fine.

jol , 23 days ago

10+ years ago you had to bring your own ethernet cable to the University library because the WiFi couldn't handle all the students at peak times. Wo der if it's still the case.

YurkshireLad , 23 days ago

I can’t rant against librarians. My friend has been a librarian for many years and she has put up with a hell of a lot of crap from people. So be kind, be patient and be honest with them.

Obviously not all librarians, like any job, are perfect.

hagar , 24 days ago

have a principled objection to a service financed by public money forcing people to install and execute proprietary non-free software on their own hardware

You are on spot there, but sadly even legislators are far from understanding the reasons why this matters so much, let alone the general public.

Whatever security policy they have, it shouldn't require you installing a random executable to your system. And it was flawed enough that it didn't care to give your device access.

And by the way, it's so awesome you carry an ethernet cable around!!

amio , 24 days ago

It's their network that they are offering as a service, if they say no then no it is.

coffeeClean OP , 23 days ago (edited 23 days ago)

Private libraries are quite rare. I think only one employer I worked for had an on-site private library where the assets are not publicly owned. It’s rare. Most libraries are public.

My post is about public libraries, which were financed with public money. It’s worth noting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 21
¶2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

That includes public libraries. It’s disgusting that you endorse discriminating against people without mobile phones and private subscriptions in the course of accessing public resources.

amio , 23 days ago

Then go sue them over their lack of Your Particular Setup-compatible wifi, I guess.

GreatBlue , 23 days ago

You have the right to access the internet through WiFi like everyone else. So where's the problem?

coffeeClean OP , 23 days ago

That “right” is exclusively available to people who:

• have a mobile phone
• who carry it with them
• who have working wifi hardware

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no such limitation on Article 21.

catloaf , 23 days ago

Bruh it's library Internet access, not a human rights violation

coffeeClean OP , 23 days ago (edited 22 days ago)

You need to read Article 21. And as you read it, keep in mind it’s a public library.

(edit)
There was a day when black people were denied access to the library. I suppose you would have said “Bruh, denying books is not a human rights violation” without any kind of legal rationale that articulates the meaning of Article 21.

Bizarre that so many here think it’s human-rights compliant to block poor people (those without phones) from public internet; who are in fact the people who need it most as governments are abolishing analog mechanisms of public service. Would be interesting to survey that same crowd on how many of them find it okay to block black people from publicly owned books. People can’t be this obtuse. It’s likely a high density of right-wing conservatives here, who understand human rights law but simply condemn anything they regard as competing with
their privilege.

GammaGames , 22 days ago

Libraries usually have computers available for use.

You are the one being obtuse.

Karyoplasma , 23 days ago

The UDHR is not a treaty, so it does not create any direct legal bindings. The article you quote may have been excluded, overwritten or rephrased in your jurisdiction.

coffeeClean OP , 22 days ago (edited 22 days ago)

The UDHR is not a treaty, so it does not create any direct legal bindings.

Sure, but where are you going with this? Legal binding only matters in situations of legal action and orthogonal to its application in a discussion in a forum. Human rights violations are rampant and they rarely go to The Hague (though that frequency is increasing). Human rights law is symbolic and carries weight in the court of public opinion. Human rights law and violations thereof get penalized to some extent simply by widespread condemnation by the public. So of course it’s useful to spotlight HR violations in a pubic forum. It doesn’t require a court’s involvement.

The judge who presided over the merits of the Israel genocide situation explained this quite well in a recent interview. If you expect an international court to single-handedly remedy cases before it, your expectations are off. The international court renders judgements that are mostly symbolic. But it’s not useless. It’s just a small part of the overall role of international law.

The article you quote may have been excluded, overwritten or rephrased in your jurisdiction.

I doubt it. It’s been a while since I read the exemptions of the various rights but I do not recall any mods to Article 21. The modifications do not generally wholly exclude an article outright. They typically make some slight modification, such as some signatories limiting free assembly (Art.20 IIRC) to /safe/ gatherings so unsafe gatherings can be broken up. I would not expect to see libraries excluded from the provision that people are entitled to equal access to public services considering there is also Article 27:

“Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.”

The European HR convocations take that even further iirc.

Karyoplasma , 22 days ago

You are still citing the UDHR as it was law. It is not, so nobody needs to modify Article 21 to violate it as long as established law doesn't recognize it.

If you really want to argue about general guidelines, the UDHR is inadequate because it's just a draft. What you want is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is its main successor, and is at least a treaty and also ratified by most countries in the world.

Still, ratifying a treaty still doesn't make it established law, it's just an obligation to implement the treaty as best as is possible into your domestic jurisdiction. Failure to do so will be met with finger-waggling at the next UN meeting, so it's more of an apparatus of peer pressure than anything else.

coffeeClean OP , 22 days ago (edited 22 days ago)

I have to say I didn’t downvote you as you’ve been civil and informative so far. But I’m not sure how to cite/quote from the UDHR as though it’s not law. I named the article and pasted the text. For me whether the enforcement machinery is in force doesn’t matter w.r.t to the merits of the discussion. From where I sit, many nations signed the UDHR because it has a baseline of principles worthy of being held in high regard. When the principles are violated outside the context of an enforcement body, the relevance of legal actionability is a separate matter. We are in a forum where we can say: here is a great idea for how to treat human beings with dignity and equality, and here that principle is being violated. There is no court in the loop. Finger wagging manifests from public support and that energy can make corrections in countless ways. Even direct consumer actions like boycotts. Israel is not being held to account for Gaza but people are boycotting Israel.

I guess I’m not grasping your thesis. Are you saying that if a solidly codified national law was not breached, then it’s not worthwhile to spotlight acts that undermine the UDHR principles we hold in high regard?

Cort , 21 days ago

I see a lot of downvotes on your comments on this thread and I wonder if it's due to differences in nationality/geography/jurisdiction. In the USA I know we give free smartphones with working Wi-Fi to people with low incomes as a part of the lifeline program. Some of the libraries I've been to even have staff on hand to help low income people find out about these sorts of benefits, and even help them sign up. Maybe they don't have this sort of program where you're from?

And I know most people DO carry their phones with them wherever they go these days assuming they haven't forgotten it somewhere.

Am I missing something? To me, in my area, these limitations would be a choice the user has made.

coffeeClean OP , 20 days ago (edited 20 days ago)

I see that the relevant websites (FCC and lifelinesupport.org) both block Tor so you can’t be poor in need of the Lifeline and simultaneously care about privacy. Many parts of the US have extremely expensive telecom costs. I think I heard an avg figure of like $300/month (for all info svcs [internet,phone,TV]), which I struggle to believe but I know it’s quite costly nonetheless. One source says $300/month is the high end figure, not an avg. Anyway, a national avg of $144/month just for a mobile phone plan is absurdly extortionate.

About Lifeline:

Lifeline provides subscribers a discount on qualifying monthly telephone service, broadband Internet service, or bundled voice-broadband packages purchased from participating wireline or wireless providers. The discount helps ensure that low-income consumers can afford 21st century connectivity services and the access they provide to jobs, healthcare, and educational resources.

So they get a discount. But you say free? Does the discount become free if income is below a threshold? Do they get a free/discounted hardware upgrade every 2-3 years as well, since everyone is okay with the chronic forced obsolescence in the duopoly of platforms to choose from? In any case, I’m sure the program gets more phones into more needy hands, which would shrink the population of marginalized people. That’s a double edged sword. Shrinking the size of a marginalized group without completely eliminating it means fewer people are harmed. But those in that group are further disempowered by their smaller numbers, easier to oppress, and less able to correct the core of the problem: not having a right to be analog and be unplugged (which is an important component of the right to boycott).

This topic could be a whole Lemmy community, not just a thread. In the US, you have only three carriers: AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. I’ve seen enough wrongdoing by all 3 to boycott all 3. I would not finance any them no matter how much money I have. T-Mobile is the lesser of evils but it’s wrong to be forced to feed any of the three as an arbitrary needless precondition to using the library’s public wifi. It’s absolutely foolish that most people support that kind of bundling between public and private services.

US govs do not (AFAIK) yet impose tech on people. I think every gov service in the US has an analog option, including cash payment options. That’s not the case in many regions outside the US. There are already govs that now absolutely force you to complete some government transactions online, along with electronic payments which imposes bank patronisation, even if you boycott the banks for investing in fossil fuels and private prisons. And if you don’t like being forced to use their Google CAPTCHA (which supports Google, the surveillance advertiser who participates in fossil fuel extraction), that’s tough. Poor people are forced to use a PC (thus the library) to do public sector transactions with the gov, as are a segment of elderly people who struggle to use the technology. There is also a segment of tech people who rightfully object, precisely because they know enough about how info traverses information systems to see how privacy is undermined largely due to loss of control (control being in the wrong hands). It’s baffling how few people are in that tech segment.

So the pro-privacy tech activists are united with the low-tech elderly and the poor together fighting this oppression (called “digital transformation”) which effectively takes away our boycott power and right to choose who we do business with in the private sector. A divide and conquer approach is being used because we don’t have a well-organised coalition. Giving the poor cheaper tech and giving assistance to the elderly is a good thing but the side effect is enabling the oppression to go unchallenged. When really the right answer in the end is to not impose shitty options in the first place. It’s like the corp swindle of forced bundling (you can only get X if you also take Y). You should be able to get public wifi without a mobile phone subscription.

The UDHR prohibits discrimination on the basis of what property you have. The intent is to protect the poor, but the protection is actually rightfully bigger in scope because people who willfully opt not to have property are also in the protected class.

It’s all quite parallel to Snowden’s take. The masses don’t care about privacy due to not really understanding it.

“Ultimately, arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” ― Edward Snowden

The idea that activists need both free speech and privacy in order to fight for everyone’s rights is lost on people making the /selfish/ choice to disregard privacy. All those mobile phone users who don’t give a shit about mobile phones being imposed on everyone are missing this concept. The choice to have a mobile phone is dying. It’s gradually and quietly becoming an unwritten mandate.

Banking is also becoming bound to having a mobile phone. There are already banks who will not open account for those without a mobile phone. So we are losing the option to have a bank account but not a mobile phone.

coffeeClean OP , 20 days ago (edited 20 days ago)

I see a lot of downvotes on your comments on this thread and I wonder if it’s due to differences in nationality/geography/jurisdiction.

Guess I should answer this. The enormous class of people with mobile phones (likely 100% of those in this channel) are happy to be in the included group and amid any chatter about expanding the included group to include those without a phone (a segment they do not care about), they think: “that extra degree of egalitarian policy to support a more diverse group will cost more and yield nothing extra to me; yet that extra cost will be passed on to me.”

Which is true. And very few people among them care about boycott power because it’s rarely used by willful consumerist consumers of tech and telecom svc. But the ignorance is widespread failure to realise that as mobile phones become effectively a basic requirement for everyone, the suppliers will have even less incentive to win your business. The duopolies and triopolies can (and will) increase prices and reduce service quality as a consequence of that stranglehold. Most people are too naïve to realise the hold-out non-mobile phone customers are benefiting them even from the selfish standpoint of the mobile phone customers. And the fact that they are paying an invisible price with their data doesn’t occur to most people either, or how that loss of privacy disempowers them.

They will pay more in the end than if they had supported diversity and egalitarian inclusion.

normonator , 23 days ago

You can use it but on their terms. Your privacy doesnt mean anything to them, they are protecting themselves. Captive portal is likely making you agree to not abuse the service.

Also you're choosing not to participate which is fair but they don't need to support that.

coffeeClean OP , 23 days ago (edited 23 days ago)

You can use it but on their terms.

Not without a phone.

Captive portal is likely making you agree to not abuse the service.

Have you forgotten that an agreement can be made on paper?

Nothing about a captive portal requires wifi. There are many ways to get that agreement. Neglecting to make the agreement part of the ToS when you become a member is just reckless.

normonator , 23 days ago

Their terms require a phone so yes, on their terms. Why would they make an exception for anyone?

Their captive portal requires wifi and thats all that matters. And why would they want to deal with paper agreements for WiFi?

You don't have to be a member to use WiFi, someone else could have given you the password if there even is one, so ya even if you did agree when signing up it would make sense to still require that.

I implement these kind of setups including a couple libraries and while I would have Ethernet ports available if within budget, I would not allow you to bypass captive portal, the agreement, or traffic filtering. I don't care what you are doing but I am required to try not to allow easy access to questionable content. If someone is doing something illegal it's gonna involve the library if you get caught (that's why the phone number but maybe they are just being shitty with it). Not worth the risk. Also a lot of those decisions are made by a board so being upset with the staff won't accomplish anything. Wifi is cheap, pulling cable can be very costly in comparison and depending on building type can be hard, damaging or, not feasible. Those ports could also be broken because people don't respect shit, that could also be the reason for their reaction.

This is all I got for you, good luck but if you want your privacy you're likely going to have to go somewhere else.

coffeeClean OP , 22 days ago (edited 22 days ago)

Their terms require a phone so yes, on their terms.

I keep a copy of everything I sign. The ToS I signed on one library do not require a mobile phone. It’s an ad hoc implementation that was certainly not thought out to the extent of mirroring the demand for a mobile phone number into the agreement. And since it’s not in the agreement, this unwritten policy likely evaded the lawyer’s eyes (who likely drafted or reviewed the ToS).

Why would they make an exception for anyone?

Because their charter is not: “to provide internet service exclusively for residents who have mobile phones”.

And why would they want to deal with paper agreements for WiFi?

Paper agreements:

• do not discriminate (you cannot be a party to a captive portal agreement that you cannot reach)
• are more likely to actually be read (almost no one reads a tickbox agreement)
• inherently (or at least easily) give the non-drafting party a copy of the agreement for their records. A large volume of text on a tiny screen is unlikely to even be opened and even less likely to save it. Not having a personal copy reduces the chance of adherence to the terms.
• provide a higher standard of evidence whenever the agreement is litigated over

You don’t have to be a member to use WiFi, someone else could have given you the password if there even is one

That’s not how it works. The captive portal demands a phone number. After supplying it, an SMS verification code is sent. It’s bizarre that you would suggest asking a stranger in a library for their login info. In the case at hand, someone would have to share their mobile number, and then worry that something naughty would be done under their phone number, and possibly also put that other person at risk for helping someone circumvent the authentication (which also could be easily detected when the same phone number is used for two parallel sessions).

If someone is doing something illegal it’s gonna involve the library if you get caught (that’s why the phone number but maybe they are just being shitty with it). Not worth the risk.

Exactly what makes it awkward to ask someone else to use their phone.

amio , 23 days ago

It’s disgusting that you endorse discriminating against people

If you're not trolling - poorly - then you obviously have massive issues. I would encourage you to seek out some help for those.

Dukeofdummies , 24 days ago

I'm not surprised. I know people who don't even know what an ethernet cable is. I've worked enough IT to realize that a tangled mess of 6 cables can be as horrifying as a Predator to people. It doesn't help that everything is slowly going to POE, POE+ and even ++ now so it's doubling as power as well. In analog video days I could look at the back of a random device and instantly figure out it's purpose. That's rapidly becoming a rarity. For a worrisome section of the population, plugging in an ethernet cable is the equivalent of building a table or performing a back flip.

And when it comes to hacking, good god nobody knows anything. I remember we had a dozen students in high school (around 2000ish?) get suspended for "hacking" and really it was just that a section of the student body found a network storage location without any password protection and were using it as a flash drive on school grounds. Literally they just suspended anybody who signed their name on the homework assignments stored there.

The real crime was that drive had lunch pins for all the accounts in plain text to run their system, without a password!

mystik , 24 days ago

It's uncommon for 'public use' ethernet ports to exist, unless they are clearly labeled. The ethernet ports might grant access to the internal network, which, is easy to accidentally do. A non-profit library with a limited budget might overlook all the extra protections on open ports (enable/disable ports as needed, use 802.11x port-based authentication, internal SSL, etc), that would be necessary to secure it. Or, even better; that RJ45 port might be wired up to an old PBX, and you may have fried their telephone system, or your own hardware.