Hacker News Reader

Comment by mindcrime | Hacker News Reader

So what? Everyone of us probably runs afoul of hundreds or thousands of bogus laws every day. It's time to start encouraging people to be bolder and violate more laws, as far as I'm concerned.

Now excuse me while I go listen to some Judas Priest... \m/

View on HN

The idea behind computer fraud laws, and fraud laws in general, is that tricking people to obtain valuable services at the expense of the victim is dishonest. People and companies should be able to offer services assuming that their counterparties are honest. When dishonest people abuse company offerings, they impose a cost on everyone in the market. In this specific case, the prospect of fraudulent access requires the wireless ISP to spend money strengthening their security controls; the costs associated with that are passed on to the market, as are the inconveniences associated with new controls.

In other words: the law sees it as a bad thing that ISPs should have to bulletproof their offerings so that when they make a service available to phones, it isn't easy to trick those systems into providing service to computers. The law says, "it is silly that the market should have to bear the cost of that engineering, because it's undertaken solely to prevent dishonest people from obtaining undue benefit".

The only question you really have to ask here is, "am I tricking a business into offering me something with a dollar value without paying for it?" Yes? That's fraud. It's the definition of fraud.

People probably do violate all sorts of stupid laws all the time. But that's a very different point than "people commit all sorts of frauds all the time". They do not. Fraud is invariably wrong.

> The only question you really have to ask here is, "am I tricking a business into offering me something with a dollar value without paying for it?" Yes? That's fraud. It's the definition of fraud.

What services did he steal? He paid for wifi services for the duration of the flight. The device by which he enjoys that service should be of no consequence.

He paid for wifi services for his computer for the duration of the flight. The fact that you do not recognize the legitimacy of a commercial offering does not give you the right to invent your own terms; you take the terms as offered, or you don't do business at all.

He received what he paid for: wifi services for that flight.

I still don't see fraud here.

He paid for a WiFi connection between a phone and the internet. He received a connection between a laptop and the internet.

He paid for a WiFi connection between a device and the internet. He received a connection between a device and the internet.

If GoGo can't tell the difference between a laptop and a mobile phone, that's their problem. And no, the UA string doesn't guarantee that and there is no law that I've heard of that prevents users from altering their UA string (or anything for that matter). They showed him a price for a service on his device, and he bought that service.

Ha, good luck trying to argue that. The Gogo website makes it clear that there are separate services for phones and laptops. Their website automatically detects what kind of device you have, if they make a mistake then it's their problem if they don't offer you the means to correct it. But if you deliberately circumvent their system to save money, then you're committing a fraud.

I'd urge you to learn a little more about the law if you think that a UA string specific law is needed, or even a computer-specific law. Intent and personal gain are more an enough.

The only question you really have to ask here is, "am I tricking a business into offering me something with a dollar value without paying for it?" Yes? That's fraud. It's the definition of fraud.

He did pay. The question now is, is this something roughly akin to switching price stickers on merchandise in a store. Since there's no specific requirement that a browser return an "accurate" UA string (whatever "accurate" even means for a UA string), this is closer to a company putting out a bucket with a sign saying "Honor System: suggested donation: $7.95 for phones, $15.95 for computers" and having somebody throw in $7.95 while using a computer. Not noble, but hardly something they should be punished for.

He paid for product "A" and used product "B", and then wrote about the sticker price difference between "A" and "B" on a public website. Again: this is the definition of fraud. Your point is just that it's a small fraud.

To the extent that the insignificance of this fraud will preclude it from becoming a federal case, I agree.

In general: don't lie to people to win deals for yourself. At all.

Unless there's something differentiating the two services, product "A" and product "B" are the same product, with different prices.

I find GoGo's double pricing to be the most morally objectionable thing about this whole situation.

If you think you are participating in civil disobedience, you will have better luck if you are not gaining something of value while doing so.

Judas Priest should be charged for making foul music.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com