5 ms·

Ah, iodine. I've used it in airports, hotels, cafes - it's great. The only drawback is that it's slower than dialup and latency is off the charts. But when you'

by galvan 12y ago

Ah, iodine. I've used it in airports, hotels, cafes - it's great. The only drawback is that it's slower than dialup and latency is off the charts. But when you're stuck on a cruise ship and internet access is $8 a minute, being able to ssh somewhere and browse the web and check your mail very slowly through links is worth it.

batbomb 12y ago
I usually just spoof mac addresses of people who already paid in most of those cases, the caveat usually being somebody had to pay.
- UVB-76 12y ago
  If those people have a download limit that's rather unscrupulous.
- Steuard 12y ago
  I hope you're not still talking cruise ships here! Those folks are often paying high prices by the minute or by the megabyte for access: you'd be pretty literally stealing from your neighbors in that situation. (The moral issue for pay-by-the-day systems is one step further removed, but I think it's still real.)
  - jrockway 12y ago
    802.1x covers access control to networks. MAC addresses are not for access control. Not that a court would agree with my logic, of course.
    - WiseWeasel 12y ago
      Yeah, you might have a tough time explaining to the judge that Media Access Control addresses are not for access control.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        In this context "access control" doesn't mean what you think it does. It refers to multiplexing the communications of multiple devices over a single shared communications medium, as in "controlling" (arbitrating) shared access to the radio spectrum. It has no relationship to network authorization or authentication and provides no security whatsoever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_access_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_access_method Calling it "access control" has always been confusing which is why people started calling it Machine Address Code or Ethernet Hardware Address instead.
        ceejayoz 12y ago
        > In this context "access control" doesn't mean what you think it does. Good luck explaining that to the judge.
        growupkids 12y ago
        Regardless, the judge is going to look at intent and knowledge. You knew this was a paid service, and your intent was to not pay. You understood this was a way to avoid payment, and you understood that someone else had paid for access.
        AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        None of which has anything to do with "media access control" which still has nothing to do with authorization or authentication.
    - annnnd 12y ago
      Doesn't really matter - it might (!) be legal, but it is immoral (if they really are paying by MB).
- brianpgordon 12y ago
  I was staying at a Hilton (Omaha, NE) last night and their captive portal scared me off by putting the MAC address, IP address, and user agent in the query string, plus network stuff like the VLAN id and the MAC address of some piece of network gear that's servicing you. It seemed like they had a pretty complex system to deter abuse. Of course, I just tethered my phone and got way better service than their crappy $10/day wifi.

by galvan 12y ago

batbomb 12y ago

I usually just spoof mac addresses of people who already paid in most of those cases, the caveat usually being somebody had to pay.

UVB-76 12y ago
If those people have a download limit that's rather unscrupulous.
Steuard 12y ago
I hope you're not still talking cruise ships here! Those folks are often paying high prices by the minute or by the megabyte for access: you'd be pretty literally stealing from your neighbors in that situation. (The moral issue for pay-by-the-day systems is one step further removed, but I think it's still real.)
- jrockway 12y ago
  802.1x covers access control to networks. MAC addresses are not for access control. Not that a court would agree with my logic, of course.
  - WiseWeasel 12y ago
    Yeah, you might have a tough time explaining to the judge that Media Access Control addresses are not for access control.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      In this context "access control" doesn't mean what you think it does. It refers to multiplexing the communications of multiple devices over a single shared communications medium, as in "controlling" (arbitrating) shared access to the radio spectrum. It has no relationship to network authorization or authentication and provides no security whatsoever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_access_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_access_method Calling it "access control" has always been confusing which is why people started calling it Machine Address Code or Ethernet Hardware Address instead.
      - ceejayoz 12y ago
        > In this context "access control" doesn't mean what you think it does. Good luck explaining that to the judge.
      - growupkids 12y ago
        Regardless, the judge is going to look at intent and knowledge. You knew this was a paid service, and your intent was to not pay. You understood this was a way to avoid payment, and you understood that someone else had paid for access.
        AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        None of which has anything to do with "media access control" which still has nothing to do with authorization or authentication.
  - annnnd 12y ago
    Doesn't really matter - it might (!) be legal, but it is immoral (if they really are paying by MB).
brianpgordon 12y ago
I was staying at a Hilton (Omaha, NE) last night and their captive portal scared me off by putting the MAC address, IP address, and user agent in the query string, plus network stuff like the VLAN id and the MAC address of some piece of network gear that's servicing you. It seemed like they had a pretty complex system to deter abuse. Of course, I just tethered my phone and got way better service than their crappy $10/day wifi.