I'm probably hungry...

My semester is winding down and I have a paper due on Wednesday the 23rd and I've been hard at it.

The paper is for my IT 848: Computer Crime, Information Warfare and Economic Espionage class and is on the ethical and legal concerns of non-secure wireless networks. This morning I was at around page 48 and working backwards, I started writing some scenarios for the introduction that would take advantage of the arguments I'm making.
Anyway, here is one of my scenarios...

A pharmaceutical salesman, during a break between two appointments, pulls over on a busy street to grab an Italian beef sandwich for lunch. Walking back to his car to enjoy his “dipped with hot and sweet”, he notices an odd looking piece of graffiti on the side of a building. Recognizing it as a symbol declaring a free wireless hotspot in the area, he pulls out his laptop and is greeted with a strong connection. Firing up a bit torrent program, he is soon downloading a television episode of “Lost” that he missed the other night, while leisurely eating his sandwich. Twenty minutes later, sandwich eaten, the salesman pulls away to his next appointment with a stain on his tie and an illegal copy of a copyrighted work saved to a DVD-R.

Relatively low-risk on the infocrime and general hazards.
Better would be...

• parking without filling the meter based on monitoring police locations on a clever hack in Google Maps
• snooping the local traffic to see if he can pick up an account number from other freeloaders on the hotspot
• balancing the dripping beef and the laptop on his bespoke suit pants whilst driving away from the approaching meter maid
• finding out later that the 'unsecured' hotspot turned his laptop into a spamming zombie
• finding out even later that all of his GPS coordinates for good chow have been replaced with Mr. Submarine outlets

Agreed, yet it was just one scenario that fit a point I wanted to make. I did stain his tie for piracy though!

Even getting further off topic, I'd like to briefly comment on the absurdity of requirements that hot spots be required to be encrypted. There are two problems with the argument: It is based on a belief that the encryption and authentication on 99.999% of wireless networks is worth anything, which it's not; and it assumes that network owners should be responsible for the actions of their users, which they shouldn't be.

And besides, who in their right mind would use a laptop while eating a dipped beef?

Understood, which is why I'm also approaching it from an ethical point....I wish we could have talked earlier over your choice of meal on me!
Still the paper is due...
Nonetheless, New hampshire is trying to do this.

We're really getting waaaay into Non-Food here, but the price of short-term wireless contracts are absurd:
$10/day in better clas hotels, Starbucks, while it's free at the Motel 6, Panera, your local library... there's some very silly economics going on.

Frankly, I'd give up a bunch of my frequent flyer rights if United or American would provide me free wi-fi in their terminals, but the airport authorities would complain about their lost revenues.

I'm more likely to buy something to eat (ah, food related) in a Panera if I'm going to get free wireless than I would feel obligated to buy something after shelling out $10 for a couple hours elsewhere.

There were a couple times on vacation that my kids freeloaded off a bookstore or something in order to IM while MrsF and I shopped or ate somewhere nearby. They were public hotspots, though, not unsecured open private nets.

But you're right: an encrypted net isn't going to protect you as a wireless user one iota -- use your firewall, antispyware, etc. I disagree that it's useless, though: WPA is pretty good encryption to protect the inside from the outside -- you don't want just anybody on your network.

If this happens (I hope sooner rather than later) the entire point would be moot. This has been in the works for a while and is a pet project of a committee that I am on.

Chicago would be empowered to build an $18 million wireless Internet access system across the city under an ordinance expected to be rushed through today's City Council meeting to beat Springfield to the punch.

"Instead of having to go to a Starbucks coffee or another upscale coffee or sandwich shop to get wireless access for your laptop, it could be available throughout the city."

Full story here http://suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-nws-wireless09.html

Also the beef eating scenario sounds a bit farfetched, too. Sorry delk. Any Chicagoan knows that the correct method of eating a beef, dipped with hot and sweet is to position the tie over one's shoulder to avoid a mishap as you have outlined. I suppose for someone not from here, the scenario works, but within the Chicago area, one must suspend disbelief, much like watching a Blues Brothers chase scene, if we are to accept your premise.

Chicago as a free wifi zone would rock...Is it moving along? Any insight to an implementation date?

In my scenario, the salesman was never meant to be a native. I imagined him as one of those graduates of any of a few surrounding state universities that upon graduation move to the big city and feel comfortable wearing a backwards baseball cap in a restaurant.

At no point does the article say free -- in fact it says that the city would hope to get revenues from the operating company. It'd be like one giant Starbucks, and would probably discourage individual businesses from putting in free spots.

delk wrote:Chicago as a free wifi zone would rock...Is it moving along? Any insight to an implementation date?

Free access is the goal, but it's been held up in red tape for almost 5 years now. Things are moving closer, but there is no definite date in sight yet. The source of revenue required for running the system is still in debate, but it will probably not be a pay as you go situation ala Starbucks.