View Full Version : Wireless Internet Access is a Civil Right??
In case anyone didn't already know that Gavin Newsome was a kook.... :dizzy2:
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who became internationally known for his campaign a year ago to legalize gay marriage, said on Monday he considered wireless Internet access a fundamental right of all citizens.
Wireless access can be seen a basic right that should be available not just to business professionals but also lower-income citizens. "This is a civil rights issue as much as anything else," Newsom said.
So, by extension, does that mean that having a computer is also a 'basic human right'? Internet access isn't much good without something to use it with.
Just think of all those poor people out there being deprived their basic right to online porno.~D
Edit: link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20051004/wr_nm/telecoms_wireless_sanfrancisco_dc_2)
Kaiser of Arabia
10-04-2005, 21:30
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA *spits out italian sausage and peppers* hahahahAHHAHAWHhahahHAHhwhahahahhanbahawhHAhahahahAHHAHAHAHhAHahhAHAHhAh .
What an idiot!
AggonyKing
10-04-2005, 21:35
were I live, anyone can have wireless internet, they just lack the capacity to make the choice~;)
Proletariat
10-04-2005, 21:55
It figures that city would elect a blatant Communist.
Seems fair enough. Does put anyone with it at a huge advantage.
If there was free wireless internet everywhere I'm sure things would improve economically. Or everyone would sit about playing Counter Strike.
Seems fair enough. Does put anyone with it at a huge advantage.
So does a million dollars. No one says we should give that to everyone. ~D
Kaiser of Arabia
10-04-2005, 23:18
It figures that city would elect a blatant Communist.
Napalm SF then? It worked in Vietnam...kinda...sorta...not really but still... ~:cheers: ~D
In case anyone didn't already know that Gavin Newsome was a kook.... :dizzy2:
So, by extension, does that mean that having a computer is also a 'basic human right'? Internet access isn't much good without something to use it with.
Well since it is San Fransico he is probably on drugs. LSD would be my guess, as he is obviously hallucinating the real world for a place were people must hace computers to survive.
Just think of all those poor people out there being deprived their basic right to online porno.~D
Amen. ~;)
RabidGibbon
10-05-2005, 00:30
Wow.
And Americans say Europeans live in a socialist paradise....
Proletariat
10-05-2005, 00:36
Uhm, saying San Francisco speaks for America is like saying Basque separatists are an accurate cross-section of France.
Uhm, saying San Francisco speaks for America is like saying Basque separatists are an accurate cross-section of France.
Or even Spain for that matter. ~D
Proletariat
10-05-2005, 00:42
Yeah, I picked France because I figured there were even less of them there than in Spain, but either way, this mayor is stuck on retard.
Goofball
10-05-2005, 01:06
Erm...
I'm not quite sure what you Konservative Klubbies are getting all worked up about here, because there was no link or source posted for the little snippets of quotes that are the subject of this thread.
Is this guy trying to say that the gov't should pay for people to have wireless access, or is he just trying to say that the government should not be allowed to deny people wireless access as long as they can pay for it themselves?
The rest of the article would be useful...
But if nothing else, please allow me to congratulate you guys on how fast you took this from a rant about a politician's commentary to "we should napalm the gay city."
:applauds:
Proletariat
10-05-2005, 01:08
And now Kaiser speaks for the rest of the conservatives. Nice.
Reverend Joe
10-05-2005, 01:17
Personally, I am insulted by your insinuations that this man is a socialist. He's not- he's a nut! (No, Proliteriat, that's not the same thing. :brood:)
Byzantine Prince
10-05-2005, 01:19
Just think of all those poor people out there being deprived their basic right to online porno.~D
I can't even remember my life without internet porno. That's a scary thought.~:eek:
If there was free wireless internet everywhere I'm sure things would improve economically. Or everyone would sit about playing Counter Strike.
I play counter strike for as long as I don't have to do homework, get drunk, read philosophy or go to school. The rest of the time is spent honing my skills in killing terrorists or blowing stuff up and killing counter terrorists. I think it's a worthy part of my life, and so it's a basic priviledge I don't want my inferiors to miss out on.~:)
"we should napalm the gay city."
I think god will have obeyed Pat Robertson one too many times if that action is taken.:end:
Erm...
I'm not quite sure what you Konservative Klubbies are getting all worked up about here, because there was no link or source posted for the little snippets of quotes that are the subject of this thread.
For you, dear.
link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20051004/wr_nm/telecoms_wireless_sanfrancisco_dc_2)
Reported by Reuters.
Devastatin Dave
10-05-2005, 01:33
Erm...
Is this guy trying to say that the gov't should pay for people to have wireless access
He's a liberal democrat (aka socialist), of course he wants the government to pay for it, well let me rephrase that, he wants those that have work and pay taxes to support lazy bums sucking off the teet of welfare to pay for it.~D
Divinus Arma
10-05-2005, 01:36
I would argue that the internet as a communication medium should be protected by the 1st Amendment. This is especially so since it does not require public airwaves that may interfere with other devices.
The second that it becomes completely wirelesss is the second that the Government (FCC) will desire to regulate it like television.
And then this medium will lose its independence and we will have political filters like television and radio have.
Kaiser of Arabia
10-05-2005, 02:06
And now Kaiser speaks for the rest of the conservatives. Nice.
I more represent the insane asylum than Conservatives in General.:balloon2:
bmolsson
10-05-2005, 03:09
Maybe not a civil right, but it will in the future be a similar thing to public roads. Everyone will have a device for communication, voice and data, and it will be wireless. Wouldn't be surprised if it was to become mandatory to carry a device as well. I am sure a new version of Patriot Act would regulate that.... ~;)
You know, this would have to be a dream come true for hakcers too. Free, anonymous Internet access that's available from whatever rock you're living under- no need to even crawl out. Imagine how many everyday users would be signed on with no concept of passwords, firewalls, encryption or any other safeguard.
Goofball
10-05-2005, 16:50
For you, dear.
link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20051004/wr_nm/telecoms_wireless_sanfrancisco_dc_2)
Reported by Reuters.
Thanks for the link. And as I thought, it seems you guys might be getting worked up over nothing:
My intent is to have the taxpayers pay little or nothing
and:
One company, which Vein declined to name, has proposed an advertising-supported plan for free wireless access, he said. That company appeared to be Google. A Google spokesman on Friday had confirmed that its Wi-Fi access proposal could be funded through online advertising.
It sounds to me like what Newsom is trying to do is offer low-cost wi-fi access to his constituents and have the project funded by private industry who will do so in their own best interest. That, my friends, is the best face of capitalism at work.
What seems to be the problem?
My intent is to have the taxpayers pay little or nothing
And you believe him?~:eek:
Also from the article:
The mayor said he had no exact figures on how much it would cost to build a wireless umbrella to cover the entire city, but cited general estimates that have ranged from $8 million to $16 million for antennas and other gear.Saying that a brand new entitlement won't cost tax payers anything is right up there with politicians saying that a tax is just 'temporary'.
Besides, the over-riding absurdity that I and others are commenting on is the notion that wireless Internet access is a basic human right. That's bunk on so many levels. Also, the idea that people are provided a basic right via advertisement funding is hilarious.
_Martyr_
10-05-2005, 19:12
Im with Goof on this one. There is nothing here to be excited about. What is being talked about is Google's now well known plan to provide complete wireless covereage for the entire bay area free of charge. The user will simply download a client, which is already available, which sorts out the encryption, passwords, routing and all other technical aspects of wireless network configuration, and connects. The whole thing is funded by advertising, just as google's other ventures. If all goes to plan the same thing will happen in all US cities (and probably Europe and other places) and there is even much talk at present that Google might roll this out across the entire USA.
About the point Xiahou made about Hackers, on the contrary, the technology used by Google in this case allows for complete triangulation of any networked device. Any Hacker would be locatable down to a meter or so, not very useful at all from the point of view that you suggested. However, Google's ambitions do worry me somewhat. Combined with Google Earth and Google Map, the intention is to have complete specific localised advertising. In other words, in a few years time when you have your new Wifi (or whatever protocol and standard we use by that time) enabled phone, laptop or PDA, walking around Manhattan or wherever, and you visit a website or recieve an email, Google bots will scan the content, determine your location through triangulation, search its advertisements database and put up adds on whatever the content indicated in the area you are currently in. So if Jimbob sends you an email saying he loves pizza and computers and you are Central Park using Google's service then the Google adds will be for Italian Restaurants and Computer Suppliers in your immediate area. All well and good if you completely trust Google or any company 100% which anyone would be a fool to do. Also, if a Hacker did break into a Google system, he would be in an extremely powerful position. It also reeks of Google taking over the internet, and who is going to pay for wireless or indeed any other broadband if Google offer it for free? A whole host of issues I see with it, but not the ones you brought up.
Infact, I would be happier if Government were to take an active roll in doing it. Maybe not offering it free, but making it very cheap. One thing is certain, having top quality communications infrastructure is a sure way to bring prosperity. Its an absolutely brilliant catalyst for commerce and hi-tec industry and the Gov investment would easily pay off, even in the short term. Infact, Im pretty sure your Gov (and I know my Gov has) subsidised the construction of vital internet backbones. This would just be an extension to that.
I think the guy in question meant more that it (the internet) has become such an important aspect of a modern existence and the economy, with even a lot of Gov and admin things moving online (motor tax and pretty much everything else civic related can be done online here, and the shift is accelerating away from public offices), that leaving the underprivaleged behind, or having very high ISP costs is only going to create problems. He has found a perfect way to facilitate that these people, and indeed everyone in the area affected get net access through a privately funded venture in which Google will make money as well. Whats the big deal? Thats a pretty damn good sollution IMO, except for the problems I outlined above. Sure, he should have phrased it better than "basic right" but lets face it, he's not excatly the worst high ranking American politician at "Misunderestimating" things... if you get my drift! ~;)
Seamus Fermanagh
10-05-2005, 20:30
Life's basic rule is fairly simple: TANSTAAFL.
The people paying for that "free" wireless service will be, as always, the consumers. In this case, as Martyr describes, that will be in the form of amortized advertising costs as reflected in the goods and services they purchase. The cost of all "free" programs is always passed on to the consumer, somehow/someway, just follow the money.
That being said, the concept isn't necessarily a bad one, unless you're a computer security expert~;) .
Seamus
About the point Xiahou made about Hackers, on the contrary, the technology used by Google in this case allows for complete triangulation of any networked device. Any Hacker would be locatable down to a meter or so, not very useful at all from the point of view that you suggested.And if they move around at all? And I really don't believe it can triangulate within 1 meter of accuracy when most GPS technology doesn't allow for that.
There is nothing here to be excited about.Who's excited? It's just stupidity. Why would I be 'excited'? It has no bearing on my life. Just leave it to a socialist liberal mayor to call wireless Internet a basic right.
Clearly, the ads will place some restrictions on how you can use the Internet. Anything that could take control of the screen would hide the ads and therefore be disallowed (if NetZero was any indication). So can he then sue Google for depriving San Franciscans of their civil rights? And what if they don't have any computers? Is Newsom going to provide those too?
_Martyr_
10-06-2005, 00:32
Actually, you are wrong. Intel is currently working on this WiFi technology to replace GPS in built up areas, its called Precision Location Technology (PLT). The satellite signals needed to triangulate in GPS systems are often blocked by tall buildings, whereas WiFi signals aren't so PLT doesn't suffer from this. Another advantage of the technology is that not only does it give lat and long coordinates, it also gives altitude which is ideal for multi story buildings (you can tell what floor a person is on). I dont have the exact figures for how accurate it is, and obviously it depends on the quality of the signal (as with GPS), but they are blowing it up to be the next big thing in WiFi security because it can supposedly tell if a networked device is inside or outside a given wall, thats a few centimeters... Intel will be submitting this technology to the IEEE's 802.11 standard, so it will be commercially available in the near future I suppose. Already a Finnish company Ekahau have a system commercially available using only todays 802.11 technology that gets an average indoor accuracy of 1m.
About moving around... well, he can still be found. Infact, it would probably be easier to cath a moving target like that! The system works in real time, you get a flashing dot on a 3D map that indicates his location. Ever tried hacking the Pentagon and driving around at the same time?
About moving around... well, he can still be found. Infact, it would probably be easier to cath a moving target like that! The system works in real time, you get a flashing dot on a 3D map that indicates his location. Ever tried hacking the Pentagon and driving around at the same time?This is really off-topic but... Not if you're not transmitting when you move- and, once you've broken a few other systems, a cracker worth their salt would use them as proxies. I'm sorry, but there's no way that putting an entire city on a shared access wireless network won't create security problems.
Even using this alleged tracking system, it'd still require active monitoring of all traffic to identify who the troublemakers are (what, with software programmable MAC addresses?). It's not like in a corporate system where you have a small set of authorized users. You're talking about open access to an entire metropolitan area.
_Martyr_
10-06-2005, 00:48
Here: http://wifi.google.com/download.html
Im not 100% sure how Google put the adds in (im not exactly within WiFi connection distance of the Bay area, so I havent tried it...). The project is still early Beta, so it will probably evolve from what it is now anyway. Its not only about directly inserting extra adds for them either, by using their service they can analyse your internet usage data and sell/use this anonomous market information. Also, by just increasing their profile, Google can charge more for adds. Perhaps they will release a browser that you have to use to be able to use the service, maybe they will be insert adds at the top, side or bottom of any html data that they transmit to you. Who knows! One thing is sure, Google know damn well that they can and will make money from it. Ubiquitous computing, Google style!
_Martyr_
10-06-2005, 01:00
This is really off-topic but... Not if you're not transmitting when you move- and, once you've broken a few other systems, a cracker worth their salt would use them as proxies. I'm sorry, but there's no way that putting an entire city on a shared access wireless network won't create security problems.
And that differs from what we have now how exactly? At least this way the locations would be detectable in real time, as opposed to just having an IP where you need the ISP to divulge information first. I dont contest that there are a lot of issues to be sorted out, I pointed some out myself, but its not going to be a situation where script kiddies and crackers alike can just log on and committ cyber crime with impunity as you suggest. (well, no more than it is today...)
About active monitoring, as I alluded to in my previous post, I think thats the whole point of the thing. Google bots will monitor everything you do, I would imagine there will be a very strictly enforced access blocker, certain sites allowed, certain sites blocked. All operating on a dont like, dont use basis. As I said I dont know, havent used the thing.
About active monitoring, as I alluded to in my previous post, I think thats the whole point of the thing. Google bots will monitor everything you do, I would imagine there will be a very strictly enforced access blocker, certain sites allowed, certain sites blocked. All operating on a dont like, dont use basis. As I said I dont know, havent used the thing.Sounds like civil rights violations to me. ~;)
_Martyr_
10-06-2005, 01:11
Haha, yeah. As I said, I agree it was badly phrased. Calling it a civil right was going a little bit of over ambitous in his rhetoric. But the idea is not wrong. The internet is becoming increasingly vital, for this guy to arrange for a private company to set this up in his city is not socialism, its a publicly available private utility. If the guy set up an arrangement with a taxi firm that didnt charge customers but made them look at loads of advertisements and fill out surveys, would you complain? Free movement is a civil right too isnt it! ~D ~;)
solypsist
10-06-2005, 05:40
$8 mil free internet in san fran > $223 mil bridge to nowhere in alaska by [r] don young
Proletariat
10-06-2005, 05:44
Uhm, Mr. Young was ripped over that move by Xiahou and many others here.
Divinus Arma
10-06-2005, 05:57
You know, this would have to be a dream come true for hakcers too. Free, anonymous Internet access that's available from whatever rock you're living under- no need to even crawl out. Imagine how many everyday users would be signed on with no concept of passwords, firewalls, encryption or any other safeguard.
After taking a formal criminal investigative course through a local sheriff department, I should not be saying : you have no idea how right you are.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.