Has ethernet become illegitimate? A librarian flipped out after spotting me using ethernet
from coffeeClean@infosec.pub to cybersecurity@infosec.pub on 29 Apr 18:32
https://infosec.pub/post/11658371

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).

I was packing my laptop and a librarian spotted me unplugging my ethernet cable and approached me with big wide open eyes and pannicked angry voice (as if to be addressing a child that did something naughty), and said “you can’t do that!”

I have a lot of reasons for favoring ethernet, like not carrying a mobile phone that can facilitate the SMS verify that the library’s captive portal imposes, not to mention I’m not eager to share my mobile number willy nilly. The reason I actually gave her was that that I run a free software based system and the wifi drivers or firmware are proprietary so my wifi card doesn’t work¹. She was also worried that I was stealing an ethernet cable and I had to explain that I carry an ethernet cable with me, which she struggled to believe for a moment. When I said it didn’t work, she was like “good, I’m not surprised”, or something like that.

¹ In reality, I have whatever proprietary garbage my wifi NIC needs, but 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. But there’s little hope for getting through to a librarian in the situation at hand, whereby I might as well have been caught disassembling their PCs.

#cybersecurity

threaded - newest

wahming@monyet.cc on 29 Apr 18:41 next collapse

Sounds like a her problem.

Album@lemmy.ca on 29 Apr 18:54 next collapse

The reality despite what you or i might do, is that 99% of people don’t carry around an ethernet or hardwire in when there is available wifi.

The library might be public, but it’s still a good idea to communicate your intent or obtain permission prior to using someone else’s network in away they might deem to be unexpected.

“Do you have ethernet or wired internet?” is actually a common library question and the response from whoever works the front desk will likely tell you everything you need to know.

originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee on 29 Apr 18:59 next collapse

Or, and hear me out, approach everything with hostility \s

natural_motions@lemmynsfw.com on 29 Apr 19:17 next collapse

That’s why I carry an ethernet cable and a shillelagh.

originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee on 29 Apr 21:52 collapse

Ethernet cable is the best cantrip, shillelagh is a close second

swab148@startrek.website on 01 May 18:53 collapse

Whip them with the cable while shouting “ELDRITCH BLAST!”

Bonesince1997@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 20:26 next collapse

I have been trying this for a while. You end up alone a lot.

Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 29 Apr 20:45 collapse

Instructions unclear. Am friendly 100% of the time irl and still alone.

Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works on 29 Apr 20:31 collapse

Tbf, that does get you more upvotes

wahming@monyet.cc on 29 Apr 19:01 next collapse

“Do you have ethernet or wired internet?” is actually a common library question and the response from whoever works the front desk will likely tell you everything you need to know.

Would you trust the reply somebody like the librarian in the OP gave you? Seems like the sort of person who would refuse to admit to any lack of knowledge and just bluster.

EssentialCoffee@midwest.social on 29 Apr 19:31 next collapse

Do you trust every one-sided story to be entirely accurate of all details?

And what does trust have to do with it? Can we use Ethernet here? If the person says no, would you just walk around the building until you found a port and plugged in?

wahming@monyet.cc on 29 Apr 19:39 next collapse

Do you trust every one-sided story to be entirely accurate of all details?

No, but for the sake of discussion in this thread, that is the scenario we’re all going by. We’re not rendering a legal judgement here, we’re discussing the situation as described.

In a public library, I would fully expect public-facing ethernet ports, especially in sitting / working areas, to be available for public use. I’m not sure why they would be there otherwise. And if they’re no longer meant for public use, it would be on the library IT staff to have disabled those ports.

what does trust have to do with it?

Because I don’t trust non-IT-savvy people to even properly understand the question. I’ve met way too many people with no technical clue who refuse to admit to any sort of lack of knowledge when it’s extremely obvious.

Album@lemmy.ca on 29 Apr 20:04 next collapse

If the LIBRARIAN doesn’t understand this as a service the library offers - then they don’t offer it - or if you think they’re wrong you need to have an adult conversation that they do and that it should be ok. It’s weird to just assume you can go around sticking your cat5e into other peoples ethernet ports like that.

acastcandream@beehaw.org on 29 Apr 22:36 collapse

If you don’t trust it to be entirely accurate then it is ridiculous to act like it is “for the sake of discussion.” Healthy skepticism is absolutely warranted

wahming@monyet.cc on 29 Apr 22:50 collapse

We could discuss all sorts of hypotheticals, including where there’s a secret supervillain base under the library and they’re about to assassinate OP for jacking into their network. It’s pointless because we’re not discussing an event we have any way of obtaining any other information about other than what OP has provided.

acastcandream@beehaw.org on 29 Apr 23:48 collapse

Well, OP side of the story isn’t even that vindicating either. The dude literally admitted in one comment that he all but lied to them about what he was doing, yet he’s mad when they were upset he wasn’t clear with his intentions and started plugging in cat5 without any heads up.

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 29 Apr 19:49 collapse

And what does trust have to do with it?

I think they mean trust in the librarian to genuinely know the policy and what should work. They tend not to in this case because ethernet has become obscure enough to be an uncommon question, if ever.

Another library had ethernet ports all down the wall next to desks. They were dead and no one used them. It was obvious that the librarian had no clue about whether the ports were even supposed to function. When I said they are dead and asked to turn them on or find out what’s wrong, they then figured that if the ports don’t work, it must be intentional. So the librarian’s understanding of the policy was derived from the fact that they were dysfunctional. Of course if they were intended to work but needed service, ethernet users are hosed because the librarian’s understanding of policy is guesswork. There is no proper support mechanism.

I asked a librarian at another library: I need to use Tor. Is it blocked? I need to know before I buy a membership. Librarian had no idea. They just wing it. They said test it. Basically, if it works, then it’s acceptable. The functionality becomes the source of policy under the presumption that everything is functioning as it should.

Since ethernet has been phased out, modern devices no longer include an ethernet NIC, and there are places to plug into A/C with no ethernet nearby, the librarians and the public are both conditioned to be unaware of ethernet. So the answer will only be either: no or test and see.

acastcandream@beehaw.org on 29 Apr 22:38 collapse

Dude ffs grow up and just ask in the future. This whole post and defensive posture is so childish. You literally admitted in another comment that you were deliberately opaque about your intentions in order to avoid a fringe concern, which then brought about the result you were trying to avoid.

Like seriously dude. You borderline lied because of a fear of people who are “Ethernet-hostile”? And then got upset when they didn’t know what you were doing when you purposely deceived them? Are you kidding me?

Edit: so this dude just goes to places both private and public then starts shit it seems

borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 30 Apr 05:54 collapse

OP also wanted to know before “buying a membership”. In what world do you buy a membership to a library?

acastcandream@beehaw.org on 30 Apr 11:55 collapse

It’s such a bizarre post.

Album@lemmy.ca on 29 Apr 20:02 next collapse

It’s kind of all that matters though. We don’t need to trust her - we need her acceptance of the act for which she is the gatekeeper of. If we don’t have it - trust over what she said is irrelevant since we don’t even have the basic trust over the act.

PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 22:03 next collapse

Would you trust the reply somebody like the librarian in the OP gave you?

I mean, if the answer is “no” would you just go around plugging into random Ethernet ports until you found one that works? Just because you don’t “trust” the librarian who gave you the answer? That sounds like a fast track to getting trespassed (or at least banned from using their public internet altogether) for abuse of services.

The library isn’t required to provide free Ethernet. They aren’t even required to provide free wifi. But they choose to do so because they recognize that wifi is a big reason people will come to a library to spend time. Which is sort of the whole point of the library. So providing free wifi goes hand-in-hand with the library’s ultimate mission.

But that wifi is provided on an as-is basis, because they can’t guarantee things like 100% uptime, good speeds, or any kind of troubleshooting. And any potential ethernet connection would also be as-is. And in this case, “as-is” could easily translate to “not available to the public at all.” Because again, the library isn’t required to provide any of it.

CyberSeeker@discuss.tchncs.de on 29 Apr 23:17 next collapse

As far as people I’d trust to not just make shit up, I’d say Librarian, aka, professional fucking researcher is high on the list.

wahming@monyet.cc on 30 Apr 00:07 collapse

That pretty much depends on where in the world you are, FYI. Librarian == professional fucking researcher is not a thing in Asia.

jeeva@lemmy.world on 30 Apr 19:41 collapse

Yes, because it seems in this instance the answer to the question is “no, please don’t plug into the ports you find.”

If it’s a supported thing, the librarian may have been less blustery.

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 29 Apr 19:05 collapse

When I entered I spoke to a different librarian about the locked PC room (due to a holiday or something). They said I could use wifi but need to give a phone number to a captive portal, which I already knew. My phone was not on me so I said: is it okay if I plug in over there by the catalog PCs? They said yes. Revealing what I mean by "plugging in”, well, i was vague for a reason. I know the population has become ethernet-hostile¹ so indeed asking for forgiveness is better than asking for permission in this situation.

¹ Another library in the area has ethernet ports but they are just decoys (dead ports). I asked the librarian what the problem is, why they are disabled, and whether we can turn them on. Librarian was helpless, and said “use wifi”, which didn’t work for me for different reasons than the other library. But the librarian basically said in so many words “not our problem… you can just use wifi.” At another library, I was able to connect but Tor was blocked. I tried to get support from the librarian. They had no clue but were also unwilling to lead me to someone who could give support. The way it works around here is the info systems are outsourced to some unreachable tech giant, and the librarians are rendered helpless. If the SSID does not appear, the librarian can send an email to someone to say it’s down, and that’s about the full extent of their tech capability.

EssentialCoffee@midwest.social on 29 Apr 19:34 next collapse

Why didn’t you tell this librarian that you’d asked another librarian and they said it was okay to plug in? Why was none of this included in the original post?

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 29 Apr 20:15 collapse

The librarian who said it was okay to plugin (which they likely understood to mean plugin an A/C power cord) was young, not as senior as the edgy librarian. I’m not going to take down a kid and get them in trouble for not picking apart what it means when someone asks if they can “plug-in”.

People like Trump will throw his supporters under the bus when self-defense calls for it. I will not.

What would the point be? I didn’t need a defense. I got scolded and was walking out. Since I was calm, the librarian became calm. Police were not called and I was not detained. And if that had happened, I would have exercised my right to remain silent anyway.

Twinklebreeze@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 21:15 collapse

You sound insufferable. You used vague wording to justify not using your phone to get internet, and act like child when you get caught. They’re not hostile to Ethernet, they’re hostile to you and your behaviour.

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 29 Apr 21:29 collapse

You set a great example of getting mad at a bitch eating crackers.

I merely tried to get online using an ethernet cable. I didn’t get hostile. I was calm. And because I was calm, the librarian became calm. The only hostility was in the librarian’s single opening comment to me, and what you see in this thread.

null@slrpnk.net on 01 May 17:03 collapse

Could I be in the wrong? No, it must be literally everyone else in this entire thread / national library network.

Grow up. You set out to get in trouble, you got yourself in trouble, no one is impressed.

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 01 May 17:55 collapse

Could I be in the wrong? No, it must be literally everyone else in this entire thread / national library network.

Is your position so weak that you need to resort to a bandwagon fallacy?

Grow up.

and an ad hominem?

You demonstrate being a grown up by avoiding ad hominems in favor of logically sound reasoning.

null@slrpnk.net on 01 May 18:44 collapse

Is your position so weak that you need to resort to a bandwagon fallacy?

It’s not a fallacy. Your social skills are toxic and that’s been confirmed by everyone here. You aren’t in a position to judge how your actions are perceived by society.

If everyone says you’re being an asshole, you’re being an asshole.

and an ad hominem?

This isn’t a formal debate. It’s me and everyone else booing you for your bad behavior.

mark3748@sh.itjust.works on 29 Apr 19:41 next collapse

Another library in the area has ethernet ports but they are just decoys (dead ports). I asked the librarian what the problem is, why they are disabled, and whether we can turn them on.

They’re not decoys, they’re just not patched. Because we don’t generally patch anything that’s not going to be in use. Also because some rando will probably attempt to plug their nasty ass laptop into it, which is also why we block port intrusions.

Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works on 29 Apr 20:34 collapse

They’re not decoys, they’re just not patched.

Equipment isn’t free, after all, especially if you’re a library.

invisiblegorilla@sh.itjust.works on 29 Apr 20:15 collapse

I wouldn’t want you on my network either to be fair. People like you should be kept in an isolated area of the network with a proxy pointing all your traffic to resolve Italkaloadofshit.com

Jumped up little twat.

kernelle@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 21:02 collapse

I know right? Everyone cheering them on, meanwhile I’m reading the OP and find them to be pretentious and maladjusted. Who talks about the ‘clearnet’ like it’s the internet of normies?

MisshapenDeviate@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 29 Apr 18:55 next collapse

If it was a publicly available Ethernet port, it was likely for public use. The fact that she thought it was malicious speaks to ignorance on her part, not yours.

halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 19:01 next collapse

Even ignoring that, if internet via a wired ethernet connection isn’t an option they provide for whatever reason… their network infrastructure shouldn’t allow the connection anyway. It should be blocked as an unknown device on the network end, regardless if someone plugs into the network.

DoomBot5@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 19:32 collapse

Yeah, having services blocked on Wi-Fi and not ethernet just tells me that their IT staff didn’t properly configure the network in public areas properly. That ethernet port should have been disabled, physically locked, or properly configured to use the public network like the Wi-Fi does.

halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 20:11 collapse

Exactly, and let’s give them the benefit of the doubt since we don’t know. The librarian or assistant helping OP probably just doesn’t know much about the IT stuff other than how to help people get on the wifi. And it is entirely possible that they’re NEVER seen anyone even try the port before, that’s not common at all. Actually managing the IT infrastructure at that level is almost surely NOT part of their job.

WiFi has been included in essentially everything for over a decade. I mean even ignoring laptops having Wifi way before mobile devices, even going back to the origin of smartphones for the masses, the original iPhone had Wifi back in 2007, that’s 17 years ago.

DoomBot5@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 22:54 collapse

Oh I’ve got nothing against how the librarians handled it. I’m more concerned that their IT staff failed to properly shield the library from liabilities like OP.

BolexForSoup@kbin.social on 29 Apr 19:08 collapse

Or you could just ask them to avoid confusion as it takes 5 seconds and they may have a way of doing things that you don't know about? It's respectful and it potentially saves you a lot of hassle if it doesn't work and you need to troubleshoot it.

Icalasari@fedia.io on 29 Apr 19:21 next collapse

Yeah. For all we know, there could be a sign in/out thing at the desk for if you use ethernet - She DID think OP was taking one of the library's cables after all, which implies the public has access, possibly through a sign in/out system

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 29 Apr 19:59 collapse

I’ve asked librarians a full range of tech questions about what works, what’s blocked, what’s allowed… they /never/ have a clue because of outsourcing. Their guess is as good as mine. In the 90s, I would say you are spot on. Librarians should have answers. Things have evolved to where the policy is decided non-transparently, it’s outsourced to an unreachable company, and librarians are simply as uninformed as the public. Trial and error. If you read the AUPs it never says Tor is banned at libraries, for example, but they simply block it. Experimentation is the way people get answers in my area.

So knowing that librarians don’t have deep tech info, or even basic tech info, and that they also cannot escalate questions, talking to them is really where time is wasted.

lemmyreader@lemmy.ml on 29 Apr 19:05 next collapse

  • Most folks will probably freak out when they see a terminal window (“DOS box”) on a computer.
  • Most folks in my country have no idea that there is something else than WhatsApp as alternative to SMS.
  • Whenever I’ve tried explaining to people that stuff on their website violates privacy or when I try to explain why they are having email delivery problems almost always results in permanent silence or disbelief.

Technology appears to be a scare factor for a lot of people. But in this case the librarian maybe thought that Ethernet was only for their qualified IT department to use.

MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net on 29 Apr 19:59 collapse

Most folks will probably freak out when they see a terminal window (“DOS box”) on a computer.

Many many moons ago I was working at a small mom and pop operation that used ancient PCs to run their registers. The entirety of the front end ran on a 3.5" floppy. One night after closing, I exited to the CLI and opened edit. I typed in “HELP, STEVE BROKE ME” and went to the back to count my drawer. The shift manager had a proper shit fit.

“What are you editing?!? If you break this machine the boss is going to have your head, it’ll cost thousands to have someone come out and fix it!”

I calmly exited back to CLI and ran the front end exe. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works on 29 Apr 19:06 next collapse

Well, you were trying to bypass one of their security measures. They require SMS verification so that they can track you in case you break their rules. Presumably this is why they also block other means of anonymizing yourself.

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 29 Apr 20:37 collapse

Well, you were trying to bypass one of their security measures.

I was not carrying my phone. Thus bypassing the reckless policy of a tax-funded public resource to exclusively serve people who entered the private marketplace to obtain mobile phone service, in violation of article 21¶2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz on 29 Apr 20:47 next collapse

So the protected class they are discriminating against here is “doesn’t want to use wifi”?

You had the means to access the Internet, you chose not to use them.

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 29 Apr 20:54 collapse

So the protected class they are discriminating against here is “doesn’t want to use wifi”?

The protected class is the poor. The UDHR specifically protects people from discrimination on the basis of property. You cannot treat someone different under the UDHR for owning less property than someone else with regard to all the rights enshrined in the UDHR. Only serving people who bought a mobile phone and paid for a subscription violates that provision.

You had the means to access the Internet, you chose not to use them.

I did not have a mobile phone on me. I could have gone home to fetch my phone because incidentally I happened to have a phone with service at home. But I would not have had time to return to the library and complete my task before it closed.

I’ve also gone over 6 months with no phone service at all sometimes. If I were in one of those time periods, connecting would have been impossible. My phone access is touch and go. I let my service die whenever nothing critical comes up that demands it for a period of time.

And I will do it again. Not having a phone is a goal I will continue to meet, off and on, because it’s important to periodically test whether we have a right to unplug. It’s especially important to test this if you live in a GSM registration part of the world.

chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz on 29 Apr 20:59 next collapse

I guarantee that a librarian would have helped you if you told them you didn’t have your phone on you.

I don’t buy your story because you’re trying to paint yourself as a victim of some nefarious scheme when in reality you wanted to use a free service in a way the provider doesn’t allow.

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 29 Apr 21:15 collapse

I guarantee that a librarian would have helped you if you told them you didn’t have your phone on you.

I did tell the 1st librarian I did not have a phone. It’s what led up to green lighting my request to plugin.

I’ve run into this at other libraries because I do not carry my phone. Whenever I ask how to get online without a phone, the answer is to use their PCs (if they exist, and if they are open [as they are closed part of the day]). That’s it. There is no upstream support call. They apparently don’t even give feedback to management that someone was denied access for not having a phone.

deweydecibel@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 21:43 collapse

Did the library have the desktop set up for public use, as libraries all have nowadays?

Then they were providing you equal access to their internet connection, they just weren’t going to let you do it on your computer unless your computer connected to their internet connection by satisfying their security requirements.

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 29 Apr 21:51 collapse

I answered this in another reply. The PC room was closed.

In my area the PCs are closed part of the day for some reason (in several libraries), when the library is open for books and wifi. There are two sets of opening hours.

deweydecibel@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 21:35 next collapse

Why are you even in the library to begin with if you’re so opposed to how they manage their network?

If you want to complain, complain. Write to the city, start a petition, whatever.

But regardless of how it’s supposed to work legally, the day that you were in the library, there was a network security setting that was blocking you. You sought to get around that, and you’re not going to get any sympathy for trying to do so.

Just because it’s a public resource doesn’t mean you can break in after hours, and just because you don’t have a phone doesn’t give you permission to sidestep their security policies.

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 01 May 22:07 collapse

Why are you even in the library to begin with if you’re so opposed to how they manage their network?

How does one know how they manage their network before entering the library? The libraries that have ethernet /never/ advertise it. Only wi-fi is ever advertised. I have never seen a library elaborate on their wifi preconditions (which periodically change). This info is also not in OSMand, so if you are on the move and look for the closest library on the map, the map won’t be much help apart from a possible boolean for wifi. Some libraries have a captive portal and some do not. Among those with captive portals, some require a mobile phone with SMS verification and some do not. But for all of them, the brochure only shows the wifi symbol. You might say “call and ask”, but there are two problems with that: you need a phone with credit loaded. But even if you have that, it’s useful to know whether ethernet is available and the receptionist is unlikely to reliably have that info. Much easier to walk in and see the situation. Then when you ask what will be blocked after you get connected, that’s another futile effort that wastes time on the phone. It really is easier and faster to pop in and scope out the situation. Your device will give more reliable answers than the staff. But I have to wonder, what is your objection to entering a library to reliably discover how it’s managed in person?

null@slrpnk.net on 01 May 22:21 collapse

Just because it’s a public resource doesn’t mean you can break in after hours, and just because you don’t have a phone doesn’t give you permission to sidestep their security policies.

red@sopuli.xyz on 30 Apr 21:07 next collapse

Everyone has access, phone or not, just not when the PC room sometimes is closed due reasons.

You don’t have 24/7 access rights as far as I’m aware.

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 30 Apr 21:16 collapse

That’s not equal access. Everyone has equal access to the PCs running Firefox, but not everyone has equal access to BYoD internet service.

Is someone claiming we only need Firefox? If so, then you won’t mind if we scrap wifi altogether, right? BYoD internet service enables people to keep a data store with them which then connects periodically to operate on the persistent data in a collaborative way, which also empowers people to control the applications that are installed. That’s a different public service for difference purposes than a shared PC where your data does not persist and you cannot control the apps.

red@sopuli.xyz on 30 Apr 21:29 collapse

You can’t claim shit about equality for all and access without materials, when discussing byod. Make up your mind.

Everyone has access, byod is covered for 99% as extra convenience.

You aren’t being treated poorly, instead, you have unreasonable expectations. You need to adjust those. You are not a victim, nor were you rights violated.

You tried to circumvent security when the computer room was closed.

The librarians education most likely doesn’t cover anything more than turning things off and on, he/she isn’t likely to understand what you were doing, and the equipment isn’t maintained by the librarians - it’s simply located there.

Data persists both in the cloud, or on a memory stick. Free options exist.

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 30 Apr 21:43 collapse

You can’t claim shit about equality for all and access without materials, when discussing byod. Make up your mind.

There is PC access, and then there is byod access. It’s a false dichotomy to demand choosing one or the other particularly when only one of the two is available to everyone, and harmful to people’s rights if you simultaneously design a system of workflow on the assumption that one replaces the other interchangeably.

They are different services for different purposes. Don’t let the fact that some tasks can be achieved with both services cloud the fact that some use-cases cannot.

Everyone has access

Everyone has access to a PC running Firefox. Not everyone has BYoD WAN service access.

byod is covered for 99% as extra convenience.

Firefox is not the internet.

It’s not just convenience. It’s the capability and empowerment of controlling your own applications. If the public PC doesn’t have a screen reader and you are blind, the public PC is no good to you and you are better served with BYoD service. If you need to reach someone on Briar, a Windows PC with only Firefox will not work.

You aren’t being treated poorly, instead, you have unreasonable expectations.

This remains to be supported. I do not believe it’s reasonable to only serve people with mobile phones. Thus I consider it a reasonable expectation that people without a subscribed mobile phone still get BYoD WAN service.

Data persists both in the cloud, or on a memory stick. Free options exist.

None of the PCs in any library I have used will execute apps that you bring on a USB stick (but even if they did, the app you need to run may not be compatible with Windows). Also some library branches disallow USB sticks entirely. So a restricted Windows PC cannot replace controlling your own platform, regardless of the convenience factor.

(edit) But strictly about convenience, I also would not say it’s fair for a public service to offer extra convenience exclusively to people who have a subscribed mobile phone and not to those without one. That would still be unequal access even if you disregard the factors not related to convenience. It’s still discriminating against a protected class of people.

red@sopuli.xyz on 30 Apr 22:09 collapse

You don’t have to believe it - everyone still knows you are. Time to wake up to reality. Everyone has access, the method of access isn’t discriminating, nor do you have any say in it. In other words, it’s public, free for all, and the way they set it up.

If you don’t like the free service, don’t use it. It not being how you like it isn’t wrong in any way, that’s your problem.

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 01 May 18:11 collapse

Time to wake up to reality. Everyone has access, the method of access isn’t discriminating, nor do you have any say in it.

That’s not reality. The reality is everyone has partial access (Firefox on a shared Windows PC only), while some people have full access via both public resources.

If you want to gain anything from this conversation, try to at least come to terms with the idea that Firefox is not the internet. The internet is so much more than that. Your experience and information is being limited by your perception that everything that happens in a browser encompasses the internet.

In other words, it’s public, free for all, and the way they set it up.

It’s not free. We paid tax to finance this. The moment you call it free you accept maladministration that you actually paid for.

If you don’t like the free service, don’t use it. It not being how you like it isn’t wrong in any way, that’s your problem.

You’re confusing the private sector with the public sector. In the private sector, indeed you simply don’t use the service and that’s a fair enough remedy. Financing public service is not optional. You still seem to not grasp how human rights works, who it protects, despite the simplicity of the language of Article 21.

null@slrpnk.net on 01 May 20:57 collapse

Please cite the definition of public service that includes all the things you’ve described; access to the internet via Ethernet on a personal machine running the various software you mentioned.

Quote the passage that outlines those details.

Why not take it a step further? I can’t get to the library so they’re denying me my human rights by not running cables right to my house so I can access it without that restriction.

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 01 May 21:09 collapse

The proof is in the money trail. If the library’s funding traces to a tax-funded government, it is a public service that encompasses all services offered by that institution. It’s also in state or national law that legislates for libraries to exist, which differs from one state to another.

If you want to find a clause that says “only people with wifi hardware may access the internet, and only if they have a mobile phone”, I suspect you’ll have a hard time finding that. At best, I could imagine you might find a sloppily written law that says “libraries shall offer wifi” without specifying the exclusion of others. But if you could hypothetically find that, it would merely be an indication of a national or state law that contradicts that country’s signature on the UDHR. So it’s really a pointless exercise.

null@slrpnk.net on 01 May 21:12 next collapse

So quote the specifics of what was funded as is relevant to your case.

Again, if they don’t run that line to my house, are they violating my human rights? Or are there boundaries around what defines the service?

null@slrpnk.net on 01 May 21:18 next collapse

Stop modifying your comment and answer my response.

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 01 May 21:24 collapse

Calm down. It’s a new comment that just came in so of course I’m going to edit it a few times in the span of the first minute or two as I compose my answer. If you wait five or ten minutes you’ll get a more finished answer.

null@slrpnk.net on 01 May 21:27 collapse

Lol no, you edited it multiple times over the course of 7 minutes, radically changing the context of what I had already replied to.

That’s not the same as tweaking a few things within a minute or 2.

Edit: suddenly its 10 minutes? Why not just retcon your entire post? At least have the courtesy to note significant edits when you’ve already gotten a reply

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 01 May 21:32 collapse

My client says it was created at 21:24:02 GMT and modified at 21:25:12. Instead of using a stopwatch which you somehow screwed up, just mouse over the time. The popup will show you a span of 1 minute and 10 seconds.

(edit) strange; after I refresh the screen the /create/ timestamp changed. Surely that’s a bug in Lemmy. The creation timestamp should never change. nvm… just realized I was looking at the wrong msg.

null@slrpnk.net on 01 May 21:34 collapse

<img alt="" src="https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/cb4c0346-bdca-403e-834c-39cba4d38ae7.webp">

Posted 24 minutes ago, edited 15 minutes ago.

I refreshed and watched you edit multiple times over that period.

Stop lying.

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 01 May 21:41 collapse

Stop lying.

I said “wait five or ten minutes”. I’m seeing a 9m1s span. I don’t really feel compelled to be more accommodating than that. Maybe you can write to Jerry and ask to configure it so edits are blocked after 1 minute if it really bothers you. Otherwise if you don’t like the policy of the node, you are free to leave.

null@slrpnk.net on 01 May 21:55 collapse

You edited in the “wait five or ten minutes” after I had already replied.

Edit: You’ll note that I indicated that change with my own, clearly indicated edit. You know, common courtesy.

Edit: and you STILL haven’t replied to my initial response.

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 01 May 22:28 collapse

You edited in the “wait five or ten minutes” after I had already replied.

I know five min was in the original version. Not sure if I added the ten but certainly it was not after you posted this. You are seriously paranoid and should get help for that.

null@slrpnk.net on 01 May 22:44 collapse

I know five min was in the original version.

Lie.

Edit: the whole last sentence was the edit.

I notice you STILL can’t defend your bold claim about human rights.

Edit: Nice Ad HoMiNeM btw

null@slrpnk.net on 01 May 21:31 next collapse

Still waiting on an answer that’s not just about evidence you couldn’t find and feel would be pointless, and for you to actually prove your bold, human rights violation claim…

null@slrpnk.net on 03 May 20:45 collapse

So quote the specifics of what was funded as is relevant to your case.

Again, if they don’t run that line to my house, are they violating my human rights? Or are there boundaries around what defines the service?

Doom4535@lemmy.sdf.org on 29 Apr 19:12 next collapse

This sounds odd to me, unless you connected to an Ethernet port behind a desk or somehow forced open a network closet… They also might not like it if you disconnected one of the public computers to use its cable/port; otherwise if this was an open and public port, you used it as designed and the librarian probably has watched too many Hollywood hacking movies. I have to admit, I never thought of this as a way to bypass the captive portal (sorta just assumed everyone going through the public network would have to hit it, kinda of the equivalent to having everyone sign a liability waiver).

With that said, I can see some institutions not liking connections that aren’t part of the more traditional/commercial networking (but it doesn’t sound like the library took issue with your traffic, just the librarian didn’t like the PHY link you chose to use). For the SMS thing (I haven’t seen that used in a while, you might be able to use some sort of burner number app if they don’t filter them).

DoomBot5@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 19:34 collapse

I have to admit, I never thought of this as a way to bypass the captive portal (sorta just assumed everyone going through the public network would have to hit it, kinda of the equivalent to having everyone sign a liability waiver).

That’s because if that library’s network was properly configured it would work exactly like your expectation.

MehBlah@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 19:19 next collapse

Good luck with that here. No port you can access will give you a IP If its hot at all. We don’t allow patron machines to use Ethernet since it bypasses the QOS setting for the public WiFi. We also don’t have any requirements to connect to our WiFi.

The reason for not allowing this is simple. We had several people come in and abuse usage of wired connections. Specifically people with consoles that thought it was okay to come in and kill our Patron vlan to download that fifty gig update for their console.

r00ty@kbin.life on 29 Apr 20:12 next collapse

Meh. So my point of view is that qos for Internet is better done at layer 3. Layer 2 qos has its place, but layer 3 is going to let you prioritise services better.

Moreso, if you do it at layer 3 you don't need to worry about people using ethernet. Every person using ethernet is one less using the extremely finite resources WiFi has. Every active station puts a load on WiFi, less so with the latest versions but they still exhibit a lot of the same problems that mean many workstations can kill WiFi performance.

If you setup your network right (you can actually, although I've not seen it too often, setup guests networks on ethernet before WiFi, such that stations cannot see eachother directly) there's no reason at all to fear ethernet.

MehBlah@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 20:46 next collapse

Its gonna change soon anyway since we are getting new service with four times the bandwidth. For the first time I will be able to get netflow data since our current train wreck ISP(Windstream) wouldn’t give me so much as a read only snmp string on their managed routers. I will have all kinds of options after I replace them with something I can manage. They have this product called weconnect that give you all kinds of information only its hours out of date and sometimes not sequentially timestamped.

deweydecibel@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 22:14 collapse

If you setup your network right (you can actually, although I’ve not seen it too often, setup guests networks on ethernet before WiFi, such that stations cannot see eachother directly) there’s no reason at all to fear ethernet.

Sure but this isn’t a corporate office with an IT team on call, this is a public library. They could hire someone who will go the extra mile to manage all of this and set the security up correctly, but they’re not likely to get that person or keep them around. Their patrons are not going to be so opposed to wifi that expending all this effort to keep the ethernet ports active will be worth that effort. Maybe in a college library, or a public library in a city center, but not your run of mill local branches.

As for finite wifi resources, I seriously doubt most public libraries would be so frequently at capacity that this becomes an issue, especially when many of them only allow clients for a couple hours at a time without renewing. They just need to scale up for their needs.

r00ty@kbin.life on 30 Apr 09:37 collapse

I would have expected a public library, run by the city to either use the existing Internet infrastructure from the city (e.g security already is handled) or be installed and maintained by some common city IT team.

Independent libraries sure can have a basic setup, but I'd still say one guy setting up the security outside of WiFi security would mean there's no reason to fear ethernet connections, as they would provide the same level of security to their network, and likely more to the user (assuming it's an insecure AP with portal).

In the case of the OP, I would find it far more likely that the actions of the staff member was more down to (understandable) ignorance of what they were doing and assuming connecting a wire means they're trying to do something nefarious, just because noone else is, and/or hacking in all the movies looks just like that.

Buelldozer@lemmy.today on 29 Apr 22:34 collapse

I apply QoS at the edge so wired or wireless doesn’t matter to us for performance but either one is still going to our Captive Portal and forcing you to agree to our ToS.

Fun Fact: I started applying QoS at the edge because of the people dragging their laptops in so they could Torrent. They’d blow out our bandwidth for everyone else and we were racking up DMCA warnings from our ISP.

MehBlah@lemmy.world on 30 Apr 00:39 collapse

At the moment I have no control of the edge router. Its managed by windstream. The qos on the wireless is just on the guest wifi. Like I said soon I will have my own routers and then I can start to control traffic.

mystik@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 19:28 next collapse

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.

DoomBot5@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 19:30 next collapse

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@infosec.pub on 29 Apr 20:30 next collapse

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@lemm.ee on 29 Apr 21:07 next collapse

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

Buelldozer@lemmy.today on 29 Apr 22:26 next collapse

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@lemmy.ml on 29 Apr 22:34 next collapse

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@lemmy.today on 29 Apr 22:44 collapse

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@sh.itjust.works on 29 Apr 23:53 next collapse

Now get the hell off my lawn LAN.

Buelldozer@lemmy.today on 30 Apr 13:42 collapse

I really missed my opportunity on that one!

lemmyreader@lemmy.ml on 30 Apr 09:38 collapse

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@infosec.pub on 16 May 15:43 collapse

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.

[deleted] on 16 May 18:32 collapse

.

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 16 May 21:12 collapse

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@infosec.pub on 30 Apr 23:19 collapse

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@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 22:52 collapse

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@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 21:37 next collapse

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@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 22:55 collapse

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

cooopsspace@infosec.pub on 30 Apr 05:44 collapse

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

Dukeofdummies@kbin.social on 29 Apr 19:44 next collapse

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!

amio@kbin.social on 29 Apr 19:45 next collapse

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

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 29 Apr 20:09 collapse

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@kbin.social on 29 Apr 20:27 next collapse

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

GreatBlue@infosec.pub on 29 Apr 20:30 next collapse

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

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 29 Apr 21:02 collapse

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@lemm.ee on 29 Apr 21:08 next collapse

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

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 29 Apr 21:13 collapse

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.

[deleted] on 30 Apr 14:00 next collapse

.

GammaGames@beehaw.org on 01 May 16:58 collapse

Libraries usually have computers available for use.

You are the one being obtuse.

Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de on 30 Apr 00:35 next collapse

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@infosec.pub on 30 Apr 20:19 collapse

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@discuss.tchncs.de on 30 Apr 20:58 collapse

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@infosec.pub on 30 Apr 21:58 collapse

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@lemmy.world on 01 May 23:57 collapse

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@infosec.pub on 03 May 15:19 collapse

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.”

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 03 May 16:09 collapse

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@lemmy.ml on 29 Apr 20:35 next collapse

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@infosec.pub on 29 Apr 20:59 collapse

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@lemmy.ml on 29 Apr 22:38 collapse

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@infosec.pub on 01 May 16:49 collapse

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@kbin.social on 29 Apr 21:20 collapse

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.

hagar@lemmy.ml on 29 Apr 19:55 next collapse

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!!

YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca on 29 Apr 20:07 next collapse

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.

[deleted] on 30 Apr 13:59 collapse

.

jol@discuss.tchncs.de on 29 Apr 20:35 next collapse

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.

[deleted] on 29 Apr 20:56 next collapse

.

[deleted] on 30 Apr 16:45 collapse

.

just_another_person@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 21:29 next collapse

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.

charonn0@startrek.website on 29 Apr 21:38 next collapse

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@sh.itjust.works on 29 Apr 21:50 next collapse

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@lemmy.world on 29 Apr 21:54 collapse

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.

Truck_kun@beehaw.org on 30 Apr 16:53 next collapse

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@infosec.pub on 30 Apr 20:39 collapse

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@beehaw.org on 01 May 13:37 collapse

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@beehaw.org on 01 May 16:02 collapse

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).

apotheotic@beehaw.org on 01 May 14:16 next collapse

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

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 01 May 15:25 collapse

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@beehaw.org on 01 May 16:01 collapse

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@infosec.pub on 01 May 16:30 collapse

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@beehaw.org on 01 May 17:48 collapse

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.

thelasttoot@lemmy.world on 01 May 19:07 next collapse

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

coffeeClean@infosec.pub on 01 May 19:50 collapse

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.

LoamImprovement@beehaw.org on 01 May 20:20 next collapse

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@infosec.pub on 01 May 20:27 collapse

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.

alex_02@infosec.pub on 08 May 03:46 next collapse

Idk what I read because it is so stupid.

xor@infosec.pub on 14 May 22:05 collapse

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…