> Bonus points for bogus names like "Starbucks Wifi" or "McDonalds Free Wifi" in the middle of the highway.
I find no joy in saying it, but I bet that would get you some unwelcome attention - trademark infringement, defamation, tortious interference - from one of those companies. :(
>I find no joy in saying it, but I bet that would get you some unwelcome attention - trademark infringement, defamation, tortious interference - from one of those companies. :(
While that's a wonderfully dystopian view, I'd expect that wouldn't happen unless you attempted to use such SSIDs in a commercial context.
for your "wager" to be successful, I should expect to be sued over saying stuff like "Old McDonald had a quarter pounder Henway" or "Starbuck made the same inferior coffee for Ahab every day."
I'll await cease and desist letters from McDonald's and Starbucks.
According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office[0]:
Trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of
a trademark or service mark on or in connection
with goods and/or services in a manner that is
likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake
about the source of the goods and/or services.
Not sure how using a WiFi SSID or other statement that includes trademarked terms (especially those that have cultural roots separate from the trademarks) could be an infringement unless the source is actually selling or marketing a competing product.
What part of "likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake about the source of the goods and/or services" isn't clear to you? McDonalds and Starbucks both provide wi-fi as an enticement for their customers not as a public service. Confusing people as to the origin of the "McDonalds WiFi" SSID pretty clearly fits within that definition. Then there's the "tortious interference" angle, and the fact that they don't have to win any kind of suit to make your life miserable. If you sell a product that uses their trademark to degrade the value of a service they provide, that's more than enough for them to get you into court.
Do you like making lawyers (on both sides) rich? Or tying up courts so they can't hear cases with more merit? Because even if you win, those are the outcomes. Vexatious litigation is a real thing, and practically impossible to prosecute. It can happen to you. The real world doesn't care about your notions of abstract justice, and it's not dystopian to recognize that. If anything, it's your utopian view that's "wonderful" (i.e. appealing but unrealistic) here.
>What part of "likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake about the source of the goods and/or services" isn't clear to you? McDonalds and Starbucks both provide wi-fi as an enticement for their customers not as a public service.
That's a ridiculous statement on its face.
I didn't realize that I could receive my hamburger or cup of coffee via WiFi.
Certainly, if I surreptitiously set up a WiFi network next to an establishment providing WiFi with an SSID that purports to be from that establishment, there's definitely a problem.
But trademark infringement probably isn't even in the top five in the list of problematic issues.
But GP wasn't even suggesting something like that. Rather, he was suggesting using such SSIDs in unlikely places, in a likely futile gesture, to confound Google's douchebaggery.
As such, I wholeheartedly disagree with you.
Not about frivolous lawsuits, they are a pox on society.
Rather, I disagree that a poor choice of WiFi SSIDs in the context of GPs example (creating such SSIDs in one's moving car to confound Google) could result in a lawsuit from the likes of Starbuck's or McDonald's.
I'd go even further and say that doing so from a stationary site (e.g., one's home), even if that site is in relatively close proximity to such a retail establishment, isn't very likely either.
In fact, a cursory search[0] doesn't show any trademark litigation associated with using SSIDs. The first result is, in fact, your post, with no other relevant results.
Is there a law regarding which names you can't use for hotspots/APs?
Even if there is, I doubt anyone will go after that unless the "attacker" involves some serious crime with that combined.
Attacking innocent people with rogue SSIDs would be definitely wrong, but if done only to trick Google it would be a fun experiment - and they deserve it (maybe not for this particular change but as a company in general).
It doesn't have to be a case they can win to be extremely troublesome for you (though they probably could win if their trademark is embedded in your code). Unless you can afford to make your own lawyers rich, it's a bit unwise to go "I dare you" to large US companies. Better to ship something less incriminating, and leave the spicier suggestions for anonymous comments on web forums.
Though if I put a thing like that in my window, you'd have to rummage through 20 - 50 flats to find the source of that SSID to identify the creator. With zero legal reason to search my flat over my neighbours flat and vice versa. And also, there is no actual interruption of radio services, so there is no reason to bring in more precise measuring equipment. And I might even have enough time to toss that pi off of the balcony if all else fails.
Just another idea popped. What if your code doesn't include any bitstream that contains "Starbucks" but has some ML driven mechanism of passively listening to Wifis around the city, noting them and using those names dynamically? Since Starbucks McDonalds etc would (probably) be the highest quantity of signals found your code will be mimicking those names without having a single bit in the code.
What would be the legality of that (as long as the intention is not to attack the public)?
Good question. I'd be surprised if those companies would go after an individual over an "infringing" SSID, but if you sold a product using them that would be a different matter. An open-source project would probably fall somewhere in between.
Sure, it was defamation rather than copyright, but it certainly puts the lie to a certain other commenter who seems to think that if he personally can't find it on Google then it must not exist.
>We had one on our street called FuckOffAndGetYourOwn which I always liked
There was an SSID in my building called "Free Palestine." A couple years later, someone created another one called "The Shin Bet."[0]
I found that to be both disturbing and amusing. After the Muslim grad students on the third floor moved back to Australia, "Free Palestine" disappeared, and when the orthodox Jews moved out of the fourth floor, "The Shin Bet" went away too.
Now it's mostly boring, and while I may be doxxing myself (if you can see this SSID, reply here as we almost certainly live in the same building) but I still have the SSID GranMal (an ironic reference to this[1]).
I find no joy in saying it, but I bet that would get you some unwelcome attention - trademark infringement, defamation, tortious interference - from one of those companies. :(