There's dumb, and then there's dumber.

Remember my post from a couple of months ago calling out the KCMO Public Library's IT department for their response to someone experiencing issues with joining a chatroom over their wireless connection? Well, the library has finally gotten around to posting some newer entries on its "comments and suggestions" board (something, by the way, that it really needs to do more often than every other month or so) and it seems that I wasn't alone in my disdain for their answer. You'd think that would have inspired them to rise to the occasion and come through for the patron with the issue, wouldn't you? Well, think again.

And how do I know they actually haven't resolved the patron's issue, you ask? Simple-I sojourned down to the Central Library myself last evening and attempted to hit the chatroom. While there really is a problem with the Java applet's certificate-to wit, that it's expired-that's not why the chat isn't coming through. (In Firefox, you can get around this by deciding not to trust the certificate; the applet will still run, but in an enhanced security mode.) No, the reason you can't get in is that port 7000 is blocked on the Wi-Fi.

Which raises its own questions, not the least of which is why this should be the case when it isn't on the connection for the library's computers (assuming the IT department is telling the truth about being able to access the chat on its workstations). And if anyone down there would care to explain why none of you could come up with a straight answer for this patron after nearly three months, we're all ears.

The really sad thing about all this is that the patron-whom I don't know from Adam or Eve-appears to be someone who really needs the support he or she is trying to obtain, and the library has let him or her down at every turn. At the very least, the decency of a personal apology would be expected.

And take it from someone who's worked in end-user support for a good number of years now: The "Gee, it works when I try it" defense is a good way to put yourself on the fast track to the unemployment line in the private sector. The person on the other end of the conversation-who is your customer, remember-could care less if it works for you. The conversation is taking place because it isn't working for them.

The library has been apprised of the situation. Updates forthcoming if and when they respond. And if anyone who stops by a library branch in the meantime should discover the problem has been resolved, let us know.

"He that soweth the wind..."

Remember back in June when I told you about a couple of new locations that claimed to offer free Wi-Fi but didn't have an open router showing when I visited? Well, the one downtown-in the Power and Light District, to be exact-has apparently reaped the whirlwind, according to the Kansas City Star's Joyce Smith.

While we generally don't call out an establishment by name in such cases unless we're doing a return visit (which is why I didn't identify it in my original post), the situation with this one really got to Mac and me, what with all the anticipation of Latte Land moving into that space instead. I'm loath to crow that it serves them right, but I haven't heard of any locations offering free and open access biting the dust lately, have you?

And, of course, there's always the outside chance that having this space sit empty again will knock some sense into the apparently thick-skulled heads in the executive suite at Cordish and the Latte Land deal will end up getting done.

Well, I guess even Clark Howard doesn't know everything.

Howard, for those of you not familiar with him, is a financial guru and consumer advocate with shows on both radio and cable TV. Generally I find him both knowledgeable and skilled in sharing his expertise, but then again, all I know about money is that I want more of it. However, I've got to blow the whistle and throw the flag for something he did at the start of one of today's telecasts-he joined the chorus of those chanting the mantra that using an open Wi-Fi link is inherently dangerous from a privacy and security standpoint, repeating the old chestnut that one shouldn't do online banking or the like except at home.

And now a brief pause for the facts. While it's easy for someone "sniffing" network traffic between your laptop and an open router to intercept data that is sent in the clear, this is plainly and simply not the case if the website you are accessing is secured by a properly configured SSL installation. Just think about it for a moment. Imagine you're sitting with a laptop within range of an open router and you're using a sniffer to monitor a session between me and the SSL-encrypted website of my financial institution. What do you think you're going to see? That's right-all you will capture is the encrypted traffic between me and the remote site, and you won't be able to decrypt it because you didn't exchange keys with the site; I did. The encryption occurs between my computer and the site, not either between me and the router or between the router and the site. The data is encrypted at my computer before it ever leaves for the router, just as data from the site is encrypted at the site before it ever gets to the router from the Internet. A properly implemented VPN is perfectly safe to use over open Wi-Fi for the same reason.

Just what part of this do the many so-called experts who spout this don't-bank-or-shop-over-open-wireless nonsense not understand? What do they think happens? Do they believe the router magically (i.e., without having exchanged keys with it) decrypts incoming data from the remote site, or that the client laptop, after establishing an encrypted session, then uplinks in the clear and that the router then magically re-encrypts the data before sending it on its first hop? Remember, SSL is intended to protect the data all the way from the remote site to the client. The router, just like all the other servers between the client and the remote site, neither knows nor cares that the data it passes is third-party encrypted-it merely needs to know where it came from and where it's going so it can do its job.

All of this is not to say, of course, that there aren't risks you need to watch out for when on an open Wi-Fi connection. Jumping online with file and printer sharing turned on (and as an aside, I can't think of any good reason to ever have them turned on with a laptop) is one. Exchanging sensitive information with a properly SSL-secured site, however, isn't.

And for those inclined to disbelieve that, ask yourself this: Why do AT&T and T-Moblie leave their play-for-pay routers unsecured? If SSL weren't sufficient to protect the credit card numbers customers have to enter on their login pages, I think they'd sell even fewer sessions than they probably are selling these days.

For $311 a day...

...I can think of better ideas for a six-week vacation, can't you?

Associated Press: Internet addiction center opens in U. S.

I love the way they start out with the "dog ate my homework" sob story about the kid who blew off his freshman year in college playing "World of Warcraft." Gotta suck in those worried parents with deep pockets first, right?

Let's also award style points for the eleven signs of Internet addiction they've already come up with. Dollars to doughnuts says we'll be seeing ads for a prescription drug to treat it as soon as the lobbyists finish buying off the FDA.

Here's the salient quote from the story, folks: "Internet addiction is not recognized as a separate disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, and treatment is not generally covered by insurance."

And if We the People are truly serious about reforming health care, keeping things that way would be a good start.