Felony Charges for Using an Open Wireless Network?

[Ajaxab]

I'm not sure what to make of this beyond the fact that the government could probably make a lot of money if they chose to enforce this more strictly. I would also be curious to know how many states have this kind of law on the books.

Michigan Man Fined for Using Coffee Shop's Wi-Fi Network

Friday , June 01, 2007
By Sara Bonisteel

A Michigan man has been fined $400 and given 40 hours of community service for accessing an open wireless Internet connection outside a coffee shop.

Under a little known state law against computer hackers, Sam Peterson II, of Cedar Springs, Mich., faced a felony charge after cops found him on March 27 sitting in front of the Re-Union Street Café in Sparta, Mich., surfing the Web from his brand-new laptop.

Last week, Peterson chose to pay the fine instead as part of a jail-diversion program.

"I think a lot of people should be shocked, because quite honestly, I still don't understand it myself," Peterson told FOXNews.com "I do not understand how this is illegal."

• Click here for FOXNews.com's Personal Technology Center.

His troubles began in March, a couple of weeks after he had bought his first laptop computer.

Peterson, a 39-year-old toolmaker, volunteer firefighter and secretary of a bagpipe band, wanted to use his 30-minute lunch hour to check e-mails for his bagpipe group.

He got on the Internet by tapping into the local coffee shop's wireless network, but instead of going inside the shop to use the free Wi-Fi offered to paying customers, he chose to remain in his car and piggyback off the network, which he said didn't require a password.

He used the system on his lunch breaks for more than a week, and then the police showed up.

"I was sitting there reading my e-mail and he came up and stuck his head inside my window and asked me who I was spying on," Peterson told FOXNews.com.

Someone from a nearby barbershop had called cops after seeing Peterson's car pull up every day and sit in front of the coffee shop without anybody getting out.

"I just curiously asked him, 'Where are you getting the Internet connection?', you know," Sparta Police Chief Andrew Milanowski said. "And he said, 'From the café.'"

Milanowski ruled out Peterson as a possible stalker of the attractive local hairdresser, but still felt that a law might have been broken.

"We came back and we looked up the laws and we figured if we found one and thought, 'Well, let's run it by the prosecutor's office and see what they want to do,'" Milanowski said.

A few weeks later Peterson said he received a letter from the Kent County prosecutor's office saying that he faced a felony charge of fraudulent access to computer networks and that a request had been made for an arrest warrant.

The law, introduced in 1979 to protect Internet and private-network users from hackers, and amended in 2000 to include wireless systems, makes piggybacking off of Wi-Fi networks, even those without a password, illegal.

"It wasn't anything we were looking for, and it wasn't anything that we frankly particularly wanted to get involved in, but it basically fell in our lap and it was a little hard to just look the other way when somebody handed it to us," said Lynn Hopkins, assistant prosecuting attorney for Kent County.

Under the statute, individuals who log on to a Wi-Fi network with the owner's permission, or who see a pop-up screen that says it's a public network, can assume they're authorized to use the network, Hopkins said.

If they don't, they could be subject to prosecution.

Peterson was given two choices: He could try to fight the felony charge and face a sentence of up to 5 years in jail or a $10,000 fine; or he could enroll in the diversion program, which would require paying a $400 fine, doing 40 hours of community service and staying on probation for six months.

After consulting two lawyers — both of whom were until then unaware of the law — Peterson decided last week to take the diversion program.

If he fails to complete it, the arrest warrant will be issued and felony charges will be filed, Hopkins said.

"A lot of people tell me I should fight this, but they're not the ones looking at the felony charges on their record if it happens to go bad," Peterson said.

The case has surprised locals, including the owner of the barbershop that initially called police, as well as Donna May, owner of the coffee shop.

"He could have just come in the cafe, even if he didn't have any money, I would let him get on it," May said.

May said that the wireless connection is free for customers to her cafe.

The barbershop owner defended his decision to call police.

"I felt bad about it, but we've had problems in the past," said the man, who declined to give his name. "I'd rather be safe than sorry."

For Peterson, who's never had a criminal record, the experience has been an eye-opening one.

"All over the TV, all the commercials and whatnot you see, they're all trying to get you to buy all these laptops and things that are wireless," he said. "They're trying to get you to buy this wireless stuff because you can go anywhere and still be connected.

"Well, they don't happen to tell you that it's illegal," he continued. "And I guess obviously you're just supposed to know that."

It's up to the consumer to figure that out, said Hopkins, the prosecuting attorney.

"When you buy a Wi-Fi equipped device, it's your responsibility to find out what you can and can't legally do with that device, just as it would be if you were buying a radar detector or any other piece of electronics," she said.

But don't look for a flurry of prosecutions anytime soon.

"We're not going to be running stings to go out looking for people who do this," Hopkins said. "But people should be aware that if we come across them, and it is a violation of the statute, then we will enforce the statute."

[molson]

I don't know that you'd need a specific statute to prosecute this, stealing a network connection would probably fall under most states' general "theft" stautes.

And these cases are definitely being prosecuted more often, at least in cases where it's clear who's stealing the signal (like this case, or if someone drove in front of a house with wireless and accessed it from their car.)

[Passacaglia]

Good ol' Kent County. Doesn't the owner of the network need to be the one prosecuting? Sounded like the owner was pretty fine with it. But I can see something as mundane as the same car pulling up to the same parking space for a half hour or so during lunchtime seeming like a big deal to people in Sparta. Also, I wonder what it means to be the secretary of a bagpipe band. Is he *in* the band, or just their secretary?

[Toddzilla]

I'm troubled by the fact that - after investigating the original complaint of stalking and determining that the guy was certainly not doing that - instead of dropping the issue, the police decided to try and find something, anything, that they could charge the guy with. Especially since the victim of this "crime" refuses to acknowledge that any kind of harm was done.

Shit like this really makes me hate local law enforcement sometimes.

EDIT - this guy was a volunteer fireman for fuck's sake - he saves people from burning buildings, and the prosecutors have to bust a gut to find something to charge him with? I hope the Kent County prosecutor's office burns to the ground.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I'm troubled by the fact that - after investigating the original complaint of stalking and determining that the guy was certainly not doing that - instead of dropping the issue, the police decided to try and find something, anything, that they could charge the guy with. Especially since the victim of this "crime" refuses to acknowledge that any kind of harm was done.

Shit like this really makes me hate local law enforcement sometimes.

They were probably bored.

[Ksyrup]

"Milanowski ruled out Peterson as a possible stalker of the attractive local hairdresser..."


I don't remember the chicks being that great looking in Michigan, but damn...only 1 "attractive" hairdresser in the entire city?!

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by asshole ADA

We're not going to be running stings to go out looking for people who do this," Hopkins said. "But people should be aware that if we come across them, and you're not bothering anyone and not causing anyone any harm, we'll scour the city code to find something obscure to charge you with, even if you selflessly serve the community."

Fixed.

[rkmsuf]

eh, couldn't the cop have just told the guy to either go inside the cafe or don't park there and then move on?

sounds like one bored constable.

[Mustang]

"Milanowski ruled out Peterson as a possible stalker of the attractive local hairdresser, but still felt that a law might have been broken"


Hey, there is a guy outside.. he ain't eye'n up our attractive local hairdresser is he???

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Mustang

"Milanowski ruled out Peterson as a possible stalker of the attractive local hairdresser, but still felt that a law might have been broken"

Who says 'Fox reports and you decide' when it comes to supposedly attractive local hairdressers?

[Drake]

I'd be interested to know if the cafe advertised their service as "free wi-fi" or "free wi-fi to paying customers". I mean, there's the assumption that to use the wi-fi, you ought to buy something, but if that isn't an explicit part of the agreement, then I don't see how this is breaking the law.

[terpkristin]

This is kind of an old story. The TWiT (This Week in Tech, www.twit.tv I think but I'm at work so can't be sure) podcast discussed it about 2 episodes ago, if I remember correctly.

Basically, this is a law aimed at hackers that's horribly worded.
The TWiT discussion on it was fairly interesting.

/tk

[Lathum]

wow, I do this every time I visit my in laws in New Jeresey. They live on a farm and have no wireless so we always dvive up to an apartment complex and piggyback off someones unsecured connection.

IMO it;s their responsibility to secure it.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

"Milanowski ruled out Peterson as a possible stalker of the attractive local hairdresser..."


I don't remember the chicks being that great looking in Michigan, but damn...only 1 "attractive" hairdresser in the entire city?!

The population of Sparta is 4,159. I could see that.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

The population of Sparta is 4,159. I could see that.

Maybe everyone has a title.

The attractive hairdresser
The inattentive cashier
The clumsy waiter
The crazy bum

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Lathum

wow, I do this every time I visit my in laws in New Jeresey. They live on a farm and have no wireless so we always dvive up to an apartment complex and piggyback off someones unsecured connection.

IMO it;s their responsibility to secure it.

Just to play devil's advocate: Supposing instead of a wireless network, it was some guy's car. If some guy leaves his key in the car, does that make it ok for you to take it?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Maybe everyone has a title.

The attractive hairdresser
The inattentive cashier
The clumsy waiter
The crazy bum

sounds like the Truman Show

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Just to play devil's advocate: Supposing instead of a wireless network, it was some guy's car. If some guy leaves his key in the car, does that make it ok for you to take it?

thats just plain silly.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Drake

I'd be interested to know if the cafe advertised their service as "free wi-fi" or "free wi-fi to paying customers". I mean, there's the assumption that to use the wi-fi, you ought to buy something, but if that isn't an explicit part of the agreement, then I don't see how this is breaking the law.

Exactly what I was thinking. Of all the free wi-fi spots I've seen, I've never once seen a disclaimer on the bottom of the sign/sticker (which is usually on the door) that says it's for paying customers only. Like you said, I doubt it's implicitly stated.

Let's say I am a paying customer at the coffee shop though. I turn my laptop on, and my wireless connection shows a "guest" signal that is open for me, so I connect. But turns out that this the coffee shop's network was called "guestwifi" and the "guest" network was from the barber shop next door (don't laugh, my barber shop advertises their free wireless in the store). This barber shop in Fictionland requires their network to only be used by paying customers...am I screwed now?

I've also never seen a free wi-fi spot outside of hotels that specifically said which network to connect to.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Lathum

thats just plain silly.

Not at all actually.

Although I would probably have gone with "lawn mower in the yard" instead of "car with keys" as an example.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Lathum

thats just plain silly.

No sillier than to suggest that the law only protects people who have already protected themselves. The whole point of having a law is so that people who don't adequately protect themselves, for whatever reason, are protected.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

...am I screwed now?

If you accidently take someone else's coat from the coat room when you leave a restaraunt, that's not theft (unless you realize later it's not yours and you decide to keep it anyway).

I don't know if the signage matters - presumably, when you log in at a hotel or something, you have to agree to the disclaimer that that you are a "registerd guest of the hotel" or something.

I'm looking at this from the other angle. If you're a coffee shop, you want to give free wi-fi to customers, but don't want to hassle them with new passwords every time they come in (or don't want someone to keep such a password for later use), is it that unreasonable for them not to want people parked along the street using their internet?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

No sillier than to suggest that the law only protects people who have already protected themselves. The whole point of having a law is so that people who don't adequately protect themselves, for whatever reason, are protected.

well if I was to take someones car, or lawnmower they wouldn't be able to use it while I was, In the case of a wireless signal they are still able to use it while I also use it.

And FWIW if someone leaves their keys in the car and it is stolen it serves them right.

[Celeval]

What if said lawn mower had a sign saying "Free lawn mower"?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Just to play devil's advocate: Supposing instead of a wireless network, it was some guy's car. If some guy leaves his key in the car, does that make it ok for you to take it?

This is a reasonable example, but as far as computer security goes, the courts won't ever make a determination of what is a reasonable amout of security on a computer network. You are not supposed to use them without authorization, and you can't assume that the ability to access the network constitutes that authorization.

In this example of free wifi at a coffee shop, I think it would make more sense to continue the prosecution only if the shop owner wanted it. This is technically theft of their service, but educating the guy would probably have been more appropriate.

[Alan T]

I think it would be more like someone walking into a stranger's house and sitting down and watching tv because it was unlocked. Its not theirs and they used it because it was unsecured.

Now I also agree though if the owner of the house didnt want to press charges, the police wouldn't bother with that person. Same should be said for stealing wi-fi service.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

well if I was to take someones car, or lawnmower they wouldn't be able to use it while I was, In the case of a wireless signal they are still able to use it while I also use it.

You could use it, but it probably be slower (you wouldn't be getting what you paid for), and your ISP and the FBI might think you're downloading child porn if the leecher is a pedofile.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Just to play devil's advocate: Supposing instead of a wireless network, it was some guy's car. If some guy leaves his key in the car, does that make it ok for you to take it?

Not the same thing. A car's basically a "one-user" resource. If you take someone's car, even for a little bit, effectively no one else can use it.

A more appropriate analogy would be a guy who waters his lawn with automatic sprinklers that happen to go everywhere, including the sidewalk and street. A jogger comes along, decides he's hot and thirsty, and runs through the water that's being sprayed on the sidewalk, getting cooled off and a little drink at the same time.

Now sure, the homeowner's paid for the water, but he's clearly not doing a lot to keep it all on his lot. Furthermore, the amount of water absorbed by the jogger isn't really going to make a lot of difference to the homeowner.


And that's not even mentioning the fact that a lot of cafes use free wi-fi as a way to lure in customers. Maybe they'll purchase something, maybe they won't. But the cafe owners view it as advertising. If, during a town parade, the guys from the local bank throw out t-shirts to the crowd advertising their bank and your son or daughter gets one, are you going to throw it back? Same concept.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not at all actually.

Although I would probably have gone with "lawn mower in the yard" instead of "car with keys" as an example.

Actually, this is more akin to me watching a full movie in Wal-Mart in the electronics section where they're showing off their HDTVs. Wouldn't Wal-Mart be committing some sort of felony by allowing customers to watch the entire flick? (I forget exactly how the FBI/unauthorized sharing message is worded at the beginning of DVD's.)

Or maybe it's more like listening to someone else's radio at a public park. Am I stealing their signal off the airwaves?

I agree with whoever said it above: if you only want your customers using your wi-fi network, you need to be the one responsible for securing it. If you don't have the tech savvy to secure it to only your target population, then you either need to shut it down or accept that you're offering a free community resource.

It sounds to me like the cafe owner doesn't give a shit -- and likely accepts this sort of use as effective advertising. I mean, if this guy was doing this every day for a week, it was massively increasing the likelihood that the next time he wanted to buy coffee, this was going to be the business he'd patronize.

Bottom line is that the law, as written, is overly vague. It's bad legislation poorly applied and needs to change.

[Poli]

I guess I need to steal my internet from different locations so I don't tip off the local cops.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Lathum

well if I was to take someones car, or lawnmower they wouldn't be able to use it while I was, In the case of a wireless signal they are still able to use it while I also use it.

In a diminished capacity. Bandwidth is finite. Whatever you use, they can't.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by BrianD

This is a reasonable example

I disagree. If a wireless network could only support one computer and the owner couldn't acess their own network then the law would make sense.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Lathum

well if I was to take someones car, or lawnmower they wouldn't be able to use it while I was, In the case of a wireless signal they are still able to use it while I also use it.

And FWIW if someone leaves their keys in the car and it is stolen it serves them right.

The last apartment I lived in had free wifi. During peak usage hours, it sometimes became so slow as to be completly useless.

[Brillig]

He got off easy. This

for his bagpipe group.

should have gotten twenty years at least.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I disagree. If a wireless network could only support one computer and the owner couldn't acess their own network then the law would make sense.

Theft is theft. It doesn't really matter if the theft is on a unique resource. Would a better example have been stealing an apple from an apple-cart? Odds are that not all of the apples will be sold and some will be tossed when they go bad, but it still doesn't mean you can take one.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Just to play devil's advocate: Supposing instead of a wireless network, it was some guy's car. If some guy leaves his key in the car, does that make it ok for you to take it?

You're ignoring the part where the owner doesn't care if you take it out for a spin or not.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The last apartment I lived in had free wifi. During peak usage hours, it sometimes became so slow as to be completly useless.

Yeah, but that's more of an issue of poor implementation by your apartment complex. They likely weren't pushing enough signal to deal with peak usage hours.

That becomes another "if you're going to offer this free service to your customers, know how much bandwidth you're going to need to be effective" issue rather than a "everyone suffers when people leech" issue.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I think it would be more like someone walking into a stranger's house and sitting down and watching tv because it was unlocked. Its not theirs and they used it because it was unsecured.

not really because you would also be trespassing. If your neighbor had the radio on and you were listining to the weather on his radio would you be breaking the law?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Theft is theft. It doesn't really matter if the theft is on a unique resource. Would a better example have been stealing an apple from an apple-cart? Odds are that not all of the apples will be sold and some will be tossed when they go bad, but it still doesn't mean you can take one.

Yes, but is it really theft? This is about stealing a balloon on Free Balloon Day.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yeah, but that's more of an issue of poor implementation by your apartment complex. They likely weren't pushing enough signal to deal with peak usage hours.

That becomes another "if you're going to offer this free service to your customers, know how much bandwidth you're going to need to be effective" issue rather than a "everyone suffers when people leech" issue.

Important part bolded. Do you plan your capacity to satisfy your customers, or do you plan your capacity to incorporate those that will steal from you?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Theft is theft. It doesn't really matter if the theft is on a unique resource. Would a better example have been stealing an apple from an apple-cart? Odds are that not all of the apples will be sold and some will be tossed when they go bad, but it still doesn't mean you can take one.

what exactly is being stolen?

An apple is something tangible that once consumed can't be replaced.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

You're ignoring the part where the owner doesn't care if you take it out for a spin or not.

Yeah, I don't know what to make of that. I guess there are times when law enforcement has to enforce a crime regardless of whether there's a victim or whether the victim cares, but I don't know if this is one of those times.

I was more put off by the idea that people that don't protect themselves aren't worthy of police protection.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Lathum

not really because you would also be trespassing. If your neighbor had the radio on and you were listining to the weather on his radio would you be breaking the law?

stealing is breaking a law just like trespassing is. In both cases if the owner doesnt care, the police shouldn't butt in.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, but is it really theft? This is about stealing a balloon on Free Balloon Day.

Not necessarily. Even unsecured, the network owner gets to determin who is authorized to use the network. In this case the cops seemed to make that determination. They shouldn't have made the determination, but they did draw the line in a reasonable spot. I'm not saying what they did was right, but I could see them technically following the law.

[Ksyrup]

Cop: "Excuse me, did I just see you walk out of that McDonald's restroom?"

Me: "Yes sir."

Cop: "Did you buy anything while you visited McDonald's?"

Me: "Uh...I just had to take a leak. Plus, it's McDonald's and I'm 36 years old. Why would I eat there?"

Cop: "Well, since you weren't a paying customer of this establishment and you used their restroom, you might as well have been urinating in the street! I'm arresting you for public urination and defiling private property!"

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yeah, but that's more of an issue of poor implementation by your apartment complex. They likely weren't pushing enough signal to deal with peak usage hours.

That becomes another "if you're going to offer this free service to your customers, know how much bandwidth you're going to need to be effective" issue rather than a "everyone suffers when people leech" issue.

It wasn't a complaint at all, I was just pointing out, as others have done, that this isn't an item that has unlimited use. Bandwidth is still a finite thing.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Cop: "Excuse me, did I just see you walk out of that McDonald's restroom?"

Me: "Yes sir."

Cop: "Did you buy anything while you visited McDonald's?"

Me: "Uh...I just had to take a leak. Plus, it's McDonald's and I'm 36 years old. Why would I eat there?"

Cop: "Well, since you weren't a paying customer of this establishment and you used their restroom, you might as well have been urinating in the street! I'm arresting you for public urination and defiling private property!"

that about sums it up for me

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

what exactly is being stolen?

An apple is something tangible that once consumed can't be replaced.

So it's only theft if it's something tangible? That's quite a loophole. (Are you saying it's OK to steal a cab ride, to sneak into a movie theater without paying, etc.).

It's obviously theft, but people have to keep this in perspective. Newspaper articles like to cite the "maximum sentences" under the statute, but nobody's going to jail for this (at least not a first-offender). And the defendant has a ton of leverage, because this would be a scary case to take to a jury, who just might hate the whole premise of the charge.

But it's theft, just like throwing crumpled up piece of paper at someone is a battery. It's just a theft that's going to have lesser consequences than other types of thefts.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Lathum

what exactly is being stolen?

An apple is something tangible that once consumed can't be replaced.

It isn't a product being stolen, it is a service being stolen. It is also unauthorized use of a network resource.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Cop: "Excuse me, did I just see you walk out of that McDonald's restroom?"

Me: "Yes sir."

Cop: "Did you buy anything while you visited McDonald's?"

Me: "Uh...I just had to take a leak. Plus, it's McDonald's and I'm 36 years old. Why would I eat there?"

Cop: "Well, since you weren't a paying customer of this establishment and you used their restroom, you might as well have been urinating in the street! I'm arresting you for public urination and defiling private property!"

what if the guy has ural-micatisus?