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]

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]

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]

"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 (http://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]

"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]

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]

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]

Maybe everyone has a title.

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

sounds like the Truman Show

[Lathum]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Poli]

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!"
This man wins.

[Lathum]

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

then why wouldn't it be illeagle to listen to your neighbors radio? He is paying for the electricty and you are using the service.

What if it is XM or sirius? Should it be illeagle for you to listen to it?

[Drake]

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?

From my perspective, that whole post (of mine) was a side issue. My point was that st.cronin's apartment complex *wasn't* planning their capacity at all if they were having such massive slowdowns during peak usage. A couple, a handful or even a few dozen leechers isn't the issue there as much as poor implementation.

Not to mention, implementing free wi-fi for an apartment complex would be tremendously simple to do correctly and avoid leeching, because you know every month exactly who your customers are. That's the perfect setup for a password protected wi-fi network. The fact that they had peak usage slowdowns bugs me from a technical perspective because it's essentially admitting that they chose to offer a crappy service because it was "hot" rather than launching an effective service (when it would have been relatively simple to do so). :)

[stevew]

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

LOL

[Desnudo]

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.

I was always under the impression that the government will rarely prosecute a case where the victim doesn't press charges. This specific instance seems like for some reason they wanted to stick it to this guy. In a town of 5,000, everyone is going to know everyone. Of course, it might just have been a prosecutor trying to make a name for themselves.

[flere-imsaho]

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

You don't know that. For all you know, the cafe owner provides free wi-fi as a way to lure customers into his shop. For every bagpipe secretary, there are 20 people who say "Well, as long as I'm here, I'll grab a coffee. Ooo, a Danish too!" Thus, the cafe owner is authorizing unrestricted use. And given that this is relatively common for cafe owners to do, I'd say it's considerably more likely than the other scenarios being postulated.

[Ksyrup]

I was always under the impression that the government will rarely prosecute a case where the victim doesn't press charges. This specific instance seems like for some reason they wanted to stick it to this guy. In a town of 5,000, everyone is going to know everyone. Of course, it might just have been a prosecutor trying to make a name for themselves.

I'd like to introduce you to our DA, Mr. Bastage McFucknutty, Esq.

[flere-imsaho]

The fact that they had peak usage slowdowns bugs me from a technical perspective because it's essentially admitting that they chose to offer a crappy service because it was "hot" rather than launching an effective service (when it would have been relatively simple to do so). :)

Not to mention that if you're supplying wi-fi for an apartment building, you can afford to use a router that does QoS, allowing you to throttle bandwidth for users, meaning that no leacher can eat all the bandwidth.

[Drake]

The point I'm seeing here is that if I don't authorize people to use my stuff, then the government should still protect me. So, if I wanted to put up a web page, the government should prosecute people that I don't want to surf it. I don't have to protect that web page -- I just have to decide that it's only for my friends to view and anyone else is stealing.

After all, my webpage is hosted on a server with limited capacity, and if three million unauthorized people visit it all at once, that capacity is going to be limited and my page is going to load slowly, which in turn inhibits the ability of my friends to view it.

[BrianD]

then why wouldn't it be illeagle to listen to your neighbors radio? He is paying for the electricty and you are using the service.

What if it is XM or sirius? Should it be illeagle for you to listen to it?

Using a computer network is different than listening to a radio. You are actively controlling the network that you are using. Listening to a neighbor's radio is probably the same as reading a web page over someone else's shoulder. Also, computer networks are designated authorized use only by the anti-hacking laws.

[molson]

[QUOTE=Desnudo;1477452]I was always under the impression that the government will rarely prosecute a case where the victim doesn't press charges.[QUOTE]

A surprising number of cases proceed without victim cooperation (including probably 90% or more of domestic batteries). After all, it's "State v. Defendant", not "Vicitm v. Defendant".

[st.cronin]

From my perspective, that whole post (of mine) was a side issue. My point was that st.cronin's apartment complex *wasn't* planning their capacity at all if they were having such massive slowdowns during peak usage. A couple, a handful or even a few dozen leechers isn't the issue there as much as poor implementation.

Not to mention, implementing free wi-fi for an apartment complex would be tremendously simple to do correctly and avoid leeching, because you know every month exactly who your customers are. That's the perfect setup for a password protected wi-fi network. The fact that they had peak usage slowdowns bugs me from a technical perspective because it's essentially admitting that they chose to offer a crappy service because it was "hot" rather than launching an effective service (when it would have been relatively simple to do so). :)


The network was password protected. Again, that had nothing to do with theft - I was just pointing out that a wireless network is a finite thing.

[Lathum]

Using a computer network is different than listening to a radio. You are actively controlling the network that you are using. Listening to a neighbor's radio is probably the same as reading a web page over someone else's shoulder. Also, computer networks are designated authorized use only by the anti-hacking laws.

why?

Either way you are obtaining a service from radio waves someone else is paying for.

[molson]

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!"

No police department would put on officer on this kind of assignment, without prompting from above, but I guarantee you that if there was a popular restaraunt in an urban area where patrons had to wait in line to use the bathroom because of people on the street coming in, you wouldn't be let in to use the bathroom. If you went in anyway, you'd get cited.

[Poli]

I'd love to have my own wireless network, unfortunately, my cable company can't figure out what it is doing. If someone would make a few hateful calls to Charter on my behalf, I'd appreciate it.

They are currently not returning my calls.

Until then, it's back to hanging out at the local apartment complex to send in much needed IHOF files.

[BrianD]

You don't know that. For all you know, the cafe owner provides free wi-fi as a way to lure customers into his shop. For every bagpipe secretary, there are 20 people who say "Well, as long as I'm here, I'll grab a coffee. Ooo, a Danish too!" Thus, the cafe owner is authorizing unrestricted use. And given that this is relatively common for cafe owners to do, I'd say it's considerably more likely than the other scenarios being postulated.

According to the anti-hacking laws, it is unauthorized access up until the point that authorization is given. Free wifi is probably a way to lure customers into the shop, but this guy wasn't in the shop. He was in the parking lot with no intent to go in the shop. If this guy was in the shop or on the veranda, it would be a different story. Again, I don't think this is something worth prosecuting, but it is technically illegal. Asking the guy to just move along would have been the better course of action.

[Logan]

Couldn't all this stuff be copied and pasted from a thread about illegally downloading music?

- What's being stolen? It's not like stealing a CD...me downloading it doesn't mean that someone else can't buy it.

- What is the musician losing? I wouldn't have bought it anyway.

then why wouldn't it be illeagle to listen to your neighbors radio? He is paying for the electricty and you are using the service.

What if it is XM or sirius? Should it be illeagle for you to listen to it?

I don't know about the legality of listening to someone else's radio. Catch someone doing it to you, press charges, and let us know.

But as an XM customer, I get access to their online player that allows me to listen to the stations on my computer. All I need to get on is my email address and a password. But that doesn't mean I can (legally) share that information with others so they can listen to it also.

[Poli]

No police department would put on officer on this kind of assignment, without prompting from above, but I guarantee you that if there was a popular restaraunt in an urban area where patrons had to wait in line to use the bathroom because of people on the street coming in, you wouldn't be let in to use the bathroom. If you went in anyway, you'd get cited.
If my only intention when I go to a place is to use the bathroom...and there's a line...I'm heading to the next gas station/store/eating establishment.

[Lathum]

But as an XM customer, I get access to their online player that allows me to listen to the stations on my computer. All I need to get on is my email address and a password. But that doesn't mean I can (legally) share that information with others so they can listen to it also.

but if I sit outside your office at noon everyday to hear the news am I breaking the law?

[BrianD]

why?

Either way you are obtaining a service from radio waves someone else is paying for.

You don't pay for the sounds coming out of the radio, you pay for the signal the radio is receiving (in the case of XM or Sirius). In the case of public broadcasting, free receipt of the signal is written into the charter.

[st.cronin]

I'd love to have my own wireless network, unfortunately, my cable company can't figure out what it is doing. If someone would make a few hateful calls to Charter on my behalf, I'd appreciate it.


Hey, I don't even have a cable company. :(

[Poli]

I'm paying for the actual radio, though, right? Let my friggin neighbor get his own! :)

[Lathum]

You don't pay for the sounds coming out of the radio, you pay for the signal the radio is receiving (in the case of XM or Sirius). In the case of public broadcasting, free receipt of the signal is written into the charter.

ok, so if my radio is tuned into 88.5 picking up someones XM signal am I breaking the law?

[Desnudo]

I'd like to introduce you to our DA, Mr. Bastage McFucknutty, Esq.

The guy was also in a bagpipe club, which may have warranted seperate charges

[Poli]

Can I use the shade that a neighbor's tree provides?

[Lathum]

I'm paying for the actual radio, though, right? Let my friggin neighbor get his own! :)

don't forget about the electricity. ;)

[Poli]

He's actually paying for the electricity. Don't tell him, though.

[Drake]

The network was password protected. Again, that had nothing to do with theft - I was just pointing out that a wireless network is a finite thing.

Oh, I know. I just want to keep highlighting the fact that your apartment complex sucked.

:)

[Logan]

but if I sit outside your office at noon everyday to hear the news am I breaking the law?

No, you're not. Just like you're not if you happen to see a webpage that someone else is paying to see.

But this guy purposely accessed the network, by himself. He initiated the connection process. If (big IF) the store plainly displayed the language that this was only for paying customers, yes, he broke the law.

Is it stupid that he was charged, instead of being asked to move along? Absolutely. But I'm shocked that people actually think it's legal to access someone else's network. I've been hearing about this for years.

[Ksyrup]

The guy was also in a bagpipe club, which may have warranted seperate charges

what better playing bagpipes or showing bag and pipe?

[BrianD]

ok, so if my radio is tuned into 88.5 picking up someones XM signal am I breaking the law?

My guess is that you would, but I don't really know. If it isn't against the law, it wouldn't surprise me if you could somehow get charged for it if XM found out about it.

[Lathum]

No, you're not. Just like you're not if you happen to see a webpage that someone else is paying to see.

But this guy purposely accessed the network, by himself. He initiated the connection process. If (big IF) the store plainly displayed the language that this was only for paying customers, yes, he broke the law.

Is it stupid that he was charged, instead of being asked to move along? Absolutely. But I'm shocked that people actually think it's legal to access someone else's network. I've been hearing about this for years.

I don't think anyone thinks it is legal, but the wording of the law is absurd.

[Logan]

ok, so if my radio is tuned into 88.5 picking up someones XM signal am I breaking the law?

Here's an idea: stop identifying situations and asking if you're breaking the law. It doesn't matter, not one bit. This IS a law, and it is illegal to tap in to someone's network without consent. Feel free to debate why it is so, but it is absolutely illegal.

edit:

I don't think anyone thinks it is legal, but the wording of the law is absurd.

Ok then :).

[st.cronin]

Oh, I know. I just want to keep highlighting the fact that your apartment complex sucked.

:)

word

[Lathum]

lol

[BrianD]

If (big IF) the store plainly displayed the language that this was only for paying customers, yes, he broke the law.


According to the anti-hacking laws, I think this goes in the other direction. He broke the law unless there is language clearly displayed that anyone is authorized to use the network.

[Ksyrup]

I don't think anyone thinks it is legal, but the wording of the law is absurd.

Not just that, but that they prosecuted. I mean, I guess I'd be in favor of giving him a warning since he clearly didn't have an intent to go into the place, but if the owner didn't care, this seems like a clear chance to exercise prosecutorial discretion. If someone in the same situation comes along and the owner cares, then you prosecute. Seems pretty simple.

[Logan]

According to the anti-hacking laws, I think this goes in the other direction. He broke the law unless there is language clearly displayed that anyone is authorized to use the network.

That would seem to be the opposite of everything else though (acknowledging that it's entirely possible for this law to be written in the other direction).

If a store like McDonalds has a sign on the door that says FREE FRIES, it will usually have something smaller underneath it that says "with purchase of burger."

edit: Again though, have you ever seen a sign that read "FREE WIFI -- (smaller) for everyone!"?

[Alan T]

I don't really see that this is the same thing as many examples given (listening to a neighbor's radio, taking their lawnmower, etc). I know some of the examples are tongue in cheek to illustrate a point, but I still equate this most to going to a neighbor's house, helping yourself in and sitting on their couch to watch tv if they left the door unlock.

Someone said its not stealing, its tresspassing, but in a way thats what taking someone else's wireless signal is. You aren't just listening to someone else's internet, you are actually helping yourself onto their network (ie: walking into their house because they left the door wide open). You aren't taking anything like a car or a lawnmower, you are just utilizing their network to do other activities (ie: sitting in someone else's home to watch their tv).

I guess my point though is that if the store owner didn't care, the police shouldn't be involved either. I think this entire case was silly, but i find the discussion about it and people's different points of views about it and how "tangible" the item he stole was very fascinating. I don't know that i am right or wrong, or if this is even a case of right or wrong, its just how I view it. :) (Of course I also feel stealing music or software is wrong too)

[Poli]

Here's an idea: stop identifying situations and asking if you're breaking the law. It doesn't matter, not one bit. This IS a law, and it is illegal to tap in to someone's network without consent. Feel free to debate why it is so, but it is absolutely illegal.




I don't work within the exact boundaries of the law, because I wasn't consulted when the goddamn laws were made. No, instead, nameless,
faceless politicians, the so-called protectors of the moral majority
decide what is right and what is wrong.

I mean, come on! I govern my life around my own personal code
of ethics, and I suggest you do the same. That way if, within the constructs of my own morality I were to do something that was considered illegal, so be it. I feel no guilt whatsoever.

And furthermore, if I were to buckle under the social weight of the system by adhering to laws that I do not truly believe in, then I would be extinguishing the very fire of patriotism and individuality.

In a sense, by having sex with Natasha, I'd be preserving the rights our forefathers fought and died for, right?

[Alan T]

According to the anti-hacking laws, I think this goes in the other direction. He broke the law unless there is language clearly displayed that anyone is authorized to use the network.

I am not entirely up to date on anti-hacking laws, but I do know that my legal department had informed me that every single device that I have on the network has to clearly state in the login banner that unauthorized access is not permitted. I don't know if that is necessary as far as the law goes, or just to make sure that reasonable doubt is removed or if its just the legal department's way of making sure I know who's boss :)

[BrianD]

That would seem to be the opposite of everything else though (acknowledging that it's entirely possible for this law to be written in the other direction).

If a store like McDonalds has a sign on the door that says FREE FRIES, it will usually have something smaller underneath it that says "with purchase of burger."

edit: Again though, have you ever seen a sign that read "FREE WIFI -- (smaller) for everyone!"?

I'm not an expert in this area, but I seem to remember court cases where it was determined that companies did not have to put up disclaimers of a network being private to disallow use. By default (according to the anti-hacking laws), use of computer and network resources is disallowed without prior authorization. This follows along the lines of entering someone's house. You don't have to be told that you can't...you have to be told that you can.

[Drake]

I stole my sig from some thread on illegal downloading or copyright or something. I don't even remember now, but I know that it's mine, and since possession is 9/10 of the law, I'll prosecute anyone else who uses it.

This post has nothing to do with the previous discussion.

[BrianD]

I am not entirely up to date on anti-hacking laws, but I do know that my legal department had informed me that every single device that I have on the network has to clearly state in the login banner that unauthorized access is not permitted. I don't know if that is necessary as far as the law goes, or just to make sure that reasonable doubt is removed or if its just the legal department's way of making sure I know who's boss :)

It is common practice now to include those disclaimers, but I believe they are legally unnecessary. I believe it is a safety measure to eliminate any confusion and make sure the courts don't have the ability to go against their own precedents. I could be wrong though.

[Gary Gorski]

Almost a 100 posts in the thread and no pix plz k thx of "the attractive local hairdresser" - what's happening to this place? :)

[Passacaglia]

Almost a 100 posts in the thread and no pix plz k thx of "the attractive local hairdresser" - what's happening to this place? :)

Who was it on here that was going to Grand Rapids for a wedding, and needed something to do?

[gstelmack]

I'm always amused at the justifications thieves will go through to convince people they aren't thieves. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Seriously, is it okay if 50 guys suddenly pulled into the parking lot and started watching YouTube videos on his connection? Now the cafe owner has to punish his legitimate customers that he's trying to help by providing constantly changing passwords to use his network?

With freedom comes responsibility to use that freedom wisely, and we keep losing our freedoms because of all the yahoos that won't act responsibly.

[Mustang]

And furthermore, if I were to buckle under the social weight of the system by adhering to laws that I do not truly believe in, then I would be extinguishing the very fire of patriotism and individuality.

Does this count on not buckling under unwritten rules that society has come up with?

If so, then the guy that showed up at 9:00 PM at your house was just being Patriotic.


:D

[molson]

What if I rob a bank but am wearing a funny hat? Is THAT illegal?

[Poli]

http://www.colbubbie.com/ProductImages/300-399/375.jpg

I had a roommate rob a bank wearing his dixie cup flipped down. Problem was, his last name, first two initials, and last four of his SSN were now visible to those inside the bank.

[Poli]

Nathan B. Clark. What a goob.

[Bee]

I wonder at what point it becomes legal to access the wifi. Assuming what he was doing is illegal, what if he had gone in and bought a cup of coffee. Would he have been able to legally access the wifi from his car at that point? How long can he legally access the wifi from his car in that case? Until he finished the coffee maybe? What if he doesn't drink it all and brings it back the next day? What if he drinks really fast, does he have to stop accessing the wifi as soon as he's done drinking the coffee? If he goes inside and doesn't order anything is it still illegal? What if he orders coffee inside but finishes it and is still accessing the wifi?

With most of the other examples people have given in this thread (stealing cars/lawnmowers, breaking into houses to watch tv, etc), I think I have a basic understanding of when I would be doing something that's legal and when I wouldn't. With this, I'm not really sure.

[Poli]

So I buy a bone. I hold the bone in my hand above Snuggle Dog's head. Is it legal for her to jump up and grab the bone from me?

[BrianD]

I wonder at what point it becomes legal to access the wifi. Assuming what he was doing is illegal, what if he had gone in and bought a cup of coffee. Would he have been able to legally access the wifi from his car at that point? How long can he legally access the wifi from his car in that case? Until he finished the coffee maybe? What if he doesn't drink it all and brings it back the next day? What if he drinks really fast, does he have to stop accessing the wifi as soon as he's done drinking the coffee? If he goes inside and doesn't order anything is it still illegal? What if he orders coffee inside but finishes it and is still accessing the wifi?

With most of the other examples people have given in this thread (stealing cars/lawnmowers, breaking into houses to watch tv, etc), I think I have a basic understanding of when I would be doing something that's legal and when I wouldn't. With this, I'm not really sure.

Good question, and not an easy one to answer. I would assume that everything would be fine as long as he is on the premises. That would include inside the building and whatever attached outdoor dining areas exist. If he is in the building but not ordering anything, it is probably up to the owner to ask him to leave since there are probably some rules about loitering. Once he leaves the premises (outside of any possible continued explicit premission by the owner), he is probably no longer allowed to be connected.

Having said all of that, if the guy is sitting in his car with a cup of coffee while using their network, I'd bet the police wouldn't have charged him.

[RendeR]

IMOSHO: One must understand the technology one chooses to offer and take whatever steps it requires to limit its use to ONLY those you wish to have using it.

In this case its a WiFi connection. If you ONLY want customers to use it then it is your responsibility as the owner of the connection to secure it accordingly. If you leave it OPEN without security in some way then you are, by your own inaction, granting open access to that network. Hence the term OPEN network.

This law was designed to stop hackers and is patheticly vague and piss poor in general. This comes from lawmakers who have about as much computer savvy as a rabid squirrel trying to write legislation for things they cannot nor probably ever will truly understand.

No matter what the situation IS in that sad little town, my stance is that you are responsible for yourself. You protect what is yours. Police and laws in general are there to prosecute those that violate others. They shouldn't be trying to protect people from their own ignorance and/or stupidity.

[st.cronin]

No matter what the situation IS in that sad little town, my stance is that you are responsible for yourself. You protect what is yours. Police and laws in general are there to prosecute those that violate others. They shouldn't be trying to protect people from their own ignorance and/or stupidity.

Of course they should. Domestic abuse was mentioned ... children ... the whole premise of modern civilization is that there is a safety net for those who can't take care of themselves, whether it be lack of resources or whatever.

In regards to this situation, that may not be the case (it seems to me there are not enough details to really understand whats going on with this cafe) ... but to me it seems pretty offensive to argue that as a general principle ignorant folks should suffer, and that suffering should be sanctioned by law.

[BrianD]

IMOSHO: One must understand the technology one chooses to offer and take whatever steps it requires to limit its use to ONLY those you wish to have using it.

In this case its a WiFi connection. If you ONLY want customers to use it then it is your responsibility as the owner of the connection to secure it accordingly. If you leave it OPEN without security in some way then you are, by your own inaction, granting open access to that network. Hence the term OPEN network.

This law was designed to stop hackers and is patheticly vague and piss poor in general. This comes from lawmakers who have about as much computer savvy as a rabid squirrel trying to write legislation for things they cannot nor probably ever will truly understand.

No matter what the situation IS in that sad little town, my stance is that you are responsible for yourself. You protect what is yours. Police and laws in general are there to prosecute those that violate others. They shouldn't be trying to protect people from their own ignorance and/or stupidity.

I agree with you in the abstract, but it is more complicated than that. How would you define 'securing accordingly'? Should people be allowed in if they can guess a weak password? Should people be allowed in if they can break the WEP encryption? If a customer gets a password from the coffee shop and then posts it on the internet for everyone else to use, are they ok? It becomes a question of how much security is enough?

I suppose an argument could be made that any security at all would be enough to show that general access is restricted...in fact, that might even be a better idea than just saying no access at all without permission, but it still seems like it would be enough of a gray area to give courts trouble.

[BrianD]

Of course they should. Domestic abuse was mentioned ... children ... the whole premise of modern civilization is that there is a safety net for those who can't take care of themselves, whether it be lack of resources or whatever.

In regards to this situation, that may not be the case (it seems to me there are not enough details to really understand whats going on with this cafe) ... but to me it seems pretty offensive to argue that as a general principle ignorant folks should suffer, and that suffering should be sanctioned by law.

This is pretty much a tangent, but I have completely opposite views dealing with criminal and civil matters. I agree with criminal laws that protect the stupid, but I get very annoyed at civil cases that reward stupid.

[RendeR]

Of course they should. Domestic abuse was mentioned ... children ... the whole premise of modern civilization is that there is a safety net for those who can't take care of themselves, whether it be lack of resources or whatever.




Your example is flawed, someone is being very explicitly violeted in your example, hence it should be dealt with. The WiFi situation is not violating anyone as the shop offers "free wifi" and the network was "open".

I think you're missing my point, in the event that someone is being openly abused/violated/taken advantage of in some way, of course the police should intervene, however in cases like the one we're discussing and I'm sure many others we could come up with there is no need for such intervention.

There is a HUGE need for LESS legislation in this nation, not more of it. If we could get lawmakers who, instead of blindly whipping out their pens and writing 5th grade quality legislation, would actually find out what is really needed andf write something accordingly, we would be much better off.

[st.cronin]

Your example is flawed, someone is being very explicitly violeted in your example, hence it should be dealt with. The WiFi situation is not violating anyone as the shop offers "free wifi" and the network was "open".

I think you're missing my point, in the event that someone is being openly abused/violated/taken advantage of in some way, of course the police should intervene, however in cases like the one we're discussing and I'm sure many others we could come up with there is no need for such intervention.

There is a HUGE need for LESS legislation in this nation, not more of it. If we could get lawmakers who, instead of blindly whipping out their pens and writing 5th grade quality legislation, would actually find out what is really needed andf write something accordingly, we would be much better off.

I believe you're trying to come up with a general point that applies to this situation. I don't know how you can do that, but the one you're coming up with is just wrong, and horrible. If somebody responds to one of those Nigerian scams, and loses their savings, shouldn't the law protect them? If I drop a wallet in the street, and somebody picks it up and steals my social security number, should the law protect me? By your logic, no, neither of those should be protected by law.

I have no opinion on this cafe situation, and really don't care one way or the other - my guess is the cafe never even thought about this sort of thing, but again that's not the point at all.

[timmynausea]

When we first moved and didn't have the internet hooked up at our house yet, we used to go sit in our car outside the coffee shop with a laptop to check email and etc.

Now that I think about it, most of the time we drove through and bought a coffee first. Not that I felt that it was necessary to buy a coffee to check my email on their free wifi. It was just that the coffee was pretty good.

[Desnudo]

I'm always amused at the justifications thieves will go through to convince people they aren't thieves. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Seriously, is it okay if 50 guys suddenly pulled into the parking lot and started watching YouTube videos on his connection? Now the cafe owner has to punish his legitimate customers that he's trying to help by providing constantly changing passwords to use his network?

With freedom comes responsibility to use that freedom wisely, and we keep losing our freedoms because of all the yahoos that won't act responsibly.

What would convince me I was not a thief is if the owner of the connection where I "stole" internet access said they didn't care.

[molson]

What would convince me I was not a thief is if the owner of the connection where I "stole" internet access said they didn't care.

Well, under the statute, the use has to be "unauthorized", so perhaps there's a constructive authorization defense there somewhere.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... I still equate this most to going to a neighbor's house, helping yourself in and sitting on their couch to watch tv if they left the door unlock.

I'll buy that as a reasonable analogy, or at least most of it.

Thing is, I'm also quite fine with the state prosecuting someone for violation of applicable laws in that situation regardless of what the homeowner wants to do, so the different analogy really doesn't change my opinion on this at all.

[Passacaglia]

I guess I'm a criminal. When I was in 8th grade, I went to my friend's house. No one was home, but the door was open. I think I somehow knew that they had just left or something, so I knew they wouldn't be back for a while. I went in, played tecmo bowl for a little while, but then after like two minutes got freaked out that they would come back, so I left.

[molson]

I guess I'm a criminal. When I was in 8th grade, I went to my friend's house. No one was home, but the door was open. I think I somehow knew that they had just left or something, so I knew they wouldn't be back for a while. I went in, played tecmo bowl for a little while, but then after like two minutes got freaked out that they would come back, so I left.

This is about the 300th hypothetical fact pattern in this thread used to make a point about this case, yet it, like the others, is easily distinguished if you think about it for 10 seconds.

[Passacaglia]

This is about the 300th hypothetical fact pattern in this thread used to make a point about this case, yet it, like the others, is easily distinguished if you think about it for 10 seconds.

Sorry, I was just telling a funny story. Carry on.

[Grammaticus]

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?

Its the information highway, not the bus stop. Probably more like turning around in someone's driveway and getting a ticket for trespassing.

I wonder if their law differs for piggy backing on a personal network versus a business like the coffee shop.

Also, if the owner said it was okay, it is probably not a really good event to prosecute. But if someone hops a personal network, then yeah that should be a problem. But not in and of itself a felony.

[Oilers9911]

Dude should have just went in and bought a coffee. Problem solved.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

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

If you take the mower, it is fine. If you also take the sign, you could be a criminal and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Fuckin' sign theif...

[st.cronin]

Dude should have just went in and bought a coffee. Problem solved.

My understanding is he should've gotten a haircut.

[wade moore]

I'm always amused at the justifications thieves will go through to convince people they aren't thieves. Whatever helps you sleep at night.qft

[Drake]

qft

Are you seriously calling people in this thread thieves because we can recognize that this is poor legislation inappropriately applied?

[wade moore]

Are you seriously calling people in this thread thieves because we can recognize that this is poor legislation inappropriately applied?

Some people have legitimate concerns. Most people seem to think that stealing someone's WiFi (in general, not this specific case) is perfectly ok. Just like those that justify stealing someone's creative works, etc, etc.

[Lathum]

I guess I am a thief then.

I think I'll manage to sleep tonight.

[wade moore]

I guess I am a thief then.

I think I'll manage to sleep tonight.

*shurg*.. if you're comfortable with it, that's fine. But the people that try to justify it as "right" or "not illegal" or "shouldn't be illegal" are still thieves.. if you're comfortable being a theif, so be it - but it's what you are (if you're stealing WiFi, mp3's, movies on the web, bittorrents, whatever).

[RendeR]

I suppose an argument could be made that any security at all would be enough to show that general access is restricted...in fact, that might even be a better idea than just saying no access at all without permission, but it still seems like it would be enough of a gray area to give courts trouble.

You answer your own question here, ANY security is better than none. All the owner has to do to is set a new code each week or morning or even once a month and simply hand the customers a menu with today's code on it. Its really simple causes no real problems for the organization and shows beyond any doubt that they want this only for their customers.

If you offer something for free and you do nothing to limit it, how can anyone steal it? You cannot steal that which is free. Period. This is espcially profound with something that has as large of an area of use as a wireless connection. Hell I have at least a dozen I could use here at my home, half of which are open networks, if my PC is set to automatically connect, should I then be forced to go through and disconnect all of those simply because their owners are too lazy and/or ignorant/stupid to setup their own security? No. No matter how much this society wants to protect the ignorant/stupid, there is a level of responsibility that we all carry as citizens to take care of our own situation and not put the burdon on others to do so.

[wade moore]

You answer your own question here, ANY security is better than none. All the owner has to do to is set a new code each week or morning or even once a month and simply hand the customers a menu with today's code on it. Its really simple causes no real problems for the organization and shows beyond any doubt that they want this only for their customers.

If you offer something for free and you do nothing to limit it, how can anyone steal it? You cannot steal that which is free. Period. This is espcially profound with something that has as large of an area of use as a wireless connection. Hell I have at least a dozen I could use here at my home, half of which are open networks, if my PC is set to automatically connect, should I then be forced to go through and disconnect all of those simply because their owners are too lazy and/or ignorant/stupid to setup their own security? No. No matter how much this society wants to protect the ignorant/stupid, there is a level of responsibility that we all carry as citizens to take care of our own situation and not put the burdon on others to do so.fwiw I will again reiterate that I'm not speaking to this specific issue, but more from a general perspective.

[molson]

You cannot steal that which is free. Period.

This is so not true. There's a difference between "that which is free" and "that which has no value".

[Drake]

*shurg*.. if you're comfortable with it, that's fine. But the people that try to justify it as "right" or "not illegal" or "shouldn't be illegal" are still thieves.. if you're comfortable being a theif, so be it - but it's what you are (if you're stealing WiFi, mp3's, movies on the web, bittorrents, whatever).

I think RendeR nailed it when he said "You cannot steal that which is free". If you're advertising free wi-fi without any explicit conditions, then that's exactly what you're providing. The owner has stated explicitly that he didn't care. We can hypothesize all we want about how differently he'd feel if it was 50 people or 500 people or whatever, but none of those scenarios are applicable in this case. In this case, the owner was giving away free wi-fi and the recipient was prosecuted for accepting it because the legal folks decided he didn't accept it in a way they deemed appropriate.

As far as I'm concerned, the real criminal in this case is the legislator who wrote such a vague law without bothering to do what we pay them for (i.e., do some basic research into networking technology to write public policy that actually works) and the other legislators who voted for it. Maybe we should prosecute them for stealing tax money, because they're certainly not earning it. ;)

[molson]

*shurg*.. if you're comfortable with it, that's fine. But the people that try to justify it as "right" or "not illegal" or "shouldn't be illegal" are still thieves.. if you're comfortable being a theif, so be it - but it's what you are (if you're stealing WiFi, mp3's, movies on the web, bittorrents, whatever).

I wonder how much peoples' denial of the illegality/wrongness of those things is based on actual opinion vs. a need to justify their own activities to themselves.

I'm assuming, like you, that it's mostly the latter. I must not have a conscious - I've done all of those things but am always on the "this is illegal and wrong" side of the argument.

[RendeR]

This is so not true. There's a difference between "that which is free" and "that which has no value".

I am not arguing those two points, I don't care if it is "free" or "has value" the point I'm making is when something is offerred as a "free" service or convenience then it CANNOT be stolen. You are not requiring compensation for something that is "free" wether it has value to you or not.

You cannot steal something that is openly offered to everyone for "free"

Now if this shop owner had/has made ANY effort to delineate WHO can use their WiFi connection THEN it is no longer free to peopple outside that group. Based on the article (which may not contain all the facts to be sure) there has been no crime committed here.

[Celeval]

Some people have legitimate concerns. Most people seem to think that stealing someone's WiFi (in general, not this specific case) is perfectly ok. Just like those that justify stealing someone's creative works, etc, etc.

What makes the topic of this thread wholly and completely idiotic to me is the combination of the "Free WiFi" sign, and the owner's distinct statement that he had no problem with the guy using it.

[Drake]

dola...

In the interest of full disclosure, I stole internet access from my employer today to post in this thread while I was on the clock. It is not explicitly stated that I can't surf the internet during work hours, but it is certainly an unwritten rule (though it has never been enforced). I also answered an e-mail from my father which came to my work e-mail account, which is only supposed to be used for professional purposes.

By using the network in a way that it was not intended, I could be prosecuted under Michigan's hacking laws. (Well, except for the fact that I neither live nor work in Michigan.)

[molson]

I think RendeR nailed it when he said "You cannot steal that which is free". If you're advertising free wi-fi without any explicit conditions, then that's exactly what you're providing. The owner has stated explicitly that he didn't care. We can hypothesize all we want about how differently he'd feel if it was 50 people or 500 people or whatever, but none of those scenarios are applicable in this case. In this case, the owner was giving away free wi-fi and the recipient was prosecuted for accepting it because the legal folks decided he didn't accept it in a way they deemed appropriate.

As far as I'm concerned, the real criminal in this case is the legislator who wrote such a vague law without bothering to do what we pay them for (i.e., do some basic research into networking technology to write public policy that actually works) and the other legislators who voted for it. Maybe we should prosecute them for stealing tax money, because they're certainly not earning it. ;)

You're assuming 3 things that aren't the article:

1. The store was "advertising free internet" (to non-customers).
2. Logging onto the store's network didn't include some kind of terms of conditions that required that you be a customer
3. That the statute is vague - the statute itself hasn't been quoted anywhere in this thread. No statute can possibly be 100% black and white upon its passage without the benefit of it being tested courts for some period of time.

[st.cronin]

In the interest of full disclosure, I have stolen approximately 272 pens from my employer over the last two years.

[molson]

By using the network in a way that it was not intended, I could be prosecuted under Michigan's hacking laws. (Well, except for the fact that I neither live nor work in Michigan.)

Probably not, because you were authorized to access that particular connection. I haven't read the statute yet, but I doubt it regulates what sites you visit, etc. If I went in there and used a computer, it would be a different story.

They could probably sue your ass civilly though.

[Drake]

You're assuming 3 things that aren't the article:

1. The store was "advertising free internet" (to non-customers)
2. Logging onto the store's network didn't include some kind of terms of conditions that required that you be a customer
3. That the statute is vague - the statute itself hasn't been quoted anywhere in this thread. No statute can possibly be 100% black and white upon its passage without the benefit of it being tested courts for some period of time.

All valid points. For point 1 and 2, I'm going solely on my experience with other businesses who offer free wi-fi (where it's implicit that you'll be in the store and buy something, but not actually stated anywhere). For point 3, I've only got the application of the law in this case to go from. It's completely possible that the law is not vague and the law enforcement is the reckless agency here (meaning that if the guy had actually gone to court rather than taking the diversion program, he would have won his case).

I think it's pretty likely that he *would* have won his case, but I can't blame him for settling. It also sucks that even if he had gone to court, he'd still be shackled with all of his legal fees because the law enforcement officers and the prosecutor were morons.

I can also be pretty sure that this is the last time this bunch of morons decides to bust somebody for wardriving unsecured wireless networks. If we can get 150 posts out of the topic, it's likely that the police department's phone hasn't stopped ringing since this story broke.

[wade moore]

What makes the topic of this thread wholly and completely idiotic to me is the combination of the "Free WiFi" sign, and the owner's distinct statement that he had no problem with the guy using it.

I agree. Unfortunately I'm mixing up my strong feelings about some of the broad assertions made with this specific case. Many are making the broad assertions that tell me that if the guy next door wanted to steal my unsecured WiFi that there's nothing wrong with that, just like stealing music. I just think people are making excuses by blaming it on the person for not securing their connection.

This specific case is totally different, like you said, because it is being advertised as free WiFi.

[molson]

I think it's pretty likely that he *would* have won his case, but I can't blame him for settling. It also sucks that even if he had gone to court, he'd still be shackled with all of his legal fees because the law enforcement officers and the prosecutor were morons.

I can also be pretty sure that this is the last time this bunch of morons decides to bust somebody for wardriving unsecured wireless networks. If we can get 150 posts out of the topic, it's likely that the police department's phone hasn't stopped ringing since this story broke.

I agree with all that but for a different reason. The legislature was voted in, the law was passed, and this guy violated it. It's not the prosecutors or police officers' job to decide which laws to enforce (I realize there's some discretion here or there, but as a prosecutor, I can't decide marijuana's OK and dismiss all the county's drug charges) But if he actually took it to a jury trial, I'm guessing the jury would crap all over it.

[Drake]

If I was this guy, I'd sue the cafe owner for his internet signal trespassing on my car and assaulting my body.

Or maybe he was implicitly agreeing to trespassing and assault when he illegally accessed their network.

[RendeR]

I agree. Unfortunately I'm mixing up my strong feelings about some of the broad assertions made with this specific case. Many are making the broad assertions that tell me that if the guy next door wanted to steal my unsecured WiFi that there's nothing wrong with that, just like stealing music. I just think people are making excuses by blaming it on the person for not securing their connection.

This specific case is totally different, like you said, because it is being advertised as free WiFi.


Just my opinion but if you're running your WiFI open with no security then you have no reason to complain if someone uses it. Personal responsibility. Yes others should show some respect and contact you and ask permission, but if tehy don't what right do you have to bitch if you're not willing to lift a finger to protect yourself?

None.

[wade moore]

Just my opinion but if you're running your WiFI open with no security then you have no reason to complain if someone uses it. Personal responsibility. Yes others should show some respect and contact you and ask permission, but if tehy don't what right do you have to bitch if you're not willing to lift a finger to protect yourself?

None.

That's not my point. My point is it's still theft and still illegal. Again, as someone else said - if you leave your car unlocked with the keys in it - are you a dumbass for doing so? Yes. But it's still theft and illegal for someone to take the car.

Edit: and the people trying to excuse their way out of it being theft or illegal are doing just that, making excuses and justifying their thievery to make themselves feel better.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

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.

I am fairly positive the law that was enacted in 1979 and amended to simply add the word wireless network, wasn't the least bit concerned about finite bandwith. It was concerned about privacy, of which using the wireless signal to check his email had nothing to do with. The prosecutor is a jackass because she construed a statute to prevent conduct that was not the intent of the statute. In my mind, the worst kind of prosecutor.

[RendeR]

That's not my point. My point is it's still theft and still illegal. Again, as someone else said - if you leave your car unlocked with the keys in it - are you a dumbass for doing so? Yes. But it's still theft and illegal for someone to take the car.

Edit: and the people trying to excuse their way out of it being theft or illegal are doing just that, making excuses and justifying their thievery to make themselves feel better.

But nothing is being stolen, so tehre is no theft when it comes to WiFi. Again this is MY opinion, I'm not trying to validate anything, as far as I'm concerned if you create an OPEN network and do not do anything to protect it for your sole use, then you are creating an access point for anyone within the radius of your router to use.

This doesn't equate to a car, it is closer to the trespassing analogy but even thats not quite right. Hence my comment that it would be respectful to at least ask you if you allow others on your wide open unsecure internet connection, but if they don't A) how are you going to stop them and B) why the hell didn't you secure it to begin with?

Society shouldn't have to police your unwillingness to get off your lazy butt and protect what is yours. Call it whatever you like, Its your responsibility to control your property, not the police, not the government. You.

Now please don't exxagerate this into "Well if I lock my car in the garage and someone breaks in and takes it I should just deal right?" sort of thing because thats a whole different animal.

It comes back to explicitly drawing a line in the sand, you don't secure your connection, then you haven't drawn a line where you can claim injury. People MUST at least show some interest in being responsible for themselves before any law enforcement should feel compelled to do anything for them.

[wade moore]

*sigh*

Like I said, thieves will try to excuse their actions all day.

[thesloppy]

Man, the sanctimony is thick in here today.

Note that the first post in this thread contains a quote of an article taken from Foxnews. Now, I don't know my ass from my elbow when it comes to legal matters, but since the article was reproduced in its entirety, isn't that outside the bounds of fair use and considered theft of intellectual property? Does that make everybody participating in this thread completely and totally complicit in this thievery, or is there perhaps a little room for interpretation?

[WVUFAN]

But nothing is being stolen, so tehre is no theft when it comes to WiFi. Again this is MY opinion, I'm not trying to validate anything, as far as I'm concerned if you create an OPEN network and do not do anything to protect it for your sole use, then you are creating an access point for anyone within the radius of your router to use.

Saying that "nothing is being stolen" is the same thing as saying "downloading a song from a bitorrent is not stealing". Just because there's not a physical .. thing being taken doesn't mean it's not theft.

What you're quoting is akin to splicing the cable signal from your neighbor. Your neighbor still gets his cable, but you're getting it without paying. "Paying" in this instance is simply getting out of your car, walking into the cafe and sitting down in a chair in the cafe and surfing.

By not doing that simple thing, by sitting out in the car and STEALING the WiFi without permission, is the same is splicing your neighbors cable signal. It doesn't matter whether your neighbor is adversely affected. It's still stealing.


Society shouldn't have to police your unwillingness to get off your lazy butt and protect what is yours. Call it whatever you like, Its your responsibility to control your property, not the police, not the government. You.
By that logic, if you forget your cell phone on a park bench, and someone steals it, you shouldn't have any right to report the item. That's patently STUPID. One of the core jobs of any law-enforcement is to protect those who are unable or unwilling to protect themselves, and that applies to property too.


Now please don't exxagerate this into "Well if I lock my car in the garage and someone breaks in and takes it I should just deal right?" sort of thing because thats a whole different animal.
No, not really. By your logic if you leave your garage door open and someone steals something within it, you shouldn't have the right to call the police.

What people seem to forget is that all of this could have been avoided if the idiot had gotten out of his car and went into the cafe. The only reason why he didn't is because he felt he would have to buy something to use the WiFi, and didn't want to do it. He was stealing.


It comes back to explicitly drawing a line in the sand, you don't secure your connection, then you haven't drawn a line where you can claim injury. People MUST at least show some interest in being responsible for themselves before any law enforcement should feel compelled to do anything for them.
I disagree completely.

[Drake]

I disagree completely.

While I would also tend to disagree in principle, that's actually the way copyright works. You have to be able to demonstrate that you attempted to defend your copyright in order to claim infringement. Oddly enough, as much as I despise the RIAA's tactics, this is part of their reasoning behind going after torrents, downloaders, etc. If they don't attempt to actively defend their copyright, the courts are able to conclude that the songs being downloaded are public properties.

[gstelmack]

It's like walking into a FastFood place, grabbing a bunch of "free" ketchup packets, and taking them home to use them without buying anything from the restaurant. All you are trying to do is avoid having to pay for the ketchup yourself. And it's free, isn't it? You don't pay at the register for it. And they leave them out there all unprotected, don't they? Heck, you could do all kinds of shopping, taking home ketchup, mustard, mayo, napkins, etc all for free! If they didn't want you to do this, they'd have a big sign saying "customers only", and they'd have someone standing there checking to make sure you've got actual food you bought at the register before you took any. They must WANT you to take it!

[Bee]

It's like walking into a FastFood place, grabbing a bunch of "free" ketchup packets, and taking them home to use them without buying anything from the restaurant. All you are trying to do is avoid having to pay for the ketchup yourself. And it's free, isn't it? You don't pay at the register for it. And they leave them out there all unprotected, don't they? Heck, you could do all kinds of shopping, taking home ketchup, mustard, mayo, napkins, etc all for free! If they didn't want you to do this, they'd have a big sign saying "customers only", and they'd have someone standing there checking to make sure you've got actual food you bought at the register before you took any. They must WANT you to take it!


I've been to a lot of fast food places and never seen a sign advertising free ketchup unlike most cafes with wireless access. If they did advertise free ketchup and the owner had no problems with someone taking the ketchup without buying something, I'd be pretty surprised to see police charging those people with theft.

[CraigSca]

It always amazes me the lengths people will go to to take themselves out of a moral black and white situation and use the arcane and obscure wording of legislation to make them feel better.

Instead of trying to use every tactic known and unknown to man to screw over the guy next to you, try thinking of the spirit behind the gesture -- in this case free WiFi. I'm sure the guy who owns the cafe wasn't thinking, "Hey, I'll become a free ISP to every Tom, Dick and Harry within a 500 foot perimeter of my store." No, he was thinking that providing this service to customers would increase his business in the long run and perhaps buy some customer loyalty. Free WiFi was not a charitable contribution on his part to the community.

[CraigSca]

I've been to a lot of fast food places and never seen a sign advertising free ketchup unlike most cafes with wireless access. If they did advertise free ketchup and the owner had no problems with someone taking the ketchup without buying something, I'd be pretty surprised to see police charging those people with theft.

Because at this point, it's a given. People would be screaming and hollering if mustard, ketchup, salt, etc., were not available for free at the fast food place. When WiFi becomes universally available to such an extent, I doubt you'll find local cafes advertising this to their potential patrons as well.

[molson]

While I would also tend to disagree in principle, that's actually the way copyright works. You have to be able to demonstrate that you attempted to defend your copyright in order to claim infringement. Oddly enough, as much as I despise the RIAA's tactics, this is part of their reasoning behind going after torrents, downloaders, etc. If they don't attempt to actively defend their copyright, the courts are able to conclude that the songs being downloaded are public properties.

Wrong again. A copyright is in place the second you create the work, you don't have to do a single thing more. All other actions you might take (registration, vigorously defending it, etc), are just making your case and your ownership of the work easier to prove.

Not entirely relevant to this discussion, but add this to the list of the incorrect assumptions the deniers of this law are making.

[molson]

Instead of trying to use every tactic known and unknown to man to screw over the guy next to you, try thinking of the spirit behind the gesture -- in this case free WiFi. I'm sure the guy who owns the cafe wasn't thinking, "Hey, I'll become a free ISP to every Tom, Dick and Harry within a 500 foot perimeter of my store." No, he was thinking that providing this service to customers would increase his business in the long run and perhaps buy some customer loyalty. Free WiFi was not a charitable contribution on his part to the community.

Common sense left this discussion several pages ago, however.

[Lathum]

Does it make me an even worse person that the wireless signal I steal when I am at my inlaws belongs to a church?


But they are members at that church, so am I in the clear, I'm not sure my conscience can handle the shame of my actions otherwise.

[CraigSca]

I think your conscience will do just fine.

[Ksyrup]

Instead of trying to use every tactic known and unknown to man to screw over the guy next to you, try thinking of the spirit behind the gesture -- in this case free WiFi. I'm sure the guy who owns the cafe wasn't thinking, "Hey, I'll become a free ISP to every Tom, Dick and Harry within a 500 foot perimeter of my store." No, he was thinking that providing this service to customers would increase his business in the long run and perhaps buy some customer loyalty. Free WiFi was not a charitable contribution on his part to the community.

I have no problem with this line of reasoning, I just think it unnecessarily limits the potential use of the Free WiFi as a marketing tool. Certainly any cafe owner is free to restrict the use of this service as he sees fit (within reason, of course), but I can imagine a cafe owner willingly allowing anyone to use this service as a means to eventually get them into the store, but not as a requirement/expectation that every time they use the service, they come into the store and make a purchase. They certainly could restrict it that way, but don't have to. A cafe owner may very well be happy to allow someone to sit out on the street corner and use his WiFi connection, on the off-chance that that person might eventually decide it is easier to go into the store to use the connection, or simply feel so positive about the service being provided that he wants to "pay back" the owner by purchasing a cup of coffee once a week or something like that. And in that way, the free service would have served its purpose.

This is no different than the local Chik-Fil-A having a family fun day where they have clowns and balloons and such freely available. There is nothing requiring you to purchase a sandwich to let your kids see the clown and get a balloon, but the hope is that you'll be there for lunch and go ahead and buy lunch for the family. It's a free service utilized as a marketing tool to increase the chance that you will patronize the store. It doesn't have to be "charity" to be free, because there's still a valid marketing component to it. This isn't a new idea, and nothing changes because of the technology involved.

Again, this is just a generalized discussion which probably has nothing to do with the specific case that started this whole conversation, but I don't see how you can discount the marketing potential of such a free service being offered to people outside of paying customers only.

[molson]

People are talking about a lot of different issues in this threat, is it fair to say that everyone belongs to one of these groups

1. It's OK to access Wifi wherever I can find it, because it's not tangible and they owner had a chance to secure it.
2. It's OK to access Wifi as long as there's there's a sign that says "free" somewhere, even if that sign is used by a business who is clearly trying to increase patronage
3. It's OK to access Wifi from any business if they don't secure it, but not from a person's house, etc.
4. It's not OK to access Wifi you're not authorized to use.

[Lathum]

I think your conscience will do just fine.

whew, I was a little worried

[molson]

Does it make me an even worse person that the wireless signal I steal when I am at my inlaws belongs to a church?

But they are members at that church, so am I in the clear, I'm not sure my conscience can handle the shame of my actions otherwise.

Can't you just recognize that this is theft and a crime, albeit an EXTREMELY minor crime that has minimal effect, if any, on anyone, and DOESN'T make you a bad person? (and a crime that almost anyone have committmed).

[Drake]

Wrong again. A copyright is in place the second you create the work, you don't have to do a single thing more. All other actions you might take (registration, vigorously defending it, etc), are just making your case and your ownership of the work easier to prove.

Not entirely relevant to this discussion, but add this to the list of the incorrect assumptions the deniers of this law are making.

Yes, copyright is in place at the instant of creation. But you also have to demonstrate that you attempted to protect your copyright in order to be entitled to damages. The state does not automatically defend copyright on your behalf.

[Toddzilla]

I don't think anyone involved in this specific case disputes the fact that the defendant was "stealing" the WiFi.

The issue - I believe - is the fact that the owner of the WiFi, the coffee shop owner, *didn't care* that the defendant was using the WiFi and did not consider his actions to be damaging in any way shape or form, and despite that admission from the coffee shop owner, the prosecutors office pressed charges anyway.

[Drake]

Stop being rational, Todd. You're just muddying the waters. :)

[flere-imsaho]

fwiw I will again reiterate that I'm not speaking to this specific issue, but more from a general perspective.

And FWIW, I'd like to make clear that I've been actually speaking to this specific issue, and not the general perspective. Offering free wi-fi and not caring if one out of 20 (or more) people use the wi-fi without getting coffee is a well-known advertising tactic used by many cafe owners all over the place, and I'm still having trouble understanding how some people can't recognize this in light of the original situation.

[Passacaglia]

[Scene Peter's car. He and Joanna are going to the barbecue.]

PETER
So when the subroutine compounds the interest, right, it uses all these
extra decimals places that just get rounded off. So we just simplify
the whole thing and we just round it down and drop the remainder into
an account that we own.

JOANNA
So you're stealing.

PETER
Ah, no. No. You don't understand. It's, uh, very complicated. It's, uh,
it's, it's aggregate so I'm talking about fractions of a cent that, uh,
over time, they add up to a lot.

JOANNA
Ok. So you're gonna make a lot of money, right?

PETER
Yeah.

JOANNA
Ok. That's not yours?

PETER
Well, it, it becomes ours.

JOANNA
How's that not stealing?

PETER
I don't think, I don't think I'm explaining this very well. Um, this
Seven Eleven, right? If you take a penny from the tray -

JOANNA
From the crippled children?!

PETER
No, that's the tray. I'm talking about the tray. The penny's for
everybody.

JOANNA
Oh, for everybody. Ok.

PETER
Yeah, well, those are whole pennies.

JOANNA
Yeah.

PETER
Right. I'm just talking about fractions of a penny here, but we do it
from a much bigger tray. A couple of million times. So what's wrong
with that?

JOANNA
It seems wrong.

PETER
It's not wrong. Initech is wrong. Initech is an evil corporation, all
right? Chotchkie's is wrong. Doesn't it bother you that you have to get
up in the morning and put on pieces of flair?

JOANNA
Yeah, but I'm not about to go in and start taking money from the
register!

PETER
You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair but they made the Jews wear
them.

JOANNA
What?!

PETER
Look, we don't - I, I - we don't have to talk about this. Let's just go
to the barbecue, all right?

JOANNA
Ok.

[molson]

I don't think anyone involved in this specific case disputes the fact that the defendant was "stealing" the WiFi.

The issue - I believe - is the fact that the owner of the WiFi, the coffee shop owner, *didn't care* that the defendant was using the WiFi and did not consider his actions to be damaging in any way shape or form, and despite that admission from the coffee shop owner, the prosecutors office pressed charges anyway.

Well, that's where the thread got all chaotic. That's the issue for you, but clearly others are saying that it's perfectly OK to take any Wifi that isn't secured, no matter what the source is. Others are saying it's OK if there's a sign that says "free", even if it's clearly intended for customers to take advantage of, not creepy guys parking outside your business every day for a month (regardless of what the store's wishes are). Others think it's OK as long as nobody complains AFTER the fact, which is kind of strange to me, but whatever.

It's a spectrum, and everyone's on a different part of it.

[thesloppy]

I think we can all agree that it shouldn't be a felony, carrying a 5 year prison bid and a $10,000 fine.

[molson]

I think we can all agree that it shouldn't be a felony, carrying a 5 year prison bid and a $10,000 fine.

We can also agree that nobody would EVER get that sentence for this, just like no one would ever get 6 months in jail from throwing a crumpled up piece of paper at someone, even though that would be a misdemeanor battery, subject to maximum penalties of at least 6 months is every state (though nobody's worked up about that like they are about this).

[Logan]

I had just pulled into the parking lot of my hotel yesterday, and since I was still on the phone I stayed in my car and kept talking. About 2 minutes later a guy in a truck pulled up right next to me. Out came his laptop.

Which one of you immoral fuckers was it?

[BrianD]

I also think it is pointless in this thread to try to make analogies as to what unauthorized use of a network is like (fully realizing that I did it too). It doesn't have to be like anything because there are laws that deal with it specifically. The laws don't care how secured the network is and the laws don't care about the harm done during unauthorized use.

Only the network owner has the ability to grant authorization for use. Talk about marketing benefits of a freely available network is fine, but we can't force that stance on network owners. If they want to, they can.

In this situation, the guy in the parking lot did something illegal (most likely) by using a network he wasn't authorized to use. The network owner gave permission after the fact which probably authorizes future use but not prior use and the state (city?) decided to prosecute anyway.

Ignoring the possible penalties, I wish this guy had fought the charge. I'm quite sure the jury would have let him off and we'd be on our way to having court precedents which would alter these laws to better comply with the wishes of the people.



And I really wish people would stop coming up with stupid examples of how they are breaking the law and still feel ok. We get it, everyone breaks the law sometimes and society doesn't come crumbling down. Nobody disputes that, though people shouldn't be surprised if they somehow get caught and punished for it.

[BrianD]

You answer your own question here, ANY security is better than none. All the owner has to do to is set a new code each week or morning or even once a month and simply hand the customers a menu with today's code on it. Its really simple causes no real problems for the organization and shows beyond any doubt that they want this only for their customers.

I agree with this, but the law doesn't require a person to take proactive steps to prevent others from breaking the law. Just because I make it easy for you to break the law doesn't mean that you aren't responsible for doing it.

If you offer something for free and you do nothing to limit it, how can anyone steal it? You cannot steal that which is free. Period. This is espcially profound with something that has as large of an area of use as a wireless connection. Hell I have at least a dozen I could use here at my home, half of which are open networks, if my PC is set to automatically connect, should I then be forced to go through and disconnect all of those simply because their owners are too lazy and/or ignorant/stupid to setup their own security? No. No matter how much this society wants to protect the ignorant/stupid, there is a level of responsibility that we all carry as citizens to take care of our own situation and not put the burdon on others to do so.

This comes down to how it is offered. If it is offered as free to use for anyone that can access it, you would be right. If it is offered as free to customers, you would be wrong. If it isn't specified...I'm not sure what the answer is.

You should have to disconnect from other networks if your PC somehow automatically connects. Just because Microsoft makes it easy for you to break the law, doesn't mean they are responsible if you do.

People should secure their networks to protect themselves from damage and liability, but they don't have to in order to make your access illegal.

[Poli]

[Scene Peter's car. He and Joanna are going to the barbecue.]

PETER
So when the subroutine compounds the interest, right, it uses all these
extra decimals places that just get rounded off. So we just simplify
the whole thing and we just round it down and drop the remainder into
an account that we own.

JOANNA
So you're stealing.

PETER
Ah, no. No. You don't understand. It's, uh, very complicated. It's, uh,
it's, it's aggregate so I'm talking about fractions of a cent that, uh,
over time, they add up to a lot.

JOANNA
Ok. So you're gonna make a lot of money, right?

PETER
Yeah.

JOANNA
Ok. That's not yours?

PETER
Well, it, it becomes ours.

JOANNA
How's that not stealing?

PETER
I don't think, I don't think I'm explaining this very well. Um, this
Seven Eleven, right? If you take a penny from the tray -

JOANNA
From the crippled children?!

PETER
No, that's the tray. I'm talking about the tray. The penny's for
everybody.

JOANNA
Oh, for everybody. Ok.

PETER
Yeah, well, those are whole pennies.

JOANNA
Yeah.

PETER
Right. I'm just talking about fractions of a penny here, but we do it
from a much bigger tray. A couple of million times. So what's wrong
with that?

JOANNA
It seems wrong.

PETER
It's not wrong. Initech is wrong. Initech is an evil corporation, all
right? Chotchkie's is wrong. Doesn't it bother you that you have to get
up in the morning and put on pieces of flair?

JOANNA
Yeah, but I'm not about to go in and start taking money from the
register!

PETER
You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair but they made the Jews wear
them.

JOANNA
What?!

PETER
Look, we don't - I, I - we don't have to talk about this. Let's just go
to the barbecue, all right?

JOANNA
Ok.
I'm ashamed I didn't think of this bit.

[Poli]

I had just pulled into the parking lot of my hotel yesterday, and since I was still on the phone I stayed in my car and kept talking. About 2 minutes later a guy in a truck pulled up right next to me. Out came his laptop.

Which one of you immoral fuckers was it?
Depends, which town?

[Lathum]

Can't you just recognize that this is theft and a crime, albeit an EXTREMELY minor crime that has minimal effect, if any, on anyone, and DOESN'T make you a bad person? (and a crime that almost anyone have committmed).

I was being sarcastic.

I realize I am technicaly breaking the law and I don't care. I know it doesn't make me a bad person.

[Poli]

If I'm ever prosecuted, I'm going to sue my cable company.

[DanGarion]

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?

Well if you are going to offer the service to paying customers you have to pay the money to put in a system that automatically generates a key for the customer to use that day. IMO.

I've supported and installed this type of things, it's not that difficult to do.

[DanGarion]

The point I'm seeing here is that if I don't authorize people to use my stuff, then the government should still protect me. So, if I wanted to put up a web page, the government should prosecute people that I don't want to surf it. I don't have to protect that web page -- I just have to decide that it's only for my friends to view and anyone else is stealing.

After all, my webpage is hosted on a server with limited capacity, and if three million unauthorized people visit it all at once, that capacity is going to be limited and my page is going to load slowly, which in turn inhibits the ability of my friends to view it.

This is probably the best analogy out of the bunch and fits this pretty closely. I would have used this defense, since the law evidentially says I have to explicitly give consent to someone to view my site.

[BrianD]

This is probably the best analogy out of the bunch and fits this pretty closely. I would have used this defense, since the law evidentially says I have to explicitly give consent to someone to view my site.

I seem to remember Google being involved in some legal dispute dealing with spiders crawling sites that the owners didn't want cached. Does anyone with better Google skills than me know how this turned out?

[DanGarion]

I seem to remember Google being involved in some legal dispute dealing with spiders crawling sites that the owners didn't want cached. Does anyone with better Google skills than me know how this turned out?

I'm assuming you are talking about this one?

Edited with a better link.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Copiepresse&btnG=Search+News :D

[DanGarion]

The funny thing about all of this, a completely oblivious person could fall under this bullshit trap very easily.

They buy a brand new computer with built in wireless they start it up at home or anywhere and that computer since it has built in wireless automatically connects to an unsecured network. They have now broken in the law...

[BrianD]

I'm assuming you are talking about this one?

Edited with a better link.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Copiepresse&btnG=Search+News :D

This is probably what I was thinking of, but I guess it really isn't on point. This was a civil copyright infringement case, not a criminal case.

[BrianD]

The funny thing about all of this, a completely oblivious person could fall under this bullshit trap very easily.

They buy a brand new computer with built in wireless they start it up at home or anywhere and that computer since it has built in wireless automatically connects to an unsecured network. They have now broken in the law...

Is this really the case? i remember firing up my laptop and seeing a pop-up that says something along the lines of "a wireless network is in range, click here to connect to it". I thought you could only auto-connect to a wireless network that you had already connected to. Is there an option to auto-connect to any open network?

[Celeval]

People are talking about a lot of different issues in this threat, is it fair to say that everyone belongs to one of these groups

1. It's OK to access Wifi wherever I can find it, because it's not tangible and they owner had a chance to secure it.
2. It's OK to access Wifi as long as there's there's a sign that says "free" somewhere, even if that sign is used by a business who is clearly trying to increase patronage
3. It's OK to access Wifi from any business if they don't secure it, but not from a person's house, etc.
4. It's not OK to access Wifi you're not authorized to use.

*rolls eyes*

5. The sign that says "Free WiFi" is authorizing you to use it.

[st.cronin]

Is this really the case? i remember firing up my laptop and seeing a pop-up that says something along the lines of "a wireless network is in range, click here to connect to it". I thought you could only auto-connect to a wireless network that you had already connected to. Is there an option to auto-connect to any open network?

On my laptop, I have to click to connect to a network even if I've connected before. I don't know if it has an auto-connect setting, or how to change it so it does.

[DanGarion]

Is this really the case? i remember firing up my laptop and seeing a pop-up that says something along the lines of "a wireless network is in range, click here to connect to it". I thought you could only auto-connect to a wireless network that you had already connected to. Is there an option to auto-connect to any open network?

Depending on the manufacture of the built in card yes. In fact you can configure Windows to automatically connect to non-preferred networks.

[BrianD]

*rolls eyes*

5. The sign that says "Free WiFi" is authorizing you to use it.

This is kind of like #2 with the snarkiness removed. :)

[DanGarion]

On my laptop, I have to click to connect to a network even if I've connected before. I don't know if it has an auto-connect setting, or how to change it so it does.
Really, that's weird, when I go from office to office (for work) my computer automatically connects to the previous network it connected to.

With the way I have it set up, if there is no network it has connected to previously it will say it's found wireless networks. If I try to connect a non secured network it will prompt me that it's not secure. But that really wouldn't make much sense to most people new to wireless networks. Not that it prompting that gives or denies authority.

[BrianD]

Depending on the manufacture of the built in card yes. In fact you can configure Windows to automatically connect to non-preferred networks.

So is this a default behavior, or one that you have to configure? If it is the former, I could see Microsoft (or the card manufacturer) getting hit by a lawsuit if anyone got arrested for this.

[Celeval]

This is kind of like #2 with the snarkiness removed. :)

Basically, but mainly removing the implication from #4 that choices #1-3 are all unauthorized.

[DanGarion]

So is this a default behavior, or one that you have to configure? If it is the former, I could see Microsoft (or the card manufacturer) getting hit by a lawsuit if anyone got arrested for this.

For some it's default. I know for the Netgear product we install at TWC for customers it will auto connect to just about anything when you first install it.

[BrianD]

Basically, but mainly removing the implication from #4 that choices #1-3 are all unauthorized.

Good point.

[DanGarion]

I'm going to start installing ethernet wall ports on the outside of my house that connect to my network, so if someone connects to it I can sue their ass! Yes, I have a money many opportunity now!

[st.cronin]

Really, that's weird, when I go from office to office (for work) my computer automatically connects to the previous network it connected to.

With the way I have it set up, if there is no network it has connected to previously it will say it's found wireless networks. If I try to connect a non secured network it will prompt me that it's not secure. But that really wouldn't make much sense to most people new to wireless networks. Not that it prompting that gives or denies authority.

I'm going by memory, but what happens I think is I get a little bubble that says the computer has found x number of networks. I click on that and I get a list of networks, and it tells me whether the network is secure or not. Then I click on the network I want to connect to, and it tries to connect.

[BrianD]

I'm going by memory, but what happens I think is I get a little bubble that says the computer has found x number of networks. I click on that and I get a list of networks, and it tells me whether the network is secure or not. Then I click on the network I want to connect to, and it tries to connect.

If you let Windows manage your wireless network connectivity, any network you've connected to will be added to your prefered networks. You can go into the properties from there and check a box to "automatically connect to this network when in range". If you let another piece of software manage your connections (like something that comes with the adapter), you may not have this option.

[DanGarion]

I'm going by memory, but what happens I think is I get a little bubble that says the computer has found x number of networks. I click on that and I get a list of networks, and it tells me whether the network is secure or not. Then I click on the network I want to connect to, and it tries to connect.

Yes that is the way the built in Windows Wireless Zero Configuration works. But that's not how all Windows PCs work, it depends on if the user is utilizing the built in windows zero-config or the manufactures wireless config.

[Logan]

The funny thing about all of this, a completely oblivious person could fall under this bullshit trap very easily.

They buy a brand new computer with built in wireless they start it up at home or anywhere and that computer since it has built in wireless automatically connects to an unsecured network. They have now broken in the law...

This is what I was trying to get at on page 1:

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?

[BrianD]

According to the laws as written, yes it is illegal. The chances of being caught doing this would be almost non-existent, and the chances of talking your way out of it would be pretty good.

This is really no different than any other law. Ignorance of the law isn't a defense. Lack of intent could be a defense. Trying to connect to one network and accidentally connecting to another network could get you in trouble. Even so, this is rather different than sitting in your car in the parking lot day after day outside of a coffee shop.

[molson]

They buy a brand new computer with built in wireless they start it up at home or anywhere and that computer since it has built in wireless automatically connects to an unsecured network. They have now broken in the law...

No they haven't. That would be no more illegal than taking the wrong coat from the coat room by mistake (which isn't a crime either). Or driving over someone's dog if it runs in front of your car and there was nothing you could do. Or if someone puts stolen property in your truck, hiding it under a blanket, and you drive away, oblivious to the fact that it's there. That's not theft either.

People are talking about this statute as if it somehow obliterates 400+ years of common law tradition. It's really not that complicated. Don't access networks you're not authorized to access. That's it. It's not a strict liability crime, you can't commit it by accident, just like almost every other crime on the books. Some see a grey area in terms of what may be "unauthorized", and that's fine, it's a fair debate. There's just so many underlying assumptions floating around that just aren't true.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

What also seems to be a joke here is the fact this is a felony, and the jackass prosecutor went for the felony.

There are many laws written that are over inclusive so that the prosecutor has the easiest route to go after serious violators of a law - which here was meant for hackers violating privacy and using the connection as a zombie computer or something like that. Hence the broad language and the penalty of a felony -- to catch the "real" crooks, so to speak.

However, when you have a minor violation, the jackass prosecutor should use discretion and know this is not the case the statute was meant to be harsh on and you give the guy a small fine/misdemeanor and move on. The prosecutor didn't do this and she is a jackass.

That's what I am miffed about.

Did I say she was a jackass enough times? I can't stand legal hacks like that.

[EagleFan]

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

"No sir, I am stalking the ugly one next to her."

"Carry on then."

[molson]

However, when you have a minor violation, the jackass prosecutor should use discretion and know this is not the case the statute was meant to be harsh on and you give the guy a small fine/misdemeanor and move on. The prosecutor didn't do this and she is a jackass.
.

This prosecutor is doing exactly what you asked - the guy ended up with community service/fine as part of a diversion program. He didn't end up pleading guilty to anything, let alone a felony. The prosecutor in no way "went for the felony"

[Vinatieri for Prez]

This prosecutor is doing exactly what you asked - the guy ended up with community service/fine as part of a diversion program. He didn't end up pleading guilty to anything, let alone a felony. The prosecutor in no way "went for the felony"

My apologies. I missed that. I saw the title and kind of skipped into the middle of the thread yesterday. I take it all back. This sounds like a fair result.

[Poli]

My laptop asks if I'd like to commit a crime before connecting to the unsecure network.

I always click "yes".

[Grammaticus]

This prosecutor is doing exactly what you asked - the guy ended up with community service/fine as part of a diversion program. He didn't end up pleading guilty to anything, let alone a felony. The prosecutor in no way "went for the felony"

My understanding was they charged him with a felony and he pled it down. If he had fought the thing, it could have ended up as a felony. Is that not correct?

[Poli]

Internet at home (finally!), no more stealing for me!

[Logan]

I'm at Newark Airport, Terminal A, and I was too lazy to get my company-paid-for wireless card out of my bag.

Come and get me!

[Lathum]

I'm at Newark Airport, Terminal A, and I was too lazy to get my company-paid-for wireless card out of my bag.

Come and get me!

Being in Newark is punishment enough.

[Bee]

Being in Newark is punishment enough.

might even be considered cruel and unusual punishment...

[Lathum]

might even be considered cruel and unusual punishment...

you'll hear no argument from me...

[Cringer]

I am on an open wifi network at my shipper right now. No bagpipe band for me though, so the guy one-ups me there.

[Lathum]

I am on an open wifi network at my shipper right now. No bagpipe band for me though, so the guy one-ups me there.

THIEF!!!

VILLIAN!!

BAD EXAMPLE!!