Felony Charges for Using an Open Wireless Network?
 

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.

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.)

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?

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.

They were probably bored.

"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?!

Fixed.

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.

"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???

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

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.

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

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

/tk

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.

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

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?

sounds like the Truman Show

thats just plain silly.

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.

Not at all actually.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

He got off easy. This


should have gotten twenty years at least.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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?

what exactly is being stolen?

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

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.

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

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.

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!"

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.

that about sums it up for me

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.

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

what if the guy has ural-micatisus?

This man wins.

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?

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). :)

LOL

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[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".

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.

why?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

don't forget about the electricity. ;)

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

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

:)

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.

what better playing bagpipes or showing bag and pipe?

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.

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

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:


Ok then :).

word

lol

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.

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.

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 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)

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?

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.