page: 1 · 2  |
 zjumper
join:2004-08-17
Baltimore, MD | here we go again soon, you'll have to sign a TOS before logging into their wireless network stating that you have purchased a coffee and a bagel. | |
|  | 
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
| Re: here we go again said by zjumper  :soon, you'll have to sign a TOS before logging into their wireless network stating that you have purchased a coffee and a bagel. The problem is that he came back after told to leave. Plus according to the article he was spending hours at a time. That's just abusing it!
He's a real champ, he's a Level One Sex Offender also.
--
YourIP.US - Quickly Locate Your IP! | |
| | | zjumper
join:2004-08-17
Baltimore, MD | yeah, he is a real winner i totally agree on that part, he was asked to leave, so he should go but you know all these places are going to go further than they have to just to ensure they are making $$$. which i don't disagree with either, they are running a business. | |
| | | 
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
1 edit | Re: here we go again NVM - Couldn't get link to real story to work, but finally did. | |
| | | | kdandaoc
join:2003-10-13
608052427
| Re: here we go again Aside the fact that he should be castrated for other offenses, this is a bigger issue. First of all, how can you steal a free service?
He as a taxpayer should counter sue for having their network trespass onto public property!
Sound stupid; well in essence that's what the coffee shop is doing. If you have an open network propagating onto public property, well then it becomes public domain. And even he should not be excluded! | |
| | | | | 
boogi man
join:2001-11-13
Apo, AE
clubs: | Re: here we go again the 'free' service is similar to the restroom at a gas station there is an unstated expectation of a purchase of goods and or services. | |
| | | | | | 
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | Re: here we go again uh yeah....but how many people actually do that if the bathroom is their only intent? I dont know of any.
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" | |
| | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| said by kdandaoc :Aside the fact that he should be castrated for other offenses" You should of stopped right there. The rest of your statement is pure stupidity. | |
| | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| I feel he is being persecuted by the coffee shop due to their calling the cops to hassle him about his using their network without paying for some food/drink. IMO, he was doing nothing wrong with using their UNSECURED network. The CORRECT charge to file against him under the circumstances, IMO, is TRESPASSING (ie: Parking in their Parking Lot without being a customer). To make that stick, they would need to have a "Parking for Customers Only" sign at the entrance to the lot (and possibly in the lot itself). I've seen such signs near train stations to warn commuters to not park there. So long as they do not secure the network, it is open to whoever wants to use it. At a minimum, if using encryption is to complex for their purposes, they should at least stop broadcasting their NetworkID (print it on the receipt or put it on a sign labeled "Network for Customers Only"). So long as they make no attempt to prevent so called "Freeloaders" like this person from using connecting or designating who it is being offered to, they have no cause for complaining about his using their system. I've used the Free Wireless Access at Hiltons even when not checked in but they do it right by requiring you to provide their NetworkID to your Connect Screen and are otherwise not known as an Available Network. | |
| | | 
Komputerguy
join:2001-03-29
Melbourne, FL
| Re: here we go again Unsecure != offering the resource to anyone who wants it with no regard to the owner's wishes.
The owner of the resource determines how his resource can be utilized. Admittedly there may be some circumstances where who can use the resource and how may not be clearly defined but just because it is not secured does not mean there are no intended restrictions. It just means the person who owns it has not implemented strong real-time enforcement for those restrictions. One should not assume anything about such a resource (other than you are probably not authorized to use it) until you have confirmation from the owner or their representives.
Once the guy was served notice to leave, the intended restriction established by the owner was crystal clear. When he came back, he was clearly in the wrong.
--
What can possibly go wrong? | |
| | | | 
Iridium
Premium
join:2003-04-02
Los Angeles, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: here we go again said by Komputerguy :Unsecure != offering the resource to anyone who wants it with no regard to the owner's wishes. The owner of the resource determines how his resource can be utilized. Admittedly there may be some circumstances where who can use the resource and how may not be clearly defined but just because it is not secured does not mean there are no intended restrictions. It just means the person who owns it has not implemented strong real-time enforcement for those restrictions. One should not assume anything about such a resource (other than you are probably not authorized to use it) until you have confirmation from the owner or their representives. Once the guy was served notice to leave, the intended restriction established by the owner was crystal clear. When he came back, he was clearly in the wrong. I am not disputing that he ws wrong, but if you are offering a service intended for customers, you should give reasonable effort to keep it secured. You should be able to leave your wallet on top of your unlocked car with your keys, and expect them to be there 12 hours later, but it isn't going to happen, it is human nature. 2 weeks ago I ws in downtown long beach meeting friends for lunch, and I got lost. I whipped out my laptop and hopped on someones wireless signal, jut to check my email for the specific street. If the person didn't want me on the network, they should have a key. I wasn't doing anything illegal, I just wanted to get online.
--
Start the Revolution, download Opera, »www.opera.com | |
| | | | |
Komputerguy
join:2001-03-29
Melbourne, FL
| Re: here we go again You can't assume that if a wireless network is not secured that the owner doesn't care if you are using it or not. It's simply not true. Now, if the owner doesn't want you on it and does not have it secured, they are not being too smart. However, that says nothing about the legality or morality of an unauthorized person using it. Is is illegal to do so? Maybe not. It probably depends on the jurisdiction. And the legality of such things may very well change in the future. It is definitely not honest to do so IMO. Remember just because something is not illegal does not make it an honest or right thing to do.
Using your own analogy, you have basically described yourself as being one of those people who would have taken someone's wallet and keys that they left on the top of their car without a second thought.
--
What can possibly go wrong? | |
| | | | | |
Iridium
Premium
join:2003-04-02
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: here we go again said by Komputerguy :You can't assume that if a wireless network is not secured that the owner doesn't care if you are using it or not. It's simply not true. Now, if the owner doesn't want you on it and does not have it secured, they are not being too smart. However, that says nothing about the legality or morality of an unauthorized person using it. Is is illegal to do so? Maybe not. It probably depends on the jurisdiction. And the legality of such things may very well change in the future. It is definitely not honest to do so IMO. Remember just because something is not illegal does not make it an honest or right thing to do. Using your own analogy, you have basically described yourself as being one of those people who would have taken someone's wallet and keys that they left on the top of their car without a second thought. I understand where you are coming from, but I guess it is all in perception. Some people view an open network as the person is leaving the network open for anyone to access. Maybe it isn't the owners intention to let anyone connect, but there are people out there ( like me) that view it that way.
On the flip-side, there are people who come across open networks, and view them as someones private property. I am assuming this is the way you feel.
But an owner of a network doesn't know which side the person is on, ome people respect open connections and don't connect, and others hop right on, so I guess I seem like the kind of person who would take the keys and wallet (I wouldn't).
So a person who runs a network should realise that either the network will be respected, or abused. If you run a wireless network you do have some responsibility. I know there are no laws yet (at least in California), that you are responsible for whatever goes on with your connection, so you should take reasonable efforts to secure your shit. I agree, you shouldn't have to, but you have to, thats how people are. If you don't want the responsibilities, maybe you shouldn't run a wireless network, just stick to Ethernet. Ignorance on how to set up WEP on your router is no excuse.
--
Start the Revolution, download Opera, »www.opera.com | |
| | | | | | |
Komputerguy
join:2001-03-29
Melbourne, FL
| Re: here we go again The owner's ignorance is no excuse for what? If someone does not secure his wireless network, it is really only himself he is accountable to. He may unknowingly or knowingly exposing himself to risk but that does not excuse the actions of others who are abusing it against the owner's wishes. And the determination on whether it is right to do use the network has absolutely nothing to do with the "view" of those who wish to abuse (or use) the network and everything to do with how the owner wishes it to be used. If you don't have reasonable confidence in knowing how the network is intended to be used, then it is your responsibility to find out before using it.
Don't you see how contradictory your statements seem to be? On one hand you say that people in this world should be honest enough such that someone who has a wireless network shouldn't have to worry about people jumping on his network unauthorized but then you turn around and say that you, yourself don't take a second thought about jumping on someone's wireless network without knowing whether they mind or not.
--
What can possibly go wrong? | |
| | | | | | | |
Iridium
Premium
join:2003-04-02
Los Angeles, CA | Re: here we go again I'm a hypocrite. | |
| | | | | | | smrgol
Premium
join:2002-02-05
Culver City, CA
1 edit | Some people also view an encrypted network as open for anyone who can obtain the key to access. Their claim is that the owner should have used stronger encryption if denial of access was really desired.
All the wireless encryption protocols today are basically insecure. The FBI has a road show showing less than 30 seconds to crack a WEP network and a bit more than a minute to crack WAP. To be really secure you have to tunnel over your (presumed open) wireless link.
I have four or five (depending on time of day) access points not belonging to me within range of my wireless adaptor. Three are protected, two are not. I (and the courts in California, at least) view these access points, whether secure or not, as being similar to a garden gate, a telephone junction box, or a gardon hose bib. In other words, if you enter, take, or use without the resource owner's permission, you can be arrested for theft no matter how inconsequential you consider the amount taken or used.
And it doesn't matter whether the owner put a lock on the thing -- it only matters that you used without the owner's permission.
As a computer services professional, I monitor my access point and would not hesitate to call the police if I encountered a theft-of-service situation. The last thing I want is some gamer in a nearby apartment or with a pimped up car computer sucking up all my bandwidth. | |
| | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | Re: here we go again Exactly. If there's no dispute to what the law says, then it's the law. Ignorance of a law is not a defense, especially when you've been informed of it by the owner repeatedly. It's not like they didn't give this shmoe a chance to knock it off. If it had been the first time, I would've been a little amenable to, "he should have been given a warning first", but that had already been done. He was told, go away, this is the law, and he chose to break it again and again. Well, he shouldn't have been surprised when someone showed up and arrested him. | |
| | | | | j0nnyb1aze
join:2004-07-22
Hudson, FL | Gaining unauthorized access to any network, secured or not, IS indeed illegal. Now if this was a public hot spot, then it would have been legal, but I dont know the specific situation. | |
| | | |
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by Komputerguy :Unsecure != offering the resource to anyone who wants it with no regard to the owner's wishes. The owner of the resource determines how his resource can be utilized. Admittedly there may be some circumstances where who can use the resource and how may not be clearly defined but just because it is not secured does not mean there are no intended restrictions. It just means the person who owns it has not implemented strong real-time enforcement for those restrictions. One should not assume anything about such a resource (other than you are probably not authorized to use it) until you have confirmation from the owner or their representives. Once the guy was served notice to leave, the intended restriction established by the owner was crystal clear. When he came back, he was clearly in the wrong. So long as they are broadcasting their NetworkID/SSID, I feel they are allowing ANYONE to use it (IE: It is a PUBLIC not a PRIVATE network since it is an Open but not Encrypted Network). If they did NOT broadcast their SSID, then that is a different case since they have made SOME effort to restrict access. Encryption and/or Non-Broadcast (of the SSID) shows an intent of restricting access. As to his being told to not use it, that only counts if the SSID was not being broadcast (and thus he connected due to knowing it as opposed to being offered access due to the SSID broadcast). | |
| | | | |
Komputerguy
join:2001-03-29
Melbourne, FL | Re: here we go again What is more important? How you feel the owner's network should be used or the owner himself?
--
What can possibly go wrong? | |
| | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | They're not allowing anyone to use it if they come up to anyone and say, "Don't use this". That's how it works. It's not like he wasn't given every opportunity to NOT get arrested. | |
| | 
MJFalcone
Premium
join:2000-10-02
Norristown, PA
clubs:
| They were not too bright for having an unsecured WiFi node and need to smarten it up. Being foolish does not abrogate your property rights.
However, he was asked to leave and chose to ignore the request. That's trespassing. Accessible does not mean free. That's Theft of Service.
It was not his, he did not pay for or contribute to it. He was asked to cease using it. He was wrong. What he will ultimately be charged with is up to the local District Attorney.
A lot of people say if they wanted him out they should turn on the security features. It's more complex than that. None of us would tolerate someone setting up a chair on our front lawn and watching tv through the window because we didn't pull the shades. We'd asked them to up anchor and blow.
It never ceases to amaze me that good and honest people who would never take a stick of bubble-gum from the store without paying for it come up with arguments for using other peoples hot-spots. Right and Wrong tend to be fairly clear.
If it's not yours then hands off. | |
| | | | | lemonade
join:2003-12-13
Los Angeles, CA | even so, i don't see a problem with that. you bought the coffee and the shop offer you something extra, in this case wifi service. hope that kid learn... | |
| | 
agent0x5492
@tds.net | He better repent, and accept Jesus or he will be going to Hell. | |
| 
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | Confused? He must've heard you needed java to surf the net? | |
| 
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs: | What did he expect? He was told multiple times to stop, and didn't. Dumbass gets what he deserves. | |
| | | | | | 
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | Re: double post It's starting to feel like slashdot in here, lol. | |
| | 
mr sean
Professional Infidel
Premium,ExMod 2001-07
join:2001-04-03
N. Absentia
clubs: | Think of repetition as a form of change. | |
| | | 
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| Re: double post said by mr sean :Think of repetition as a form of change. The more it remains the same, the more it changes...??
--
A is A | |
| | | |
mr sean
Professional Infidel
Premium,ExMod 2001-07
join:2001-04-03
N. Absentia
clubs: | Re: double post Entropy is as entropy does. | |
| peerimpact
join:2005-11-07
Londonderry, VT
| Coffee Shop needs Wireless Security The Coffee shop needs to secure their own network At least use WPA with a password you chage everyday or get a Log in Page but it seems they are too cheap to do that if the manager compalins this guy is leeching off her free to air Publicly Availible Wi-Fi connection .
I can pick up at least 3 unsecured networks from my neighbors on my Property, handy when I want to get some work done on the laptop and I dont want to sit in the office .
Of course I have WPA Encryption with a 64 character password and I use MAC filtering for my network. | |
| | 
Shrapnel64
Premium
join:2001-01-24
Hayes, VA
·Verizon Online DSL
·Cox HSI
| Re: Coffee Shop needs Wireless Security You bring up a good point...as many others have brought up as well.
They should have some sort of system, where when you purchase the cup of coffee, you are given a password to use for the Wireless AP, using WEP encryption at the minimum.
If you don't buy a cup of coffee, you don't get this password, in which case, this case is solved by not allowing unauthorized people (those trying to freeload in the parking lot, instead of spending 4 bucks on a cup of coffee latte supreme) connect and use the wireless access.
Another way to do it, would be to turn down the penetration on the WAP, so that it barely reaches outside of the walls. | |
| | | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by peerimpact :The Coffee shop needs to secure their own network At least use WPA with a password you chage everyday or get a Log in Page but it seems they are too cheap to do that if the manager compalins this guy is leeching off her free to air Publicly Availible Wi-Fi connection . What good is that gonna do? So all he has to do is buy a coffee once to get the PW, and still continue his daily activity. Anything more complicated will tend to discourage legitimate access by their customers.
Look, the coffee shop is broadcasting in an unlicensed Part 15 band. He has the right to receive their signal, and to tranmit his own. Heck, under FCC rules, the coffee shop would even have to put up with any interference he would cause. However, he doesn't have the right to use these signals to access the coffee shop equipment, once he's told not to.
Just because you forgot to lock your front door, doesn't give someone the right to ransack your house. | |
| 
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA
·Mediacom
| ? "As it turns out, Smith is a Level One Sex Offender..."
That's probably why he did that, anyway I think they should secure their network and hand out access codes with a coffee 
Otherwise people will log in. I work for a cable company and more than once I have parked outside a coffee shop to use mapquest. Used their connection for about several minutes and left. I did that with several unsecured private (house) networks too.
If you don't want me to do that secure your network. | |
| | 
Chameleon
Premium
join:2004-11-24
Virden, IL
·New Wave Communica..
| Re: ? said by Anonymous :If you don't want me to do that secure your network. But would you do it after the cops tell not to anymore?
The problem with this guy, is that he had a free pass to move on and he didn't.
--
I used to have super human powers.....
But my therapist took them away. | |
| | | 
rideboarder
welcome to the social
Premium
join:2003-07-28
Snohomish, WA
clubs:
| Re: ? said by Chameleon :said by Anonymous :If you don't want me to do that secure your network. But would you do it after the cops tell not to anymore? The problem with this guy, is that he had a free pass to move on and he didn't. To me it looks like that this guy is as stupid as a brick. You would expect a sex offender to be a little more careful about getting involved with the law, but I guess not. He deserves what he gets, since a warning was plenty enough for him to move along. | |
| | | | | | |
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA
·Mediacom
| said by Chameleon :said by Anonymous :If you don't want me to do that secure your network. But would you do it after the cops tell not to anymore? The problem with this guy, is that he had a free pass to move on and he didn't. Well I would never spend months on a parking lot being online. But we all know why he did this. | |
| | Hellrazor
join:2002-02-02
Abyss | hmmm If I parked in your driveway to (ab)use your wireless signal, would it be a problem? | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
anonnoa
@myvzw.com
| The air is free I really don't understand. If it's in the air open and free you should be able to get it. It should be the transmitter that has the obligation to provide some sort of security measure that was thwarted before it's considered to be a transgression and legally punishable.
As for returning to the parking lot this *might* be trespassing if and only if the owner of the coffee shop actually owns the parking lot (not the usual case).
What next ? Someone is arrested cause they overheard the supermarket manager yell across the store the safe combo and shouldn't have listened ? | |
| |
See 10 replies to this post | |
ComSenc
@comcast.net
| RTFA...it was blatant abuse If you read the article you'll realize this guy was asked several times by the business to leave if he was not going to buy anything. Happened over the course of months. Any business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The moment he refuses, he's trespassing, and yes he is also stealing the signal because they explicitly asked him to stop.
If I walked up to your house and started drinking out of your hose, you'd probably ask me to leave. If I stayed there and didn't leave, you'd probably call the cops, right? It doesn't matter if the hose is "always on" or if the hose is not "locked down." Sure maybe I should practice better security with my hose, but that doesn't give anyone the right to just stroll up and start leeching from my hose. As a property owner (or business owner) I have the right to ask anyone to leave my property.
The real violation here is that the guy didn't listen to the people running the coffee shop. He did not respect their rights and wishes, and therefore he was reported. Got what he deserved IMO. This guy should be lucky he didn't get slapped with trespassing charges and a restraining order. Theft of service is almost a non-charge and he will likely walk with a fine. This case has nothing to do with WiFi security or "free" and "open" wireless access points.
Break the law, pay for it. | |
| grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
1 edit | People are missing the point... The point here is you don't want some stupid technological ignorant legal precident setup so you can go on wifi freeloaders witch hunt. If your hotspot is unsecured tough luck. You gotta make an effort to show you don't want it used by the public. Don't give me any of that theft of service bullshit. Unless they are paying by the byte he wasn't stealing anything. This guy is a jackass though for coming back. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
liquidice
join:2002-08-25
Naperville, IL
| Should have just used Mcdonalds The easiest thing to do if you want free wifi is go to a fast food place. Spend a buck on some fries in the drive through and park and surf. This moron though should have left after the cops were called the first time. He will get what he deserves. If I were the cops I would have confiscated the laptop, to check for illegal files. | |
| 
Persona
Premium
join:2004-07-07
Gravenhurst, ON | Lemonade I'm going to put an unsecured wireless router in my window, then I'm going to go down to my front lawn and set up a lemonade stand, if people starting using my bandwidth and don't buy a glass I'm going to call the cops on them - 911 no less. | |
| 
McShaken
Premium
join:2006-02-20
Olympia, WA
| There should be an easier way.... Hrm... I wonder if the following could be set up.
Customer goes in, buys the product (fries, coffee, etc), and a logon name and password is printed on the receipt. When the customer launches their web browser, it's redirected to an authentication screen requiring a name and a password.
Using the name and password on the receipt, the customer has "X" amount of time (an hour, a day, etc.) to use the wireless network before the password expires... I'm sure a vendor somewhere could put this together (if it's not already available). If it's not, then I claim first dibs on the idea. | |
| | 
EvelKub
Kitty is crazy
Premium
join:2002-03-17
Phoenix, AZ
2 edits | Re: There should be an easier way.... Think a gas station car wash...
At the end of the transaction, it says "Would you like to buy a car wash?" and you punch yes. When the receipt prints out, you have a car wash code, which you enter, and get your car wash.
This could be done, and in a secure fashion, by WPA2 with Radius. The employee would have to sell a WiFi pass for $0.00, which would even allow the shop owner to run reports based on $ spent by wifi users vs non wifi users, and could automatically determine a minute allowance based on total sale amount. The username and password would be printed on the bottom of the receipt. You could have 1000s of passwords at the same time in this fashion, and they could be saved up, so frequent customers who don't use the wifi one day could have double access the next.
Also, your customer's data would be encrypted, so it is an added benefit to the customer..
Additionally, larger shops or chains could use a grocery store style frequent customer card, which would allow a user to setup a custom username and password on their website. When the customer buys something, they present the card, and time is added to their account. If the customer spends more than $x per defined time frame, they could gain unlimited use, and possibly other services, like increased bandwidth or an email address. | |
| LordBritish
join:2003-08-02
Marina Del Rey, CA | Solution is here ... It would not be difficult to change the wifi password daily.
You buy coffee, you get password good for 1 day.
Seems simple enough.
No more difficult than getting the stupid key to use the bathroom right? | |
| |
McShaken
Premium
join:2006-02-20
Olympia, WA
| Re: Solution is here ... They could even take this one step further....
Buy a value meal, get 15 minutes of surfing... But if you buy the mega-meal you get the whole day!
Or if it's a coffee shop, the bigger the cup, the more time you get. I'm on a roll!!!
 | |
| foghorn67
join:2006-06-25
Fresno, CA
| No Caffeine, No Network Wow, I always used to wonder who was still out there blaming rape victims for the rape because of the way they dressed. Now I know. It's you losers; blaming the victim for the theft even after the thief was given a free pass and told not to do it again. Does this mean it's ok to steal mints from the coffee shop because they aren't in a locked case? | |
| |
anonnoa
@myvzw.com
| Re: No Caffeine, No Network The mints ARE IN THE COFFEE SHOP. If the mints where put in a bowl out in the parking lot and someone came along and helped themselves I wouldn't prosecute them for stealing. And if someone did not put up any protest, any barriers or any signs of resistance at the time and two days later thinks they really didn't want to have sex ... that's not rape either. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: No Caffeine, No Network Hey, anon... the HARDWARE you are accessing is in the building too!
Let me ask you one question to shut you up already...
"DO YOU OWN THAT HOT SPOT OR ISP ACCOUNT ATTACHED TO IT?"
Unless you can answer yes to that question, your lame attempts to justify your position are, well, just lame!
You have a sick and twisted way of justifying things. You somehow assume that something has to be attached to something physical you can touch in order to be considered theft. This one is just as good as your 'well they said the combination to the safe so I could hear it, so I guess they are ok with me getting into it"...
Dude.. get a hobby. | |
| 
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
1 edit | free service? so is this service provided _free_ by the coffee shop? are there terms? (like you have to purchase something to use the wifi?) if not, he has broken no laws. the service is FREE how do you commit _theft of service_ on something that is free?
if there are usage terms (posted) then perhaps trespassing, as stated above, is the correct charge (as long as he was asked to leave) otherwise he was within his rights to use a freely provided service.
EDIT: After reading the story, it appears he was asked multiple times to leave .. so best to charge him with trespassing since you can't steal whats free..
--
Webmaster Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»ppnhosting.com
»sphenterprizes.com
»pokemonpalace.net | |
| |
anonnoa
@myvzw.com | Re: free service? That only assumes the coffee shop actually owns the parking lot. If it just renting space in some multi-shop outlet (the typical case I'm familar with) -- I don't see where the owner of a single shop can tell someone to leave the parking lot. | |
| | | MrBentor
join:2003-02-18
Seattle, WA
·Comcast
| Re: free service? The shopkeepers actually have a fairly wide latitude in banning someone from a property or a section of the property even if they just lease or rent it, or at least for a reasonable distance around any particular shop. If a shop keeper has banned someone for being a problem, it is likely that the other shopkeepers would agree. Part of the lease usually allows shopkeepers to ban people in lieu of the actual landowner. Shoplift my shop, I can have you banned from the entire mall.
Free service: just because the service is open that doesn’t make it free. It is likely posted that to use the services of the shops, you must be a customer, to park in the lot you must be a customer or employee and so on. I suspect that the signal doesn’t leave the parking lot and reach the public street. Shopkeeper said to buy something or leave, shopkeeper said buy something if you want to use our AP. All it takes is putting someone on notice, once put on notice they must leave the property or comply.
Interference: Just because the AP is open, and the section of spectrum it uses is unlicensed, and any device must accept interference from another device; doesn’t mean you can actually connect to it and use it. It means that you aren’t supposed to interfere with other licensed frequencies and must accept unintentional RF interference that may be generated by other devices. Connecting and using an open device doesn’t equate to causing unintentional RF interference. Connecting with specifically denied permission may Trespass to Chattel, somewhat different that actual Trespass, which also occurred. Causing intentional interference is a different storey and that is not permitted on any frequency, opened, closed, licensed or unlicensed. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | FREE TO CUSTOMERS - what did he buy again? | |
| | |
anonnoa
@myvzw.com | Re: free service? His defense: ... he is a customer "He bought a coffee eight months ago" LOL | |
| 
atuarre
Here come the drums
Premium
join:2004-02-14
Lake Charles, LA
clubs:
| RE Sorry but the scumbag is getting everything he deserves. Now I am not a mind reader, and I will not pretend to be able to read minds, but we all know why he was using the Internet in this parking lot rather than using it at his own home. He was probably trying to prey on someone.
If you receive a wireless signal on your laptop which allows you to interact with someones network, secured, or unsecured, and you gain internet access that you are not supposed to have, then you, in my opinion, are at fault, and should be held liable for any damages which were caused by you accessing said network.
If it was an unsecured DoD network, would you access it even if it was unsecured, but when you first logged in, you got a webpage that told you that you were on a secure system run by the DoD and if you do not have access to disconnect at once?
I am sorry, but I have to side with the coffee shop. If you went inside, and just sat down with your laptop, and everytime someone walked up to you, you told them sorry, I am waiting for someone, and you were just using their wireless internet, then eventually you would be asked to leave. If you buy a coffee every 30 minutes, or hour you are there, or a bagel or something, then they are offering you a perk for being a customer, which is wireless internet.
If their system is secured, as some of you have put it, but they do not change the password, then all the perv would have had to do was get the password once, and then he could resume his regular "activities" from the convenience of the parking lot. Further more, perhaps they felt there was no need to secure it, or maybe some of their customers with older equipment were having troubles, so they felt it was better left unsecured, and the only place you could really access their wireless is from there parking lot.
It's just like if your driving through someones neighborhood and you happen to stumble upon an unsecured wireless network in the boonies. That does not invite you to access the Internet or their network resources for yourself.
You are not paying for anything to do with the network including the broadcasting of the wireless signal, but you are using it, and the only reason I can see for someone to go around looking for unsecured wireless is so they can find a place from which they can do something they don't feel comfortable doing at their own house.
I can understand if you work for a business, and you use it for a few minutes for mapquest, but if you are parked outside someones house for hours at a time because your using their wireless internet, then clearly you're doing something your not supposed to be doing, and unfortunately, when the law comes looking for the person responsible, it won't be you they come after, it'll be the people whose names are on those internet access accounts. | |
| |
Iridium
Premium
join:2003-04-02
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: RE said by atuarre :Sorry but the scumbag is getting everything he deserves. Now I am not a mind reader, and I will not pretend to be able to read minds, but we all know why he was using the Internet in this parking lot rather than using it at his own home. He was probably trying to prey on someone. If you receive a wireless signal on your laptop which allows you to interact with someones network, secured, or unsecured, and you gain internet access that you are not supposed to have, then you, in my opinion, are at fault, and should be held liable for any damages which were caused by you accessing said network. If it was an unsecured DoD network, would you access it even if it was unsecured, but when you first logged in, you got a webpage that told you that you were on a secure system run by the DoD and if you do not have access to disconnect at once? Thats pretty ignorant. Those are both 2 different situations. The DoD network having a page warning you is different because they don't want anyone, specifically. Now if you run a network, and you don't have any encryption, and you know it brodcasts out into the parking lot, and you don't do anything to secure it?? Come on, get real. And not everyone goes online for child porn. My dsl wasn't working for about 3 months, so I was living off free wifi connections. My neighbors all have WEP, so I couldn't get on.
--
Start the Revolution, download Opera, »www.opera.com | |
| | |
atuarre
Here come the drums
Premium
join:2004-02-14
Lake Charles, LA
clubs: | Re: RE Well there are some of us who view accessing a network that is not intentionally put there for public access, secure or unsecured, as stealing. | |
| | | |
Iridium
Premium
join:2003-04-02
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | Re: RE said by atuarre :Well there are some of us who view accessing a network that is not intentionally put there for public access, secure or unsecured, as stealing. If it isn't there for public access, then why is it so easy to connect with it? if it isn't for the public, why are you broadcasting it to the public? Mabye people shouldn't have a wifi network because they are too inept to secure it. Those people who view it as stealing but put absolutely zero effort into securing it are morons. (not aimed at you)
--
Start the Revolution, download Opera, »www.opera.com | |
| | | | |
atuarre
Here come the drums
Premium
join:2004-02-14
Lake Charles, LA
clubs:
| Re: RE As stated before, just because something is open doesn't mean it's available and free to the public.
If someone leaves to go to work, but when they pulled their door it didn't shut completely, and you happen upon the place, and the door is unlocked, does that invite you into their home to take what you want? No.
If the Wells Fargo trucked is parked on a street corner, and the back doors just happen to be open and you look inside and see more money than you will ever have in your life, does that give you the right to take that money? No.
It isn't a complicated, and whether you like it or not, there will be laws that will come along to protect people who are subject to abuse by those who view an open wifi network as an "all you can use internet extravaganza or buffer". | |
| MrBentor
join:2003-02-18
Seattle, WA
·Comcast
| He may also be violating his parole terms. This person is a "Level 1 sex offender," this means he is on a pretty tight leash anyway. He may also be violating his parole terms. You’d have to be pretty stupid and freaky to do something to become tagged as a Level 1 offender in any case.
In his case it is not as simple as a regular person doing this, mr. smith has special conditions placed on him, any violation of those conditions could revoke his privileges. Just his ignoring the shopkeeper’s order to leave and not return to (or near) the property may be enough to have him put in jail. He is threfore being exceedingly stupid. | |
| | |
See 10 replies to this post | |
| | |
|
|
No Caffeine, No Network
·
·