dslreports logo
 story category
Wi-Fi Freeloading Felony
First arrest and prosecution in Michigan

Here's a tale out of Michigan about a man who was arrested for using Wi-Fi outside a cafe from his car. Interestingly, the arresting officer, the arrested man and the cafe owner didn't know the man was doing anything wrong until the officer in question decided to do some research and found a law he thought fit:

"He didn't issue a ticket, but he did hit the books. 'I had a feeling a law was being broken,' the chief said, 'but I didn't know exactly what.' He found a relatively new and rarely used law. 'Unauthorized use of computer access,' he said."
Maximum penalty for the felony? Five years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine. The 1979 law the officer finally discovered was apparently updated in 2000 to help prevent skulldruggery via Wi-Fi.

There was a similar story out of Alaska back in February where a man had his laptop confiscated for using free library Wi-Fi after hours to play World of Warcraft.
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next
81399672 (banned)
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA

81399672 (banned)

Member

wrong law

The law is for unauthorized access to the computer, router is not a computer

nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium Member
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA

2 recommendations

nixen

Premium Member

Re: wrong law


Perhaps you're thinking one of these?
said by 81399672:

The law is for unauthorized access to the computer, router is not a computer
A router is not a computer? Really? You mean there's no CPUs in a router? There's no RAM in a router? There's no OS in a router? There' no input and output from a router?

Oh, wait, you meant the woodworking device, that must be it!

notnice101
@rr.com

notnice101

Anon

Re: wrong law

First off this is prob a Cop trying to make so waves or headlines for himself. What does is he thinking he is going to get a raise or win a popularity contest for rooting out crime when people are being killed by speeders and drugs. And all he can think of this guy must be doing something wrong. This Cop thinks to much and it is starting to make you wonder if Police are starting to become a big brother of sorts and investigating things that make no sense and monitor your free time or even worse your lifestyle. Next time he will say you were sitting in the coffee shop to long and didn't get enough exercise today here is a ticket. I am sure there is a law for that to right? If not this Cop should be given so serious work to do because apparently he has to much time on his hands to look for laws to accommodate his strange notions.

wmcbrine
join:2002-12-30
Laurel, MD

wmcbrine

Member

Re: wrong law

"Thinks too much" is a very odd notion to me... To me, he didn't think enough; he didn't think "Who is being harmed by this?" and come up with the appropriate answer "No one."

(So, I'm basically agreeing with you; I just don't like that phrase.)

ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium Member
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

ColorBASIC to 81399672

Premium Member

to 81399672
A router is absolutely a computer.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Re: wrong law

said by ColorBASIC:

A router is absolutely a computer.
and a computer is absolutely a router... wait

ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium Member
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

ColorBASIC

Premium Member

Re: wrong law

A router of money from my wallet, that's for sure.
Tikker_LoS
join:2004-04-29
Regina, SK

Tikker_LoS to morbo

Member

to morbo
said by morbo:

said by ColorBASIC:

A router is absolutely a computer.
and a computer is absolutely a router... wait
pretty much any modern computer could function as a router, so did you have a point in there?

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Re: wrong law

point being computers are not absolutely routers and routers aren't absolutely computers. they are different even though arguments can be made to fit the law, it's a stretch.

ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium Member
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

ColorBASIC

Premium Member

Re: wrong law

All network routers meet the definition of a computer.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

1 edit

morbo

Member

Re: wrong law

then so does my new blender. and modem. and watch. i should start calling them all computers.

ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium Member
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

4 edits

ColorBASIC

Premium Member

Re: wrong law

said by morbo:

then so does my new blender. and modem. and watch. i should start calling them all computers.
The blender doesn't process information (logical operations) in a specific fashion (mathematically) coming out with a specific result. The modem is a computer as are most watches. You can call them computers but you will likely confuse people because a computer is a vague definition that applies to a great many devices. It's like the term "PC" for personal computer. My Mac is a "PC" but people associate the term PC (in desktop computer context) to mean IBM-PC compatible. In any event, network routers are absolutely computers.

All network routers are computers but not all computers are network routers.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Re: wrong law

your definition, while technically correct, is splitting hairs. at least in everyday usage and understanding and the law in question, computers are the devices we are using to browse dslreports (desktops, laptops, smartphones, pdas, etc.)

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

Thaler

Premium Member

Re: wrong law

said by morbo:

your definition, while technically correct, is splitting hairs. at least in everyday usage and understanding and the law in question, computers are the devices we are using to browse dslreports (desktops, laptops, smartphones, pdas, etc.)
Not all computers are web-accessable or web-enabled. There are many offline terminals, and I wouldn't dismiss olden-day computers as "not computers" simply due to lack of internet access.

However, the inverse is true. Anything that can browse the internet is a computer.

james16
join:2001-02-26

james16

Member

Re: wrong law

I can browse the internet! I must be a computer then!
HEY KID! I'M A COMPUTER! STOP ALL THE DOWNLOADING!!
samic
join:2005-12-05
Markham, ON

samic

Member

Re: wrong law

You know back in the day there really are people in NASA doing calculations, and their job position: "Computer"

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

Thaler to morbo

Premium Member

to morbo
said by morbo:

then so does my new blender. and modem. and watch. i should start calling them all computers.
I dunno. Pure plain-n-simple technology is harder and harder to find. On some top-end blenders, I'm sure there's a chip operating/checking blade rotations.

A router definately meets the needs as a computer, seeing as how they have a CPU, RAM, OS, etc. Your modem is debatable, as I'm certain it has a processing chip and memory on-board, but not sure if it has its own self-contained OS. However, a DSL/cable modem indeed has an OS on it...I'm more talking about the old 56k kinds.

Kilroy
MVM
join:2002-11-21
Saint Paul, MN

Kilroy to ColorBASIC

MVM

to ColorBASIC
I think it all depends on what definition of computer you use.

Personal opinion as long as you aren't downloading tons of information or doing anything using the router that would be illegal it shouldn't be prosecuted. If you want to prosecute someone prosecute the person with an open router who complains that others use it.

koolman2
Premium Member
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK

koolman2 to morbo

Premium Member

to morbo
A square is absolutely a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't necessarily a square.

A router is absolutely a computer. It's a computer with specialized software and hardware allowing it to route network traffic.
Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX

Enlightener to ColorBASIC

Member

to ColorBASIC
I was tought a computer is a device ( electrical or mechanical ) that had input, calculated and had output. By definitino, a calculator and a wristwatch is a computer.

So do we go and arrest people for looking to see what time it is without asking the permission of the person wearing the watch?

ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium Member
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

1 edit

ColorBASIC

Premium Member

Re: wrong law

Someone could technically, but it would be up to the DA to prosecute or not. A cop could write you a reckless driving citation for rolling a stop sign too. DAs typically have wide latitude in prosecuting cases and will simply pass on one that is as silly as going after someone who coveted the use of a watch.

It appears to me that the intent of the law was to stop people from using other people's computing resources (eg hacking) without permission. But in this case the crime is more like taking a parking space of the coffee joint while not being a patron. A towed car for $50 ticket sure, but jail is clearly an unusual punishment.

That is to say I do believe there should be laws against mooching someone else's internet service without permission but it should be a wrist slapping littering-like fine like $500 or $1000.
KUppiano
Karl Uppiano
join:2003-02-02
Ferndale, WA

KUppiano

Member

Re: wrong law

I wonder what happened to the communications act of 1934. I believe it grants the right to receive any electromagnetic signal that is broadcast into my personal space. If the waves are permeating my body, why can't I decode them?

The WiFi signal wasn't encrypted or secured in any way, was it? The worst that guy should have gotten is a parking ticket. If an internet cafe really wants to limit access to paying customers, they should use WPA, change the key daily, and give the key to customers as they ring up their purchase.

ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium Member
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

ColorBASIC

Premium Member

Re: wrong law

People used that to try and get around the old OTA pay tv services of the 70's and early 80's (ON Subscription Television, SelecTV etc) and even radar detector laws. From what I understand they always failed.

This guy wasn't simply receiving the AP signals. He was consuming services others are paying for. His actions weren't a passive act like detecting the presence of a radar gun.

So even if you went by the 1934 Act, as soon as he negotiates a connection to the AP rather than just 'sniffing the air' so to speak, he's done.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: wrong law

Agreed. I thought the 1934 act was about passive monitoring. Using a WiFi AP is anything but passive even if the signal is not "encrypted".
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH

wentlanc to ColorBASIC

Member

to ColorBASIC
I would argue that he did not gain unauthorized access to anyone's equipment, but rather THROUGH it. He accessed other sites on the public Internet via the coffee shop's access. The fact that it was open, and unsecured implies the access is exactly that. Open, and free.

Tell me where a sign that says free internet access has the undertone of "please ask first" in it. Now if that was written on the sign, so be it. Or, for customers only, ok. In that case, make the guy buy a cup of coffee for every day he was out front, and call it a day. At best, it should be a civil suit. Not a felony, police initiated, venture.

You know, if you dig deeply enough, we've probably all committed a crime somewhere. Should we all be hunted down once someone finds the applicable law???

ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium Member
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

ColorBASIC

Premium Member

Re: wrong law

You can't go through it without negotiating the connection. And even through it is still property of the store. The guy is consuming a finite amount of resources. He negotiated a connection with the AP (access) and then consumed bandwidth of the store.

I'm absolutely a criminal. I speed EVERY single day. I roll though stop signs EVERY single day. My motorcycle has illegal exhaust, my car has illegal tint. I double park and let my dog run around without a leash. I claim no moral superiority. I expect to get busted if caught and won't make any lame excuses.

That isn't an issue. People defending this guy are simply trying to justify using someone else's stuff without permission. I look at this as a moral issue. Nothing is implied. If he wanted to use it, he could have gone in and asked permission. If you want to look at implication, it's implied that the hot spot is for customer use.

Personally I think there should be specific statutes requiring affirmative permission to use a service before using it. But violations should be typical of minor violations. Simple fine enough to deter someone from doing it.

I'm not saying the guy should be strung up by this toes but people should respect other people's stuff. That means getting affirmative permission to use someone else's stuff before doing it, whether it's reading a sign, or outright asking. If you just happen across an open hot spot, it means it's not yours for your use simply because someone may have forgotten or doesn't know how to secure it.

I see a hot spot like a garden hose. Would I just borrow my neighbor's hose without permission even if I know almost surely he would say sure? Of course not, I would give him the courtesy of granting me permission. And with more and more ISPs capping services, you can't assume that the store has an unlimited use connection and most certainly has finite bandwidth (perhaps a T-1) that has to be shared with many other patrons and the experience for those patrons is degraded by other non-paying people using the service.

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

Thaler

Premium Member

Re: wrong law

*shrugs* Non-restricted WAPs are basically "come and use me" signs. Had they not wanted people to use it, then they wouldn't make it open. However, I feel that the owner should've tried to deal with the moocher personally before involving the cops. If the guy can't simply respect the WAP owner's wishes, then the cops need to step in and enforce the owner's wishes of his own property.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina to ColorBASIC

Member

to ColorBASIC
I agree completely but there's no convincing some folks. They would have us locking our outdoor power outlets and water faucets. By their logic if both aren't "locked", it's a free invitation to use power and water. Someone even argued that these are metered services and therefore "theft" can be clearly quantified -- as if that's the measure of wrong and right.

I believe regardless of cost to the owning party, if without permission one party uses another party's stuff, it's wrong. How wrong it is, is up to the judicial system to decide.

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

Thaler to wentlanc

Premium Member

to wentlanc
said by wentlanc:

The fact that it was open, and unsecured implies the access is exactly that. Open, and free.
And thus the unlocked home comparison. If somebody leaves their front door open, does that make it legal for others to come inside and do what they please?

Honestly, the owner should've come out and told this person to cease using his network. Had he told the owner to go piss off, then I'd see no qualms about using the local police force to issue whatever fine/wrist-slap they can stick to him.
81399672 (banned)
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA

81399672 (banned)

Member

Re: wrong law

said by Thaler:
said by wentlanc:

The fact that it was open, and unsecured implies the access is exactly that. Open, and free.
And thus the unlocked home comparison. If somebody leaves their front door open, does that make it legal for others to come inside and do what they please?

Honestly, the owner should've come out and told this person to cease using his network. Had he told the owner to go piss off, then I'd see no qualms about using the local police force to issue whatever fine/wrist-slap they can stick to him.
unlock door is access to physical property, this is virtual and that is big difference

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

Thaler

Premium Member

Re: wrong law

said by 81399672:

unlock door is access to physical property, this is virtual and that is big difference
Nooo...just because someone has something open, doesn't mean that you have a right to it, virtual or otherwise. If its their property, others must respect the owner's wishes about their own property.

•••
SunnyFL8
Premium Member
join:2001-02-08

SunnyFL8 to 81399672

Premium Member

to 81399672
Okay this should be interesting was the guy drinking coffee when he arrested him? If he was he may have been a customer of the coffee shop and if so he was entitled to use there internet access if that's what the coffee shop states. If you are working on your computer and find it more comfortable in your car or the work you are doing is not for the general public to see in other words it's proprietary information then maybe he was just doing his job. Who knows but I seriously doubt this will hold up in court.

This police officer doing his job? LOL sounds like he was killing 2 birds with 1 stone. Getting a donut and writing a ticket to cover his original intent to get a donut. LOL

PolarBear03
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium Member
join:2005-01-03

PolarBear03

Premium Member

Re: wrong law

I second that!

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to 81399672

Premium Member

to 81399672
I think rather then focus on "Is a Wi-Fi Router a computer" the better issue to focus on is "Does this constitute un-authorized access".

Personally, I have a hard time seeing the argument that if I set up a open wireless hotspot, and someone connects to it, that the connection could be considered "Un-authorized". Basically by running the hotspot I'm basically saying "Anyone with in range is free to access my service."

It's like if you run an open FTP site, and some random user logs in. Can you say the access is un-authorized? I mean the POINT is PUBLIC ACCESS.

Now, you could argue that perhaps this was "Abuse" but I still don't see it as "Un-authorized" and basically a non-crime.

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

Thaler

Premium Member

Re: wrong law

said by KrK:

Personally, I have a hard time seeing the argument that if I set up a open wireless hotspot, and someone connects to it, that the connection could be considered "Un-authorized". Basically by running the hotspot I'm basically saying "Anyone with in range is free to access my service."
The user authenticated and validated at the WAP...I wouldn't call this unauthorized use. However, had the store owner asked this guy to cease his mooching and he didn't...then I'd say he has a case.

wmcbrine
join:2002-12-30
Laurel, MD

1 edit

wmcbrine to 81399672

Member

to 81399672
(Edit: Never mind, two other people already made my point.)

supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

supergirl to 81399672

Member

to 81399672
A router is a computer. If someone freeloaded off of your router, would you be upset?

And, yes, it should be a crime.

Maybe the morality of most of the people on this site needs to aim higher. Of course, since most admit to illegal downloading, not much morality here. Add the hack your cellphone, hack your modem, etc., etc. forums. Or, how about, hack Windows.

"Gee, son, how did you figure out how to hack the NSA database?"

"Umm, on DSLReports.com. Like my iPhone? It works on Sprint and Verizon."

"I thought only Cingular offered that?"

"Well, they do but I learned a lot at that site."

"Want to come to work for the FBI, Frank Abagnale?"

Congrats to the cop. At least he was thinking and doing his job.

sitrix
join:2002-04-15
Tacoma, WA

sitrix

Member

Re: wrong law

said by supergirl:

Congrats to the cop. At least he was thinking and doing his job.
Well, at least that cop wasn't at the coffee shop eating donuts, ohh wait, where did he catch that guy again? That was at coffee shop's parking lot wasn't it? Well, what do you know. If I was his supervisor, then I would say "good job" and assign him to a more crime infested area because that cop clearly has nothing better to do.
stufried
Premium Member
join:2003-10-13

stufried to 81399672

Premium Member

to 81399672
Mr. Peterson was a fool to take the diversionary plea. The store owner said directly on the video real that it was ok. They didn't have a case.
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA

bigjimc

Member

If the Cafe allows use.....

I think the Cafe allowing access for free is the escape.

Even though they say that it is for the use of their customers they allow the broadcast of the signal outside and on the street in front of their business.

Maybe they should secure the access with a password. WOW what a novel idea and the password would change each day. When you walk in the store, the password would be on the board with the specials.

•••

TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ

TScheisskopf

Member

Something tells me...

That this law was not written for such a "crime" as this. If the cafe owner felt he needed such a law, then securing his access point should have been his first move.

••••••••••••••••••••••••
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY

satellite68

Member

Ah, Michigan

What's up with the draconian laws up there? Jesus.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Waste of Police Resources

Weren't there any real crimes that this cop could have been stopping?

I mean come on, somewhere, someone in that town must have been downloading music illegally somewhere! They could have brought out the SWAT teams!

It is so pathetic that violent crime is increasing again but cops seem more content to stop this sort of petty non-crime instead of deal with the real problems.

••••••••••••••••••••
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

dave

Premium Member

Seems a bit harsh...

The guy didn't know he was committing a crime. The cop didn't know he was committing a crime. The 'victim' didn't know he was committing a crime and hadn't complained.

Perhaps a simple warning might have been appropriate?

•••••••
the niTz
Premium Member
join:2004-07-05
Sahuarita, AZ

the niTz

Premium Member

Hmmm

He was inside his car surfing infront of a cafe, i thought cops had to have a good reason to look inside. like you cant be stopped just for not having on a seatbelt they have to have another reason to stop you.

wouldnt that apply in this case?

••••••

DrModem
Trust Your Doctor
Premium Member
join:2006-10-19
USA

1 recommendation

DrModem

Premium Member

...

If the network is open the people shouldn't complain. In my thinking, an open network is a door with a Welcome! Please come in sign on it. If you don't want people freely accessing your network, secure it.

•••••••
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

easy fix

Just as they were going to send a parent to jail for up to 80 years for sending their kids to an out of district public school.. this wifi madness has to stop! If you get on that jury... vote NOT GUILTY and lets end the madness already. We've got REAL crime going on at our nation's gasoline refineries!!

bupp
@netwalk.org

bupp

Anon

Re: easy fix

or in this case, even jury nullification would be appropriate. I don't see how the guy was accessing anything.

I also wonder at what point he got arrested? It said the officer didn't issue a ticket. He can't arrest him and THEN find a cause to arrest him for. I'm sure we've all heard of "reasonable cause for arrest". They can't just go arresting people left and right, and then find a crime.
nutcr0cker
join:2003-04-02
Chandler, AZ

nutcr0cker

Member

He needs a good lawyer

For all the anguish this poor guy faced he needs a lawyer like Mr. Roy Pearson
•»www.washingtonpost.com/w ··· _pf.html
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer

Member

Re: He needs a good lawyer

No, he needs a good criminal defense attorney, if he hires a lawyer like $65 million for a pair of pants Pearson he deserves to go to jail.

MooJohn
join:2005-12-18
Milledgeville, GA

1 recommendation

MooJohn

Member

Let me get this straight...

The fact that he violated store policy is a felony?

The store has an open wireless network that is meant for their customers. The fact that it's unsecured also means it can be used by other people within range who haven't bought anything.

As soon as this guy uses the open, for-public network he's committing a crime? If he'd cracked their encryption or brute-forced a login, that'd be different. Instead he dared use their signal without first buying a cup of coffee. While the store can frown on that and may want to change their wifi tactics, it hardly makes it a crime to go against their planned use of the open network.

It's like putting a water fountain in front of a store with a sign saying "Customers Only." Can you have non-customers arrested for theft if they take a sip?

I hope this guy gets a good lawyer.

•••••••••••••••

guitarzan
Premium Member
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA

guitarzan

Premium Member

Ditch Wi-Fi offer hard wired connection

Are these cafe owners stupid or just looking to get free publicity? Wi-Fi freeloading has been an on going problem since its invention, everybody and their kid brother knows how to freeload these days. Hard wire the damn connection and be done with it.

If these cafes want to attract customers with free internet connection, setup a router and an 100 port ethernet switch problem solved, war drivers get no free connection and customers can still get net access.

Maxxxt
Peculiar Mental Twist
Premium Member
join:2001-06-12
Anchorage, AK

Maxxxt

Premium Member

No effort needed..no crime..

Taken from the "Woodtv forums" -btw that station name should be a crime or at least a soft core porn station?..lol

The law states:
Quote:
(6) It is a rebuttable presumption in a prosecution for a violation of section 5 that the person did not have authorization from the owner, system operator, or other person who has authority from the owner or system operator to grant permission to access the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network or has exceeded authorization unless 1 or more of the following circumstances existed at the time of access:

(a) Written or oral permission was granted by the owner, system operator, or other person who has authority from the owner or system operator to grant permission of the accessed computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

(b) The accessed computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network had a pre-programmed access procedure that would display a bulletin, command, or other message before access was achieved that a reasonable person would believe identified the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network as within the public domain.

(c) Access was achieved without the use of a set of instructions, code, or computer program that bypasses, defrauds, or otherwise circumvents the pre-programmed access procedure for the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

Under letter (c) above, access to an unprotected open system is legal, correct?

•••••••••

stupid wording
@microsoft.com

stupid wording

Anon

regardless of it's status as a 'computer'

it doesn't matter if the router is considered a computer or not. it was not unauthorized access.

leave the front door on your house unlocked, and see if you can file an insurance claim for all the stuff that was stolen. there's no evidence of a break-in. by leaving your door open, you are authorizing entry.

NJxxxJon
2 0 1 7 Mmm Here We go man!
Premium Member
join:2005-10-22

NJxxxJon

Premium Member

WAWAs and CVSs

||| Just for the record : ALL WAWAs and CVS's have INSECURE wi-fi. Have Fun! |||
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH

wentlanc

Member

I demand restitution!!!

Make the guy buy a cup of coffee for every day he was seen out front.

And make the idiot cop pay for the coffee, and tack on a scone for wasting time on bullshit like this. Why do people have such a difficult time with the concept of free public internet access.

C_W
Hasher
join:2000-06-19
Rocky River, OH

Hasher

Member

Re: I demand restitution!!!

Interestingly enuff I pay $1.99 to access any "Hot-Spot" that AT&T runs. So if this hotspot was that Coffee station I could use it without breaking the Law. So if that police officer had tried this with me I would have just stated that he is incorrect in what he is thinking. Now to the point I still go in and buy something from the place just to say I have a legal reason for being parked in their lot.

The other situation is: Who is to say that the access is unauthorized? The police officer would need some kind of proof that the site is not giving the access away for some reason or other. Or maybe the site should have a disclosure page just like most Hot Spots do saying this is a private network and usage is only authorized to paying customers or the like.

Sometimes people go to far in their assumption that a law is being broken. Are we not "innocent until proven guilty"?

MrMoody
Free range slave
Premium Member
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
Netgear CM500
Asus RT-AC68

MrMoody

Premium Member

Re: I demand restitution!!!

said by Hasher:

Are we not "innocent until proven guilty"?
To a jury you are innocent unless proven guilty. To a cop you are guilty unless you are a friend, relative or another cop.
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA

2 edits

qworster

Member

In other news...

In other Kent County news, a jaywalker was sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole. Police Chief
Andrew Milanowski said: "We have to keep the world safe from jaywalkers. We MUST protect the bumpers of cars that might hit them".

DUMB? No more then this article. From what I see, this guy was charged with a felony for violating a store policy and (even worse) one that WASN'T EVEN POSTED!

The fact that he was 'diverted' is IRRELEVANT! He still has to pay 400 dollars and do 40 hours of community service. Wouldn't it have made a LOT more sense to make him buy a cup of coffee from the friggin' store??

Seriously, cops in Kent County need to GET A LIFE! Hey guys! There are REAL CRIMINALS out there to bust!!
Robbers and rapists and murderers! Instead. YOU go after WIFI robbers???!!

jkerb
@speakeasy.net

jkerb

Anon

Re: No effort needed..no crime..

The law as stated by maxxxt is pretty accurate. What is also important is the interpretation of the law(s) by the courts.
Wireless bandwidth falls under the public airwaves access laws. This range of wireless is called "experimental frequencies" IE bandwidth. This is regulated by the FCC and the issue of router vs modem has nothing to do with it. This is why you can have a wireless transmitter (as well as receiver). It has been established that for some time now that as far as wireless networks are concerned it is perfectly legal for anyone to use these unless the transmitting operator has taken reasonable steps to secure his(her) network. This can include simple WEP. This is item #c by maxxxt. So if the coffee shop did nothing to secure the network then they were broadcasting a publicly accessible airwave. Has anyone here noticed that todays laptops are pre-setup to find the nearest wireless? This is because it is perfectly legal...as long as there is no security measures that are broken in order to get the access. The owner MUST take steps to secure the network if he does not want non-customers to use the Internet access.

Beemr
@att.net

1 recommendation

Beemr

Anon

The law is non prosecutable - and here's why...

Have the lawyer take a small box and radio into the courtroom.

Place the radio into the box and call the box a "place of business". Turn the radio up just a bit so you could hear it in the box, but not outside of it.

Now, in a place of business, the owner must pay royalties to play music for their customers. The volume is such that only customers can hear it. I.E. - The owner has taken steps to ensure that the service is only used by people who have paid for it.

For the next demonstration, turn the radio up so the whole courtroom can hear it outside of the box. In this case, can you prosecute passerby or even someone who stops on the street to listen? The owner has not taken any steps to make sure only business patrons can listen in. In fact, he's broadcasting the music so that anyone passing by can hear it w/o even trying.

The wireless access is the same thing. If a business owner can't be bothered to do something as simple as not broadcasting his ssid or adding encryption, how can you prosecute passerby for 'listening' in?

If the business had encryption and such, and the guy hacked into the router - then I see a crime, even if the security was weak, it's no excuse to break in.

Otherwise, by not taking any security steps, it's no different than the radio example.
TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA

TheWiseGuy

MVM

The Law and the Definitions

I suggest checking the links at the bottom of the article. The actual title of the law is
FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER NETWORKS (EXCERPT)
The links will also take you what is prohibited conduct and definitions of Computer, computer network etc.

calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

calvoiper

Member

Re: The Law and the Definitions

said by Michigan statutes :

752.794 Prohibited access to computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

Sec. 4.

A person shall not intentionally access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to devise or execute a scheme or artifice with the intent to defraud or to obtain money, property, or a service by a false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise.
Simplified version: A person shall not ... access ... a computer system ... to ... execute a scheme ... to obtain ... a service ... BY A FALSE OR FRAUDULENT PRETENSE, REPRESENTATION, OR PROMISE. [Emphasis added.]

If it's an open WAP, then there isn't a "false or fraudulent" "representation" made. There's nothing false or fraudulent about your PC saying "hey, I'm here, talk to me" to a WAP.

calvoiper
DigitalJunki
join:2006-11-27
Greer, SC

DigitalJunki

Member

Re: The Law and the Definitions

Is a food sample at the store stealing if you don't buy a product inside? Whether the guy bought coffee or not is not the issue. If the signal was private it should be protected, or proxied. If the signal is public, then it's public and open. Shame on the coffee store owner, and shame on the cop, IMHO.
page: 1 · 2 · next