Slashdot Mirror
Man Arrested for Wireless Piggybacking
Sommelier writes "As reported by KATU in Portland, Oregon, a man was arrested for parking outside a coffee shop in nearby Vancouver, Washington, and using their open wireless AP — for three straight months. '"He doesn't buy anything," Manager Emily Pranger says about the man she ended up calling 911 about. "It's not right for him to come and use it."' Turns out the guy was a registered sex-offender as well." A different computer expert might have pointed out some ways to see if anyone is piggybacking on a wireless signal (many APs have a Web-interface client list), or even suggested something like NoCatAuth.
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/authpf.html
Wrap around some web based account password generator which prints a ticket to a simple serial line printer to hand over with the coffee, set a script to remove the account after the allowable period, and away you go...
When I'm on the road, I piggyback on signals all the time so that I can check my email. The best places are coffee shops and apartment complexes. I usually stop at a complex and just drive around slowly until I get a signal, then I park and surf. Simple password protection would prevent me from doing this, but most people don't bother.
Smeghead every day of the week.
no nocatauth is braindead easy to set up. hell a dirt cheap wrt54g + dd-wrt installed = nearly instant anti-leecher setup.
Print that day's nocat code on the recipts and that stops the leechers.
dont need to know squat about any user hardware with that setup
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I completely agree. Wasn't there an effort (like 10 years ago) to get 811 pushed through as the number to call for non-emergency needs? Sure would be handy, since no one ever knows the local numbers, especially as mobile as people are today.
Constitutionally Correct
You dumb #$#$. RTFA...
"When deputies told Smith to knock it off, he came back and is now charged with theft of services. "
He was told by police to leave. He came back. It becomes trespassing. Jesus... and that comment was marked "Insightful"?
Well, the police are intended to have the power to arrest you without a warrant on the suspicion or reasonable belief that you've broken a law; exactly the standards are for that varies from one jurisdiction to the next, but they can usually hold you (at least where I live) for a certain period of time (24 or 48 hours usually) while they gather evidence, after which they have to begin charging you or release you. Generally the statues require that the officer have "reasonable cause to belive" that you committed a felony, or are driving drunk or a variety of other things. They are supposed to have a particular crime in mind, but there's a little room there (intentionally, IMO) for vagueness.
It's not clear from what I've read exactly what they suspected of this guy when they arrested him; there are a variety of things they could probably put down that would fly on paper though, at least enough to haul him in for 24 hours. Suspicion of theft of services, fraud, maybe stalking if one of the people in the restaurant filed a private complaint ahead of time. The police and district attorneys do this for a living -- they're pretty good at finding ways to hold on to people if they think they've done something.
Just from reading the article, it sounds a lot like the people from the restaurant complained to the police about this guy, so they went out there and arrested him, and now they're going to try and figure out whether he broke any laws. It's not really the way that the system is intended to work, but it's how it often does.
Example rules of criminal procedure (These are for AR, but just as an example.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
1) You have a choice as to whether or not to use a wireless connection. This isn't just about RECEIVING a signal - it's about configuring your computer to receive it, and transmitting signals back as well. This is nothing at all like walking by and "seeing" a picture.
Not always. Many default setups will detect an open network and connect to it with no action on the users part.
2) Being a technically minded person, it can easily be argued in a court of law that you were aware this "magical free wireless" connection was owned by someone, and was probably owned by the coffeeshop. If someone leaves their bike out on the public sidewalk unattended, are you free to take it for a spin? No. Illegal. Not yours despite someone being ignorant enough to leave it unlocked. The fact it's on public property is meaningless.
There are lots of people who intentionally leave connections open for people to use. Take a look here. It isn't unreasonable to assume that an open, unencrypted network is intended for public use. The bicycle analogy simply isn't the same thing. I've yet to find a web site which lists spots you can go to find free bicycles to ride.
3) Not only do you know the signal comes from some owner, but there's not just the TOS of the "wireless connection" (which may be posted inside, or may be nonexistent) -- there is the TOS of the ISP serving bandwidth to the coffeeshop.
The ISP's TOS is an agreement between the shop and the ISP. It has nothing to do with me. I'd assume that the TOS are such that it allows the coffeeshop to share it's bandwidth as it sees fit. If not, then is the shop violating those TOS' by allowing customers to access its bandwidth? I'd be willing to wager that there IPS's TOS don't say "You're allowed to share this bandwidth if you want, but only with people who are paying customers of yours."
I'm growing really tired of the way people are trying to justify what they know is stealing by arguing that because a wireless signal is "intangible" or "encroaches public property", it's somehow public domain. It's not. Someone owns the device that's transmitting it, and someone pays for the connection to the internet that it's using.
And I'm growing really tired of people who don't understand basic principles. By all means, it's your bandwidth. Share it or not, as you choose. But if you choose not to, then take steps to make it clear that it's not an open access point. If you don't, then I'm perfectly justified in assuming that it's an intentionally open spot, just like thousands of others all across the US.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
According to the article I read In the local paper (The Oregonian) yesterday, he was in the parking lot, he had been using the wireless on and off for 3 months, and the manager has asked him to leave before.
Sure it does - it means that if he doesn't get out of the parking lot and stay out of the parking lot, then he's trespassing. The parking lot is private property, even in Oregon. I'll bet that's what they finally end up charging him with.
-h-
Do some research on US laws. Police can detain you to determine if a crime committed. Hell just watch the TV show COPS - they do it all the time. "I'm not placing you under arrest, I'm just detaining you while we get some information."
t ml -
s tops.html
Form the Americal Civil Liberties website - (they happen to know a little about police rights) - http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14528res20040730.h
. You must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. Otherwise, you don't have to answer any questions if you are detained or arrested, with one important exception. The police may ask for your name if you have been properly detained, and you can be arrested in some states for refusing to give it.
Notice how "detain" and "arrest" are two seperate things? And that you may be detained without being arrested??
Or from another criminal law site - http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/police_
Can The Police Stop And Question People Who Are Not Under Arrest?
Yes. The police can stop a person, and ask questions, without "arresting" the person. Upon seeing suspicious activity, the police may perform what is called a "Terry Stop," and may temporarily detain people to request that they identify themselves and to question them about the suspicious activity. The scope of a "Terry Stop" is limited to investigation of the specific suspicious activity, and if the police detain people to question them about additional matters, the stop can turn into an "arrest."
Haven't you ever heard of Guantanomo Bay?? The US is "detainig" hundreds of "suspected terrorist" without arresting a single one of them. Or is that "utter baloney" too?
"But this one goes to 11!"