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.

Comments

3 straight months!

[LiquidCoooled]

Thats a long time to browse the web for.
I wonder how he managed it.

Re:3 straight months!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did it with one hand probably.

Re:3 straight months!

[adamlazz]

"Turns out the guy was a registered sex-offender as well."

Now thats just sad. You get busted for piggybacking. Then they find out that you are a sex offender.

JACKPOT for them!

Re:3 straight months!

[stecoop]

I believe your going in left field with this one. There isn't a TOS for wireless access. If you don't want someone to use it then you have to keep the radio waves out of his property. He was pretty much using the service that was trespassing on public property. It stinks that he is a sex offender because he'll be setting precedence in court by being convicted leaving the door open for other to be convicted on some charge like this. No, it isn't thinking of the children; it is just another freedom being infiltrated because I let my wireless network be used by anyone and many others do the same. Soon this might be illegal thanks to the shop.

Re:3 straight months!

[biglig2]

Reading the article, doesn't look like there is a charge; they've just arrested him, and now are trying to figure out if he broke any laws. I'm not sure that it's meant to work that way....

Re:3 straight months!

[SphericalCrusher]

I wonder if the wifi was free... and if so, it must have been unencrypted...

Re:3 straight months!

[voice_of_all_reason]

Easy, he's guilty of being arrested.

Re:3 straight months!

[B'Trey]

What the hell are you talking about? No one is infiltrating any freedoms here. If you own the hub, you can set up any rules you want to who uses it. You have no constitutional right to open Wi-Fi signals provided by private businesses.

That's an open question. If you're broadcasting signals, what right do you have to tell me that I can't receive them?

My opinion is that it's up to you to at least indicate that this is a private network that you shouldn't access. You do that by at least setting up basic security. Sure, WEP is easy to break. So are most door locks. But if you enable WEP and I break in, then I'm knowingly trespassing where I don't belong.

And no, posting a TOS inside your business isn't the same thing. I can easily access the signal without ever seeing that TOS. Suppose I hang a picture up that's visible through my plate glass window, and beside it post a sign that says that I own this picture and if you look at it, you agree to pay me the sum of $100. If you walk by and look at my picture through the window, are you bound by those TOS? And if you're going to claim that that's different, you need to specify exactly why I should be bound by a TOS posted inside your business that I've never seen when I access a public, unencrypted signal.

Re:3 straight months!

[orim]

They can cuff you any time they please, as far as I understand even for just looking at them. But they also have to charge you with a crime within a very short time, or let you go. Otherwise, you sic your lawyers on them.

Could the police use trespassing or something on this guy? If not, and you're using a wide open Wi-Fi point, they really have no case. (IANAL)

Of course, in at least one foreign country I know, if you have a TV set, you have to pay montly subscription... regardless of it being public airwaves or whatnot. Otherwise, they come to your house and seal your TV off.

Re:3 straight months!

[Kadin2048]

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.)

Re:3 straight months!

[mdwh2]

I'm pretty sure the article said he was sitting in the parking lot, and that is most definitely NOT public property.

If that's the case, then this makes it even more ridiculous. The shop sets up a wireless network for people on their property to use, and then someone is arrested because they didn't buy anything.

The shop have the right to tell him to leave their property, and if he refuses that would be trespass. Did they do this? It is not a crime to be on a shop's property that is open to the public, and to use their service which they make open to these people, just because I don't abide with whatever rules they have set.

Also, the article didn't say anything about whether or not the coffee shop had a TOS for their internet service. To say one doesn't exist is ridiculous. The person who owns the wireless hub and pays for the signal dictates what the rules are.

They get to dictate the TOS, they don't get to dictate the law.

If someone breaks the TOS, you ask them to leave. Breaking a TOS is not a crime.

What the hell are you talking about? No one is infiltrating any freedoms here. If you own the hub, you can set up any rules you want to who uses it. You have no constitutional right to open Wi-Fi signals provided by private businesses.

I think being arrested involves a loss of freedom. And yes, he may have no right to those signals, but the shop provided them to him. The shop has every right to not provide them if they wish.

By this logic, it would be okay for any shop to arrest any customer for trespass without asking them to leave first "because they have no constitutional right to enter an open shop".

Indeed, by this logic, all sorts of things would be illegal. You have no "constitutional right" to post on a private website such as Slashdot - do you say it's okay for you to be arrested if Slashdot wishes that?

Re:3 straight months!

[siriuskase]

If you look at the picture, (LTFP), you will see the shop has a private parking lot. While, like with most American strip malls, there probably isn't an attendant verifying that you are a paying customer, you can be told to stay out of the lot if someone notices you or your car there too often. This law is normally used to chase off panhandlers, people who live in a car, and those people who use a parking lot as a shortcut.

But the proper charge for arrest would be trespassing, not theft of services. This is no more a theft than "stealing" a cat that prefers to eat your cat food than that of it's owner who lets it roam.

Re:3 straight months!

[plague3106]

They can cuff you any time they please, as far as I understand even for just looking at them. But they also have to charge you with a crime within a very short time, or let you go. Otherwise, you sic your lawyers on them.

I wonder if he could turn around and sue for wrongful arrest. It is kinda a big deal, and if they don't know a charge up front, it doesn't seem like they should be able to pick over everything to find something..

Re:3 straight months!

[Kadin2048]

It sounds like (my reading of TFA anyway) that they only found out he was a sex offender after he was arrested. So that could not have been the reason used to arrest him in the first place. People keep bringing it up as a kind of ex post facto justification of what happened, which isn't really relevant to the whole internet/AP argument or to his actual arrest, although it'll obviously be a key factor in what happens to him.

So I suspect that the police probably found some other grounds to arrest him on originally, and then once they made the ID and found out he was a sex offender (jackpot!), they can now charge him with all sorts of other good stuff -- violation of the terms of his parole or of a court order, probably.

From an internet-law perspective, it's too bad the guy turned out to be a sex offender because the interesting legal point of whether he was actually committing a crime by using the AP while sitting on the street and not going into the business will never be addressed; it'll almost certainly be overshadowed by more serious infractions this guy has committed. I'd wager that they never bother to charge him with theft of services or anything, if they can get him on more substantial parole violations. (Because theft of services wouldn't carry much of a penalty and would be a weak case to begin with, while the parole violation can probably land him back in prison without trial, just a hearing before the sentencing judge or parole board. From the police's perspective -- "how do we put the creepy guy away with the least amount of effort/expense" -- that's a better outcome.)

Re:3 straight months!

[Irish_Samurai]

I think being arrested involves a loss of freedom.

On this point I completely agree. I was refering more to the GP's perceived stance that the WiFi was the issue.

If someone breaks the TOS, you ask them to leave. Breaking a TOS is not a crime.

Once again I agree, but I'm not refering to the arrest, I was refering to the fact that the shop dictates the rules of use concerning its hub. They should have asked him to leave, then arrested him for tresspass if he didn't.

It is not a crime to be on a shop's property that is open to the public, and to use their service which they make open to these people, just because I don't abide with whatever rules they have set.

Actually, yes it is. A private business has the right to refuse service to anyone. This covers any service they provide - from Wi-FI to coffee. I think the free Wi-Fi issue brings up an interesting question. Is it illegal for someone to syphon off of signal you pay for without permission? Technically, there probably is not a law against that at this time - but there might be others that could be used in regards to this scenario.

Then comes the issue of when is it a crime. Reporters cannot sit on your front lawn and take pictures of you, but they can sit on the public street outside and do it. Does this type of approach work here also? Should it be illegal if the syphon is on your property, but not if the syphon is on public property? Does your control of your signal become moot when your signal passes into "public" areas? Frankly, I don't know where to start.

While I think the guy doing this was an ass, I think arresting him may have been a little much.

Re:3 straight months!

[Tim C]

I've seen many times on the news that sex offenders(usually child molesters) are ordered to give up their porn, in which case I would assume they would be prohibited from it for a certain period of time as well.

Well, assuming in the case of a child molester that it was child porn, presumably the period of time would be "forever"...

Re:3 straight months!

[B'Trey]

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.

Re:3 straight months!

[PhoenixPath]

It would be interesting to know if the owner of the 'property' in question ever gave the man notice that he was did not have their permission to do so. Cannot one assume, in a parking lot, that unless told to leave, you presence is tolerated?

Did they do such a thing, or did they just call the cops?

How hard is it to walk up to the car, tap on the window, and ask the guy to leave?

Re:3 straight months!

[cloak42]

Um... On a public street?

You maybe could make a case for vagrancy, but that's REEEEAAALLY reaching.

As much as I say that the fact that he's a sex offender is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the story, I do have to wonder why the guy couldn't just use internet at home to surf. I mean, if it's just a question of money, that's one thing, but if he was restricted for some reason from using the internet, well, that's another question altogether.

Re:3 straight months!

[twistedsymphony]

IANAL but AFAIK they could pick you up and put you in "protective custody" if they think you're in danger of committing a crime or hurting someone. But I don't think they can actually ARREST you without cause. Unless of course the shop owner accused him of harassment or some other crime then he would have been arrested for THAT regardless of whether or not he was actually guilty of it (that's for the courts to decide).

Here in NH we used to have a law (not sure if we still do) that states something to the effect of any unsecured wireless network that can be accessed without trespassing is considered public. That is to say that if you're WiFi network isn't secured in some way and you have credit card and other personal info shared out in the open, you can't hold other's accountable for accessing it. Some hardware store had their network unsecured and someone copied some files off it... the store tried to sue but it was throw out of court. Basically it was the store's own dumb fault for not securing their network. Similarly if I'm piggy backing off of my neighbors signal my neighbor is the one who is held accountable for providing a public signal. If his ISP has a problem with it he's the one who goes to court, not me.

IMO that's the way it SHOULD be but who knows how it will work out for this guy.

Re:3 straight months!

[honkycat]

Could the police use trespassing or something on this guy? If not, and you're using a wide open Wi-Fi point, they really have no case.

I think it may be more complicated than his simply using an open access point. According to the article, this guy had previously been asked by the police to move along and stop using their wireless network. Thus, he didn't just stop his truck and find an open network that seemed to be inviting him in. Rather, he was continuing to use a network that he had been instructed at least once he was not welcome to use. Even if you hold that a network's being open is generally reasonable permission to use it, this guy knew he did not have permission.

Re:3 straight months!

[orderb13]

The correct legal phrasing is "resisting arrest".

Re:3 straight months!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. I don't think this is brought up enough. Sex offender != child molestor. My psychology teacher in high school was a registered sex offender. One day she told us the story, too. When she was about 10 years old, (she happened to be a curious kid) she took a peek into the neighbors window while playing outside. Ever since then, she's a registered sex offender. Nicest old lady I've ever met, too.

The legal system just picked a legal term and gave it a name that has an emotional meaning. Think before you decide to harass someone because they are a sex offender.

Re:3 straight months!

[honkycat]

They may well have done that. Heck, the cops had already been there before and just told the guy to get lost. He came back after that, which is of extremely questionable wisdom.

Re:3 straight months!

[Chowderbags]

I just had a thought. What if someone camped out on a public street near a drive-in movie? Would it be illegal for them to watch the movie?

Re:3 straight months!

[bluekanoodle]

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.

Re:3 straight months!

[Knuckles]

I don't know about the laws in your country, but in most countries, minors can have sex among each other if they have reached a certain age, say 14.

Imagine this: you are 17 and your gf is 15. You have sex, no problem by law. You stay together. You become 18, she becomes 16. You have sex, still no problem. Another year goes by, you have a great relationship (you've been together for 2 years). You turn 19, she turns 17.

You seriously tell me you would stop having sex with each other for 2 years? Yeah sure.

Re:3 straight months!

[rworne]

Oh, there's reasons:

1. Sex offenders may be prohibited from using the Internet as part of their release/parole.
2. Anonymous surfing at an unsecured AP is a wonderful way of getting your "stuff" without being traced.
3. It's free

*soapbox on*
Now I didn't read TFA, but if #1 and #2 applied in this case, they would be trumpeting the fact from coast to coast. As far as I can tell, they just threw out the sex offender part just to color public opinion of the "perp". I know they seized his computer and rifled through the contents. If they found anything, the press would know it too. Much like theat guy that was caught a couple years back with a laptop accessing an open AP with his pants around his ankles.

Since the police know he is a sex offender, they know what his conditions of release are and can't seem to find a problem (as of yet). All this guy is guilty of is sitting in a public place accessing free Internet service that a business was supplying (at no charge) to attract customers. If the business really wanted to get rid of his ilk, they could just set up a click-through TOS or use NoCatAuth or some other access control method (like a time-limited passcode on a receipt) that spells out the conditions for use of the network (such as for customers only) and prohibiting unauthorized use - oh, I'm sorry - that requires money and effort.
*soapbox off*

Re:3 straight months!

[HardCase]

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-

Re:3 straight months!

[mdozturk]

It's actually the other way around: http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_06.php#00472 0 It says you cannot sue someone for entering your website unless you protect it with a password or some other authentication method.

Re:3 straight months!

[1000StonedMonkeys]

The shop have the right to tell him to leave their property, and if he refuses that would be trespass. Did they do this? It is not a crime to be on a shop's property that is open to the public, and to use their service which they make open to these people, just because I don't abide with whatever rules they have set.

The article specifically says that he was asked to leave but came back anyway. It was only then that he was arrested.

Re:3 straight months!

[Hrothgar The Great]

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.

You mean, for instance, by telling the guy in the article that they didn't want him to use it anymore?

Re:3 straight months!

[russ1337]

When she was about 10 years old, (she happened to be a curious kid) she took a peek into the neighbours window while playing outside

Really? you become a sex offender for that? That is totally fucked up. That ruins your whole life.

I also hear stories of dudes sleeping with their girlfriends when the guy is 16 and the girl is 15 and that's them 'sex offender for life'... fucked up.

Who knows what this guy did to become a sex offender. Maybe he just looked up an old ladies dress when he was a 3YO.. who fuckin knows -

But the press have made this a 'FEAR CRIME'. If the guy was Islamic, they'd arrest him on suspicion of terrorism (especially if he visited al-jazera)...now, EVERYONE who uses open access points is a sex offender/terrorist/kitten killer!

Re:3 straight months!

[Chowderbags]

Then lets take this in reverse: if a wireless device automaticly connects to my laptop, could I claim that they were using *my* property?

Re:3 straight months!

[forkazoo]

I think it may be more complicated than his simply using an open access point. According to the article, this guy had previously been asked by the police to move along and stop using their wireless network. Thus, he didn't just stop his truck and find an open network that seemed to be inviting him in. Rather, he was continuing to use a network that he had been instructed at least once he was not welcome to use. Even if you hold that a network's being open is generally reasonable permission to use it, this guy knew he did not have permission.

Yes, I think this is key. If I am driving around, and I happen apon an open access point, then it is reasonable for me to assume I have permission to use it, and it is reasonable for me to check my email and be on my way. Likewise, if I go to an internet address in my web browser, and I happen to connect to an Apache server on port 80, then I can reasonably assume that it is okay for me to read that web page.

Some people may disagree with me about it being reasonable to assume that I have permission to use the open access point. But, I think we can all agree that using it is ambiguous. It isn't clearly disallowed. But, if somebody notices me using their access point, and comes out to tell me that it isn't allowed, or they call the cops and have them tell me it isn't allowed, that is different. I can longer assume that I have implicit permission to use that access point. I absolutely know that I do not have that permission. By using the access point, I am willfully doing something that I know isn't allowed. I'd put it in the same moral category as breaking encryption keys on a closed WAP, or trying to hack into a webpage with password protection. The owner of the resource has clearly done something to make it clear that permission is not granted.

At that point, arresting the belligerent son of a bitch is probably perfectly justified.

Some people may say that the WAP was broadcasting radio waves into his vehicle, so he had the right to do whatever he wants with them. I'll agree to a point, but I don't think that makes it acceptable to use the WAP. Passively monitoring and analysing the radio waves that enter your property is, IMO, reasonable. I wouldn't do it, and I would consider it morally wrong, but I don't think that monitoring unencrypted radio transmissions should be illegal. If you steal a credit card number or something, *that* may well be illegal. But, I think that making it illegal to tune a radio is a horrible precident. Even so, tuning a radio is different from tying up CPU time of somebody else's WAP, and using bandwidth from their network connections. You are depriving the employees of the coffee shop and the customers from a tangible, finite resource (bandwidth, among other things). That's theft. Theft gets you arrested.

Re:3 straight months!

[Oligonicella]

"The shop sets up a wireless network for people on their property to use..."

Nice way to trim the verbage down to fit your point of view. Alas, you are incorrect, the shop set up a wireless network for patrons to use.

Everything else you said that depends from that invalid supposition is also erroneous.

"It is not a crime to be on a shop's property that is open to the public, and to use their service which they make open to these people, just because I don't abide with whatever rules they have set."

Wow, number two. Yes sir, it is a crime to park you car in a business's publicly available to patrons parking lot in many municipalities. I'd check out my local laws first.

"I think being arrested involves a loss of freedom."

You miss the point on purpose, I think. The freedoms indicated are those prior to your pilfering.

"And yes, he may have no right to those signals, but the shop provided them to him."

You argue in his behest then, why? I would argue that the shop was ignorant of the securities necessary and he stumbled across a way to pilfer. Ok to pilfer from the innocent, but ignorant?

"By this logic, it would be okay for any shop to arrest any customer for trespass without asking them to leave first "because they have no constitutional right to enter an open shop"."

Another grand leap. No, it would not. Because "any customer" firstly, means a customer, and secondly would include first time entrants. This guy was a repeater, and knew and acted like he knew he was pilfering.

Your last sentence dives off into absurdity.

Re:3 straight months!

[God'sDuck]

I dunno -- I'd think after 3 months of a shady guy sitting in a truck outside my cafe, even if he'd been doing *nothing*, I'd be mighty suspicious. How many teenage girls hang out in coffeeshops? At some point, there's a "this guy is really freaking the customers out" justification for having the police stop in and see what's going on.

Re:3 straight months!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

According to the article, this guy had previously been asked by the police to move along and stop using their wireless network... Rather, he was continuing to use a network that he had been instructed at least once he was not welcome to use. Even if you hold that a network's being open is generally reasonable permission to use it, this guy knew he did not have permission.

I don't think this has any bearing. You see, the police enforce the law, they don't make them or interpret them. The police often order/request people to do things, which often they have authority to do. For example, you walk into the woods from a park and the police stop and tell you to get out of there, it is private property and you are trespassing. They have no legal right to tell you to leave. If there are no signs posted and you come back and they catch you again, you still aren't guilty of anything, despite the fact that you knew it was private property. The fact that they told you you weren't welcome, makes no difference.

As to the central issue, I have talked to a lawyer about it. He researched the issue after someone told him to stop using the open WAN outside a coffee shop. His professional opinion is it will be ruled legal, based upon property law precedents, but you might want to wait till it makes it through the courts to save yourself a hassle.

Re:3 straight months!

[LouisZepher]

Arrest: To capture and hold briefly.

Sounds like "arrest" fits the situation rather well...

Re:3 straight months!

[LouisZepher]

Although I'll agree with you in that pedophiles and rapists are scum, I think the reason why many rights apply to everyone is to avoid "throwing away the key" in the case of mistaken or some other form of wrongful conviction. To simply say (and act upon such sentiment) that sex offenders be handled like trash ignores the potential (albiet improbable with modern evidence gathering techniques) innocence of an individual.

Re:3 straight months!

[Mister Whirly]

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."

Form the Americal Civil Liberties website - (they happen to know a little about police rights) - http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14528res20040730.ht ml -
. 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_s tops.html
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?

Re:3 straight months!

[TheGreek]

Great. And you can make that argument at your habeas corpus hearing.

Which happens some time after you've already been arrested.

Re:3 straight months!

[dougmc]

he's guilty of being arrested.

I always figured that if they were going to arrest you, they should have some sort of charges, right then. But perhaps I'm just naive ...

In any event, criminal tresspass probably works. If he was asked to leave, especially by the police, and then he came back, I imagine that qualifies. The physical aspects of the law would probably apply if he parked in their parking lot, but if he's parking out on the street, I imagine that the courts could find that the wireless AP was their property too and could be treated like physical property.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer.

As for being a sex offender, well, that's really totally irrelevant, but I'm waiting for some lawmaker to decide that we need legislation prohibiting the use of open wireless APs by sex offenders, for the children.

Re:3 straight months!

[Ohreally_factor]

Thanks for going to the trouble of looking up the links (so I didn't have to).

Furthermore, the police can arrest someone for probable cause that a crime has been committed. They don't even have to charge a specific crime initially, although they do have to release one if they don't charge anything within a certain amount of time (usually 24 hours). One they found out this guy was a sex offender, they had probable cause that he was violating the terms of his parole (by using an open AP to surf anonymously). They might be looking thru logs as we speak to find evidence that he was accessing kiddie porn sites, although whether they could link him conclusively to such evidence (if found) is an open question at this point.

Re:3 straight months!

[Ohreally_factor]

No, you have the right not to be kept under arrest if there is no cause. It does not prevent your arrest.

Re:3 straight months!

[Mister Whirly]

I'm not saying these are my personal points of view, or that I endorse anything, just pointing out the current law. Ideals are great, but they don't keep you from being arrested. There is a big legal distinction between being "detained" and being "arrested". Witnesses to crime are often "detained" by police, they have not been accused of any wrongdoing. Any detentions you have had are also not on your criminal record where any arrests would be. It is not a "mind control trick" - just legal terms.
There is also a big distinction between being arrested of a crime, and being convicted of a crime. The former means you were suspected of committing a crime, the later means it was proved you committed a crime.

And for the record, slavery was not necessarily accepted by a majority - there were always people that did NOT believe in slavery. You may have heard of a little thing called the American Civil War - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Civil_W ar -where the South tried to secede from the US because they wanted slavery and the rest of the country didn't ...

Re:3 straight months!

[Mister Whirly]

"Well, lets not look at the fact that most of the people that are at Gitmo are NOT us citizens and therefor do not have all of the rights that a US citizen has. If there are US citizens being held down there, that would be "utter baloney"."

Nope, they do other things - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla - to American citizens they detain without arresting...

Re:3 straight months!

[Marxist Hacker 42]

In Oregon, a registered sex offender can be the 16-year-old who had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend, should the parents choose to prosecute. Means absolutely nothing in this case, other than the fact that if they find sexual material on his machine he's probably breaking his parole agreement.

Re:3 straight months!

[tompaulco]

like getting their IT guy to set up a passphrase
Their IT guy was probably too busy mopping the floor or making a double fudge latee or putting more toilet paper in the restroom.

AP Mac Tracking

[celardore]

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.

That's fine, if you have a number of known devices - but for something like a coffee shop where you have many different and irregular users that would not be easy. You could probably track down HIS mac address and block that though.

Re:AP Mac Tracking

[Lumpy]

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

Re:AP Mac Tracking

[coinreturn]

Print that day's nocat code on the recipts and that stops the leechers.
All the leechers have to do is find a discarded receipt - they're sure to be all over the place.

It's Open

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's open, it's okay to use it.

Don't want strangers to use your AP? Secure it.

Re:It's Open

[WillyMF1]

It's more like putting a TV in your window, turning it on, and getting upset when someone watches it.

Re:It's Open

[$1uck]

if you left your front door open, would it be legal for some stranger to wander in and use your stuff?
I hear this argument a lot, and I dont think its very accurate. Your front door isn't floating out into public space, If you play your music really loud and the sound waves travel out to my ears, am I stealing your music? No. and thats only half the analogy, because as we know the wireless card in the laptop also sends a message back to the wap but for that to happen the wap first has to send out a message notifying the laptop that it exists. So I guess to complete your analogy... if someone's front door has a sign that actively says "I'm open, I'm unlocked" kind of like an invatation for an open house which seems legal to me.

Re:It's Open

[Eccles]

Just because it is open, doesn't mean that it is legal to use it.

I sent a connect request. Your system accepted my request. I rang your doorbell, and your electronic doorman answered and let me in. I'm not trespassing.

The protocol was specifically designed with a mechanism to allow people to share without human intervention, or to prevent it if you so desire. If you're too effing stupid to set it up in the latter fashion, you shouldn't be allowed to use it.

Re:It's Open

[DrSkwid]

If you shine a light into the street, can I use it at night to see where I am going ?

If you transmit CB radio from your house can I sit in the street and talk to you using my CB radio ?

If you transmit WiFi signals into the street on a publically available frequency what makes them so special ?

Here in the UK (IANAL) iirc I am perfectly entitled to walk into your house if it is unlocked and use your stuff so long as I don't break them or cause you financial loss. I can even take items out with me if I don't intend to permanently deprive you of them.

Re:It's Open

[alcmaeon]

"It's more like putting a TV in your window, turning it on, and getting upset when someone watches it."

You are exactly right and I bet if someone bothered to research it, there are some old cases from the drive-in movie era that would be instructive. If a person can see a movie screen from his back porch and watch it but not pay for it, is that stealing? If a person can hear the concert from the bar next door, but doesn't buy a beer, is he stealing it? If a person has a satellite dish and watches an unencryped broadcast, is he stealing it? I venture that in all cases the legal answer is "no."

Under the right facts, I bet the law woudl not even consider it stealing to receive an encrypted broadcast.

Re:It's Open

[Robotech_Master]

I held this point of view, too, until a friend pointed out a few things about property law to me. I tried to argue, but I ended up coming around to his point of view.

It's okay to use it until the owner tells you to stop. At that point, it becomes no longer okay to use it.

If they hadn't first told him to stop--had a policeman tell him to stop--then they wouldn't have had much of a case for arresting him. But once they told him to stop and he came back anyway, then it became a matter of trespassing.

Look, if a store is open to the public and people come in and shop, that's fine. But if one of them misbehaves and they tell him they don't want his business anymore and to stay out, he's not entitled to come back in just because the door is open and other people are going in. He's been told to stay out, and if he disobeys that order he's trespassing. And while some establishments do have bouncers, it's not beholden on every establishment to have security, because the law is on their side in this matter.

In this case he was doubly trespassing: using their wireless access after they told him not to, and using their parking lot after they told him not to. Even if they couldn't get him for theft of service, they could still get him for trespassing.

Would they ever have known he was using their service without buying anything if he hadn't been parked so prominently in their parking lot all that time? Say, if he were located in some business next door? Probably not. But he called attention to himself by acting in an obvious and not a little creepy manner. They had every right to tell him to stop. When he didn't stop, he got arrested.

Re:It's Open

[Hatta]

Under the right facts, I bet the law woudl not even consider it stealing to receive an encrypted broadcast.

"The right facts" being that Sony or AT&T were the ones doing it, and not some guy with a criminal record.

Re:It's Open

[siriuskase]

In fact, isn't it usually the other way around? If your neighbor plays his music loud enough for you to hear, you can have him arrested for disturbing the peace. We have a neighborhood bar that has that problem, it was built to close to some houses. The houses were built first, so they keep shutting down the joint, which sits vacant for a few months until a new victim rents the building.

Re:It's Open

[Eccles]

If you come to my block party, and you tear down my wallpaper, break furniture, steal my jewelry, take a leak in my pool, and abuse my wife, you'll get prosecuted. A hacker also claims to be someone they aren't, so there's fraud involved.

Re:It's Open

[rockhome]

OK, Here's the problem that you all have. It is not that it is illegal, it is just not cool. The coffeee shop is providing a value added service with the sort of implicit understanding that people, being cool and decent, won't just abuse it.

This sort of thing constantly boils down into a "you scratch my back, and then I'll ignore yours" situation. It's a matter of being a part of the community that we all share. It is amazing that some many devotes of open source/free software will jump on a company for violating the GPL, but won't recognize the kind of abuse that this article is discussing.

Re:It's Open

[Robotech_Master]

My previous Slashdot comment was my 1337th. Alas, with the posting of this comment, I am no longer l33t. :)

The WiFi aspect of it is what interests me. I've long held the strong belief that people should be free to do as they please with *ANY* signal that impacts them or their property. Guess what? The law as it is enforced today doesn't agree with me. Else I could put up a satellite dish, figure out how to descramble the signals from DirectTV, DISH Network, XM Satellite Radio or StarBand...or cellular towers, or secure police radio transceivers, etc. and use them as I pleased for my own purposes, under the assumption that they were freely given to (forced upon) me.

If it were up to me, the burden would fall entirely upon people who transmit over the public airwaves to provide whatever security they deem necessary for their signals. I would favor laws that openly encourage people to entertain themselves however they please with any transmission they receive, and make full use of unsecure wireless network nodes such as the open AP in question.

So...in one paragraph, you say that you should have the freedom to decrypt encrypted signals--and in the next, you say that if people don't want their signals used, they should encrypt them. You really are in training to be a lawyer, aren't you?

It seems fair to me that you should be able to make what use you want to of an unencrypted signal you receive. You could tune in any AM, FM, shortwave, etc. signal you want, or make your own digital clock that monitored time signal transmissions to synch up, or make use of a stock ticker signal someone broadcast in the clear.

But in order to make use of an Internet connection, you have to transmit a signal back, too. In particular, you have to transmit a signal in a certain way so as to make the other party's signal box do something. You're manipulating someone else's property. To use your analogy, it would be fine to watch a TV set through someone else's window--but not fine to change the channel for them without asking, whether you did it by tapping the button with a long pole or using your own universal remote. You're messing with something that's not yours.

But regardless, the thing that gets me about people's responses to this case is that it's not a question of wardriving, where you at least have the fig leaf of "If they didn't want me to use it, they should have locked it down." Though everyone seems to be treating it that way anyway.

This is a question of "It used to be okay for the guy to use it, but he abused the privilege and was banned, but came back anyway." This isn't a wardriving case, it's simply trespassing plus its electronic equivalent. Whether you or I feel they had a good reason for doing it, the establishment was within its rights to ask him to leave. People seem to be ignoring this and answering with their rote "wardriving" responses.

I suppose I should stop expecting rationality on this issue from Slashdot. Many Slashdotters--at or at least many of the more vocal ones--seem to want to get everything for free. Music, movies, software, books, Internet service, beer, etc. And that's perfectly all right when the stuff is in the public domain, or when the owners want to make it available for free. That's what's so great about GNU, BSD, Linux, Creative Commons, Project Gutenberg, community wireless networks, coffeehouses and restaurants who provide wireless free to their customers, and so on. And hey, we all want free stuff. I know I do.

But many Slashdotters seem to feel this sense of entitlement to get whatever they want for free, because they want it, and so they go out and take it. The Rolling Stones song "You Can't Always Get What You Want" holds no truth for them. And so they dance all around justifying this in various different ways. "If they didn't want me to use it, they should have locked it down!" "If they didn't want me to use it, they should have locked it down such

Latte

[countach]

How are they going to prove he never bought a latte? Are they going to be able to swear that in the last three months, of all the lattes they sold, not one was bought by him? How do they know his friend didn't buy one and bring it to him in the car?

Re:Latte

[hackstraw]

How are they going to prove he never bought a latte? Are they going to be able to swear that in the last three months, of all the lattes they sold, not one was bought by him? How do they know his friend didn't buy one and bring it to him in the car?

Who cares?

This is yet another example where human logic and rationality are excluded when a computer is involved.

AFAIK, there is no law against using, ahem, free stuff floating in the air.

There are laws against loitering, vagrancy, and tresspass. Any or all of those could apply to this situation, but no, a computer was involved so it must be some special unwritten law that he broke.

Re:Latte

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

If the shop's WiFi connection was encrypted, he may have done something illegal. But it was open and unencrypted. If someone broadcasts something over the air without encryption, I'm going to say that it's not illegal to use..

Re:Latte

[Amouth]

to be honest .. if it was going on for 3 months.. why didnt' they just filter his MAC.. sure he could just get another card.. but you block that one and quickly the guy would leave.

Six of one and half a dozen of the other

[99luftballon]

Yes this guy was committing theft and should be charged. But why on earth didn't they have their connection locked down? Print the password on the back of a receipt and that way genuine customers can use the connection and the leaches stay outside the network. That said if there are no signs or warnings that the wireless connection was for paying customers only then they could have a problem charging him. A canny lawyer could claim he thought the connection was a free resource, but I'm unfamiliar with US law on this.

Re:Six of one and half a dozen of the other

[Monokeros]

Yes this guy was committing theft and should be charged.

It's theft is it?
Has anyone here ever been to a trade show and taken the free swag without ever buying the product promoted on said swag? Have you accepted free posters & whatnot from an auto show without later buying a Ferrari or Porshe?

Did you ever accepted the free t-shirts that newspapers and other companies hand out on campuses, at sporting events, concerts, etc. all over the country without later purchasing the goods or services they promote?

Then you sir, are a thief. None of that swag was free for those companies. And you should be charged.

Some coffee shops offer free WiFi in an effort to get people into the store spending money. If it fails, that's too bad. When someone uses their free wifi without buying anything it's perfectly ethical and it's perfectly legal.

Other coffee shops charge customers for WiFi. If this shop can't handle the inevitable freeloaders they've certainly got the option to lock down their network--and until they do the freeloaders are doing nothing wrong.

Re:Six of one and half a dozen of the other

[voice_of_all_reason]

but I'm unfamiliar with US law on this.

US law is "he is a sex offender -- he has no rights."

And if you disagree with that, then you are obviously a terrorist.

Re:Six of one and half a dozen of the other

[Hoi Polloi]

I see people IN coffee shops who I swear have had their butts parked there for 3 months or more and I never see them buy anything. They just sit there with their laptops. They should arrest them too.

I don't see why they mentioned he was a REGISTERED sex offender. What does that have to do with this? Maybe he stayed outside so they couldn't accuse him of violating some distance restriction.

Re:Six of one and half a dozen of the other

[99luftballon]

There's a slight difference between promotional items, where there is no explicit requirement on the recipient to promote said product, and possibly this case. If there was a clearly observable sign saying that the signal was for customers only then I'm sorry but it is theft.

I got to a lot of trade shows and have managed stands where we were handing out freebies. While the behavior of some people trying to grab handfuls of USB pen drives is distasteful it would be a long stretch to describe it as theft. The idsea behind these items is partly to draw people to the stand so that the sales staff can pounce on them and partly that they will use them outside the show and this make the name of the product or company more well known.

Re:Six of one and half a dozen of the other

[voice_of_all_reason]

Bears repeating, though I'll expand because your given example is always used and has a number of people who would be happy to brand someone accused of that with a scarlet letter:

*streaking
*public urination
*"criminal restraint" -- Fark has a story a while back about a guy who nearly ran a kid over and got outside to yell at him. Because he grabbed her arm, he was found guilty and had to register.
*"false imprisonment if not a parent" -- Haven't heard of this yet, but it would probably apply to anyone who found a teenager stealing/vandalizing their home/store and made them remain while they called the police.

OpenBSD / pf / authpf

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Why bother to call the cops?

[MichaelSmith]

The whole point of the open AP is to encourage people to hang around in the shop or the area around it. The smart thing would be to send somebody out with a free cup of coffee and get him hooked.

Re:Why bother to call the cops?

[Rob T Firefly]

Too true, and my neighbors with the Linksys could have the courtesy to bring some of that wonderful-smelling beef stew out to their bushes now and then.

I do it too...

[deadgoon42]

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.

Re:I do it too...

[TCM]

I hope you do it over TLS/SSL only with strict cert checks, otherwise you'd be in for a surprise if you did this around my AP. :)

Don't think every open wireless network is managed by the clueless and not monitored and sniffed.

Re:I do it too...

[rockhome]

That's just the kind of attitude that this generation of Stallman/Lessig influenced, wannabe hippee-communists has developed. So many people think that everything ought to be free and open that they forget to actually be free and open themselves. Look at it like this, am I free to just walk into your house just because you left the door unlocked? No, that's tresspass.

Similarly, though several magnitudes less, using a coffeee shop's open wireless network, or anyone's for that matter, just isn't right. We live in a world where things work best when we all scratch one another's back. The idea of providing an open AP is to encourage you to scratch the back of the coffee shop, not just abuse the service that they provide. When a business provides free access to some service there is an IMPLICIT understanding that one ought to throw some cheddar to th business for providing the service. This shouldn't be a question of law, it ought to be a question of common decency and respect for the world that we all live in. I doubt that many of the people that read and post on /. have ever maintained an open AP so that any slouch can access it.

Sure, simple protections would prevent you from using some one else's network, but simple decency ough to as well. I own a parking spot that I generally do not use, does that make it OK for someone to just park there? No, that is my property. Maybe if they'd say "hey, I need an extra spot this weekend, here's a couple bottles of Biddendens" then maybe I'd not be so put out. Too often in our society, people take first rather than give first, and many of the free information/software/love people are the worst about the taking without giving.

Re:I do it too...

[mdwh2]

That's just the kind of attitude that this generation of Stallman/Lessig influenced, wannabe hippee-communists has developed.

Before this degenerates into a communist-bashing argument, I should point out that I'm pro-capitalist and think communism would be a bad system. It should also be noted that there is nothing inherent in capitalism that says such things should be illegal.

So many people think that everything ought to be free and open that they forget to actually be free and open themselves. Look at it like this, am I free to just walk into your house just because you left the door unlocked? No, that's tresspass.

Similarly, though several magnitudes less, using a coffeee shop's open wireless network, or anyone's for that matter, just isn't right.

So, they are going to prosecute all of the people who entered the shop and used their wireless?

Although both private property, there is a big difference between a shop and a private home. Are you free to just walk into a shop just because they left the door open? Oh wait, you are. It's only trespass when they tell you to leave and you refuse.

The idea of providing an open AP is to encourage you to scratch the back of the coffee shop, not just abuse the service that they provide. When a business provides free access to some service there is an IMPLICIT understanding that one ought to throw some cheddar to th business for providing the service. This shouldn't be a question of law

We agree it shouldn't be a question of law. But I'm not even sure it's a moral issue. If someone hands out freebies in order to tempt people along, it's fair game that people might take the freebies without becoming a customer. Maybe it's nice to occasionally buy something if you really like it, but I don't think it's morally wrong to not do so (and do we know that this person never ever bought something from the shop?)

Re:I do it too...

[Anonymous Coward]

The home I used to live in, we had two AP's - one was an AirPort (the /real/ wireless AP) and one was an industrial-strength AP that came with the house - completely configurable.

One cheap honeypot + one cheap logging system running decent software + trivially broken WEP + living on a street corner across from the only Baptist Church /and/ the only high school = teh win.

Re:I do it too...

[Neoncow]

One cheap honeypot + one cheap logging system running decent software + trivially broken WEP + living on a street corner across from the only Baptist Church /and/ the only high school = teh win.

So how many myspace accounts do you have now?

Re:I do it too...

[giorgiofr]

This shouldn't be a question of law, it ought to be a question of common decency

You're exactly right, unfortuntely in today's world you have to turn everything into law, as people will simply disregard common decency (and then they'll probably break the law for good measure). I always think anarchy would be bliss, but at the same time I don't want it NOW because people would simply not be ready for it. Now watch this anarchist shake his head at people's stupidity and almost approve of law - watch his head explode :D

I'm on the street - it's a free country

[ch-chuck]

Not any more: Famous Doonesbury panel.

Service?

[Balthisar]

Isn't that a public service? Wouldn't the coffee shop have to complain to the dude first? I've driven into coffee shops' parking lots while on the road *specifically* to use their WiFi. It's an open network. Not just an unsecured network because granny doesn't know how to program her Linksys, but an intentionally open network. Sure, it's not "cool" to be a leech, but it's not specifically prohibited.

And what does being a sex offender have to do with anything?

Re:Service?

[ToxikFetus]

And what does being a sex offender have to do with anything?

It's called ad hominem. The fact that he is a sex offender has nothing to do with the argument unless a) he was living in his car and didn't notify the neighborhood homeless or b) he was squatting within X feet of a school or public park (or where ever else the local jurisdiction prevents sex offender from hanging around). None of this information was present in TFA.

Re:Service?

[DustinB]

A friend of mine is a registered sex offender: she flashed someone on campus and a cop saw it. Sex offender for life. Everyone who hears it asks if she is a pedophile or raped someone. The sex offender title ruins people's chances for things such as jobs and living happily with neihbors for life. It's an awful system.

What an freaking idiotic crime to get him on

[technoextreme]

Theft of services??? How about trespassing. Much easier to get him on that especially since the deputies told him to stop hanging around in the parking lot.

I don't get it

[a_nonamiss]

I don't get the legalities of this all. Was he tresspassing? Was he stealing coffee? Did he sign a contract saying that he would buy x amount of coffee for y amount of bandwidth? If the coffee house wants to secure their network, the technology is available. I get that the guy was a creepy sex offender, making him easy to demonize, but in theory he's paid his pennance and isn't committing more crimes. (aside from dubious wi-fi stealing laws) I am playing music loud on my outdoor speakers, I can't sue my neighbors for listening to it. In the same way, if I'm broadcasting a wi-fi signal, it's my responsibility to secure this signal

Re:I don't get it

[SpiritGod21]

I am playing music loud on my outdoor speakers, I can't sue my neighbors for listening to it.

That's because the music doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the RIAA.

Which reminds me, the RIAA will be along shortly. Something about you distributing music audibly to your neighbours who have not purchased the songs in question.

911???? WTF?

[brunes69]

Calling 911 when someone is having a heart attack - commendable.

Calling 911 when someone just stole your car - questionable, but I can understand it I guess since you want to get in touch ASAP since time is of the essence, and you may not know the local police number.

Calling 911 because someone is annoying you by using your WAP???? How in any way is this an emergency? Why couldn't the store take 30 seconds to look up the local number for the police?

911 is for emergencies. The phone line time these bozos were taking up to complain about a guy using internet may have delayed an ambulence getting dispatched by 45 seconds - 45 seconds that could mean life or death for someone. People should get fined for this bullshit.

Re:911???? WTF?

[drewzhrodague]

Oddly enough, my friend's car was vandalized by some drunk idiot. I mean, multiple keyings, dented hood, broken side mirrors -- they did a good job, the car looks like hell. So, he went to call the police, and it was busy -- ALL DAY LONG. Eventually he called 911, because he couldn't get through. After explaining the situation, the operator asked him why he didn't call there first. "Because it's for emergencies," my friend said. The operator told him to use 911 next time. Go figure.

Re:911???? WTF?

[Eccles]

I had a car radio stolen once. It was stolen overnight, so presumably it had been hours since the theft occurred. I tried calling the police station via numbers in the phone book. They told me to call 911.

The phone line time these bozos were taking up to complain about a guy using internet may have delayed an ambulence getting dispatched by 45 seconds

You know, they have more than one operator.

Re:911???? WTF?

[mrchaotica]

Why couldn't the store take 30 seconds to look up the local number for the police? 911 is for emergencies.

Yeah, just try telling that to the Atlanta PD. If you try to call their regular number to report a non-urgent situation, all they'll do is tell you to hang up and call 911 because the dispatchers are apparently the only ones who record incidents.

Re:911???? WTF?

[MECC]

I'd like to hear the transcript of that call.

Caller: "Help! Help! Someone's using my wireless access point without my permission!"
Operator: "Are you in danger?"
Caller: "No, but I think they might be downloading music...!"
Operater: "We'll get a swat team there right away."

sex-offender

[Threni]

> Turns out the guy was a registered sex-offender as well.

So what if he's using someone elses internet connection? It's not morally wrong as far as I'm concerned, and it's probably not even legally wrong in a lot of places. The people in the coffee shop are selling someone elses coffee - which they've paid a fraction of what they're going to make off it to the original suppliers for. I mean, while we're talking about being fair here...

(It wouldn't be so bad if he'd been a communist, drug user or muslim. Gotta keep those bogeymen alive...need an excuse to spy, burgle and bug citizens.)

Re:sex-offender

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

need an excuse to spy, burgle and bug citizens

Haven't you heard? it's burglarize! "Burgle" is such a British word. And you know the British - they owe us for saving them in World War II. That's right, if it wasn't for ground forces at Normandy, the RAF never would've won the Battle of Britain.

Besides, "burgle" makes sense. A burgler...burgles. If we allow our language to make sense, the people might start thinking for themselves.

(OT, but that is an interesting twist on Sapir-Whorf. Has anyone looked into the regularity of languages?)

Owner is a lame coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Without getting into the debate on the rights on wrongs of wireless freeloading and the actual act itself I would like to make to an observation on the cafe owners behaviour.

A guy sits outside the cafe for three months, obviously being observed by the owner. At no time does the owner walk up
to the guy and ask him what he is doing. He doesn't say something simple and polite like

"Hi there, I'm the owner of the the cafe across the road there, are you plugged into my wireless connection? Because y'know, like its really for my customers."

Not once. He sits and broods and waits for three straight months and finally calls 911 to get the cops involved *as a FIRST recourse*

If he had made it clear to the guy that he knew/suspected what he was doing there's a 99% change the freeloader would have moved right along.

The problem we have, the deeply endemic pathology in society is not apathy, stupidity or greed, it is cowardice.

Re:Owner is a lame coward

[Anonymous Coward]

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"?

Re:Owner is a lame coward

[Hyler]

"Hi there, I'm the owner of the the cafe across the road there, are you plugged into my wireless connection?"
To which he can truthfully answer "No".

Someone always has to piss in the punch bowl...

[MikeRT]

There is a certain degree of expectation that if you are going to use their network, that you need to be a paying customer. It's not hard to go in and buy a coffee. I've done that with small coffee shops that provide wireless. I go in and buy something--in cash--so that they know I'm paying my way. If you can't afford a $1.50 cup of cheap coffee, you should be working instead of sitting there with your laptop leeching off their connection. This is a welfare baby mentality. We need the police to intervene in cases like this or a few miscreants will end up ruining it for the rest of us.

And one last thing. It's very unlikely that the same workers who noticed him using their wifi would not have noticed him coming in as a buying customer, given how long he was doing this.

This country's starting to scare me

[bnocturnal]

Why is this a police matter? Seems to me that the Cafe was not taking any measure to prevent his use... Did they even have a "Click through" page where he had to agree to "Terms of Service", i wonder? This would be like me putting a bench in a public park and calling the police if anybody sat on it. The ones being arrested should be the business owners... for wasting the Police's time, and for making false 911 calls.

Re:This country's starting to scare me

[enrevanche]

He was told to stop by the police and came back and did it again anyways. If this is the case, then he is stealing services. If you are told not to use something, you no longer can claim that you thought it was free without being a customer.

You're right they should at least provide minimal protection for their own good, but verbal should be enough for legal purposes.

Contradictory?

[Mayhem178]

using their open wireless AP

When deputies told Smith to knock it off, he came back and is now charged with theft of services.

This article is pure FUD. Okay, the guy was a sex offender. The article only mentions this once, and it clearly says they have no idea if he actually did anything wrong. It just says that to discredit him.

I can't help but wonder if during those 3 months anyone working at the coffee shop bothered to ask him if he wanted a drink, or informed him that he would have to make a purchase if he wanted to continue using their wireless AP.

A computer expert told KATU News there is no way to know if someone is using your wireless connection without permission.

Some computer expert.....did I mention this was all FUD?

That's just lazy

[clevershark]

It seems to me that an individual or company who, in this day and age, deliberately chooses to not enable any security on his wireless network really shouldn't get any sympathy from anyone.

How is this a crime?

[JustNiz]

If they leave their internet wide open and broadcast an SSID then I beleive its fair to assume that this is an open invatiation and they are offerng a community service.

If he was just using the internet why would the coffee shop give a damn anyway? its not like they are losing anything. In fact, I would have thought the coffee-shop would WANT to offer a free wifi zone as its free publicity about how community-minded they are.

I think there must be more in this. He was probably parked in front of thsir shop, downloading porn and masturbating in public.

811?

[ChristTrekker]

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.

Re:811?

[Niten]

I'm not sure about 811, but in my area 311 will connect you to a non-emergency dispatcher.

Vancouver WA sucks

[Simonetta]

Not to belittle my wonderful neighbors too much, but anything that happens in Vancouver, Washington (not Vancouver BC) should not be taken seriously. The place is on the north side of the Columbia River in the Portland Oregon metro area. Oregon has no sales tax but high income taxes. Consequently Vancouver is filled with people who want the cheap income and property taxes and to also hop across the river to buy everything with no sales tax.
    Also, Portland tends to be liberal, environmental, and moderately progressive while Vancouver is packed with pious, self-righteous, bible-thumping, overweight, narrow-minded freaks who believe that they have managed to keep their own little piece of Alabama pure while surrounded by sinners and liberals.

    So some guy found a WiFi hot spot. And he parked his car there. Every day. for three months.
So what?
    And he's a 'sex offender' too. Well, in Vancouver, a sex offender may a guy who has done some seriously bad things with his ... Or, it may be some guy who twenty years ago got caught unireating ('taking a whiz' in the American slang) behind a bar or gas station in the middle of the night. Or got caught kissing a 17-year-old girl when he was 18. Or got caught swimming naked in a lake in the woods on a hot summer day. Or, lots of other stupid harmless things that the Americans lump into the category of sex offences that have nothing to do with sex offences.

    Or maybe he really is a super predator who actually was endangering the community by...what was it?, oh, yes... parking his car and using his computer in it.

Analogy time!

[Churla]

Complaining that someone was using an unsecured, free AP as theft of services is like saying someone should have to close their eyes if they hang around outside your store at night as to avoid taking advantage of your free lights.

(someone has to have a better one than that, let's see it!)

What it boils down to is that if they want people to have to buy something to use the WAP then secure it in a way as to assure that happens, don't complain because you're too lazy to do something proactive to control it. It isn't hard. People fire up a browser , first page is a redirect on which they have to enter the "password du jour" which, as mentioned above, could easily be printed on the reciepts or even on a small sign next to the cash register.

Re:Analogy time!

[stinerman]

Complaining that someone was using an unsecured, free AP as theft of services is like saying someone should have to close their eyes if they hang around outside your store at night as to avoid taking advantage of your free lights.

Not exactly. Since the wireless bandwidth is shared, anything the leecher used dimished what others can use. It is not so with lights. That being said, I tend to agree with you that using an open AP should not be a crime. The AP broadcasts the SSID. DHCP does the rest. In effect:

AP: "Hey, I'm an access point."
Client: "Great! Can I have an IP?"
AP: "Sure thing. Here you go, have fun!"

And somehow this is theft?

Come on guys, if you can't at least secure it with WEP or some sort of "password du jour" as the parent says, don't go complaining when people use your access point.

Another example of "law protecting the clueless"

[Opportunist]

Aside of people who deliberately keep their APs open as a service to the community, there are numerous who just can't get their APs secured. Yes, of course, internet crimes are a lot easier from insecure APs. The only reason why it isn't done more often is simply that there are easier, also impossible to trace, ways to do it than driving around for it.

What does the legal system do? Require people to close their APs or keep logs? No. What they do is, the person who's smart enough to use that security hole gets the blame. Oh sure, he's a sex offender. So "think of the children" is this time the excuse, I guess.

If you don't understand technology, don't use it. If you want to use something, make sure you know how to use it. If you fuck up, don't shift the blame on someone else for your blunder.

So they should publish what their terms are.

[gelfling]

They should publish clearly that anyone who does not purchase x$ of goods in a period Y will be prosecuted. They should also publish that anyone sitting in their coffee shop must purchase x$ of of goods in a period Y or they will be arrested and prosecuted as well. They also need to monitor how many napkins and straws people use as well as the quantities of milk. If you go over your allotment you will be arrested. I mean fair is fair, isn't it?

Re:So they should publish what their terms are.

[Akaihiryuu]

I have a feeling that we aren't hearing the whole story here. It's probably just a case of bad journalism. If I'm reading TFA correctly, the police had already told him that he couldn't come back. This would mean that he had been told by the police that he was banned from the premesis. It's likely that he had been doing something to annoy their customers and wasn't just minding his own business and surfing. This would mean that the restaurant already had the cops there once before and had the guy banned. We had to do things like this in the convenience store I used to work at as an assistant manager all the time - usually to drunks or homeless that would constantly try to bum money off of people. Anyway, if the cops told him he couldn't come back and he did, it wouldn't be "theft of service" that they'd charge him with, but *trespassing*. If someone that is known to have been banned from your property proceeds to come back, calling 911 is definitely the correct thing to do. I have a feeling that the article author heard that this guy had been using free wireless internet and decided to twist the truth of what actually happened. Or maybe they decided on the "theft of service" thing in addition to the trespassing he was already being charged with.

If you don't want to use it.

[LWATCDR]

Keep your photons to yourself. Hey if the next door to me is watering his lawn and his sprinkler hits my grass am I stealing it?
Did the shop say free wifi? If so I really don't see the problem. If you set up an open wifi access point and a sign that says free wifi then there is a logical assumption that it is free to use. Of course since the guy was a sex offender it is all right to bust him.

takes nothing to become a registered sex offender

[r00t]

Two teenagers screwing all the time. The guy turns 18 years old. Suddenly he can't fuck his 17-year-old girlfriend without committing rape. Her mom is pissed, and insists on prosecution. Guy goes to jail (instead of school) and becomes a registered sex offender.

Then...

Girlfriend turns 18. Girlfriend moves in with her boyfriend's parents while waiting for the boyfriend to get out of jail. Girlfriend and boyfriend get married and start a family.

Girlfriends mother probably wonders why her daughter won't call anymore, and why she married a guy who couldn't complete school.

-----

A friend of mine saw just this. Neighbors won't let their kids play with the couple's kids. If the guy gets reported as doing something like helping out with a kid's soccer team, he immediately goes to jail until a judge can find time to deal with it.

This a a law that needs to be stopped ASAP. It's out of control. At least letting the "victims" wipe the slate would be good.

What on earth...?

[steveo777]

I like all the people who are asking what he did wrong. Well, for one let's just drop the fact that he's a sex offender. The guy had been sitting in their parking lot for hours. I don't know how busy this place got, but the parking lot is for customers, and if he wasn't sitting in his car for hours at a time, he would have been towed. Then there's the fact that this is obviously his primary use of the internet and he's not even supporting the company. So he may not have affected anyone elses surfing or parking, but he's in the way regaurdless. It's just indescent. I know I use coffee shop wifi all the time. But I'll always have coffee or something when I'm there.

Now I am going to say they should have kicked him out after a few days of parking in the lot for hours and not buying anything. Not three months.

Re:What on earth...?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Yes, it was wrong/underhanded/sneaky. The question is...was it illegal?

Re:What on earth...?

[sizzzzlerz]

Since when is being "in the way" grounds for arrest in a public, non-life threatening situation? If the parking lot was signed for customers only or, in some other ways, was restricted and the individual had been requested to move his car by someone in authority, there are legal grounds for his removal (tresspassing, for example, not consuming WiFi signals). But if it was a public parking lot with no clearly specified time limits then where is the violation? Furthermore, why just the WiFi. I assume he was also consuming the aromas emminating from the coffee shop. Why was he allowed to get away with that?

Yes, the guy sounds like a leech but I still don't understand the reaction here. Unless there is some other real violation here, my guess is he'll walk.

Re:What on earth...?

[steveo777]

I've been in a few places with signs up saying minumum to spend and max stay time. Typically $5 min, 2hr max. But these are high school hang out Perkins and the like. I've spent hours in a perkins just talking and sipping on free refils, and usually they're fine with it if no one is around. We've gotten our check and paid it long before, but we still drink the bottomless cup. Heck, I went to Baker's Square with a good friend and we both brought brand new 200+ piece Lego sets to put together. We spend 10 bucks between the two of us and sit there for three hours. If they ask us to leave, no problem, but at least we spent some money, and tipped the server. (there was a sign prohibiting board games and other activities the next time we went in, it was in the front for about a year)

You'd never get away with just sitting down, reading the paper, typing a report, but not ordering in a restuarant/coffee shop. They'd throw you out. I'd throw you out.

Maybe it's just the Minnesota Nice in me, but there's a pretty easy way to see if you're imposing. Look around. It is busy? Is the waitstaff giving you dirty looks? Does you butt hurt because you've been sitting on that bench for hours? I'd say no more than half an hour in a busy bistro, but two or three hours if you're obviously not in the way... or the third time the server asks, "Can I get you anything else?"

Re:more like...

[residieu]

More like the coffee shop has newspapers available for customer to read, and this guy comes in to read the newspapers but never buys anything. Rude, but not exactly illegal.

Then be honest.

[LWATCDR]

Have a notice saying Internet access to paying customers. If you have a sign saying it is free then I figure it is free to use. Frankly I have never used free wifi anywhere since it never seems to be where I need it on business and I just don't take my notebook with me to lunch. I think calling the police and charging this guy was wrong. Someone should have asked him not to freeload or the Police should have asked him not to. Why the hell should the taxpayers have to foot the bill for his jail time, trial, and probably public defender because somebody didn't like him using their free, unsecured WAP!

I wouldn't take it to trial

[CodeMasterPhilzar]

Granted, I'm no legal expert but a couple of points would seem to be in the defense's favor:

• It is an open network, presumably broadcast off their premises. Would you sue someone for sitting on a sidewalk bench reading a newspaper at night by your store lights? "Hey, that light is for customers only!" Or "Hey, that muzak is for the customers only!" Maybe in that case people on the sidewalk could sue the store for noise pollution ;-)
• If you buy into the idea that it is for paying customers only, what level or amount of service is implied? If the guy was ever a customer then he's covered. I mean, does one latte buy you 1 hour of access, 1 day, ... what? If he has any proof he ever made a purchase there, then it is a matter of how much service he was entitled too. I'll bet the shop only has a little sign that says "Free wireless internet" or some such. Probably doesn't even say "For customers only" let alone any limits. Ah, and IIRC a contract without limits is not valid...
• How long before these hot-spots start posting AUPs? I'll bet the shop doesn't have one, yet.

Nope, no matter how creepy, innovative, clever, stupid, or {insert characterization here} you think this guy is, he probably can't be successfully prossecuted.

The real question is, who has time to sit around in their truck for hours each day? Sheesh, I barely have enough time to read a /. article or two for entertainment! ;-)

Throw the book at him, or, not.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only relevance to the "sex offender" status is if he was downloading child porn through the coffee shop's wifi. That said, with him being 20 years old, my guess is that he was 18, she was 17. This, in my opinion, belongs in the class in which if Dad wants to kick his ass, everyone looks the other way. On the other hand, it could also be a legitimate rape charge which has *nothing* to do with the case at hand.

The sex offender registries which include consensual 16/17 17/18 or such relationships just about make the registries worthless. Also worthless are registries, as in Illinois, which include a 25 year-old gentleman which grabbed a 15 year-old girl by the arm and said "are you @##$@ stupid!?!" after she ran out in front of him and narrowly avoided dying.) In my area, there are about 20 offenders listed within a mile of my house. Probably 15 of those are bf/gf. So much for childhood sweethearts getting married and living happily ever after...well, I guess you still can (after you get out of jail); it's just that you can't live within 1,000 feet of a school.

Theft was not really committed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anytime you broadcast an RF signal to the wide open general public, you are actually indeed broadcasting free use of that signal to the general public whether or not that was your intention. In fact, due to the way wireless 802.11 networking works, you are even ADVERTISING your system's availability to anyone within "earshot".

Failing to secure your wireless is NOT an analogy to leaving your car parked at the side of the street with doors unlocked as some folks argue (and where the car owner should still have reasonable expectation that nobody should open the doors and prowl around inside). Failing to secure your wireless is much more like leaving an ice-filled cooler without a lid, chock full of cold cans of Coca-Cola, sitting on a table completely unattended on a busy city sidewalk full of pedestrians, on a hot summer afternoon, with a sign that simply says "Here is a cooler full of ice-cold, tasty Cokes". In that situation you would have no reasonable expectation that the drinks would remain secure as it appears to the layperson passers-by that the drinks are being offered for free to the public.

Terrible Reporting...

[Chabil Ha']

"As it turns out, Smith is a Level One Sex Offender"

How is this a relevant detail to the story? Now, if this guy was using their connection to commit such crimes against other people, THEN it would be an important detail. Otherwise, IMHO, the story really doesn't seem that important.

NEWS FLASH! A 22 year old man was cited for jay walking on a busy street and as it turns out he's a sex offender! More details on KBS at 10!

-or-

NEWS FLASH! A 19 year old boy was arrested today for stealing a hand full of 5 cent bubble gum. During a news conference today it was revealed that he is also a statutory rapist!

Who's the "thief"?

[Kadin2048]

Your front door isn't floating out into public space, If you play your music really loud and the sound waves travel out to my ears, am I stealing your music?

Actually, in that situation, if you turn your music up really loud and I can hear it, you're conducting an unauthorized public performance of the music, and probably violating somebody's copyright. According to the RIAA, copyright violations are stealing, and stealing is a crime, so therefore, you are a thief.

A computer EXPERT?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

From the 'news' story:

"A computer expert told KATU News there is no way to know if someone is using your wireless connection without permission."

There are a whole lot of ways to do that. My DD-WRT firmware lets me know the MAC address of all wireless clients connected, and allows me to ban them with a single click.

What kind of computer expert did they talk to?

You've all done it...

[Beefslaya]

So you visit Chicago, or some large city on vacation...You are looking for the nearest L or Tube station. You may even be in a bad neighborhood, or you dont' trust the directions that a local may give you.

So you power on your iPaq and (blink!) there is a free wifi network at the local cafe, apartment building, or local library. You quickly reference a city map, find out the station is 2 blocks south, and you are on your way. The day is saved.

Should I go to jail for some dumbass leaving his wifi unsecured? NO.

If you put a drinking fountain on the public sidewalk attached to your water meter, you can't expect that only your friends or people that visit you will only drink from it.

There are 100 different ways this coffee shop could have secured the network. Heck...spend more then 100 bucks on your WAP router...and you could even have rotating WPA keys. Come in...pay for your coffee...and get a key for the rest of the day.

The fact this guy is a sexual offender is irrelevant. That's making the assumption that he was out looking for trouble on MySpace. Unless you have the log files to prove where he was and when he did it, that shouldn't even matter.

I would recommend this guy get a lawyer, and go after this coffee house when this nonsensical bullshit is over. He should get at a minimum, free coffee and internet for a year.

Additional details

[maharvey]

We saw this on the news last night and there was additional information.

The guy sat there in the parking lot for something like 8+ hours a day using the internet. He had blankets over his windows so nobody could see into the car. The people from the coffee shop thought it was creepy, and did go out and talk to him but it made no difference. The deputies found he was reading "sex services" classifieds on Craigslist and arrested him, confiscated his laptop and towed his car.

It does sound suspicious and creepy, but whether a crime was committed I don't know.

Loitering? Yes. Slacker reporting job? Probably.

[scgops]

In the article, the store manager described the guy hanging out in the parking lot for three months as "borderline creepy." Actually, it's loitering, and that's something the guy could have reasonably expected to be charged with.

I don't know offhand whether "creepy guy issued summons for loitering outside coffee shop" is big enough news to get written up in Vancouver, Washington, but I hope not. That's probably why the story reads the way it does. Written this way, the story gave at least one reporter and a friend (a.k.a. mister computer expert) a plausible excuse for buying coffees as a business expense, and driving around while "working on a story." I think we've all had days like that, and wish we had them more often.

In this post 9/11 world

[saleenS281]

In communist Chin... er, in this "post 9/11 world" you're guilty until proven innocent. Didn't you get the memo? Terrorist.

Re:takes nothing to become a registered sex offend

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Kinda weird how a 19 year old is allowed to have sex with more people than a 25 year old, say. In a society that tries hard to control the sexual behavior of younger people it seems doubly weird to impose more restrictions on the older person. Reminds me of a piece of code that someone has patched together by adding yet another conditional to the chain of conditionals that the previous clueless developers added to the code to deal with the bug they really didn't understand...

Re:takes nothing to become a registered sex offend

[Tim C]

IANAL, etc, but wouldn't it be illegal for the two 17 year olds to be screwing in the first place? I don't know about the US, but here in the UK I'm fairly certain that "below the age of consent" is below the age of consent - it doesn't matter how old the bloke is, although I'd imagine that a 30 year old screwing a 13 year old would be dealt with more harshly than another 13 year old would.

I seem to recall cases in which relatively young kids ( 16 years old) were required to sign on to the sex offenders register.

I Don't Quite Agree with This Line

[Asphalt]

"A computer expert told KATU News there is no way to know if someone is using your wireless connection without permission."

I don't know about you guys, but all of my wireless routers have a web interface that shows every MAC address and computer name that currently has an IP address assigned.

There certainly is a way to know if someone is using your wireless connection without permission.

It doesn't set off alarms and flash a big neon light saying "unauthorized access" or anything, but if at any point in time I want to see who is using my router, I can.

There are also little applets than can email access reports to you, and it would seem very simply to have the thing ping a URL which in turn would have the router send you an SMS or email for everytime someone logs on or off.

Something that the quoted "computer expert" might have wanted to mention instead of the inaccurate blanket statement "there is no way to know".

There is a way to know, most people who run wide open just don't care.

more from local newspaper

[shizzle]

http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/06212006ne ws37573.cfm

Seems like he was parking in their parking lot, and refused to go even after they repeatedly asked him to leave, so I don't see why this isn't an open-and-shut trespassing case. (Of course, IANAL.)

I'll let others comment on the mention of "erotic services".

NOT ABOUT CHILDREN

[OctoberSky]

There are 4 or 5 posts in here that speak of children. Does the article say he is a child molestor or a sex offender?
I say this because not all sex offenders are into children. If I walk through the mall and grab your mothers boob as she walks by and I have a record and a shitty lawyer I will probably become a Level 3 sex offender.
But I aint into kids, I just like grabbing Mrs. Butterworths titties. I hate when people assume that every sex offender is a child molestor.

Re:takes nothing to become a registered sex offend

[r00t]

Not in Massachusetts.

I think the norm is the other way actually.

In any case, suppose she is not quite 16 yet, or that she just turned 15. It makes little difference.

Re:It's different when you're supposed to use it..

[Dun Malg]

Because it's not given away freely. Its a service provided by the Coffee shop to its paying customers. Complementary only applies to patrons.

"Complementary" is still free. Interior lighting is "complementary" and intended for patrons, but there isn't squat they can do if I'm sitting on the bus bench on the sidewalk reading Crime and Punishment by the light coming out their windows. If they don't want their light used, they need to block the windows. If they don't want their free wifi used by anyone but patrons, they need to put some sort of access control in. Even a simple "gateway" page that pops up in your browser the first time and says "intended for patrons only" would be better. You can't just stick a Linksys router on the counter and then get all huffy and call the cops when people using it aren't abiding by your unwritten, unspoken, "intentions". This is the 21st century. Bandwidth is cheap enough that you can find open wifi nodes all over the place. The presumption that an open node that communicates no TOS and just hands out IP addresses via DHCP is, in fact, open is not an unreasonable presumption. It's essentially equivalent to installing a drinking fountain at the sidewalk and getting angry because passers-by are drinking from it.

Re:The things a coffee can do

[notaspunkymonkey]

I use unsecured Wireless spots all the time - AFAIK in the UK the person who is responsible for the wireless link can be held accountable for the activities of people using it which is why at most places you have to accept a policy before you connect (hotel lobbies and service stations etc) If the coffee shop staff wanted this guy to stop surfing using their link they should have secured it - or over the course of the 3 months at least have the balls to go outside at tell the guy to get lost. My next door neighbour came round about 3 months ago and asked me if I was surfing using his link.. he seemed a bit pissed about it at the time - when I told him I used to but his bandwidth sucked so I bought my own wireless router to let me surf in my lounge instead of using his... he was more pissed off than before.

Sex offender status not relevant

[Skynyrd]

I'm not condoning sex offenders, but it had no relevance to the story.

They are trying to imply that he was doing something wrong by simply being on sex offender list. Perhaps he was surfing kiddie porn, or perhaps he has a "no internet" clause in his parole - or perhaps he just didn't want to pay for internet access.

In any case, I think this is really sleazy reporting to mention his status, unless it has something to do with the case.

Theft of services?

[phorm]

I'd imagine that this would be along the same laws that could apply if you tied yourself into 'free cable' or phone service by tapping somebody else's account... or by bypassing the meter and stealing power.

My head hurts

[Cervantes]

There is so much wrong with this, I don't even know where to start...

-You're providing a free service, then complaining when people use it?
-You want to limit it to customers, but you take no technical measures to limit it to customers?
-Why in the blazing flames of Hades are you wasting the time of 911 over someone using your WiFi? Seriously, aren't there laws against abusing 911 services with REALLY STUPID PROBLEMS?
-"Theft of services"? The article alluded to the fact that he'd previously been requested to leave by deputies, so I could see "trespass" if he was still in their parking lot... but how can you "theft" a free service?
-Was he caught browsing child porn? Was he wanking when the deputies came up to the car? No? Then why harp about how he's a "registered sex offender". Oh no, be afraid, run away, the evil sex offenders are using your WiFi! Obviously he must have been up to no good, because he's a Registered Sex Offender. It couldn't be that he can't afford high-speed because he doesn't have a job because he has to tell everyone he's a Registered Sex Offender. Couldn't be that at all.
-"He was creepy". Yeah, that's a good reason to call 911. Oh, wait, he's a Registered Sex Offender... you must have been scared, poor Shop Employee. I hope you get counselling and a book deal for your brush with a Registered Sex Offender.
-"No way to tell if someone is using your WiFi, says computer expert"... I didn't realize the reporters 9 year old son now counted as a computer expert. Seriously, does no-one, anywhere, bother to double-check facts anymore?

I'd love to watch this get kicked out of court... but he was Creepy, and he's a Registered Sex Offender, and it was somehow computer related... so an out-of-touch, luddite judge is going to conclude he was Hacking, and sentence him to 10 years in pound-me-in-the-ass prison, where he'll make lots of new friends when they announce "Here is prisoner 65851579, we just want to let you know he's a Registered Sex Offender".

There are 2 possible extremes of this case.
Option 1) He went streaking, or got drunk and groped his equally drunk date and she had second thoughts, or shagged his 17yo girlfriend when he was 18, or something equally as relatively innocent... and now, he's poor, discovers some free WiFi next to his house instead of his poor-ass dialup, and like most of us, gets hooked on the speed and forgets to not be 'creepy'.
Option 2) He's a dangerous, kiddy poking asshole, who just last year shagged some preschooler whilst dressed like Barney. He drives all the way across the city to sit all day in this parking lot, wanking off to his vast underground network of kiddie porn. He likes to spend hours staring at the employees in the coffee bar too. He's a threat to everyone around him, dangerous, obviously "on the sly", and must have been doing something illegal.

Now, after reading the article, which would you be more likely to pick? Yay for balanced reporting.

PS: I thought the reference to "LEVEL ONE" Sex Offender sounded ominous... I mean, he's a Level 1, that's gotta mean something, right?
Yeah, Google says Level 1 means you've the LOWEST chance to re-offend, and it looks like it's usually applied to girlfriend pokers, streakers, drunk-chick-touchers, etc... not to preschool-shagging Barney-wearing freaks. Sure was nice of them to mention what "Level 1" meant in the article, eh?

Judge Ooka says:

[Java Ape]

This reminds me of one of the legendary cases of the wise and just Ooka Tadasuke, a samuri magistrate/judge in feudal Japan. Here's the wikipedia summary:

One of the most famous stories is called "The Case of the Stolen Smell" where he heard the case of a paranoid innkeeper who accused a poor student of literally stealing the fumes of his cooking by eating when the innkeeper was cooking to flavour his dull food. Although his colleagues advised Ooka to throw the case out as ridiculous, he decided to hear the case. The judge resolved the matter by ordering the student to pass the money he had in one hand to his other and ruling that the price of the smell of food is the sound of money.

So, I think the man should be forced to go to the stupid coffee shop, and wave a five-dollar bill around for a minute as "payment" for sitting in a public place siphoning off a few bits of bandwidth. One problem I see over and over again with computers and the law is that people want to equate ephemeral things like data streams with real property. Nothing was stolen, nobody was deprived of real goods. Perhaps I should find public wireless sites, then sue them for "attacking me with radio waves", or "pushing pornography".

Re:Judge Ooka says:

[Java Ape]

Just for giggles, here's a more complete version of the story.

Now it so happened in the days of old Yedo, as Tokyo was once called, that the storytellers told marvelous tales of the wit and wisdom of His Honorable Honor, Ooka Tadasuke.

This famous judge never refused to hear a complaint, even if it seemed strange or unreasonable. People sometimes came to his court with the most unusual cases, but Ooka always agreed to listen. And the strangest case of all was the famous Case of the Stolen Smell.

It all began when a poor student rented a room over a tempura shop - a shop where fried food could be bought. The student was a most likeable young man, but the shopkeeper was a miser who suspected everyone of trying to get the better of him. One day he heard the student talking with one of his friends.

"It is sad to be so poor that one can only afford to eat plain rice," the friend complained.

"Oh," said the student, "I have found a very satisfactory answer to the problem. I eat my rice each day while the shopkeeper downstairs fries his fish. The smell comes up, and my humble rice seems to have much more flavor. It is really the smell, you know, that makes things taste so good."

The shopkeeper was furious. To think that someone was enjoying the smell of his fish for nothing! "Thief!" he shouted, "I demand that you pay me for the smells you have stolen."

"A smell is a smell," the young man replied. "Anyone can smell what he wants to. I will pay you nothing!"

Scarlet with rage, the shopkeeper rushed to Ooka's court and charged the student with theft. Of course, everyone laughed at him, for how could anyone steal a smell? Ooka would surely send the man about his business. But to everyone's astonishment, the judge agreed to hear the case.

"Every man is entitled to his hour in court," he explained. "If this man feels strongly enough about his smell to make a complaint, it is only right that I, as city magistrate, should hear the case." He frowned at the amused spectators.

Gravely, Ooka sat on the dais and heard the evidence. Then he delivered his verdict.

"The student is obviously guilty," he said severely. "Taking another person's property is theft, and I cannot see that a smell is different from any other property."

The shopkeeper was delighted, but the student was horrified. He was very poor, and he owed the shopkeeper for three month's smelling. He would surely be thrown into prison.

"How much money have you?," Ooka asked him.

"Only five mon, Honorable Honor," the boy replied. "I need that to pay my rent, or I will be thrown out into the street."

"Let me see the money," said the judge.

The young man held out his hand. Ooka nodded and told him to drop the coins from one hand to the other.

The judge listened to the pleasant clink of the money and said to the shopkeeper, "You have now been paid. If you have any other complaints in the future, please bring them to the court. It is our wish that all injustices be punished and all virtue rewarded.

"But most Honorable Honor," the shopkeeper protested, "I did not get the money! The thief dropped it from one hand to the other. See! I have nothing." He held up his empty hands to show the judge.

Ooka stared at him gravely. "It is the court's judgement that the punishment should fit the crime. I have decided that the price of the smell of food shall be the sound of money. Justice has prevailed as usual in my court."

Wrong

[Evanisincontrol]

The correct legal phrasing is "resisting arrest".

The correct legal phrasing is "not resisting arrest," since he didn't.

Forgive OUR trespasses AS WE forgive trespasses

[the_REAL_sam]

Is "Brewed Awakening" in for a rude awakening? Who's going to forgive THEIR trespasses if THEY don't even forgive those of a poor guy who lives in a van? "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."

Now, I can SEE why they'd be pissed off if he were using up scarce bandwidth, and their customers/employees were lacking, but I doubt he's using much bandwidth, and it's not COSTING them any extra. So, WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO GOOD OLD FASHIONED KINDNESS?! Every so often, life provides us with the opportunity to help one another out. In the long run, we're better off if we take those opportunities.

Consider that the poor guy's circumstances. He's living in a van, for heaven's sakes! AND he has a felony conviction on his record. How's THAT help for finding employment? Internet is almost a fact of life these days, and how on earth do you think he's gonna get net access? If he doesn't have a land address, and/or can't afford wireless access, then it seems to me it's just the right thing to do to tolerate his trespasses.

Worried about his criminal record? If it were a junior high school I'd be concerned, but it's a cafe, and he's not in prison NOW, and he doesn't have warrants, right? Last time I checked, that meant he's a FREE MAN WITH FULL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

I can imagine why they might not want that van always out front, but Jesus said
"Love your neighbor as yourself,"
"Love your enemy,"
and be a good Samaritan.

Yes, I know, /. is full of athiests, but I'm sure they can appreciate the virtue of those ideals.

Re:Forgive OUR trespasses AS WE forgive trespasses

[Phroggy]

I'm a Bible-thumping church-going Christian, and I totally side with the coffee shop here. As I understand it, he parked his van in their parking lot and used their free wifi without buying anything, and they turned the other cheek for three months. Finally they asked him to leave and not come back, because he was using up a parking space and network bandwidth that was no longer available to the coffee shop's customers. He could have gone to some other coffee shop. There's plenty of free wifi around Portland. The Multnomah County Library has plenty of computers with Internet access open to anyone with a library card. No, he came back to the same coffee shop after being asked not to return.

Should they forgive his tresspasses? Sure, if he'll stop tresspassing. In the mean time, calling the police was entirely justified, although they should not have used 911 since this obviously wasn't an emergency.

Permission

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you hold that a network's being open is generally reasonable permission to use it, this guy knew he did not have permission.

I have a nice house in a nice neighborhood on a hill. When my daughter is sunbathing out by the pool, it sometimes attracts unpleasant looking people on the public road behind (and above) our home. They like to stop and gawk. I have asked the police to inform them that they do not have permission to look into my back yard.

They may argue that the open air is genrally reasonable permission to use the view, but they know they do not have permission.

The police should arrest those perverts.

Actually it's not illegal.

[jskline]

Heres the dope on this;

If you own a wireless router, it is much like any other "broadcasting" device such as 900mhz cordless phones, wireless digital cameras, micro FM transmitters, et al., these send signals out in all directions and without regard to what is capable of picking them up.

There is NO law that says that they cannot receive the signal and with the case of the network connection, hook into your network connection. Anyone can receive the signal and do whatever with it, which does include listening (ie camping on the line and listening at conversations or traffic. Digital or otherwise) Key in on that word, "Receive".

Fact is that technically, where it stops is that it's illegal for someone to go into your network without your permission. If you have what is advertised as an open connection to the internet with your business, without a way to confine it to patrons, then you simply have no recourse. This guy was simply taking advantage of an "Open" connection. This shop should have secured it and required patrons to somehow use an automation process to allow the router to let them on, probably controllable by the proprietor. Most likely by MAC address which last I looked, is externally posted on each and every networkable device including wireless devices. I've heard some of them require you to sign up ahead of time and provide this information. And this makes sense as you could then go to just about any of the franchises and get on with impunity.

The fact that he was a registered sex offender is also irrelavent. They simply got "lucky" when the officers came out to investigate the complaint.

You are *supposed* to secure your wireless router when you purchase it and install it. Unfortunately, they sell these things to everyone including your local village-idiots who barely can read a kids book let alone an owners manual for one of these devices. Thats why you can drive around in just about any neighborhood and scope out hundreds of *open* WIFI points.

Unless someone goes into your connection and does over $50,000 in reportable (and I do mean business reportable) damages, you have simply no recourse. I've been there and seen it. Found out the hard way from law enforcement officials. Fricken punk high schoolers that want to hack into your Linux server for whatever reason at your house, just for the bragging rights at school, and you might as well just get over it and format the thing and reinstall. You can't even sue them in concilliation court as there technically is no monatary damages to something in the home or even a lot of "small" business unless you can meet that $50,000 minimum in postable, reportable damages. For most of us, this ain't going to happen.

Wait until Congress dreams up a silly law requiring you to secure your access point for fear of stiff fines or imprisonment! I can see it now. Strange white vans combing the neighborhoods with silly looking loop antennas on the roofs and watching it stop... and go... and stop... and go... and go... and... oh... stop... and go... and so on and so on.

Cheers.

Misuse of 911

[Bryansix]

Why didn't the police send this woman a bill for calling 911 when there was no emergency. All she had to do was look up the police department in the phone book or call 411! I mean she had 3 whole months to figure it out. People misuse the 911 system all the time and they need to be punished.

Btw, if the coffee shop wanted to get rid of him couldn't they just filter out his MAC address? Some people are seriously challenged. I don't think he commited a crime either.