Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Arrested for Wireless Piggybacking

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the potted-coffee-puns dept.

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.

68 of 925 comments (clear)

  1. 3 straight months! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:3 straight months! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did it with one hand probably.

    2. Re:3 straight months! by adamlazz · · Score: 3, Funny

      "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!

    3. Re:3 straight months! by stecoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:3 straight months! by biglig2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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....

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    5. Re:3 straight months! by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 5, Funny

      Easy, he's guilty of being arrested.

    6. Re:3 straight months! by B'Trey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    7. Re:3 straight months! by orim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
    8. Re:3 straight months! by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, the police are intended to have the power to arrest you without a warrant on the suspicion or reasonable belief that you've broken a law; exactly the standards are for that varies from one jurisdiction to the next, but they can usually hold you (at least where I live) for a certain period of time (24 or 48 hours usually) while they gather evidence, after which they have to begin charging you or release you. Generally the statues require that the officer have "reasonable cause to belive" that you committed a felony, or are driving drunk or a variety of other things. They are supposed to have a particular crime in mind, but there's a little room there (intentionally, IMO) for vagueness.

      It's not clear from what I've read exactly what they suspected of this guy when they arrested him; there are a variety of things they could probably put down that would fly on paper though, at least enough to haul him in for 24 hours. Suspicion of theft of services, fraud, maybe stalking if one of the people in the restaurant filed a private complaint ahead of time. The police and district attorneys do this for a living -- they're pretty good at finding ways to hold on to people if they think they've done something.

      Just from reading the article, it sounds a lot like the people from the restaurant complained to the police about this guy, so they went out there and arrested him, and now they're going to try and figure out whether he broke any laws. It's not really the way that the system is intended to work, but it's how it often does.

      Example rules of criminal procedure (These are for AR, but just as an example.)

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    9. Re:3 straight months! by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    10. Re:3 straight months! by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.)

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    11. Re:3 straight months! by B'Trey · · Score: 5, Informative

      1) You have a choice as to whether or not to use a wireless connection. This isn't just about RECEIVING a signal - it's about configuring your computer to receive it, and transmitting signals back as well. This is nothing at all like walking by and "seeing" a picture.

      Not always. Many default setups will detect an open network and connect to it with no action on the users part.

      2) Being a technically minded person, it can easily be argued in a court of law that you were aware this "magical free wireless" connection was owned by someone, and was probably owned by the coffeeshop. If someone leaves their bike out on the public sidewalk unattended, are you free to take it for a spin? No. Illegal. Not yours despite someone being ignorant enough to leave it unlocked. The fact it's on public property is meaningless.

      There are lots of people who intentionally leave connections open for people to use. Take a look here. It isn't unreasonable to assume that an open, unencrypted network is intended for public use. The bicycle analogy simply isn't the same thing. I've yet to find a web site which lists spots you can go to find free bicycles to ride.

      3) Not only do you know the signal comes from some owner, but there's not just the TOS of the "wireless connection" (which may be posted inside, or may be nonexistent) -- there is the TOS of the ISP serving bandwidth to the coffeeshop.

      The ISP's TOS is an agreement between the shop and the ISP. It has nothing to do with me. I'd assume that the TOS are such that it allows the coffeeshop to share it's bandwidth as it sees fit. If not, then is the shop violating those TOS' by allowing customers to access its bandwidth? I'd be willing to wager that there IPS's TOS don't say "You're allowed to share this bandwidth if you want, but only with people who are paying customers of yours."

      I'm growing really tired of the way people are trying to justify what they know is stealing by arguing that because a wireless signal is "intangible" or "encroaches public property", it's somehow public domain. It's not. Someone owns the device that's transmitting it, and someone pays for the connection to the internet that it's using.

      And I'm growing really tired of people who don't understand basic principles. By all means, it's your bandwidth. Share it or not, as you choose. But if you choose not to, then take steps to make it clear that it's not an open access point. If you don't, then I'm perfectly justified in assuming that it's an intentionally open spot, just like thousands of others all across the US.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    12. Re:3 straight months! by twistedsymphony · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Collector's Edition
    13. Re:3 straight months! by honkycat · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
    14. Re:3 straight months! by orderb13 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The correct legal phrasing is "resisting arrest".

    15. Re:3 straight months! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    16. Re:3 straight months! by honkycat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    17. Re:3 straight months! by bluekanoodle · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    18. Re:3 straight months! by rworne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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*

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    19. Re:3 straight months! by HardCase · · Score: 4, Informative

      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-

    20. Re:3 straight months! by russ1337 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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!

    21. Re:3 straight months! by forkazoo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.
    22. Re:3 straight months! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    23. Re:3 straight months! by LouisZepher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Arrest: To capture and hold briefly.

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

    24. Re:3 straight months! by LouisZepher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    25. Re:3 straight months! by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 5, Informative

      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?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    26. Re:3 straight months! by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 3, Informative

      "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...

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
  2. AP Mac Tracking by celardore · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.
    1. Re:AP Mac Tracking by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      no nocatauth is braindead easy to set up. hell a dirt cheap wrt54g + dd-wrt installed = nearly instant anti-leecher setup.

      Print that day's nocat code on the recipts and that stops the leechers.

      dont need to know squat about any user hardware with that setup

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  3. It's Open by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    1. Re:It's Open by WillyMF1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:It's Open by Eccles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    3. Re:It's Open by alcmaeon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "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.

    4. Re:It's Open by Robotech_Master · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  4. Latte by countach · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Latte by hackstraw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  5. Six of one and half a dozen of the other by 99luftballon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Six of one and half a dozen of the other by Monokeros · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.
      --
      The Statue of Liberty is America's lawn jockey.
    2. Re:Six of one and half a dozen of the other by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Six of one and half a dozen of the other by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  6. OpenBSD / pf / authpf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...

  7. Why bother to call the cops? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
    1. Re:Why bother to call the cops? by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
  8. I do it too... by deadgoon42 · · Score: 4, Informative

    When I'm on the road, I piggyback on signals all the time so that I can check my email. The best places are coffee shops and apartment complexes. I usually stop at a complex and just drive around slowly until I get a signal, then I park and surf. Simple password protection would prevent me from doing this, but most people don't bother.

    --

    Smeghead every day of the week.
    1. Re:I do it too... by TCM · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
  9. Service? by Balthisar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    --
    --Jim (me)
  10. What an freaking idiotic crime to get him on by technoextreme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
  11. I don't get it by a_nonamiss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    -Arthur
    Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    1. Re:I don't get it by SpiritGod21 · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

  12. 911???? WTF? by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:911???? WTF? by MECC · · Score: 5, Funny

      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."

      --
      "We are all geniuses when we dream"
      - E.M. Cioran
  13. sex-offender by Threni · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 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.)

  14. This country's starting to scare me by bnocturnal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. Contradictory? by Mayhem178 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --

    "You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

  16. That's just lazy by clevershark · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --

    My sig is too lon

  17. How is this a crime? by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  18. 811? by ChristTrekker · · Score: 5, Informative

    I completely agree. Wasn't there an effort (like 10 years ago) to get 811 pushed through as the number to call for non-emergency needs? Sure would be handy, since no one ever knows the local numbers, especially as mobile as people are today.

    --

    Constitutionally Correct

  19. Vancouver WA sucks by Simonetta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  20. Analogy time! by Churla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
  21. Another example of "law protecting the clueless" by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. takes nothing to become a registered sex offender by r00t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  23. What on earth...? by steveo777 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  24. Re:Owner is a lame coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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"?

  25. Terrible Reporting... by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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!

    --
    We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
  26. In this post 9/11 world by saleenS281 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  27. more from local newspaper by shizzle · · Score: 3, Informative
    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".

  28. Re:It's different when you're supposed to use it.. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  29. Forgive OUR trespasses AS WE forgive trespasses by the_REAL_sam · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer