Slashdot Mirror
Michigan Man Charged for Using Free WiFi
Nichole writes "Sam Peterson II was charged with unauthorized use of computer access for using a coffee shop's free WiFi. He is facing a 5 year felony charge and a $10,000 fine but apparently got off lucky and received only a $400 fine and 40 hours of community service because he was a first time offender. 'it seems few in the village of Sparta, Mich., were aware that using an unsecured Wi-Fi connection without the owner's permission--a practice known as piggybacking--was a felony. Each day around lunch time, Sam Peterson would drive to the Union Street Cafe, park his car and--without actually entering the coffee shop--check his e-mail and surf the Net. His ritual raised the suspicions of Police Chief Andrew Milanowski, who approached him and asked what he was doing. Peterson, probably not realizing that his actions constituted a crime, freely admitted what he was doing ... [the officer] didn't immediately cite or arrest Peterson, mostly because he wasn't certain a crime had been committed.'"
Let the "This is SPARTA!" jokes begin.
-Peter
...people who can sit outside a baseball stadium or concert from some vantage point and watch the game/performance for free are also commiting a felony.
If this were a civil offense and not a criminal, wouldn't they have to prove damages?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Thank you for maintaining the peace, officer.
Something in the summary doesn't make sense. "Free WiFi" implies that this was a service provided by the coffee shop but the rest of the article reads as if it was simply an open wireless network that the coffee shop was using for their business. From reading the article it appears to be the later case and the man simply assumed that because the network was open the cafe was providing it for their customers.
"unauthorized use" sounds like a tricky term to me. Every day people need to guess if they are authorized to be somewhere or not (I assume I'm allowed in an unlocked store during business hours, I assume I would be unwelcome if I broke in at night). I usually use the assumption that people are willing to share their wifi if it is unsecured. That's exactly what I do at my home by leaving an old access point open outside my firewall. I realized that I'm taking on a little liability to let my neighbors use my wifi, but I figure the goodwill is worth the risk.
Ok - let me get this straight.
He didn't know he was breaking the law
The COP didn't know he was breaking the law
The STORE OWNER didn't know he was breaking the law
So how exactly did he wind up getting a $400 fine, community service, and a diversion sentence out of it?
Common sence tells me that there's nothing for him to "divert" - I suspect if you had just TOLD him he was breaking the law, he'd have said "oops - sorry - I won't do it again"
What a waste of resources.
"$10000? this is madness"
"Madness? this is SPARTA!"
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
This is the same as if the guy was using the restroom without purchasing anything. While this may be considered rude by some it hardly qualifies as a crime and classifying it as a felony reeks of ignorance. If I were this guy I would be so frustarated I would probably spontaneously combust.
Who else is using a coffee shop's free WiFi to check Slashdot?
This will help keep the riff-raff from relocating to sunny Michigan.
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
If I recall my experiences using windows XP, doesn't it just automatically connect to any unsecured wireless connection that it finds? I would bet that most people don't even realize they're stealing somebody else's internet bandwidth, since chances are their OS isn't even showing a connect dialog by default.
It seems to me that blasting unsecured WiFi around is much like having a trampoline that is unsecured. When children come and jump on it without your permission, and injure themselves as a result, the owner is liable, since the trampoline is an "attractive nuisance".
If people don't want everyone on their WiFi, they should have to either secure it with a key or restrict it to the premises.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
If someone wants to offer a free exclusive service to customers it should be forced to take at least minimum steps to protect that offer. If they slapped WEP on it and the cops found this guy cracking it in the parking lot then charge him. Otherwise you could arrest me for sitting in the parking lot next to a concert enjoying the music!
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
And if you do, always ask them questions if you can, try you hardest not to give them any answers. You are required to show them your ID if they ask. The magic words are "Officer, am I being detained?" If you aren't being detained, tell the officer you will now be on your way, and you have no further business with them. If you are not being detained or incarcerated, they have no authority to hold you against your will.
If you don't want unauthorized people accessing your unsecured Wi-Fi network, then provide your customers with the access information on a receipt or something. If hotels can do it surely a coffee shop can figure it out.
What the heck is a "diversion program"?
When I was younger, I used to live in an apartment complex across the street from the local University's football stadium. When concerts were played at the stadium, I would sit out on the balcony and listen to the music. Maybe I should have been arrested for that, too.
If a coffee shop wants to limit its "free wifi" to paying customers only, there is plenty of technology out there to do that. Having worked for a company that sold wireless equipment to coffee shops, I can't believe that they would have been ignorant of this fact, as my company and several others probably would have been constantly bombarding them with sales people trying to sell them products that do exactly that.
If a coffee shop has big signs that say "Free WiFi!" and I am able to pick up a clear signal outside of the coffee shop and connect to it, I can't reasonably be expected to know that "free" to them means "to paying customers only" unless it was explicitly stated on those same signs. Even so, what if this guy picked up the signal from somewhere out of sight of the coffee shop? How could he reasonably be expected to know it was not intended as a public access point, unless the SID was something like "buycoffeeorGTFO"?
From what I recall about this case when it came up before, the man adamantly refused to buy a cup of coffee, even though that's all the shop owners asked of him. They let him know that their wifi was for customer use only (yeah, they should have passworded it or something), and told him that they were going to take this to the cops. Like I said, the man repeatedly refused to buy some coffee, a bagel, etc, even after being politely asked to. It's not like he was completely unaware of the situation. As far as I'm concerned, he deserves the fine and community service.
...all of you who live across the street from a drive in theater. Just because you can see it, doesn't men you can watch it!!!
Question: "What are you doing" (cop probably thought he was looking at porn and masturbating in public) Answer: "I'm working on my computer. How's your day going?" Question: "Great. Have a nice day."
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I thought if the WiFi spot was completely open, no encryption, no required login, no nothing, then it implied that the offerer was giving permission without a user needing to come up face-to-face and ask "hey, may I use your internet?"
The fact that the access point was unsecured implies tacit permission. Technology exists to give temporary tokens to users in a coffee shop setting(one-time password on your coffee receipt). Discuss.
I'd argue against it but, frankly, without it, Paris Hilton's, "Like, uh, I'm rich! My nail buffer said I could like totally keep driving with a suspended license. I, like, had no idea that was bad." would have been a valid defense.
How can he be charged with a crime for using a FREE service. If I put a drinking fountain in front of my house and put a sign up that said "FREE water", how could I charge someone with criminal unauthorized use if they came up and took a drink? It kinda sounds like the guy got the shaft to me.
Was the WiFi there to encourage people to come in to the cafe, or was it for private use?
If it was for private use, shouldn't it be the owner pressing charges? I mean, that's the person nominally injured. And it's not like this was, say, a murder.
Still, lesson learned.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
> Milanowski didn't immediately cite or arrest Peterson, mostly because he wasn't certain a crime had been committed. "I had a feeling a law was being broken," the chief said. Milanowski did some research and found Michigan's "Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks" law, a felony punishable by five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
A job well done to chief Milanowski. Way to dig for a tool to hit the guy with. Instead of tracking down drug dealers, thieves or physically abusive spouses - or even setting speed traps - he's protecting the town against wi-fi users. I feel so much safer...
I wonder if it came into consideration the idea that a) using a freely offered wi-fi connection doesn't seem to cover the intent of the law as described; and b) the cafe offered the wi-fi connection _freely_. Whether it was offered specifically to customers or anyone in a radius - which isn't made clear - the cafe was offering and didn't even complain about the guy using it. They certainly could either post a sign saying, "Must be a customer to use this service," like restrooms, or enable a key that would be given out only to customers.
Again, Bravo! to chief Wiggum - oops, Milanowski - for going well out of his way to bust someone. You, sir, are a shining example of what law enforcement should be like - in a police state...
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
explaining how leaving your keys in the ignition and the doors unlocked is implicit permission to for them to take your car for a joyride.
The officer extracted a confession out of a citizen without informing them of their rights. Can we now expect officers to start feigning ignorance about obscure laws only to claim later they looked it up and then use previous confessions to throw people in jail?
Unauthorized computer access is a crime, as it should be. This particular instance, however, probably should not be. It wasn't just an unsecured access point, it was deliberately unsecured to provide free wi-fi, and even the store owner didn't think the guy had comitted a crime. He probably should have realized that "free wi-fi" meant "free if you come in to the store, and hopefully buy something". The penalty handed down by the judge it says is because he had no record, but I would bet it's also the judge realizing that he wasn't being malicious, he just made a mistake that didn't really cost anyone anything.
This is an example of why mandatory minimum sentences are bad. It's done to "get tough" on criminals, but all it does is force judges to "get stupid" and not be able to apply any judgement to cases like this one.
The enemies of Democracy are
it covers: "Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks" In this case I don't see how he accessed the network using fraudulent mean, hence no law was broken. Anyway, anybody who uses a FREE wifi hotspot to check their email is asking for trouble. I would use a combination of privoxy with openSSH etc to check email and browse the web when on the road.
He could have proven he was not breaking this asinine law if they forced a "Welcome Page" that popped up the magic words "Greeting, user, you're 'AUTHORIZED!'" (You know, much the same thing the protocol is asserting in the background in the first place)
It would seem people now need to post intrusive redirects on every connection blatantly announcing to all concerned parties that, yes, indeed, this free, open, unsecured, SSID broadcasting access point is in fact all of those things, so please concerned officers of the law, move the !@#%# along and find some skateboarders to harass.
What is the problem here? He's a thief. If you parked outside of a drive-in and set your radio to the the dialogue, are you just some ignorant fool or are you guilty of theft of service? The answer is: You are guilty of theft of service.
So, moral of the story: always lie to cops. Even if you don't think you're breaking the law. It's better to be safe than sorry...
A person shouldn't be charged for using free wi-fi. If the coffee shop owner wants to offer free wi-fi to its customers he/she can easily do so with a very simple setup. If the owner hasn't done this and basically pours wi-fi all over the area for anyone to use, it is logical to sue someone for "taking" some. PS: I hate the word "wi-fi"...
Can someone tell me what this "Sig" box is for??
A fucking FELONY?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
coming into the cafe, buying a cup of coffee, plugging in my laptop and camping on a table for an hour would cost the cafe a lot more than me parking outside and using the same 'amount' of wifi.
If the cafe didn't want people outside using the wifi, there are many ways to prevent it, from a sign stating the wifi is for customers only, a password of the day at the register, to sign-ins tied to their check (bill) number or something.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
But he didn't. It would have cost him nothing, but he let a fellow citizen get convicted for nothing.
Boy, that really doesn't sound like good advertising to me....
Sparta Police Department
Chief Andrew Milanowski
260 W. Division
Sparta, MI 49345
General Phone: 616-887-8716
Fax: 616-887-7681
Email: policechief@spartami.org
T Lynn Hopkins
Firm: Kent County Prosecuting Attorney
Address: 333 Monroe Ave NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2211
Phone: (616) 774-3577
Fax: (616) 336-3095
Suppose the argument is accepted that by having an unsecured network, you are tacitly granting permission to use. If this connection is then used by miscreants for felonious purposes, are you then liable for the violations?
Like, someone drives by, uses your connexion which you have left open, and downloads illegal material - perhaps its illegal porn, perhaps its in violation of copyright. Are you liable in any way? Like, if you left a loaded gun on the table in the hall and the door open?
Alternatively, if the answer is no, you have not tacitly granted permission to use, does this fact give you immunity against any charges when the connexion is used for illegal purposes by someone else without your knowledge or consent?
All of you are criminals. Merely questioning authority is grounds for immediate imprisonment. When confronted by an authority representative, you are expected to kneel, bow your head, avert your eyes, and beg for mercy.
As long as there is a law for everything, you will just have to accept your fate. You let it happen when you empowered government to solve all your social problems.
Camping on quad since 1996.
I'm probably going to be echoing many other people here, with a resounding "wtf?"
Surely, what a wireless access point *does*, and was doing, was sitting there, broadcasting packets that basically say "I'm an open wireless connection!". Before someone attempts the (poor) "open door" analogy, we're talking more "This cashier is now available".
Sure, if it was hiding its SSID or WEP encrypted (yes, laughably poor security methods, one even more so than the other, but that's not the point), then I'd say yes, that was wrong, because the owners, by doing that, had signalled that it wasn't a "free-for-all", regardless of how (in)effective their measures were of doing so.
But, *open* *broadcasting* wireless? A little box sitting there, doing the wlan-equivalent of screaming "I AM HERE! USE ME!"? We need to start educating people more, since the technological world must be doing a poor job for things like this to happen...
This is yet another example of a serious, growing problem with the American mentality.
We can not legislate all aspects of human behavior. It simply won't work.
Healthy societies have both laws and mores to shape human behavior. Laws derive from a logical/thinking framework, and mores are primarily from an emotional/feeling framework. All people have the ability to use both thinking and feeling in making decisions about what is right or wrong. But in American society, and more generally in a capitalist mentality, laws and money interests have so completely dominated that people have forgotten about the mores.
Mores are like laws, but enforced by society feedback, typically emotional feedback. People frown at Bob if he acts like an ass, and he understands that he should stop acting like that, because Bob doesn't like it when people frown at him. That is because Bob is healthy and likes to have healthy happy people around him. Note, nowhere in here are we able to legislate that Bob "acting like an ass" is illegal in a logical way.
We can that the Bush administration as the PRIMARY promoter of this mentality: "If it is not illegal, than I can get away with it." As such shining examples leading the USA today, more and more people (like Enron) are saying, "Hell, why not me too?"
This problem will not stop unless and until people start giving strong emotional feedback (disapproval, and eventually ostracizing people) for bad behavior.
You analogy shows a complete lack of understanding what goes on here.
If I stand on the street and yell at you "Can I come in" and you respond with "Yes", I can go into your house.
That's what is happening here. You are broadcasting "I'm Open", I say "Great,can I come in" and you are saying "Yes."
You could say, "yes, but you need to be on my list" or "No" or "Sure, what's the secret word?"
But if you jsut say "yes", you HAVE GIVEN permission.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
lets say someone living in a near by apartment can pick up the coffee shop's wifi signal at home. does this constitute home intrusion on the coffee shop's part?
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but. . .
In the case of crimes committed against a private individual or corporation, I don't think "The People" (e.g. the State of Michigan) can bring charges. The police officer can arrest someone, if they think a crime is being committed, but in order to hold them and press a case, wouldn't the coffee shop's owner have had to sign the papers to press charges? Apparently, the coffee shop owner, even though he didn't know it was a crime, was happy to press charges against this guy.
If this happened to me, and I were the guy arrested and charged, I'd be setting up a one-man protest line on the sidewalk outside the cafe asking people to boycott the place.
"Each day around lunch time, Sam Peterson would drive to the Union Street Cafe, park his car and--without actually entering the coffee shop--check his e-mail and surf the Net. His ritual raised the suspicions of Police Chief Andrew Milanowski, who approached him and asked what he was doing." Does Milanowski follow every citizen in the city? How does that justify tax dollars?
Sounds like the guy didn't bother to pay for a good lawyer. Also, couldn't he have offerred to buy a years worth of coffee from the shop and have them drop the charges or plead on his behalf? If I were him, I'd fight this all the way up to the Supreme Court. It'll probably cost a $1 million in lawyer fees, but it's the principle of the thing. :-)
Michigan Cops have nothing to do. Why didn't he just give the guy a warning after he figured out it was a felony instead of arresting the guy? Can you imagine 3 strikes you're out (in California)? I'm sorry, bud, but we got a warrant on your laptop and you're under arrest for 20 counts of unauthorized access of wi-fi, that's 20 felonies, you're facing minimum prison time in a State Prison with rapists, murderers, and drug dealers.
Coffee shop owner didn't care. "Oh, you mean it's illegal? I guess he should have come in for a coffee." e.g. she thought it was ok. See someone's previous comment about using a premises bathroom without paying.
Use a password and change it daily. That way people have to come into the shop to ask you for the password (assuming it's not a WEP password or something stupid like "password") which forces them to either buy something or GTFO.
Sadly, I suspect the operators of these shops don't have the expertise to do something like that.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
So, I think the consensus is more or less that if you leave the wireless point unencrypted you is inviting people in. Legally the FCC says you can pick up any single that is broadcasts, so why not WiFi? I can understand the tampering law meant to protect companies from random people breaking into their business network, but an open WiFi in a coffee shop is normally a public access point. So seeing most people are at a consensus how many of us will actually contact our legislator and tell them we want the law changed?
If so, what should he have done when charged?
Does anyone know if this defense has been used anywhere?
Basically, if I open my laptop, it's explicitly ASKING for permission, with the IEEE 802.11 standard association request.
Basically, it goes
AP sends out beacons "Here, I have this SSID, it uses open authentication!"
Laptop => AP (Association request) "Can I come?"
AP => Laptop (Association request) "Sure!"
Laptop => AP (Open Authentication request) "...and you don't even care who I am?"
AP => Laptop (Open Authentication response) "No, just come on in!"
Laptop => DHCP server "Hi, the AP just let me in. Are you also going to give me IP address so I can talk to the Internet?"
DHCP Server => Laptop "Sure! Here you go!"
Now, if the AP had *any* other form of settings. No need to specify if it's using WEP, WPA, whatever, it still says "authorization needed". So
AP sends out beacons "Here is this SSID, but it uses shared auth and WEP so you're not allowed unless you know the key"
Then it goes that you know the key, you're authorized. If you use WepCrack, then you're trespassing (and whatnot).
Anyway, has this *ever* been tested in court with this defense? I mean, basically, you ARE asking for permission when your laptop sends out that first association request, and you ARE advertising a public service if your Access Point sends out beacons advertising open SSID!
I grew up in a Michigan town about the size of Sparta. You get these fricken cops who have wayyyy too much time on their hands and look for people to nail on technicalities.
No one knew what was happening was a "crime" but the cop dug deeper until he found one.
Jesus Christ, what ever happened to a warning? "Hey, I looked into it, what your doing is illegal, so go in an buy a damn coffee or knock it off." The peace is kept.
What the fuck is wrong with cops? (Though, I suspect that it was also some king shit prosecuting attorney who wants another revenue stream other than speeding tickets.)
http://www.spartami.org/subpages/departments/DeptT ext.htm
Leonard R. "Skip" Meyer II
Village President
spartapresident@charter.net
156 E. Division
Sparta, MI 49345
Phone: 616-887-8251
Fax: 616-887-1114
Sharon J. DeLange
Village Manager
manager@spartami.org
156 E. Division
Sparta, MI 49345
Phone: 616-887-8251
Fax: 616-887-1114
Elizabeth Gorski, DDA/Chamber Director
ddadirector@spartami.org
156 E. Division
Sparta, MI 49345
Phone: 616-887-2454
Fax: 616-887-1114
Sparta Police Department
Chief Andrew Milanowski
260 W. Division
Sparta, MI 49345
Emergencies: 911
General Phone: 616-887-8716
Fax: 616-887-7681
Email: policechief@spartami.org
E-Mail these people and let them know what you think about Sparta's tough on crime attitude.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
when will people understand that open AP is not the same as a Public AP, a car with open doors and key in the ignition is not a car for anyone to use. ...
Still I find the punishment too harsh
Whether or not you're committing a "federal" vs "state" crime is independent of whether it is a misdemeanor or a felony. (Federal often involves more than one state, as an example. e.g. Cigarette smuggling)
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Did you really think that we wanted those laws to be observed? . . . We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.
Ok, maybe a bit over-cynical, but still... Since this law evidently doesn't take criminal intent into account, its end result is clearly to make criminals out of ordinary citizens, giving the local police and DA too much power to harass and extort citzens. Ugh.
...below "have a nice day". Or put it on little cards next to the register, if the POS is too difficult to program for a new message. If you worry about the "wastefulness", make up 27 (or some number which doesn't sync with the calendar well) sets of cards and rotate them.
If the cafe had "free WiFi" printed anywhere within view of the parking space, without some obvious limitations (for patrons only), I'd say it should have been considered authorized. (No, of course I didn't RTFA)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
IANAL but, doesn't someone have to be informed in some way it is in apppropriate to use a network before it is illegal? Home networks are one thing, just because I unlock my front door, doesn't mean you can walk in, but bussiness are another matter. In the case of a business, in unlocking your front door you DO mean for the world to come in. Of course you *hope* people will buy stuff and reserve to right to ask someone not to come back, BUT you need to be clear because an assumed invitation exists. Or am I wrong?
...if he had bought a cup of coffee and went to back outside and used his laptop from the car. The coffee gives him paying customer status, but he's also not using the wireless from inside the building. And, had he bought the coffee at breakfast but parked outside at lunch is he no longer a customer?
Camping on quad since 1996.
What kind of moron would think this law is legit enough to put on the books. It's the town that is going to get sued not free wiki users. That just shows how entire clueless the town is in the first place about technology or law regarding it.
Most laptops roam freely to any unsecured hotspot. That is HOW wifi works by default. All a person would have to do is walk by an unsecured wifi with their laptop running and they would auto commit a felony. That's completely laughable. Really I should go there right now and get my case started I could probably be on TV in a few days once I get a felony charge for walking by a coffee shop with a laptop. By the time it's over I could sue this town for thousands of dollars and their is NO way in hell they could win that case once you appealed beyond whoever the retarded local judge is. Those idiots probably take their laptops home and steal internet from their neighbors wifi and don't even realize it because most laptops auto connect to insecure hotspots. Obviously such a law cannot be even remotely constitutional since it is more like entrapment in the sense you need not make any action to commit the crime. Not being a PC expert is evidentially a felony in this town. Somebody is going to lose their job over that law. Plus their punishment is way beyond reasonable and easy crual and unusual. A felony for using a free internet. I don't think so. Hotels and coffee shops and everyone else is the world is responsible for securing their own internet and THAT is how it works. You can't push the burdoen of technological understanding onto common users especially when roaming to open wifi's is a core feature of wifi technology. If it really was a crime then it would be the manufacturers responsibility. Just like car makers have to put seat belts on cars it's not up to the users to create safety mechanisms that meet the laws requirements it is up to the people who make the product and profit off the product to ensure the product does not innately violate the law and in the case of wifi it would, if that was a just law (but it's not).
If they want laws like that then the only real solution is to make wifis unable to roam to hotspots in the area. Anything else will result in law suits against either the town or the makers of the wiki technology. Either way will become responsible for either unjust legislation or failure to build their product to the legal guidlines. Of course, I don't think anyone really cares what this little town says and they will certainly be forced to repeal or at least never enforce that law. At least not to the degree that it could be a felony. Perhaps if the person cracked through their encryption to use the wifi, then you'd have a case, but if it's set unsecured that is obviously the businesses problem.
HELLO it's called a proxy server, don't rely on unsecured wifi for secured. That way when people roam into your wifi they still can't get internet without some perhaps weekly passphrase or such. Point is there are reasonable technologies the coffee shop chose not to use in order to secure their wifi and that's just that much more testament to the fail logic behind this case. Seriously someone needs but go up there and have enough free time to challenge this law and there is money to be made. Like a college student gets a felony and kicked out of college for roaming to a unsecured wiki. The news would eat that shit up. You'd be a celebrity for a few days an the town would quickly learn from the state DA that their law must be immediately changed because they would get thousands of calls. IF they didn't back down or even if they do you sue them for defamation of character or whatever else you attorney can cook up for trying to accuse you of a felony level crime and potentially causing problem with your school funding or status. They'll be paying for your tuition before it's all done.
That's cake money people. Unjust laws = easy law suits. What's next, looking over your shoulder is a felony invasion. Watch out !!
How about an even more in
What if I stood on the public street outside a house at night that didn't have shades on the windows, using the light from the house to read a book. Would that be a crime? If the owner of the utility, the light or the network, wanted to avoid sharing the network, they could take some very simple steps to avoid sharing. If they don't take those simple steps, then there's implied consent, in my mind. It may be rude to use a cafe's connection without shopping there, and it may be rude to use your neighbor's open wifi, but I just can't believe it's illegal.
However, this part worries me: His ritual raised the suspicions of Police Chief Andrew Milanowski, who approached him and asked what he was doing. So his ritual of parking in a certain spot regularly warrants suspicion? I realize that we're a bastion of neocon support, but is West Michigan really high enough on the terror targets list that someone who parks in the same spot every day warrants suspicion?
Glad I don't drive in that area much.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
While I dont have a problem with wardriving since I feel that if you dont secure your network you deserve what you get. This guy should have definately be charged with being a cheap ass freeloader. The cafe was cool enough to purposely provide open free internet access for customers yet he is too freakin cheap to support them in this by at least buying a coke? What a freakin looser.
Originally he sentenced to read and reply to every piece of spam he received for 90 days, but, after the ACLU intervened, it was determined that that would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
There's a local coffee shop (Tully's) that offers free WiFi. But they have a 'login' page (nothing more than a checkbox to verify that a user has read their TOU. In this case, since these terms are explicitly published, they can prohibit use by other than their customers if they so desire. On the other hand, there are free WiFi APs with no such published TOUs. What must a user assume when encountering one of these?
And what about the user who is sitting in their favorite coffee shop with the free WiFi who accidentally connects to the open AP in the office next door?
Have gnu, will travel.
...the sign in their window says "FREE WI-FI (Customers only)", aside from issues of whether the access point should be open or not, and aside from arguments about whether a person using such an access point could under all circumstances be expected to know where it's coming from. (And yes, I realize that could have been added later, but this is in response to people who seemed to think there was no indication.)
6 628229428
More info in a video story here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=332971257
There is an open access point here at a local coffee shop entitled "[Name of shop] - NOT FREE", and the reason why the owner chooses to leave it open is because of problems the occasional customer has with various security mechanisms/passwords that customers simply don't have when he leaves it open. So, he's made his choice, and I doubt whether he'd really care if someone else used it, but at the same time, it is intended for customer use only.
It's no different than if the shop had an electrical outlet on the wall outside and he was plugging in his extension cord to take power back to his place. The shop was providing the wi-fi as a service for customers along with the table, the chairs, the warm room, and the overhead lights. He was not a customer so he was not entitled to use the wi-fi. Just because he could, doesn't mean he had a right to it. He was not just 'receiving a radio transmission,' either. He was 'accessing the network' and the radio was just the means to that, just like the extension cord would be the means to get the power.
There's nothing wrong with free wi-fi, as long as it was intended to be free, which wasn't true in this case, and as long as everyone is paying for it.
...the defendant replied, "This is madness!"
The Judge then responded, "Madness? This! Is! SPARTA!" and then kicked the defendant down a well.
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
I cannot honestly say that I believe implied consent provided in this case. Such services are provided for customers; that much should be implied and obvious. If everyone just drove up and used the wifi without making a purchase, the venue wouldn't exist. You're not stopping at a place whose sole method of business is to provide free wifi, after all.
The severity of the punishment was a bit harsh, though, and should have been reserved for someone with an intent to harm or other malicious intent. This isn't a car; stealing free wireless isn't the same as stealing an unlocked car with keys in the ignition. Stealing a car denies the owner the use of the car; stealing open, free wireless does not (except for very extreme circumstances).
So if I'm in Michigan, and I'm sitting in coffee shop A, and my computer accidently connects to bookstore B and neither shop has a spash page that a human can indentify where it came from, I'm breaking the law, because the bookstore didn't authorize me?
I've heard this happens all the time in apartment buildings. Someone buys a wifi access point and sets it up wrong. When they test it, they accidentally connect to their neighbor's wifi, it looks like everything is working and they surf away. Are you saying that, in Michigan, this is a felony?
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Ugh.
BS he stopped to check his email everyday.
He probably stops there each day to download p0rn and is just pulling the sheet over everyone's eyes.
Nonetheless, the judgment is too harsh for just the facts (i.e. "using free Internet")
h
Valkyrie is about to die! Wizard needs food -- badly!
I think that you, like many other people, misunderstand this precept. The idea is that ignorance of the law cannot be considered a valid legal defense, basically because it would be absurd to have to prove that someone knew the law in question.
The justice system is supposed to be about justice, however, and while a person's ignorance is not a legal defense, it is something that should be taken into consideration when deciding whether it is just to punish them. If someone does not know the law, it is reasonable for them to think their action is legal, and no significant harm is done, then justice is NOT served by prosecuting them. They intended no harm. They are not a threat to society. Society will be harmed more by using the resources to prosecute them than it will be aided by the prosecution. It is completely foolish to prosecute someone when simply telling them not to do it will be just as effective, and such needless prosecution is befitting of a police state not a free society.
People who enforce the law are supposed to do so judiciously. They are not supposed to blindly apply the letter of the law but rather they are supposed to use their human judgement to decide what is the just application of the law. And people in law enforcement and the justice system do this all the time. Cops let people off with a written warning (or sometimes just a verbal warning). DAs elect not to prosecute a person (or to give them a generous plea deal) if prosecution under the stautory penalty would be unjust. This is a vital part of their job. Both the cop and the county attorneys failed in doing their job in this case.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
The Grand Rapids Press reported this story yesterday with an important detail that's conspicuously been omitted here. A quote from the article:
"Peterson was receiving a service, Internet access, for which the cafe charges a fee to those who don't order anything."
If it were truly free for anyone, I would have a huge problem with this whole situation. However, because the cafe usually charges a fee if nothing is ordered Peterson's use of the Wi-Fi essentially means he stole the service.
It seems to me that broadcasting an insecure signal implies consent. I mean, how is this different from receiving a TV signal? Where's the consent for that?
If they did anything at all to make it appear private then I would agree that it is trespassing. Do not broadcast SSID, use any form of encryption even if it sucks, or go full blown and secure it with a password that is printed on your receipt. But as it is, they're leaving the front door open with an automated greeting and a map of the house. And I don't see entering that house as trespassing.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Remember, it is not a crime unless you get caught! ;-)
I could have real fun by logging in to all my neighbors routers and lock them out by setting up my own passwords because they never took the time to use either WEP or WPA or even change the default password for the router.
I am a nice guy so I just use the info from my sniffer to keep off the channels they are using so we all keep out of each others hair....so to speak.
If the cafe advertises Wifi, then how exactly did he not have permission? This doesn't sound like a private network, the article makes it sound like the cafe owner was providing wifi, and he had no idea he was doing anything wrong, so there's something else going on.
Either (1) there was some kind of history between him and the owner and they're playing nice for the press, or (2) the law is dangerously lax about the definition of permission when it comes to public Wifi.
A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:
4 341gang))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl -752-795&highlight=
(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(dcqkar5530bfgw55
Unfortunately for the guy in the story he knew what he was doing; even if he didn't think what he was doing was wrong (Though it shouldn't be.... but that's another issue)
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
...people who can sit outside a baseball stadium or concert from some vantage point and watch the game/performance for free are also commiting a felony.
Light is not a computer system.
Like air, it is a natural resource that flows from one property to another, and is not owned by either property owner.
So long as you are lawfully present and you don't record the baseball game, you are not committing a crime.
can U.S. troops piggyback their blogging to the United Gulags Of America after I stop ALL communications out of Vietraq?
Militarily-Industrialy-Complexly Yours,
W
Coffee shop owner offers free wifi.
Person uses free wifi.
I'm having trouble seeing where there is any fraudulent intent (as required by the MI statute). I assume there was a sign somewhere that says "Free Wifi _for customers_." Still, it seems like a wee bit of a stretch to call it fraudulent.
... is a 10 minute drive from here. It's a dipshit little village with a dipshit little village police dept. The locals refer to the cops as "Andy and Barney". When I read this last night in the paper I said "what a dipshit place."
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
This guy needs a better lawyer.
It's no different than if the shop had an electrical outlet on the wall outside and he was plugging in his extension cord to take power back to his place. The shop was providing the wi-fi as a service for customers along with the table, the chairs, the warm room, and the overhead lights. He was not a customer so he was not entitled to use the wi-fi. Just because he could, doesn't mean he had a right to it.
Let's say you are meeting a friend at a coffee shop. You walk into a coffee shop, open up your laptop, plug it into the wall and check your email. You see a late email from your friend that he isn't going to be able to make it. So you pack your things up and walk out the door. You did not buy anything because your friend did not show and thus you had no purpose in staying.
Did you commit a felony? You have used the shop's electricity, indoor space, and internet access without permission. (The store owner does not permit non-customers to use the facilities). Did your actions deserve that you be automatically excluded from most (well paying) jobs? There is a dangerously fine line between this situtation and the one described in the article. (e.g. let's say you meet your friend weekly for years and he doesn't show half the time).
What exactly defines a "customer"? It is one who buys goods,services -- but WHEN??? If I buy coffee daily in January, February, and March, does this make me a "customer" at any point in April?
What if you live behind the shop? You walk in buy a coffee, and return home where you make use of the free WiFi provided by the shop. How long does that cup of coffee entitle you to use the WiFi from the shop? [A cup of coffee per day could be cheaper than paying for high-speed internet at home]
Looks like Sparta,MI only has population of 4,159. Looks like the police chief coerced the shop owner into believing what happened was wrong. I think the chief had a personal dislike for the "offender" or wanted to drum up some funds for a raise^H^H^H^H^H^H^ the police department.
The keyword here is "fraudulent". It means: characterized by, involving, or proceeding from fraud, as actions, enterprise, methods, or gains.
Fraud in its turn means: deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
None of the above applies. The man was not deceiving anyone (he even told the police officer exactly what he was doing), the man was obviously not shrewd to the point of dishonesty, did not break any one's confidence in this matter, and he did not gain some unfair advantage over any one (the WIFI service was free!). So the law that was used to fine the man from Michigan does not apply.
IANAL, but really. . . it is a dark omen indeed if a chief of police goes about fining people based on a hunch.
You know it makes sense, a little reminder from jointm1k.
let me get this straight... the coffee shop provides free wifi to everyone. And this guy gets charged because he was parked in his car?
Does anyone know the laws concening connecting via your DS?
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
Someone buys a wifi access point and sets it up wrong. When they test it, they accidentally connect to their neighbor's wifi, it looks like everything is working and they surf away. Are you saying that, in Michigan, this is a felony?
Actually, we only know that it's a felony in Sparta, Michigan. It may or may not be legal in other parts of the state. But to be on the safe side, you might take care to turn off all comm equipment in your car when driving through the state on I-94 or I-75. This includes any of the fancy electronics that are starting to appear in newer cars. Some cars now know how to "call home" to the factory via wifi; others can fetch maps for your GPS gadget. If your car does this in the vicinity of Sparta or any other town with similar laws, you could be in bad trouble.
It could be useful to collect a list of places with similar draconian laws that your computer might violate without you knowing about it. Publishing such a list online could be a public service (and might cause enough public angst to get such laws overridden eventually).
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
This law is obviously intended to take up the slack in our criminal justice system. Ever since violent crime and corporate theft dried up there just aren't enough prisoners to make license plates.
Absolute insanity.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Sec. 4.
A person shall not intentionally access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to devise or execute a scheme or artifice with the intent to defraud or to obtain money, property, or a service by a false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise.
As someone sitting a couple blocks from this prosecutor's office, and also someone that provides advertised free wireless, I don't see how this could have gone forward. But I am considering adding a note to the welcome page that gets displayed when someone connects, asking the DA to please not prosecute my patrons.
At what point does the customer relationship end? If this man had ever purchased a cup of coffee, then wasn't he in fact a customer? If he turned on his laptop before going to the counter, was he breaking the law until a financial transaction was complete? From the law above, I simply don't see any of the required intent.
This is madness.
No, this... is... SPARTA!!*
*a town near Grand Rapids, Michigan. RTFA.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I think that you, like many other people, misunderstand this precept. The idea is that ignorance of the law cannot be considered a valid legal defense, basically because it would be absurd to have to prove that someone knew the law in question.
It actually goes deeper than this.
The legal concept of Ignorantia juris non excusat is that you should be not be able to escape liability for a law that you should have reasonably known.
So for everyone, obvious crimes against people and property do not necessarily require strict knowledge. Also considered reasonable are the laws which cover hot-dog vending kiosks...if you should be a hot dog vending kiosk owner. If you are engaged in a particular business, there would be the reasonable assumption that you would know the laws that might cover that business.
One area where ignorance of the law can be an excuse? A lot of tax law. It's so terribly complex that people can't be expected to know and understand all of it.
You're making the classic misapprehension that laws must make sense, and must be just. Just because the cop thought it was a stupid law, the judge thought it was stupid law, and the person charged thought it was a stupid law, doesn't mean those individuals can ignore it. Their jobs are to enforce (cop, judge) and follow the laws (everyone).
Ideally what should happen in cases like these are that the people who made the bill into law should have their names billboarded up on every website and publicly allowed place possible so that the fools can't do any more damage. Hold them accountable for their actions, and dumb laws like these will go away.
In the hedge fund industry it is well understood that even just hosting an http server is an "implied invitation" according to the law. That means that without broadcasting or sending any packets beyond our network, we are inviting the public to access our system. It seems like broadcasting an SSID and hosting a DHCP server is much more of an "implied invitation" than that. So, is it a felony to accept this invitation? I'm assuming that the coffee shop is broadcasting its SSID, of course.
Better to light a candle than complain about the darkness.
Who was hurt? It sounds like everyone involved thinks this law is stupid and unnecessary. Though the opinions of the cafe owner aren't clear, it sounds like they didn't pursue charges. The law ought to be amended to allow people to legally access intentionally free and open waps, since it's clear this is meant to only protect unintentionally (ie the owner doesn't know how to lock down) open waps.
It's ridiculous... The man was stopped by the police?! for using a WiFi connection?! huahuahuahua Anyway, somethings only happens in "The Land of Freedom" - poor humanity, we are really f%$#*d! Maybe one day we will be able to laugh from such things... by now, we only hope that such ideas didn't spread world-wide!
Now we just slap people with felony charges to show how seriously we take the new "crime of the week." You're gonna get beat up real quick in prison if all you've done is check email in a parking lot.
If that were true, it'd be kinda hard to prosecute someone for murder.
Wow. I think it's staggering that the burden of proving permission for access to technology is far, far greater than for access to a woman's vagina.
Maybe that's a defense strategy, though. "C'mon, your Honor! Just sitting at the coffeehouse, broadcasting its SSID all over the place like that? Did you see how it was dressed? It was asking for it!"
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
So, are my neighbors trespassing by sending their wide open 802.11g signal into my house? I have accidentally connected to my neighbor's network in the past. I was wondering why my connection was so damn slow and looked at my settings and found I was connected to their network. I had connected to someone else's ssid=linksys network earlier in the day, then when I opened my laptop at home, it connected to their ssid=linksys network rather than my preferred WPA secured home network.
I can easily unintentionally "break the law". But, if that's a problem for them, they should take measures to protect their network. I've certainly taken steps to keep their dumb asses off of mine.
According to, http://uit.tufts.edu/?pid=419 , if lack of a password authorization system (free wifi) would seem to allow a reasonable person to believe that they are in-fact authorized to use the system.
Specifically, the new law:
* Prohibits unauthorized access to any computer system, either directly or by network or telephone. The law provides that the use of password authorization systems to control access to a computer system puts people on notice that their access is unauthorized if they don't have a legitimate password.
* Amends the criminal vandalism statue to make it clear that electronically stored or processed data is "property", the destruction or corruption of which is illegal.
* Prohibits the thefts of commercial computer service.
Aren't there "cell" phones that will use a public wifi if they can find it? Would these devices even display a spash page if it were available?
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
In the parent's example, if the coffee shop was advertising "Free Electricity", I'd say walking in with a extension cord and plugging in would be legal. However, I would imagine that the owner would quickly amend the ad to limit it to customers.
As it stands right now, the guy could probably sue the coffee shop for false advertising. I'd find it difficult to believe that the Wi-Fi can truly be considered "free" when a person who used the "free" service ends up paying fines and gets charged with a felony. Any ambulance chaser worth his salt would be lining up to sue the coffee shop over this one.
So yes, I'd say the Chief of Police did a bang up job here. A person with no criminal intent or awareness of wrongdoing got charged, and the likelihood of the coffee shop getting sued out of business just went through the roof. Good job, Wiggum.
Using your logic, it's not illegal to send spam, and it's not illegal to call people on the do not call list.
Between "It's a free country" and "it's free" (but only to paying customers - today only, 10am-4am?) and their version of "unauthorized use", this makes me doubly wary of ever visiting Michigan again (also noted for it ridiculous tax structure and related social problems). It was once a great state.
This guy is guilty of not buying a cup of coffee.
That's all, really.
*Still* negative function...
If the shop offering the free wi-fi service (free as in anyone can use), doesn't want it used outside it's shop, it needs to stop it at the walls. Otherwise, it's fair game. Free-public-wi-fi is just that.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
\begin{sarcasm} I see that once more the society's resources (police, legal system) are being used for really useful things rather than silly little things like health care, education, etc Way to go!!!! It is so essential to make sure nobody piggybacks onto an unsecured connection... \end{sarcasm}
In this case the guy shouldn't have been charged. It seems like a crime where the coffee shop owner would have had to press charges in order to get any kind of sentencing, and clearly he didn't feel that this was a crime. Given that the guy did receive a fine and community service, it would be nice if the county handed that money over to the coffee shop to make up for all the coffee the guy never bought. Right... I won't hold my breath on that.
I think that there needs to be a paradigm shift in how people look at open networks though. Drive around any neighborhood and you'll probably have plenty of open networks visible to you, but I don't know that all those people really want people using their internet. In this case, the guy was a coffee shop owner- presumably because he really likes coffee and the atmosphere or whatever it is that said "I want to own a coffee shop." He probably knows coffee really well... but the computer networks are best left to someone else. Or perhaps he knows just enough about computers to be dangerous. Some people have a network setup for them because they dont know how, and others set it up themselves with increased security. It's the group in the middle that just plug in thier equipment and never think about the default settings.
Assuming that a great many open networks are like this, perhaps people looking to access the networks should change their thinking slightly. Instead of thinking "Here is an open network, therefore the network owner is willing to let me use it, unless he has expressly told me I should not (and even then he left his network open, didn't he?)." perhaps the thinking should be "Here is an open network but I should get express permission to use it just in case I'm not really meant to use it." Now, express permission could be a sign put up by a shop owner "Free Internet" or, maybe you read in the brochure on San Francisco that city-wide wifi is now available and you see the instructions to access it. It cannot be your NIC talking to the router though. The router is not intelligent. It only does what it is told to do, and a lot of routers will give anyone an IP address by default, whether or not the owner really wants that to happen.
I really can't assume that good internet security is common sense- I talk to way too many people who have no clue.
You might wonder how a guy is charged with this felony when he, the cop, and store owner didn't even know it was a crime.
I suspect small business owners in Michigan put pressure on the DA to prosecute. Many are probably tired of people using the wi-fi without entering the store and buying something, whether it is right or not.
Wifi networks usually have names. Often these default to "linksys" or "belkin", but what if you find an unsecured wifi network that has a name of "Free Wifi" or "Free 4 All"?
Would using those access points still be illegal even though there is plausible evidence of an invitation? Could it be considered entrapment to prosecute someone for using these two examples in a hypothetical situation?
Here's the prohibited actions and penalties.
What a waste of time and tax payer resources.
Why didn't the owners/staff of the cafe simply ask him to not use their wifi?
If they did, and he continued to do it, THEN legal matters should have proceeded. I can't believe they actually pressed charges like that though. lame
Now he has a (felony) criminal record, which will affect him when applying for new jobs in the future. For what?
Ruining his career is more of a crime than anything he did. These people enforcing these laws are simply incapable of making rational decisions. =(
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
This does not settle anything except that the fellow charged does not have the money to contest. Practically speaking, most people will bend over when asked to pay $400 or risk a fight that costs $4,000.
:access WAS granted by the owner's AP. Period. Now on the other hand, if you were to smash the authentication and access scheme to gain access without authorization - that is what the law should protect against.
:)
Many an expert witness would testify that the person's actions did not violate the technical aspects of the law, as it is written.
A competent lawyer would find this an easy win WITHOUT even challenging the law itself.
You can't play music out your window - to the sidewalk - with a sign that says "don't listen".
Trespassing does not even apply here - on private commercial property that is open to the public, you can not be arrested just because the owner does not like you. The owner however does have the power to ask you to LEAVE.. and if you do not then you are trespassing.
All emotion aside, the 802.11 protocol does not allow for ambiguity. Clients ask for "authorization", and the AP either grants it or it denies it. In this case, the fact is
Clever naming of the AP does not a binding contract make either, or many slashdot users would be naming their open APs "blow me".
This law is at the very least overly broad and miswritten. Try this in a real city not some hick white bread town, where there would be a population of lawyers who would itch for an easy win like this.
Lawyers don't work for free unless there's a big settlement. People wonder why so many big lawsuits fly about? When the law is abused, it's not worth it to "do the right thing" and fight the charges, if the BEST you can hope for is clearing your name and winning 100% (and not a penny more) of your legal costs. There is nothing to deter legal abuse like this - no one ever loses their job for injustice.
Now, it WOULD be tempting to fight this IF being found innocent meant the District Attorney had to serve the term he threatened you with.
I think the distinction you're illustrating here is one made in ethics between RIGHT or obligatory, and simply GOOD or 'supererogatory', i.e. good but not obligatory. Not assaulting someone is obligatory, and conversely everyone has a right to not be assaulted. Not being a rude asshole is not obligatory, and no one's rights are violated just by you being such a dick; but it's still a good thing to be polite and courteous. Law, in the liberal tradition (liberal in it's plain classical sense here, not in the American-Democratic-Party sense), is considered justified to the extent that it defends people's rights, or conversely, enforces people's obligations. A lot of the problems of traditional or religious (anti-liberal) law has been the conflation of things which are simply (supererogatorily) good with things which are obligatory, and the subsequent attempt to encode into hard and fast law everything which society on average finds good, even though "good" is a much fuzzier area far more open to interpretation than "obligatory". The example you gave, about the Bush administration taking the legality of something (or lack of illegality) to be a sign that it's perfectly OK to do, is a flip side of this that I never really considered.*
This distinction between obligatory and supererogatory closely parallels that between necessary and contingent truths; e.g. 2+3=5 is a necessary truth, something which could not fail to be true by virtue of logic alone (there are fine technical points to be made here but I'm glossing over them), but that I am presently in Santa Barbara, CA is not *necessarily* true, though it *is* true. So, I find it interesting that you refer to the law-based, obligation-centric notions of right and wrong as deriving from a "logical" framework, as many ethicists hold that concepts of rights, duties or obligations do derive purely from a sort of ethical logic, e.g. Kant's "categorical imperative" and everybody who's followed that lead.
*(Though now that I think about it, the real flip side is like someone saying "I'm not required by law to eat well and exercise, so there's absolutely nothing wrong with me laying in bed eating cheesecake all day." There is something wrong with that; it's bad for you and you shouldn't do it. But you're still not *obligated* to eat well and exercise, and so there oughtn't be a law requiring that you do. Same deal as applied to the rude-asshole example. But Bush's transgressions are more of a confusion of legal and ethical obligation; you can be legally permitted to do something and still ethically obliged not to, just as you can be legally prohibited and yet ethically permitted. More still, it stems from a confusion of rights, which inherently belong to people, with powers, which are tentatively granted to governments, leading them to think that just because the law doesn't say the government can't do something, that they can do it; or equivalently, that just because the law doesn't explicitly grant people a particular right, that they don't have such rights. The government may not do anything above and beyond what a normal citizen may do, except where explicitly given permission by the citizenry, and the citizens retail permission to do anything which is not explicitly illegal. The inversion of this, to the notion that government can do anything it wants to except what's explicitly prohibited, and that the people only have the right to do what the government allows them to do, is the real root cause of rising government invasiveness).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
It just ridiculous that what this guy was doing would be a felony at all. If he were accessing the wi-fi in order to commit crimes, it would make sense, but for anything else it's the digital equivalent of loitering. Last time I checked, loitering wasn't a felony, oh wait...
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
The question in my mind is, what constitutes authorized use of an open WiFi?
When you simply walk through the door, that seems little different than sitting out in the car. Is even just placing an order implicit use to use the service? For how long? Or do all people that intend to make use of the service need to explicitly ask an employee if it's OK to do so... then the question of duration arises again.
It just seems like way to murky an area to convict anyone on.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
To use something that is given away freely?
WTF?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
We're not talking about "security measures". Enabling open access means you are inviting anyone to connect to the network. It is exactly equivalent to a sign that says "Please come in".
> and no a judge wouldn't
Only because judges are generally illiterate on things tech. DHCP is exactly a request to be assigned network resources. Your workstation/laptop sends out a request containing a globally unique identifier (MAC addr) and the server is free to permit or deny access based on it. That dhcp server is under your control and making decisions based on a policy you gave it, thus it is acting on authority you delegated unto it. By default most routers will hand out an address to anyone who asks for one, which implies a GRANT ANY policy. However almost all DHCP servers offer more restrictive options, even those found in consumer electronics class wireless routers.
Perhaps we need a warning label on the boxes:
"Warning, by default this product will grant access to anyone within it's range who asks. If this is NOT what you want please follow the directions to change it's policy."
Democrat delenda est
Sounds like the cop thought he was Jack Bauer and felt the need to investigate this man's "ritual"; perhaps he was praying before Allah before detonating a bomb there? Maybe he was hax0ring into the coffee shop network to stealz some money! Thank goodness such a diligent officer of the law was there to give a man grief, 40 hours of picking up trash and take 400 hard earned dollars because he used something that was plainly available. If there were a sign on the coffee shop that said "no internets leeching!" i could see a problem, remedied by a slap on the wrist. Some laws are just too stupid not to break.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
Sparta is only a few miles up the road from me. It's a miserable hick-town with nothing going for it. This is ridiculous. What shocks me is that this is even a law. If you're a business that offers Wifi, then you should be able to secure it properly. If you can't, then you deserve all the piggybackers you get.
How does my computer know whether or not it's okay to use the wireless connection that it found? Requiring the human operator to intervene undermines the ability for the computer to act autonomously, and additionally, mundane things like asking permission to use a wireless network are exactly the kind of thing that we should get computers to do for us. Faced with factors (a) and (b), we have to either forgo (a), or move the process of gaining permission out of the human realm and into the protocols. Well, forward-thinking designers did move the process of gaining permission into the protocols, allowing us to keep (a). In other words, letting the protocol be a substitute for human judgment--to the extent that a digital "come on in" really amounts to a "come on in"--allows computers to work on our behalf, without incessant intervention from humans. Allowing computers to go ahead and make connections to services that are digitally announced as available, without human intervention, is good.
It does mean, though, that if you don't want computers connecting to your wireless network all willy-nilly, then you have to say no via the protocol. But this is quite feasible. You can have a password, or you can have a click-through. The principle is simple: don't make services publically available unless your intention is to make them publically available. Computers can't tell the difference between "publically available (yes, really)" and "publically available (no, not really)" when that parenthetical part is absent from the information the computer receives, and requiring human intervention hobbles the technology.
what a jackass sheriff! the sheriff didn't even know if it was illegal. he had to research it. sounds like the guy was pretty upfront about it and didn't know either. the owner of the Wi-Fi he was 'stealing' didn't know either. so why the hell did the freaking sheriff immediately charge his ass? why didn't he say, 'hey, i did some checking and what your doing is felony offense. if i catch you here again doing this, i'm going to have to charge you." fire the freaking sheriff and replace him with a robot that runs on donuts. the robot would be more reasonable and have better understanding of the spirit of the law.
Or too young to enter an agreement. Or English is not your language?
You can set your computer up to be mandarin. Walking around "this wonderful country of yours" in Michigan your computer logs on to a nearby network. No notice of where it comes from and you cannot read the message on the door saying "you cannot use our wifi connection". Even if you could, you may be accessing someone else's network (in fact, this only makes sense: if you don't want non-customers using it, only give out a one-time password with a receipt. Or even just don't tell anything you're there: you'll tell your customers in person.
Is this person now up against the law?
No, the owner should secure their network.
"But they're stealing bandwidth".
No, there an an infinite number of 1's and 0's available. They only used bandwidth that nobody else was using (by virtue of the fact that the network protocol makes this so), so nothing has been "stolen".
What an atrocity! *death*
Although I think its dumb to arrest or cite anyone using unprotected wi-fi, this article is painting a false picture. Its not free wi-fi, its no-fee wi-fi exchanged for patronage.
Most of the reason for people getting all riled up about this stuff is because reporters and bloggers distort reality.
In todays world with all this municipal free wifi, libraries, coffee shops, if i run across an *unsecured* access point it woud be perfectly logical to assume its free for me to use.
If i was expected to come in and buy something first, they they needed to either encrypt it, or put some sort of login page before you get 'access'.
Id say this needs to be appealed and run up the flag pole all the way to the US Supreme court, if needed.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If I'm driving around with my laptop (turned on, of course) and my wireless device automatically searches for available networks (as most do) and my software is automatically making requests (as browsers, file sharing apps and many other programs do): It is important to remember that these "requests" are exactly that. They are "requests" to a server for both communications privileges and for information.
We may like to call this an "unsecured" server, but what it *really* is is a server that "grants all requests". The server is set to "approve and accept all incoming traffic".
What we have here is not a case of a man illegally making use of a server, what we have here is a server which is specifically configured to allow anonymous, random use.
Digital "requests" were made of the server, and rather than refusing those requests, the server granted them.
The problem here is that the authorities perceive wireless access like electrical currents. This is *not* a case of a 'diverted' resource. It is a case of a resource that is specifically set to serve anyone and everyone.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
it is not trespassing to just walk in?
Come on people. At least the punishment was something appropriate to the crime. There is no requirement on the coffee shop owner to secure his wifi access if he doesn't think non-customers should be using it. It may be a good idea for the shop owner to do so, just as it is a good idea for me to lock my door, but that does not make it a requirement to make the law enforceable.
As for the accused belief that he was doing nothing wrong... Well why didn't he sit in the coffee shop and use his laptop without buying something? Obviously because he would be asked to leave, or buy something. I don't buy the 'I wasn't doing anything wrong', or 'I didn't know it was wrong' line.
More Caffeine. NOW
Here's the law text (I'll highlight the relevant portions):
Dissecting the text:The act was intentional, but a successful logon to the access point is, by technical definition, authorization. If there was no password, then there is no unauthorized use. Additionally, if there was no username, there was no opportunity for impersonation (impersonation would be a legal manner to be without authorization).
On the second part, he may have exceeded authorization. My question: did the shop present any TOS and if so, did it forbid his manner of usage or only allow usage within the shop? If not, did they confront and object to his usage? If they did none of this, then he did not exceed authorization and the law was not broken.Exceed authorization to use the service and you break the law.Yes, the shop was unknowing. The question is: was the shop also unwanting? How would a user know if their insertion was unwanted? This again assumes a TOS notice.
It may be that he did not do anything unlawful and was just poorly defended. This all depends on the existence of a TOS notice (since I assume the access point had no password).
And, of course, the obligatory: IANAL.
This is not my sig
Well then, *technically* the man's computer that connected to the network would have committed the crime. After all, the computer (inanimate object) surely couldn't pass its power of attorney to the user. Right? Jeez, this is starting to sound like a passage in a Hofstadter book.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Let the "This is SPARTA!" jokes begin.
5 years felony charge, and $10,000 fine???
This is madness!
It gets worse.
A client has a valid DSL account and a larger house. The client has a WRT54G router. We setup an additional wifi network to extend the range using powerline bridge technology from Netgear.
The client is a DirecTV subscriber. I am noticing that the connection speed is faster than it should be for a DSL. As I am configuring the WRT54G some stuff doesn't add up. My changes made upstairs are not propogating downstairs.
I then notice a comcast.net instead of sbcglobal.net domain suffix. I ask my client if he has a DVR, and he tells me that he's not a Comcast subscriber. I then notice that firmware on WRT54G that I access downstairs is very different from the one I am accessing upstairs.
As you can see, my client is using a neighbor's wifi router, but it's not visible from downstairs. Moreover, the neighbor's router has a vendor default password on its administrative screens.
To make things more interesting, the DSL account settings on the correct router were messed up, which further complicated this scenario. I'd configure my equipment correctly, but I'd have no Internet. I had to spend some time with SBC to reconfigure his correct courter with PPPoE settings. I then had to undo all changes to the neighbor's wireless router.
In any reasonably dense apartment complex, this is a valid scenario. I have 527 apartments in my complex and over 100 wireless networks.
Total time spent on troubleshooting this mess was in the neighborhood of 4 hours.
Leonid S. Knyshov
Find me on Quora
(IANAL)
Not really. The DHC is the standardized method of denying incoming telemarketers. Setting your AP to not broadcast SSID or activating WEP/WPA is a standardized method of informing that this is not a public network.
Cannot really see how this is analogous to spam.
...to never ever talk to the police without a lawyer present.
...Atlanta police decided the most important thing on their plate was to confiscate every dildo in the city.
Laughed out of that, they started up on killing old women during no-knock drug raids.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Wired is doing a Request for Analogies: using your neighbors wifi is like... /. community add?
What will the
I'm curious; what is incorrect about the term "State of Massachusetts"?
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
According to Section 750.540 of the Michigan Penal Code, the penalty for "...unauthorized use of any electronic medium of communication..." (although still a felony) is only 2 years in jail and/or a $1,000 fine (4 years and/or $5,000 if it results in a death). Where did the inflated stats come from?
Sigs are for suckers.
To everyone who said that "the connection is free"... um, no.
The store owner says in the article: "If he would have come in (to the coffee shop), it would have been fine."
And that is why it was illegal. Whether or not the person *knew* he was stealing makes no difference. The wireless service was offered up as a benefit only to the store's customers, and this person was taking advantage of that.
Throw around analogies all you want, the fact is that he just assumed it was free because it was unsecured.
-David
He is guilty because he "intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization" did "Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network" to "otherwise use the service of a computer program , computer, computer system, or computer network."
... good Lawyer = $1500 vs. Probation before judgment + fine = $400. Don't know about the value of his time is for the 40 hours of picking up discarded coffee cups on the side of the road.
n k2tqdim))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl -act-53-of-1979
;-- Am. 1996, Act 326, Eff. Apr. 1, 1997
He could have beaten the rap by attacking the first clause... "Intentionally and without authorization." If he had in the past connected to the coffee shop's wifi while enjoying some delicious upper peninsula java, he was connecting with authorization. A sign on the counter stating "WIFI is for customers only." would not prohibit him from using the service again, unless the business owner had a detailed disclaimer revoking authorization after the customer left the premises.
Or, he could say that he did not know that he was on the coffee shop's internet since once he connected he would be connected automatically later. Probably blew that with his chat with the officer.
Probably an ecconomic decision was made
Show me there is a law that says if you leave the door open I can waltz into your living room.
Here is the law that says it is illegal to connect to WIFI networks without permission.
I have to wonder about law enforcement priorities when a Law Officer has to look up whether an act is illegal before charging someone with a victimless crime and gets a bench warrent issued. Can a police officer start issuing warrants for things that he remembers that someone did that he just found out was illegal? Should he?
FROM:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(kflird55tkhn1vnl
Section 752.795 [Short Link] [Printer-Friendly Versions]
FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER NETWORKS (EXCERPT)
Act 53 of 1979
752.795 Prohibited conduct.
Sec. 5.
A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:
(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.
(b) Insert or attach or knowingly create the opportunity for an unknowing and unwanted insertion or attachment of a set of instructions or a computer program into a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network, that is intended to acquire, alter, damage, delete, disrupt, or destroy property or otherwise use the services of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. This subdivision does not prohibit conduct protected under section 5 of article I of the state constitution of 1963 or under the first amendment of the constitution of the United States.
History: 1979, Act 53, Eff. Mar. 27, 1980
FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER NETWORKS (EXCERPT)
Act 53 of 1979
752.794 Prohibited access to computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.
Sec. 4.
A person shall not intentionally access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to devise or execute a scheme or artifice with the intent to defraud or to obtain money, property, or a service by a false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise....
A better analogy is writing a bad check. IANAL, but I thought overdrawing a checking account is not a crime unless you can prove it was intentionally done.
You're gonna stop by a gas station to use the john, even though you don't need to fill up your gas tank, and while you're sitting there, the SWAT team's gonna come and lob a tear gas grenade in at ya.
Don't tell me that already happened to you; That was just the guy in the next stall!
Absolutely ridiculous. Absolutely fucking ridiculous.
THIS IS SPARTA!!!
Due to the broadcast nature of unsecured wifi, it was the access point was the one in effect saying: "How about it buddy? Want some action?"
To use the house analogy: the front door was open and there was a big sign saying: "Welcome! Feel free to come on in and make yourselves at home, y'all!"
If accessing these networks is illegal, then so should solicitation be.
Excellent, ballanced , thoughtfull discussion of an issue, with well-considered arguments from several points of view! A minimum of ad-hominem, name calling, and rants! This is GREAT kudos to all, especially including those with whom I disagree (I think this "offence" should have never been cited, let alone gone to court).
/. like this!
Lets have more
(and, for the record, this is meant sincerely, not sarcasticly!)
A. Coward
US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.
: ; , , ,
But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.
Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.
Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.
According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_2522.htm
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_2522.htm or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_ 2712.htm
of this title for any person --
(i) to intercept or access an electronic
communication made through an electronic
communication system that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily accessible to
the general public; 2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r25_04.html,
subpart D
ttp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr 74.401.htm
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.501.htm
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_04.html
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi
According to what you're saying, I could *legally* sniff all unencrypted traffic getting to my wireless card. IANAL but I guess there's a limit in "any broadcast transmission", and wifi is out.
The big sign on the front of that shop doesn't just say, "Free Wi-Fi". It says, "Free Wi-Fi Customers Only". Right there are the terms of use, announced loud and clear.
The guy sits out in his car and, despite not buying anything, makes use of the network.
Play all the games you want concerning ease of access. He definitely knew he didn't have permission to use the network and he did anyway.
"I'm also glad I can trust the government to keep the letter of the law such that it only makes bad stuff illegal." No way. I had some really good stuff and it was illegal too.
It seems to me that the guy had a lousy lawyer. The claim is its piggybacking if you don't have the owners permission. Was there a sign posted that said "free wireless?" Did the sign say "Free wireless only if inside building?" Or "Buy a cup of coffee and get free wireless?" I'm guess it just mentioned free wireless. Wouldn't that be construed as implied permission? I think everyone screwed up here. The cop should have informed the coffee shop owner, and left it alone. The coffee shop owner should have better signs. The dude shouldn't have been surfing pron in the parking lot, and he should have gotten a better lawyer.
I'd like to see the statue, but the coffee shop likely doesn't have personal computers attached to it, and to connect to the internet can hardly be considered trasspassing.
I would have fought this to the end.
It would be interesting to find out what the Wi-Fi Alliance thinks about this. Their PR representation can be contacted at 650-429-2772.
So would the situation have been different if he had gone into the cafe and bought a latte, sat down and browsed the web, and then walked out of the store with his laptop *still* connected and sat down in his car to check his email?
Can't everybody see that it's a good thing this happened! That guy was probably a terrorist using myspace to rape children, so he deserves what he got. This will send an important message to all the other terrorist child-rapers out there. Thank you kind policeman, for making the world a safer place!
I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
It seems pretty clear that if there is a 'piggybacking' law, the law should also demand that the broadcasters of wifi secure their system or be held at least partially accountable.
This could be arguable in regards to private home wifi networks, but considering a commercial establishment *actively advertises free wifi*, as in this case, it's just bait that entraps ordinary citizens and gives them an undeserved criminal record.
Bad, bad law.
Bad analogy. Leaving your door unlocked is a passive act. Broadcasting your SSID and configuring your WAP to offer open access is an active behavior.
Leaving your door unlocked may be a better analogy for having an 802.11 transmitter/receiver on your computer passively listening for SSIDs. The "intruder" could be analagous to a WAP that actively announces the presense of an open network and then actively offers access.
Here's a more accurate analogy: What if you put a splitter on your living room cable jack and then--without saying a word to me--ran the second cable into *my* living room with a *huge* sign attached to it that said, "I'm here! Please use me!"
Do you think I'd be stealing access to your cable if I took you up on the offer? I hope not.
That's what "broadcasting your open network's SSID" means in 802.11 wireless networking. You've got to consider which entity (computer or WAP) is the aggressor in the situation, and by design in an open WLAN that's the WAP.
IANAL
but from the basis of the description of this, the case should be thrown out as a violation of miranda rights. The person wasn't informed of the rights when they were asked the question. Had he not answered the question the case goes nowhere. Was there a complaint by the owner of said wifi? I'm guessing no.
Miranda rights should protect someone in cases like this. He could have refused to answer said question if he knew it was actually a problem, and asserted 5th amendment rights. Case goes nowhere unless the owner of said wifi complains.
reminder that once again, don't answer friendly questions from police such as "what are you doing" because apparently miranda doesnt apply anymore. my global response as of late has been and will be "is there a problem officer" the advice i read somewhere is let them tell you what you did wrong, otherwise it will somehow be construed as an admission. I dont engage in this activity but i would close laptop and ask that question. If he objects I could always say i had confidential material on the screen that I cant show him.
it does seem rather intriguing tho. suppose i could spoof my mac address on my wireless card, wouldn't it get a bit trickier for them to pin this charge on me because they'd have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I was indeed the violator of said access?
either way its stupid. If you own a wifi secure it, if you leave it wide open you should be subjected to whatever. What about computers that auto connect? next you're going to tell me that if I hear a neighbor listening to his radio too loud that I need to not listen.
if someone turns on a sprinkler and aims it such that water is falling on the street or sidewalk would it be illegal for me to collect said water with a bucket and do with it what i may?
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
The difference is, my presumptions a re based on reasonable behavior from both parties, while your asumptions are based on Orwellesque paranoia.
:)"
The point which you dodged is that there are several perfectly good reasons that the cop did what he did, but you immediately assumed the kind of motive that is all to typical here, that of intense and hyperbolic distrust of authority.
And the most important point, which you should take to heart, is that you didn't even CONSIDER that possibility that the cop wasn't a rights trouncing, citizen abusing asshole, even though such individuals are BY FAR the exception. Most cops are regular guys, but your overwhelming paranoia clouds your ability to see that.
"feel free to disregard all reasoned arguments I present
I did, even before you admitted you were ignorant.
"The only thing I assumed was that the story the OP related, and specifically what the cop told him/her was accurate."
That's a fucking lie and you know it.
I am getting tired of this "house and door" analogy. Computers function much more like a legal firm or a bank. Besides using the bank as the bank expects, there are two methods of getting money out of it. One is entering through the "unlocked door" and grabbing a few sacks of dough. We all know and accept that this is both immoral and unlawful.
The other way of getting money out would be by playing by the rules. The bank gives you paperwork. Paperwork is the network protocol of the physical world. Documents are packets and people are routers. Now, as long as I comply to the terms of my contract, there is now way anything I am doing should be considered unlawful. Lets say I find a way of maneuvering through the paperwork to a point where I am allowed to collect 200$ AND pass go. I followed the protocol set by the service proveder. I played by their rules. It is not my fault they made a mistake.
Now this applies to all sorts of things, not just wifi access. When Myspace got hacked, that kid was following the protocols set by their servers. He did not break in and take advantage of an unattended terminal. He did not break into the bank. He used the paperwork. Everyone trys to use law to attack people who play by the rules of set protocols. And many look upon these people with scorn. I don't think these views are correct, and I also don't think the house analogy fits at all. It is the job of an administrator to make sure there are no loopholes in a system, if there are any which exist, it is their responsibility to fix it and their liability to solve any problems which arise as a result
The governing precedent to this is the Michigan Police Radio Law that was passed in the 1920s and used for the next sixty years to harrass residents who owned police scanners, and then to harass those who had radar detectors. Similar arguments are expressed later down this page that are all related to justifications used by various Michigan prosecutors over the decades to defraud their victims of money for having scanners, radar detectors, and in some cases even citizens band radios in their cars. Eventually an injured victim had money and was mad enough to pursue his tormentors through the courts up to the Michigan Supreme Court. At that point the jig was up and the Supreme Court of Michigan declared the old police radio law unconstitutional as these all involved signals coming through the air. And so it is with wi-fi. That comes through the air as well. Argumants about bandwidth are largely irrelevant. Politics are transitory, and these arbitrary draconian laws about computers will have their sunset as well. By the way, on the heels of that Supreme Court decision, many lawsuits were filed against municipalities that had for years predated on their citizens, and those local governments had to pay quite a bit.
Another case of the person in authority not knowing what they are talking about when it relates to technology. Here is an email I wrote to the reporter that wrote this story and forwarded to the chief of police. To: policechief@spartami.org Subject: Fwd: Wireless Felony ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Justin Chapman Date: May 23, 2007 10:02 PM Subject: Re: Wireless Felony To: target8consumer@woodtv.com It's a shame that this case didn't go to trial. I doubt that it would have made it past a grand jury. Obviously, there was no crime that took place. He did not break in to anything. Chances are he had atleast once stopped into the coffee shop. The owner of the coffee shop did not want to press charges. The access point was intentionally left open with no authentication mechanism. Did the accused have any criminal intent? From Michigan State Code.... (6) It is a rebuttable presumption in a prosecution for a violation of section 5 that the person did not have authorization from the owner, system operator, or other person who has authority from the owner or system operator to grant permission to access the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network or has exceeded authorization unless 1 or more of the following circumstances existed at the time of access: (a) Written or oral permission was granted by the owner, system operator, or other person who has authority from the owner or system operator to grant permission of the accessed computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. (b) The accessed computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network had a pre-programmed access procedure that would display a bulletin, command, or other message before access was achieved that a reasonable person would believe identified the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network as within the public domain. (c) Access was achieved without the use of a set of instructions, code, or computer program that bypasses, defrauds, or otherwise circumvents the pre-programmed access procedure for the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. Obviously, the access was open and he was assigned an IP address and default gateway and DNS information automatically by the access point. So the argument could be made that the store owner was potentially giving unauthorized access to his computer to others connected to this access point. The access point transmits it's SSID and often people have their computers set to connect open access points that broadcast their beacon. So i don't see that if this is actually a crime that entrapment did not take place. I think that your story vastly misrepresented the facts of what happened and was uninformed. Sincerely, Justin R. Chapman
Maybe he will need to be 40 hours usher in the muncipal county's WIFI Diversion Program or something like that ;) ...
He'll probably think twice next time to buy that Cafe Latte beforehand, if he is even allowed to use WIFI after this "felony"
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Can't the judge see this is a waste of resources?
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
While Germany, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, Norway, Finland, etc... are in full technological advance, their culture and students placing larger emphasis on math and sciences, etc... etc.. etc... The best thing that we have to come up with, in this bright age of science and opportunity, for all the possiblities, fighting homelessness and poverty, diseases, exploring and financing philosophy the arts and other THE BEST thing we can come up with as a country is regulating how people are latching onto other people's broadband?? That stopping DVD piracy is one of our CHIEF CONCERNS? Imagine that to live so wealthily, to have so much with so much information, so much exploration, all this unprecendented in the HISTORY of MANKIND, and we think about latching onto broadband? Pirated DVD's? These people (the administration) are destroying our country. Theoretically, if we go by the standards of Federal Law, for every $10k of taxpayers money stolen like this, there should be roughly 2-3 years in jail. This means we should have all the administration, the FBI, the AG's, imprisoned for LIFE. IMO.
1) Rent office space next to coffe shop
2) Set up a "Free Wi-fi" hotspot
3) As soon as coffee customer logs onto your network, call the cops
4) Give MAC address of offending subject to cops
5) Cops investigate coffee customers, locate offender
6) Coffee shop LOSES a customer 7) Coffee shop LOSES PROFIT!!!
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
While this guy is burning gas outside to stay warm for hours on end.
Here is the rules for using such a network:
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
Ur analogy only works on the premise he bought a router with the default wireless setting set to off.
"There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
So if I have a access point in my house with a MAC filter, but it's still named "linksys" or "3Com", and then I walk into a shop that has an access point by the same name, running the default config, Windows Update will commit a felony on my behalf without me knowing it? Spooky.
For those who want to offer an unsecured wireless connection, yet punish piggybackers in a harmless way, I repost a trick someone offered: the Upside-Down-Ternet.
Revive the Constitution.
I don't agree, but let's proceed as if I did.
You're then arguing that the coffee shop owner has no responsability for the default behavior of his/her WAP, which is to *actively* extend invitations to join a network.
But then you're arguing that it is a felony for someone to power up their wireless-enabled laptop--that by default is configured to *passively* listen for active invitations?
The active WAP purposefully initiates the relationship and its owner is not responsible, yet the passive laptop is the hacking device and its owner is criminally responsible? Please.
That said, here's why I don't agree in the first place.
1) Plugging the WAP into a cable modem == installing the splitter
2) Powering on and running the WAP in default mode == running a cable into my house with a big sign saying "I'm here! Use me!"
Don't try to hold me responsible for my default config if you aren't willing to take responsibility for yours.
I also found this bit interesting:
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
There should be a rule. If the cop doesn't think you're breaking the law, you don't think you're breaking the law, and I don't think you're breaking the law, then you aren't breaking the law.
:(){
Depending on if there was a sign up advertising free wireless, or if the SSID was clearly intended to be public, one or more of the following should have gotten him off. (6) It is a rebuttable presumption in a prosecution for a violation of section 5 that the person did not have authorization from the owner, system operator, or other person who has authority from the owner or system operator to grant permission to access the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network or has exceeded authorization unless 1 or more of the following circumstances existed at the time of access: (a) Written or oral permission was granted by the owner, system operator, or other person who has authority from the owner or system operator to grant permission of the accessed computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. (b) The accessed computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network had a pre-programmed access procedure that would display a bulletin, command, or other message before access was achieved that a reasonable person would believe identified the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network as within the public domain. (c) Access was achieved without the use of a set of instructions, code, or computer program that bypasses, defrauds, or otherwise circumvents the pre-programmed access procedure for the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lmkax1qvaphque2ra ldifr55))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl -act-53-of-1979