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.'"

Comments

Re:You're kidding, right?

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

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?

I guess you were asleep or out sick on that day in school oh so many years ago when they said, and I quote:

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Note how that applies to everything you listed above. I think it would be more accurate to state that the cop didn't know for sure that he was breaking the law but suspected he might be.

This SHOULD be illegal...

[dtjohnson]

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.

Re:So using this logic....

[squiggleslash]

This is an excellent point, and I do suggest you volunteer as a star witness should anyone be prosecuted for using a Wifi router that has a large sign on it, clearly visible to people accessing the WAP remotely, with "Push the button and I'll open the door if you meet my criteria."

However, FWIW, this is not a remotely similar case to your example.