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.'"
So it seems this service was provided by the coffee shop. IOW, in Michigan, it is a felony to sit outside a coffee shop or other establishment with "Free WiFi" without buying something.
My blog
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
The FCC has dictated that picking up a transmission like that is 100% legal.
From the original article: He'll pay a $400 fine and do 40 hours of community service, but it will not go on his record. http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6546307
...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.
Not exactly. The team's owners had no problems with people watching from the rooftops. But the rooftop owners started charging admission for people to gain access to the rooftop seats. That's what they had a problem with. I believe they currently have a profit-sharing agreement, where the rooftop owners have to pay a portion of their ticket sales to the ballpark/team.
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.
You are required to show them your ID if they ask.
In the US, if you're driving a motor vehicle, you can be compelled to show your driver's license. In any other situation, however, you do not even have to carry ID, let alone show it. You can be compelled to identify yourself (for example, giving your name, DOB, and address) if you are being arrested or ticketed, but other than that you don't even have to give the cops any information.
... 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.
But more importantly, you CANNOT just sit in a parking lot and use Wi-fi without deciding to ACTIVELY log on to the access point.
Not necessarily true. With my old iBook it would just autodiscover, and login to open wifi networks, without my help, or any other conscious action by me. Does this then make mac owners less culpable than others? I doubt it.
I don't understand how it could be a felony, if you leave your wifi open, people will use it. It takes all of 2 seconds to secure it. I'm also not going to play with silly analogies, since I really think the "if you left your door unlocked..." analogy is false. If there is any law involved in this, it should be civil. If this coffee shop only wants paying customers to use their access, then she should use some form of "ticket" solution. A coffee shop near my old college did this, when you purchased something they gave you an access number good for about an hour of internet use, this kept you buying things as long as you wanted to use access, and also barred people from "piggybacking".
Residential access is tougher, though a simple password is still the best thing to do. In college, also, I knew several people whose only form of access was through some unknown "lender". I never really had a problem with this, but then again I lean towards socialism. If they didn't want to have their access used, then they would have secured it. This is another issue, what if I DO want people to use it, is it still illegal for them to do so? I keep my wifi open, as long as it doesn't harm me, but are the people using it still illegal? I don't give implicit consent, just like people don't give implicit denial.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Looks like either 1) The author was exagerating, 2) There are other circumstances not in the article or 3) Somehow they figure he stole more than $1,000 worth of wireless service.
Here is a link to the law
Here is an excerpt. Note it says this is a misdemeanor unless certain things are met. (IANAL)
(1) A person who violates section 4 is guilty of a crime as follows:
(a) If the violation involves an aggregate amount of less than $200.00, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00 or 3 times the aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine.
(b) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $2,000.00 or 3 times the aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:
(i) The violation involves an aggregate amount of $200.00 or more but less than $1,000.00.
(ii) The person violates this act and has a prior conviction.
(c) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00 or 3 times the aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:
(i) The violation involves an aggregate amount of $1,000.00 or more but less than $20,000.00.
(ii) The person has 2 prior convictions.
"Long time listener, first time caller."
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
This is sparta, I know the town well as I drive through on a regular basis. the local police are an utter joke. they only look to give tickets while they have a rampant youth vandalizing problem they refuse to deal with. The police there are known to be raging assholes. The cop certainly could have told him to never do it again and let him off with a warning but he CHOSE to nail this innocent guy.
It was the officers choice to be a raging asshole in this case, and that is how they act there. dont drive 1 mph over the speed limit (one part of sparta on a main through road has 3 signs you can see at once. 45,35,25 it is intentionally confusing so they can nail you for speeding tickets.) as they gladly give you a ticket and look over your car for more they can write.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Well, one problem with WI-FI is that you can be on someone else's network without even knowing.
I installed WI-FI back in 2000 in my house in Tokyo. I didn't bother setting up WEP. One day I was checking my server logs and I saw that someone was ssh'ing in, as me, from an unfamiliar IP address. After a bit of frantic security work I looked at the IP numbers a little more closely and then checked my laptop. The IP number was me! One of my neighbors had set up WI-FI themselves and from certain areas of the house their network was picked up in preference to my own.
So, by your analogy, this is like me wandering into my neighbor's house by accident, sitting down and watching their TV and having NO CLUE I'm in the wrong house and then getting arrested for trespassing.
These days I often see multiple WI-FI networks available anywhere I go. If I go to a coffee shop that has free WI-FI access I might wind up connected not to their network but to their next door neighbor's network, making me, technically, a felon.
The judge should have thrown the court out of case, given genius boy a lecture on ethics (like, go buy some coffee the next time you want to use the free WI-FI) and the prosecutor a long lecture on wasting the court's time.