Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Michigan Man Charged for Using Free WiFi

Posted by Zonk on from the watch-where-you-wardrive dept.

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.'"

31 of 848 comments (clear)

  1. So using this logic.... by ip_freely_2000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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.

    1. Re:So using this logic.... by Mockylock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's also like a company dropping money on the ground in front of their store and arresting anyone who picks it up.

      --
      "Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
    2. Re:So using this logic.... by fumblebruschi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In fact the Chicago Cubs sued their neighbors for precisely that reason. There are buildings near Wrigley Field where you can sit on the roof and see the field (I believe Wrigley is the only ballpark where that's possible) and the Chicago Tribune, which owns the Cubs, has tried for years to get the city to force their neighbors to take down the seats on their roofs. No success yet.

    3. Re:So using this logic.... by susano_otter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When you ask yourself "am I allowed to use this network?", "I don't know" does not equal "yes". The onus is upon you to verify that you are not trespassing before proceeding.

      What about when my very first act is to ask the network administrator if I'm allowed to use his network, and he says "yes"? Is it okay then? What if my NIC asks his router if I'm allowed to use his network, and his router says "yes"? Is it okay then?
      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    4. Re:So using this logic.... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I personally think that wireless networks, even those that are being broadcast in unlicensed spectrums (like wifi) should be illegal to access if the "digital doorknob" is locked. If you have to enter in a password or decryption key, even a weak one like WEP, it's illegal to access. But, if it's open/unencrypted, then you should be free to act with impunity.

      I'd say that a network that is unsecured and broadcasting its SSID is essentially an invitation to join that network. An unsecured network that is not broadcasting an SSID is like a house with the door closed but not locked -- you don't have permission to enter, even though it is still trivial to do so. A secured network, even if the security is weak, is like a locked door. It might only take a single kick to knock it in, but that's still B&E.

      The problem though is that the default setting of wireless routers is unsecured and SSID broadcast enabled, and of course like with everything few people ever change the defaults. It makes it easy for anyone to set up a network -- turn on the router, click "Find network" on the PC, done -- but the result is we have tons of unsecured, open networks whose owners may not want to be open but don't know how to say that in wireless protocol terms.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:So using this logic.... by blueskies · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Then how do i know if i'm allowed to connect to a person's webserver? Does their webserver legally speak for them? Or is it because the webserver is setup to be publically accessible following understood standards? Why can't you connect to a router wifi access point when it is configured to give public access?

    6. Re:So using this logic.... by Mattintosh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Let's take your "house" analogy a bit further.

      First, we identify the players in this game.

      You = You.
      Network = House.
      Router = Door.

      Now, what we have is a House, protected by a Door with a button and a sign. The sign says, "Push the button and I'll open the door if you meet my criteria." The button causes the Door to be opened if you meet the criteria set forth by the owner of the House and the Door.

      You walk up to the House, read the sign and push the button. The Door opens to allow you into the House.

      Is it trespassing? No. The button is a machine tasked with carrying out the owner's directions. It's interesting to note that replacing a button with a motion sensor gives you the very same automatic doors that most retail stores have. It is not trespassing.

      So change the nouns around. Is it trespassing if a router gives you access to a network according to the owner's directions? Answer: No it is not.

    7. Re:So using this logic.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you also argue that if you put a sign that says "this this - free" on some object in your lawn that you can charge a person with theft for taking it because the sign doesn't have power of attorney?

    8. Re:So using this logic.... by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I do wonder what the court would say if the defendant here were to file an "entrapment" suit against the store owner. After all, there are a lot of open-access APs around. How is one to know while traveling whether any given AP is legally usable? This decision potentially makes it rather risky to just be a traveler in Michigan, especially now that cars are starting to come with onboard networks and comm equipment. It's just a matter of time until someone is arrested while driving along I-94 because their car used a local AP to talk to the factory or download a map. ;-) I remember talk of some Windows O/Ses (possibly others too, not singling out Microsoft here) automatically connecting to the strongest available WiFi - add various network-sensing apps into the mix (EG. Windows Update, spyware, whatever) that auto-transfer whenever a connection is available and Joe Sixpack could potentially be committing a felony without even knowing he is doing it. Say the fella happened to stop within range of the WiFi, opened his laptop and started working on a Spreadsheet or some other local app. He has no idea what his NIC or his O/S is doing.

      If "I don't know how to configure my network/AP to prevent unauthorised access" is a valid argument for the prosecution, then surely "I don't know how to configure my laptop to prevent unaithorised access" is also just as valid as an argument for the defendant.
  2. Inconsistant article by JamesD_UK · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. "unauthorized use"? by tedshultz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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.

  4. Windows XP just connects... by Docboy-J23 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Windows XP just connects... by just_another_sean · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Our company had a sales rep in Baltimore who worked for us for a week before we (IT) heard anything from him. He calls us one day and complains his internet connection isn't working, what's the deal? After questioning him about providers and settings and what not we figure out that he never signed up for any service, didn't know he needed to and was very confused when we told him he was using someone elses unsecured wireless. He literally had just turned on his Windows box the first day he got home, connected (automagically) to a neighbor's wireless and assumed that computers were supposed to do that. As if all PCs came with "free" internet, no configuration required.

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  5. Doesn't the provider have any responsibility? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Doesn't the provider have any responsibility? by Mephistophocles · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Very good point though I think you could go farther than that - if there is a sign advertising the WiFi, wouldn't it have to explicitly state where you can or cannot be to use it (i.e., inside, outside on the patio, in the parking lot, etc). Also, what if you just come and sit on the patio and use it? How is that different from sitting in the parking lot? Shouldn't the "terms of access" on the sign explicitly state whether or not you have to purchase something from the shop in order to use it?

      Either way I find it hard to believe that the guy could be charged with a felony for this unless the law states that "any access of any WiFi, regardless of location, without prior explicit consent of the owner (in writing or before witnesses, so that it may be presented to the court) is hereby considered a felony and may be prosecuted as such." If the law doesn't say that or something like it, I imagine there is a strong case for getting this guy off with nothing and probably for some juicy civil suits to follow.

      --
      Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
  6. Fifth amendment? by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Fifth amendment? by grape+jelly · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm amending point #1. :)

      1. The fifth amendment doesn't guarantee you protection against self-incrimination. Rather, it allows you to legally deny requests from the authorities whose results may incriminate you (e.g., avoidance of obstruction of justice charges). You can have a right not to answer their questions, deliver evidence, etc., etc., etc, on the condition that it would demonstrate you guilty of *some* crime.

      If we assume voluntary confessions inadmissible in court as a result of the fifth amendment, nobody would be able to plead guilty to a crime -- that constitutes self-incrimination. Similarly, criminals who turn themselves in would have to be turned away because by turning themselves in, they are incriminating themselves.

      The officer asked the man, "What are you doing?" It was and still is fully within the man's right to say, "I with to use my fifth amendment right and not answer." However, the man unwittingly offered up what amounted to an admissible confession, and was thusly boned.

  7. Re:You're kidding, right? by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This whole issue is starting to bother me greatly. Sure, if it wasn't an open AP, it would be stealing. If free Wi-Fi wasn't so common an average person might know better. Even in the case of it not being offered to customers, how are you supposed to know? That is tantamount to telling a police officer that you left a bag of $20 bills on a park bench yesterday, and when you went back to get it today it was gone. If you had locked it in the trunk of your car, that would be different. Lets make it more palatable; Say you left a bag of candy bars on a park bench where 100s of children play daily. When you go back the next day to retrieve it, it's gone. What would the police say? Naturally they would hide their laughter until you turn your back to them.

    If public parks are paid for by citizens of that municipality, are people from out of town allowed to use them? Free means free. I was under the impression that if something is only free to customers as a marketing ploy, you have to do something to keep it from those who are not customers. How is this a crime? If a store offers free candy bars to the first 1000 shoppers on Saturday morning as a marketing ploy, have you committed a crime if you take one of the candy bars but don't buy anything? I think that we need to ensure that businesses advertise that they have either FREE Wi-Fi or Free-to-customers Wi-Fi to clear this up. Once it is posted (like no trespassing signs) there is no longer any question about whether it's a crime or not.

    --
    Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
  8. Re:You're kidding, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You forgot got to list that he was charged under a law titled, "Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks", yet he clearly commited no fraud. If he'd been asked to stop and continued, I can see charging him, but the article doesn't say he was ever asked to stop.

  9. Re:You're kidding, right? by jfengel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I want to know what office Kent County Assistant Prosecutor Lynn Hopkins is running for. This sounds like an EXCELLENT time for a little prosecutorial discretion. I can't help but think that she's got something in mind.

  10. Time to quote Ayn again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

  11. Let's just say for arguments sake... by jmackler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Let's just say for arguments sake... by surprise_audit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      making it a civil issue would go too far in the other direction. Doing so would put the onus of enforcement on the owners of the WiFi

      And when the WiFi owner doesn't realy care much, why was this even pursued at all?? Waste of the court's time, I think. From TFA:

      Indeed, neither did Donna May, the owner of the Union Street Cafe. "I didn't know it was really illegal, either," she told the TV station. "If he would have come in (to the coffee shop), it would have been fine."
  12. Re:...eh? by carpecerevisi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm, you may actually have a point. From what little contract law I have studied, and the even smaller amount I remember, I believe that comes under "not having the authority to make the contract on someone's behalf". It goes something like the following:

    A owns a house. B breaks in while A is on holiday. B puts a sign on the front saying "Everything inside is free for the taking". C walks in and grabs the TV

    C cannot *keep* the TV, because B didn't have the right to make the contract. However, C is *not* a thief (unless the TV is not returned) because C was lead to believe that his actions were ok.

    Here, the Coffee shop owner is A, "the default wireless settings"/"the wireless manufacturer" is B, and C is the guy in his car checking his emails. So, ok, a "The coffee shop fucked up, and would like you to pay $10 of traffic charges" would seem reasonable.

    However, even then, there are arguments (that I believe in), that say "If you are led to believe that *a service* is free" (note, not a TV, but a service, where, if told it is free, you can justifiably believe that making use of it where you wouldn't otherwise), and find out otherwise, then you shouldn't be liable for charges. This basically stops excessive "surprise charges", e.g. if C'd justifiably believed (as he seemingly had) that the connection was *free*, and then downloaded (slowly, over a long period of time) what, if charged per byte, was a MASSIVE sum, that he wouldn't have had he known he'd have to pay per byte.

  13. Re:Felony == criminal by el+americano · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well the cop could've given this guy a break.

    Milanowski, who eventually swore out a warrant for Peterson, doesn't believe Milanowski knew he was breaking the law. "In my opinion, probably not. Most people probably don't."

    Where I grew up, the police would've just come over and said, "Hey, you shouldn't be doing that. Don't let me see you down here again." Instead, this jerk writes up a warrant. I guess that "To protect, and to serve." idea is really an anachronism these days.

    --
    Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
  14. What If... by woolio · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  15. Re:Keep your mouth shut. by xappax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "You don't have to tell me what is in the bag unless I ask."

    Though this cop was nicer than most, he was still lying. Even if he asks, you don't have to tell him what's in the bag at all, unless he has reason to believe that you're committing a crime that involves that bag. We have a basic constitutional protection against unreasonable search, and that includes having to give a verbal inventory of everything we're carrying.

    And if he has reason to believe that you're carrying contraband in the bag (which he didn't in this case), you still don't have to tell him, because the 5th amendment says we can't be compelled to incriminate ourselves.

    But to be fair, the cop may not have been lying - he may have genuinely believed that you were required to submit to an arbitrary search/interrogation simply because he asked - which is even scarier in my opinion!

  16. ignorance of the law... by JimBobJoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  17. Read the Fine Print by Khammurabi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He was not a customer so he was not entitled to use the wi-fi.
    It depends. If the advertisement in the shop was simply "Free WiFi", any decent lawyer could argue that he was granted permission to use it. If the ad instead read "Free WiFi* (some restrictions may apply)", I'd say it's likely he did not have permission, as the restrictions were likely that the person needed to be a customer or in the establishment.

    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.
  18. Re:Bravo! by rantingkitten · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One wonders what the hell the judge was smoking to agree that this guy's use of the access point was obtained by "fraudulent" means. Did he, like, sneak his way into range of it under cover of darkness, use social engineering to get the parking space, and spend hours cracking the nonexistent password?

    --
    mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
  19. Re:Stop lying by xappax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "feel free to disregard all reasoned arguments I present :)"

    I did, even before you admitted you were ignorant.

    Ok, ok, I get it - IHBT IHL HAND. But it is an interesting discussion, so on the off chance that I'm not the only one legitimately participating in it:

    The point which you dodged is that there are several perfectly good reasons that the cop did what he did

    I'm really trying here, but I can't think of too many reasons a cop would say "You don't have to tell me what's in the bag, unless I ask": Either he accidentally misrepresented the law, or he deliberately misrepresented the law. If there are more possibilities than that, please tell me specifically what they are.

    rights trouncing, citizen abusing asshole[s]... are BY FAR the exception. Most cops are regular guys

    Most cops are regular guys. And I'm not so aloof as to claim that I or most people I know wouldn't act the way cops do if we were put in uniforms, given guns and authority, and given a simultaneously boring, frustrating and fairly scary job. Because there is a large, very well respected body of study that shows that when you take ordinary people from all walks of life and put them in those kind of cop-like roles, we very frequently begin exhibiting aggressive, abusive behavior.

    The Stanford Prison Experiment is the most dramatic demonstration of this, and it and the Milgram Experiment form the basis of a lot of modern study of the psychological effects of authority.

    So yes, I have a certain amount of sympathy for the situation "ordinary guy" cops find themselves in, but there's no doubt that these ordinary guys do end up violating people's rights and abusing their authority fairly consistently, and it doesn't make it "OK" just because they're ordinary guys. To demonstrate that it's not just a few "bad apples" abusing their authority, here's an experiment you can try at home (or in your hometown):

    - Find a cop who's arresting, ticketing, searching, or otherwise hassling a stranger.

    - Approach the scene and openly observe the interaction. Allow yourself to be obviously seen recording information like the officer's license plate number, badge number, and description. Take pictures openly if you have a camera. IMPORTANT: Keep a generous distance so as not to interfere in any way.

    - Don't speak to or interact with anyone on the scene, except (optional) when the officer has a moment, announce yourself so you don't arouse suspicion. Say something along the lines of "Officer, my name is [your name] and I'll just be acting as an observer of this encounter."

    - Wait for the officer to ask you to move along. Politely reiterate that you're just observing, and have no desire to interfere.

    - Wait for the officer to order you to move along. Politely reiterate that you're just observing, and have no desire to interfere.

    - Wait for the officer to attempt to interrogate you or get you to present ID. Politely reiterate that you're just observing, and have no desire to interfere.

    - Wait for the officer to threaten you with arrest and/or intimidate you further. Politely reiterate that you're just observing, and have no desire to interfere.

    - (optional) Wait for the officer to either give up, conclude their original encounter, and move on, or actually follow through and arrest you.

    Not all police will react according to these instructions, but easily over half of them will. Much of the rest of the time (usually when it's just a stop-and-search, or random questioning, not an actual arrest) the cops will stop unusually quickly and move on, to avoid further observation. I and people I know have performed this test many times with cops in many different cities and towns, and the response is strikingly uniform (no pun intended