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. Here We Go by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let the "This is SPARTA!" jokes begin.

    -Peter

    1. Re:Here We Go by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Tonight we surf in Hell!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  2. 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 joebok · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, not at all - no computers are involved in analog baseball. However, if you were watching somebody play Head to HEad Madden '07 on their PSP on the bus, then they could cart your ass off to jail.

    2. Re:So using this logic.... by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...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.

      No. In your example, there's no computer involved.

      Really, there are two contradictory laws at stake, here.

      1) According to the FCC, it's perfectly legal to receive ANY BROADCAST TRANSMISSION. I can set up a radio receiver and pick up whatever happens to be in the air. This includes wifi broadcasts, which are really nothing more than a cordless phone combined with a MODEM.

      2) But, it's also illegal in most areas to "access computers or computer networks without permission". They stand in contradiction to each other. The part that's odd here is that the WIFI spot announces itself as unencrypted, sort of like a welcome sign. How did this guy not have permission to access the network?

      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.

      This is how we interpret things more physically. AFAIK here in California, if you approach my house and the front door is closed such that you have to turn the doorknob to enter it, it's illegal to enter without a specific invitation. (EG: "Come on in" sign, me hollering for you to, whatever) But if the door is open, you can enter with impunity - having the door open can be considered an invitation to enter.

      (IANAL, etc)

      So why would wireless networks be any different? Don't want people accessing your network? Put up a password/encryption key. Otherwise, your door is open, and people can (and probably will) enter.

      PS: More than once, I've trolled middle-class neighborhoods for a hotspot in a pinch. It seems that the best neighborhoods are the straight-up middle class ones - lower classes don't tend to have high-speed connections, upper classes tend to hire tech weenies to set up their networks, and they usually secure them. But the guys in the middle buy their Linksys routers at Best Buy, take them home, plug them in, they work, and they stop there.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    3. Re:So using this logic.... by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh well that makes the totally unreasonable nature of what happened OK then. I'm glad that I'll only ever be arrested for things that are illegal so as long as I'm not a terrorist criminal pirate general bad guy I'll be fine. I'm also glad I can trust the government to keep the letter of the law such that it only makes bad stuff illegal.

      I like it here in your little fantasy world. I'd stay, except I'm not a total bloody retard.

      --
      I hate printers.
    4. 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?

    5. 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.

    6. Re:So using this logic.... by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Web servers are intended for the dissemination of information to third parties. Wi-fi gateways are basic infrastructure, and can be reasonably be considered intended for the use of authorized parties only, given most people are unlikely to want anonymous third parties using their network without permission.

      And using the term "configured to give public access" is framing. The correct term is "unconfigured" in the vast majority of gateways. It's no more "configured to give public access" than a door that's been left unlocked is likewise.

      In the real world, there are many objects that provide access to things where the configuration and existence of the object does not necessarily imply anything about the right of third parties to use what they provide access to. A garden gate can reasonably be assumed, if the gate is unlocked, to be not intended as a barrier to prevent a visitor from entering. A front door, however, can be reasonably assumed whether locked or unlocked to be a boundary over which a visitor cannot cross without explicit permission. The mistake of many on the "Unlocked WAP means I'm allowed in" argument is to assume such a state of affairs does not exist, and that you can reasonably make assumptions about whether you're allowed to do something on the basis of whether it's easy or not.

      As always, there's a solution: just ask. If you're afraid to ask someone if they'd mind if you used their Internet connection via their WAP, you might want to ask yourself whether you really have their consent.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:So using this logic.... by Nukenbar · · Score: 5, Funny

      I walk into unlocked front doors everyday without explicit permission.

      These places are called stores.

  3. You're kidding, right? by Gorshkov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:You're kidding, right? by ronadams · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So... Kent County was prosecuting for something even the owner of the business didn't care about? From TFA: "This is the first time that we've actually charged it," Kent County Assistant Prosecutor Lynn Hopkins said, adding that "we'd been hoping to dodge this bullet for a while." I fly the BS flag. This "bullet" could have been easily dodged, but Kent County wants its free money.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    2. 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
    3. Re:You're kidding, right? by Gorshkov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Umm, sorry, ignorance is not an acceptable excuse for breaking the law. He either did or didn't.
      You're right ... but that's also besides the point. You can also be charged for licking an ice cream cone on Sundays in some jurisdictions, thanks to laws that were passed in the 1800s ..... but how far do you think the local DA would get if he actually tried to prosecute it?

      Here, we have a specific case where neither the perp, the cop, NOR the store owner were aware of the existence of the law - it seems to me that "justice" would have been much better served by just *informing* everybody about the law, so that it wouldn't happen again.

      The point of law is NOT to prosecute people, or put them in jail - it's an agreed-upon set of rules that we agree to follow when we join a society, so that society can function smoothly. Prosecution - and subsequent punishments - are intended to be coercive measures to enforce compliance with these rules.

      If ever there was a case of "This time, I'll let you off with a warning", this is it.
  4. This is ridiculous by tstubbendeck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This is ridiculous by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, maybe he should have realized that "free wi-fi" probably meant "free wi-fi if you come into the store and hopefully purchase something", but that's a distinction even the store owner didn't think was a matter of law. I mean, should he be charged with a crime for using the free parking spot, since it's pretty clear that the store only has the parking spot so people can park and come in the store?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  5. 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
  6. 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

  7. Don't talk to cops! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Bravo! by evil_aar0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 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.
  9. 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?

  10. Felony == criminal by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Felony == criminal by sangreal66 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Actually, that is not true.

      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
  11. Re:Keep your mouth shut. by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Funny

    Number one rule when dealing with cops: Never volunteer information that was not specifically asked for.

    Even better, just fondle your WWGD bracelet, ask yourself "what would Gonzales do?", and reply, in your best Steve Martin voice: "I forgot."

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  12. Contact Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  13. Laws and Mores by drDugan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. 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 justinlindh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
      Don't some setups automatically find the nearest unsecured access point and connect to it, without intervention from the user? What if I were to open my laptop in an unfamiliar area, only to have it automatically connect to an access point before I was able to halt the connection? Do we place the blame on the hardware/software maker for configuring their device to do this by default, or the user for not disabling it?


      Most of the access points at the coffee shops around here don't mention anything of "Free Wi-Fi access with purchase!". While it could be argued that the "with purchase" is implied in those situations, I think it could be easily argued in a court that since there was no specific mention of it, patronage of the establishment was not required.

      IMHO, if an access point is unsecured and available, it should be fair game for public use without any implied fine print.

    2. Re:Let's just say for arguments sake... by ajs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd agree with you all except for one thing: the wireless access can be closed off with the simple application of low-grade encryption. I can absolutely see a law going through that says that subverting WEP in order to gain access to someone else's network is unlawful, but to say that something many computers do automatically (connect to the strongest unsecured WiFi) is unlawful puts a burden on the potential "criminal" to determine who owns the connection and what their provisioning scheme is. The burden should be on the owner to either provide a polite "do not disturb" (WEP) or a redirection scheme like many use to restrict access until the user has visited the owner's Web site and signed up / accepted the terms of use. Anything else is highly unreasonable, as it requires me to know who the owners of all of my local WiFi hotspots are and what their terms of use might be.

    3. Re:Let's just say for arguments sake... by letxa2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Doing so would put the onus of enforcement on the owners of the WiFi and would put them in the position of a) identifying the people "stealing" their bandwidth... b) going to even more trouble by first attempting to quantify their real damages

      Good. If the offense is so trivial that it's not even worth identifying the people stealing the bandwidth, it's pretty clear it's not important enough to worry about to the owner--so why should law enforcement?

      This is even more silly because the user wasn't circumventing security or illegally accessing a secured, for-pay access point. He was utilizing an intentionally open AP that was put there specifically for people to use for free. Granted, the idea is you come in for coffee, but if the coffee shop didn't even know it was illegal and apparently didn't notice or care, then why should law enforcement take any action?