If they leave their internet wide open and broadcast an SSID then I beleive its fair to assume that this is an open invitation and they are offerng a community service.
Sure, it's fair to assume this--up to the point where they explicitly tell you to stop. At that point, you no longer have the open invitation. And when you come back, as this guy did, you can thus be arrested.
He was not arrested for the three months. He was arrested for the time after he was explicitly told, by a policeman no less, to stop. It's an important distinction.
If he was just using the internet why would the coffee shop give a damn anyway? its not like they are losing anything. In fact, I would have thought the coffee-shop would WANT to offer a free wifi zone as its free publicity about how community-minded they are.
For one thing, coffee shops don't have unlimited bandwidth. If he was downloading huge amounts of stuff, he could very well have been degrading service for their paying customers.
But mainly, he was sitting out in the parking lot, in his car, for three months. That's kind of creepy, and could in fact scare off paying customers.
Now, granted, that's more of a trespassing-in-physical-space matter, but perhaps they wanted to cover all their bases.
How does 'theft of service' happen with 'free wifi'? How can I steal something that is free?
"Theft of service" is basically the computer-system equivalent to "trespassing."
When you come back to a business establishment after being told to leave, that's trespassing.
They're not getting him for the three months he spent hooked up. That's water under the bridge. They're getting him for coming back after he was told to stop.
Calling 911 because someone is annoying you by using your WAP???? How in any way is this an emergency? Why couldn't the store take 30 seconds to look up the local number for the police?
In many municipalities--such as my own--911 is the preferred number for reporting any crime, including non-violent ones such as trespassing. When you try to call the police's local number to report a crime that isn't an emergency, they tell you to call 911 anyway--at which point you're asked, "Is this an emergency?" and if so, sent to the emergency dispatchers, if not sent to someone else to take your report.
Did you ever accept the free t-shirts that newspapers and other companies hand out on campuses, at sporting events, concerts, etc. all over the country without later purchasing the goods or services they promote? If you take one of those shirts, that's fine, that's what they're for--promoting the company that handed out the goods so that maybe someday you'll buy something from them.
Likewise, if you drop by a coffee shop one day, check your email, and leave without buying anything, that's fine, too--they can't reasonably expect everybody who uses the Internet service to buy something.
But if you start coming by and taking another T-shirt every fifteen minutes, you can be told not to come to their booth anymore--and if you persist after being told to stop, they can get you for trespassing. (And theft, too, probably.)
Likewise, if you sit out in the parking lot for three months using their Internet service, you can be told to stop--and if you persist after being told to stop, they can get you for the Internet equivalent of trespassing, which is theft of service.
How is one supposed to satisfy (b) & (c) know that one's use is unauthorised when someone is transmitting on a publically available frequency?
By the owner having a policeman come out to you and tell you to stop using it. At that point, you lose the implicit authorization that you had up until the moment you were told to stop. It becomes explicit unauthorization.
This isn't the same as a wardriving case, where you can try to declaim that you didn't know your access was unauthorized. This is a case where the offender had been explicitly warned that his access was unauthorized. He couldn't be held accountable for his access up to that point, given that it was publically available. However, once he'd been explicitly told to stop, his subsequent use became theft of service. (IANAL, etc.)
It's reasonable to assume you're welcome to use it...until the owner comes out and tells you to stop. At that point, you are no longer welcome to use it.
There's just the standard "TOS" for any private property that is open to the public. You can use it until the owner tells you to stop (as they did, in this case, by having a policeman go out and say, "Hey, the owner wants you to stop.")--at which point you are no longer allowed to use it, and if you persist you can be arrested.
Stores have the right to refuse service to anybody. Some of them say this explicitly in a sign, "The establishment reserves the right to refuse service to anybody," but they have that right whether they say it or not. Now, granted, if they refuse service based on race, disability, etc. they can get in trouble over it, but not if they do it based on behavior. And once a store refuses service to somebody, if that person comes into their store anyway they're trespassing, even though the store is open to the public.
I held this point of view, too, until a friend pointed out a few things about property law to me. I tried to argue, but I ended up coming around to his point of view.
It's okay to use it until the owner tells you to stop. At that point, it becomes no longer okay to use it.
If they hadn't first told him to stop--had a policeman tell him to stop--then they wouldn't have had much of a case for arresting him. But once they told him to stop and he came back anyway, then it became a matter of trespassing.
Look, if a store is open to the public and people come in and shop, that's fine. But if one of them misbehaves and they tell him they don't want his business anymore and to stay out, he's not entitled to come back in just because the door is open and other people are going in. He's been told to stay out, and if he disobeys that order he's trespassing. And while some establishments do have bouncers, it's not beholden on every establishment to have security, because the law is on their side in this matter.
In this case he was doubly trespassing: using their wireless access after they told him not to, and using their parking lot after they told him not to. Even if they couldn't get him for theft of service, they could still get him for trespassing.
Would they ever have known he was using their service without buying anything if he hadn't been parked so prominently in their parking lot all that time? Say, if he were located in some business next door? Probably not. But he called attention to himself by acting in an obvious and not a little creepy manner. They had every right to tell him to stop. When he didn't stop, he got arrested.
I don't know. If I'm an iPod user (and I am, but I'm speaking hypothetically here), I'm not sure that I'm going to want to switch to a competitor because they insulted me for using an iPod.
How is it that Apple is able to get away with allowing easy generation of PDFs via OS X's printing utilities, but Microsoft can't? Did Apple pony up Adobe's danegelt? Or are they too small for Adobe to care?
A hardware-software locking scheme would also stop the big movie/game rental chains (such as Blockbuster, Hastings, etc.) from renting PS3 games. This could be a big blow to the industry, I think, given how many copies of the games the rental chains end up buying, and also that a lot of people will try renting a game for the short run before they decide to shell out the dough to buy it.
Ah, just how stupid can Sony be? I'm reminded of that old Einstein quote about how only two things were infinite--the universe, and human stupidity--and he wasn't sure about the first one of those.
Of course, what isn't stated very clearly in the original blurb is that the laptop manufacturers have never said they will sell them at that price. The page that the $300 pledge link goes to is essentially an online petition that they're trying to get people to sign. So far they have about 500 out of the 100,000 they're looking for. So don't get your hopes up that you'll be able to buy one.
Paid LJ subscribers can call a phone number and record an audio entry into their LiveJournal. Have been able to for some time. It doesn't have the whole threading thing, but I've recorded entries from my cellphone before.
Meanwhile, Odeo.com allows anyone with a computer and a microphone to become a podcaster, using simplified Flash-based audio tools. Hook a phone interface to Odeo and you'd probably be set.
Actually, the microphone that I use is reasonably directional and noise-cancelling; as long as I keep the volume at a reasonably low level on my speakers, nobody I call seems to be getting an echo--or at least not one that's noticeable enough to complain to me about.
For example, there's this one: when Skype pops up a feedback form asking you how your call was, the URL it sends to pop up that form exposes various information including the phone number you just called, in clear-text.
Slashdot Mirror
If they leave their internet wide open and broadcast an SSID then I beleive its fair to assume that this is an open invitation and they are offerng a community service.
Sure, it's fair to assume this--up to the point where they explicitly tell you to stop. At that point, you no longer have the open invitation. And when you come back, as this guy did, you can thus be arrested.
He was not arrested for the three months. He was arrested for the time after he was explicitly told, by a policeman no less, to stop. It's an important distinction.
If he was just using the internet why would the coffee shop give a damn anyway? its not like they are losing anything. In fact, I would have thought the coffee-shop would WANT to offer a free wifi zone as its free publicity about how community-minded they are.
For one thing, coffee shops don't have unlimited bandwidth. If he was downloading huge amounts of stuff, he could very well have been degrading service for their paying customers.
But mainly, he was sitting out in the parking lot, in his car, for three months. That's kind of creepy, and could in fact scare off paying customers.
Now, granted, that's more of a trespassing-in-physical-space matter, but perhaps they wanted to cover all their bases.
How does 'theft of service' happen with 'free wifi'? How can I steal something that is free?
"Theft of service" is basically the computer-system equivalent to "trespassing."
When you come back to a business establishment after being told to leave, that's trespassing.
They're not getting him for the three months he spent hooked up. That's water under the bridge. They're getting him for coming back after he was told to stop.
Calling 911 because someone is annoying you by using your WAP???? How in any way is this an emergency? Why couldn't the store take 30 seconds to look up the local number for the police?
In many municipalities--such as my own--911 is the preferred number for reporting any crime, including non-violent ones such as trespassing. When you try to call the police's local number to report a crime that isn't an emergency, they tell you to call 911 anyway--at which point you're asked, "Is this an emergency?" and if so, sent to the emergency dispatchers, if not sent to someone else to take your report.
Did you ever accept the free t-shirts that newspapers and other companies hand out on campuses, at sporting events, concerts, etc. all over the country without later purchasing the goods or services they promote?
If you take one of those shirts, that's fine, that's what they're for--promoting the company that handed out the goods so that maybe someday you'll buy something from them.
Likewise, if you drop by a coffee shop one day, check your email, and leave without buying anything, that's fine, too--they can't reasonably expect everybody who uses the Internet service to buy something.
But if you start coming by and taking another T-shirt every fifteen minutes, you can be told not to come to their booth anymore--and if you persist after being told to stop, they can get you for trespassing. (And theft, too, probably.)
Likewise, if you sit out in the parking lot for three months using their Internet service, you can be told to stop--and if you persist after being told to stop, they can get you for the Internet equivalent of trespassing, which is theft of service.
There's a difference between use and abuse.
(IANAL, etc.)
The rational thing to do would be to go out to his car and ask him to leave.
Which, if you RTFA, you'll see they did--even had a police officer go out and do for them.
It was only when he came back after being told to leave that he was arrested.
How is one supposed to satisfy (b) & (c) know that one's use is unauthorised when someone is transmitting on a publically available frequency?
By the owner having a policeman come out to you and tell you to stop using it. At that point, you lose the implicit authorization that you had up until the moment you were told to stop. It becomes explicit unauthorization.
This isn't the same as a wardriving case, where you can try to declaim that you didn't know your access was unauthorized. This is a case where the offender had been explicitly warned that his access was unauthorized. He couldn't be held accountable for his access up to that point, given that it was publically available. However, once he'd been explicitly told to stop, his subsequent use became theft of service. (IANAL, etc.)
It's reasonable to assume you're welcome to use it...until the owner comes out and tells you to stop. At that point, you are no longer welcome to use it.
There's just the standard "TOS" for any private property that is open to the public. You can use it until the owner tells you to stop (as they did, in this case, by having a policeman go out and say, "Hey, the owner wants you to stop.")--at which point you are no longer allowed to use it, and if you persist you can be arrested.
Stores have the right to refuse service to anybody. Some of them say this explicitly in a sign, "The establishment reserves the right to refuse service to anybody," but they have that right whether they say it or not. Now, granted, if they refuse service based on race, disability, etc. they can get in trouble over it, but not if they do it based on behavior. And once a store refuses service to somebody, if that person comes into their store anyway they're trespassing, even though the store is open to the public.
If someone's watching your TV through a window, they're probably standing on your property and thus trespassing.
Same if someone's reading by a light shining out of your window; unless it's a spotlight, those lights don't shine very far.
I held this point of view, too, until a friend pointed out a few things about property law to me. I tried to argue, but I ended up coming around to his point of view.
It's okay to use it until the owner tells you to stop. At that point, it becomes no longer okay to use it.
If they hadn't first told him to stop--had a policeman tell him to stop--then they wouldn't have had much of a case for arresting him. But once they told him to stop and he came back anyway, then it became a matter of trespassing.
Look, if a store is open to the public and people come in and shop, that's fine. But if one of them misbehaves and they tell him they don't want his business anymore and to stay out, he's not entitled to come back in just because the door is open and other people are going in. He's been told to stay out, and if he disobeys that order he's trespassing. And while some establishments do have bouncers, it's not beholden on every establishment to have security, because the law is on their side in this matter.
In this case he was doubly trespassing: using their wireless access after they told him not to, and using their parking lot after they told him not to. Even if they couldn't get him for theft of service, they could still get him for trespassing.
Would they ever have known he was using their service without buying anything if he hadn't been parked so prominently in their parking lot all that time? Say, if he were located in some business next door? Probably not. But he called attention to himself by acting in an obvious and not a little creepy manner. They had every right to tell him to stop. When he didn't stop, he got arrested.
The future of everything is in Cardiff, really. And so is the past. All bundled up in a police box with a flashing blue light on the top...
Today a Washington Post story discusses the vast U.S. bank of genetic material it has gathered over the last few years.
Wait...the Washington Post has been gathering genetic material?
Very good point. I'd mod you up if I hadn't posted the comment to which you replied. :)
I don't know. If I'm an iPod user (and I am, but I'm speaking hypothetically here), I'm not sure that I'm going to want to switch to a competitor because they insulted me for using an iPod.
And SanDisk is insulting every single member of the market that it is trying to gain. Historically, that sort of approach doesn't tend to work very well.
How is it that Apple is able to get away with allowing easy generation of PDFs via OS X's printing utilities, but Microsoft can't? Did Apple pony up Adobe's danegelt? Or are they too small for Adobe to care?
A hardware-software locking scheme would also stop the big movie/game rental chains (such as Blockbuster, Hastings, etc.) from renting PS3 games. This could be a big blow to the industry, I think, given how many copies of the games the rental chains end up buying, and also that a lot of people will try renting a game for the short run before they decide to shell out the dough to buy it.
Ah, just how stupid can Sony be? I'm reminded of that old Einstein quote about how only two things were infinite--the universe, and human stupidity--and he wasn't sure about the first one of those.
Of course, what isn't stated very clearly in the original blurb is that the laptop manufacturers have never said they will sell them at that price. The page that the $300 pledge link goes to is essentially an online petition that they're trying to get people to sign. So far they have about 500 out of the 100,000 they're looking for. So don't get your hopes up that you'll be able to buy one.
Still, if they did sell them, I'd get one.
Stonehenge, where the demons dwell
Where the banshees live, and they do live well...
Blah. Second link was supposed to be studio.odeo.com, not odio. That'll teach me to preview before I post.
Paid LJ subscribers can call a phone number and record an audio entry into their LiveJournal. Have been able to for some time. It doesn't have the whole threading thing, but I've recorded entries from my cellphone before.
Meanwhile, Odeo.com allows anyone with a computer and a microphone to become a podcaster, using simplified Flash-based audio tools. Hook a phone interface to Odeo and you'd probably be set.
Actually, the microphone that I use is reasonably directional and noise-cancelling; as long as I keep the volume at a reasonably low level on my speakers, nobody I call seems to be getting an echo--or at least not one that's noticeable enough to complain to me about.
For example, there's this one: when Skype pops up a feedback form asking you how your call was, the URL it sends to pop up that form exposes various information including the phone number you just called, in clear-text.
Just to note, there are a few security concerns about Skype, its ownership by eBay, and potential security holes within the Skype network. Be aware of what you're using when you're using it.
867-5309.
For a good time, call...
I think it's only free from within the US to the US. Europe-to-the-US still costs money because they want people to buy their overseas services.