I recall reading about a lawsuit I think has some relevance to this issue. Mr Smith had a neighbor's apple tree hang over the fence onto his property. When the apples were ripe Mr. Smith picked the apples on his side of the fence. His neighbor sued him for theft.
He lost.
The judge found that the property line was the line. The neighbor was perfectly free to cut off the branch that hung over onto Mr. Smith's property, but if the apples were over the line they became the property of Mr. Smith. (And why not? They were on his property!)
The obvious relevance to this story is if my neighbor sends his WiFi signal into my living room HE is trespassing onto MY property, if he sends it into the street he is giving it to the public. The crime (if one is even being committed) is being perpetrated by the sender of the signal, not the receiver.
Slashdot Mirror
I recall reading about a lawsuit I think has some relevance to this issue. Mr Smith had a neighbor's apple tree hang over the fence onto his property. When the apples were ripe Mr. Smith picked the apples on his side of the fence. His neighbor sued him for theft. He lost. The judge found that the property line was the line. The neighbor was perfectly free to cut off the branch that hung over onto Mr. Smith's property, but if the apples were over the line they became the property of Mr. Smith. (And why not? They were on his property!) The obvious relevance to this story is if my neighbor sends his WiFi signal into my living room HE is trespassing onto MY property, if he sends it into the street he is giving it to the public. The crime (if one is even being committed) is being perpetrated by the sender of the signal, not the receiver.