Man arrested for using free Wi-Fi

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ May 23 2007, 05:24 PM) [snapback]448490[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I did. I had to request permission to use this forum, and am here at the pleasure of the owners. I have no RIGHT to use this forum. They could have denied me for any reason. I followed the owners' protocol for joining and using the forum.

If the owners required payment for using the forum, and somehow I got around that requirement, I would then be stealing.

I am also paying for my internet service.

Me using my ISP, that I pay for, to access a forum, that I was given permission to use, is a far cry from stealing a service, that someone else pays for, so I don't have to pay for it. The two aren't even comparable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ May 23 2007, 04:24 PM) [snapback]448490[/snapback]</div>

Because of actions which were felt inappropriate by the administrators, I was banned from using this forum...so, yes, I am using it with their permission (which I was taught can be revolked at any time). If ever I felt it was my right to post here, well, being banned changed my mind real quick.

Still wondering if the wifi-stealer might have copped (no pun intended) some attitude before being arrested...? Either that, or something else going on which we don't know about.

 

At Memorial Stadium (Cal Berkeley) there's a spot called Tightwad Hill. Folks go up on the hill to watch football games without paying. The school can build a barrier to stop this practice but since they don't there's nothing stopping people from viewing a game that others are paying for. I suppose a law could be made so this becomes illegal, but to my knowledge there is none. Personally I feel that wireless networks should be treated the same way. If the owners of the network don't put up a barrier then people should be able to use it, just like Tightwad Hill.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(San_Carlos_Jeff @ May 23 2007, 06:49 PM) [snapback]448575[/snapback]</div>

Yes, and the tightwad hill folks actually were petitioning the university to consider their view(!!!)

How does THAT work, exactly?

Can I specify the type of cupholder attached to the armrest of my seat, or the contour of the backrest, if I'm getting season tickets? Ummm, no.

Now, if these folks are broadsheets and donate lots to the university, then maybe they've a leg to stand on, but beyond that, well, it was a nice freebie that lasted as long as it did.

I don't believe that the only way we can function as a society is to keep everything under lock and key. I believe that we just have to say 'no' to temptation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(San_Carlos_Jeff @ May 23 2007, 06:49 PM) [snapback]448575[/snapback]</div>

I feel the same way because it's a signal that is being broadcasted without any encryption. I assume it's free for me to use until it's broadcasted in a way where I have to work at getting it. For example, if my regular tv picks up a channel that comcast or whatever company is broadcasting then it's not stealing. Much like using my qam tuner on my hdtv to watch free in demand or espn hd while it lasted until comcast encrypted those channels. Now that it's encrypted I will have to put in work to watch those encrypted channels without paying comcast. If I choose to do it now, then I'm stealing. By the way, I know of no way to watch those encrypted hd feeds.

 

This sounds like, in this case, the enforcement is over reaching, and I would expect a DA to toss this one out absent evidence of other crimes being committed. But who said the law is reasonable?

But there is a rationale' for the security regulations for "snooping" on wireless networks outside of stores:

From http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3513_7-6733602-1.html

If the coffee shop is using that same wireless network to communicate back to their home office, transmit credit card information from their register to the back office, which then sends it securely over the internet, etc., then the cop did exactly the right thing in questioning and arresting him. The arrest allows them probable cause to get a warrant to search the computer for evidence of identity theft snooping. Absent that other evidence, the charges should have been dropped (unless the store wanted him prosecuted).

So while it seems to be ridiculous on the surface, in reality we just don't think like criminals. Its good that cops do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 23 2007, 02:46 PM) [snapback]448372[/snapback]</div>

The better comparison is:

My neighbor puts up a outside light that illuminates my walk. I don't have to buy and put up a light because my neighbor's light does his and my walk just fine. He wants to put up his light and it shines on my walk. I do nothing but use his light and get the benefit of the light.

Similarly, My neighbor puts up a wireless network for all to "see". In fact sometimes my computer automatically connects without my knowing it. It is not shaded and "shines" on my house. If I use it, no extra cost is allocated and my neighbor is not harmed. In fact he has provided it for me free just like the light.

Unlike taking someones water or going into someones house with intent to steal. My neighbor is illuminating
my house for free. If my neighbor didn't want me to get the benefit of the light, he would shade or shield the light. Also if the nieghbor does not want me to use the network he would protect it.

Clearly here the question is one of intent. The man did not think he was stealing anything. He thought he was just using the light that is freely provided for all to use. No diferent than any light that is provided on any sidwalk or parking lot.

The most important issue:

If this cop has the time to reasearch and go after this guy, we have to many cops.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(koa @ May 23 2007, 11:48 AM) [snapback]448376[/snapback]</div>

There was no Fourth Amendment violation.

As reported, the initial encounter was consensual. Police officers do not need probable cause to simply ask questions from someone who is not being detained or is not under arrest. Peterson could have ignored the police officer or refused to talk to him. It is not as if the man was detained or if anything seized from him. Those actions would have required probable cause.

Only after the police officer finished doing his investigation and research did he obtain an arrest warrant from a judge.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 23 2007, 11:51 AM) [snapback]448380[/snapback]</div>

Hmmmmm, I'm a Real Estate Appraiser and sit outside of homes all the time with my laptop. Quite often I get lost or need another comparable because the last one doesn't fit the subject property I am apprasing and I need to get online to find another. I don't used other peoples connections because I have highspeed service through my Cingular Wireless but how would a cop know?


BTW here are some good Florida laws . . .

Florida prohibits topless walking or running within a 150 foot zone between the beach and the street.
Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal.
Florida law forbids rats to leave the ships docked in Tampa Bay.
Hialeah: Ambling and strolling is a misdemeanor.
If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle.
Failure to tell your neighbor his house is on fire is illegal.
It is illegal to fish while driving across a bridge.
In Miami, it is forbidden to imitate an animal.
In Saratoga, Florida it is illegal to sing while wearing a bathing suit.
It is considered an offense to shower naked.
It is illegal to fart in a public place after 6:00pm on a Thursday.
Key West: Chickens are considered a 'protected species'.
Oral sex is illegal.
You may not kiss your wife's breasts.
Penalty for horse theft is death by hanging.
Tampa Bay: It is illegal to eat cottage cheese on Sunday after 6:00 P.M.
When having sex, only the missionary position is legal.
Women can be fined for falling asleep under a hair dryer. The salon owner can also be fined for this horrible crime.

I predict almost all of Flordia will be in the pokey no later than Friday.


Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(saechaka @ May 23 2007, 08:03 PM) [snapback]448585[/snapback]</div>

It's not like we are talking loud music or something. You DO have to work to get online with a wireless connection. You know if it is not yours.

Integrity apparently has gone down the tubes in this country. No wonder our politicians are so horrible. The citizenry has no problem stealing something as long as it isn't locked up securely enough.

 

He should have gone to the Public Library.

All of ours have free WiFi. A lot of cities do. But you can't drink coffee in the library. I don't think that would have been a problem for him.

As for the fine and community service to clean off his record, this indicates that the basis of this "arrest" was purely to generate revenue from an otherwise law abiding citizen. They got some money and some free labor without argument, objection or avoidance. That's why it's so much easier for government to victimize the law abiding than criminals. I've got grafitti all over my neighborhood, but I'm sure code enforcement is spending it's time measuring fences, setbacks and sending out threatening letters and issuing fines. It's easier to get law abiding homeowners to pay than to catch and prosecute tagging gangbangers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bestmapman @ May 23 2007, 08:42 PM) [snapback]448610[/snapback]</div>

So if you were able to get your neighbor's cable television in your house, without them knowing, you wouldn't consider that stealing? After all, it doesn't impact their bill. They pay the same.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ May 23 2007, 08:46 PM) [snapback]448749[/snapback]</div>

I beg to differ. Diversion permits an otherwise law abiding citizen who made one isolated serious mistake which is uncharacteristic for him/her, who may have his/her life ruined by having a felony conviction on his/her record, to have a clean slate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 23 2007, 10:47 PM) [snapback]448750[/snapback]</div>

That's not the same. You'd have to intentionally tap into their cable.

I really think the guy could have beaten this conviction. He probably just plead guilty.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 23 2007, 10:47 PM) [snapback]448750[/snapback]</div>

well it really depends on how it's sent. i would say if somehow he is getting cable tv and it's being broadcasted over the open air waves and my tv with some basic wireless technology(which doesn't exist but i'm just using it as an example), can pick it up then it's not stealing. it would be up to the cable company to come up w/the technology to encrypt the signal so only the user who buys it can get it. on the otherhand, if i go over and splice his line then it's stealing.

point being, i feel if it's being broadcasted over the open airwaves w/no type of encryption then it's up for grabs because my computer/laptop/pda can pick it up automatically. whereas if i needed to hack into their encrypted signal to find the wireless key, then i would consider it stealing.

 

That's a good comparison, bestmapman. I have no problem connecting to an open network. It's not my responsibility to ensure people's wireless security. If people feel that plugging in their router is all they ought to do, then good for them, and free access for me. It takes but a minute to read the "getting started" poster, and it'll probably warn them about leaving a network open, and then it'll have steps to set a password. It's not hard to secure one's network, and there are plenty of warnings that tell people the risks of not securing it. If there's a road, and it's open, I'm going to drive it. The quickest/easiest way to prevent anyone from traveling on that road is to put up a gate or a no trespassing sign.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bestmapman @ May 23 2007, 05:42 PM) [snapback]448610[/snapback]</div>

If you set your wireless connection to connect to any open network, then yes, you will connect to other networks automatically. My PDA has that setting by default. When it does it's mail check cycle, it'll connect to the first open network it finds. I've had emails arrive while I was at various locations around town.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 23 2007, 08:41 PM) [snapback]448743[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Presto @ May 23 2007, 08:07 PM) [snapback]448771[/snapback]</div>

Bad idea ... make sure you have the latest security patches if you're doing this on a laptop or Windows OS PDA. WinXP and Mac OSX had a pretty significant security hole that would allow a "sniffer" to simulate an open network and gain access to your machine. Mac patched the OS earlier in 2006, but MS didn't get around to it until a few months ago. See http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix...dows_xp_wi.html

But of course, the hacker is simply applying your logic to your machine if he hacks in; you have left yourself open to it, so you deserve it, right?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 23 2007, 11:47 PM) [snapback]448750[/snapback]</div>

Two points:

1. Your neighbors cable is not beamred or "shined" into your location, so you must take steps to enter, alter or modify his existing arrangment for you to "recieve" the cable. He has a private set up that is meant for him alone and in fact is secure unless you tamper with it.

2. The issue of wether your neighbor is "not charged extra" is not a stand alone element in determining if it is theft. Several other factors must be included to determine if it is theft.

To answer your question:

I would consider getting your neighbor's cable television in your house, without them knowing, theft. Unlike your neighbor who beams or "shines" the wireless onto your property, You must actively alter his set up and tap into his connection to "appropriate" the service.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 23 2007, 11:47 PM) [snapback]448750[/snapback]</div>

Answer this question for me:

My neighbor has an extensive garden. He is uphill from me and fertilizes heavily and when it rains some of his fertilizer washes down onto my property. I started growing my own garden and in fact the ground is so fertile now that I sell some of my garden vergetables and make a profit. I don't have to fertilize because my neighbor does.

This is similar to the issue of wireless networks. I don't have to do anything or alter anything. If fact I stay where I am on my property and my neighbor chooses to illuminate or radiate my property and I get to reap the benefit of his actions. I say thank you.

What do you think I should say if my neighbor says stop using my fertilizer.

Am I stealing my neighbors fertilizer?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ May 23 2007, 11:46 PM) [snapback]448749[/snapback]</div>

You have to be careful with that too...

Alaska police crimp wireless surfer

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("UPI Article")</div>