Man arrested for using free Wi-Fi

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bestmapman @ May 24 2007, 07:45 AM) [snapback]448919[/snapback]</div>

No, you would receive the benefits of the fertilizer whether or not you did anything. In fact, you would recieve the "benefits" even if the guy used lawn killer and livestock poison and the runoff killed your entire farm, thus killing your business. Is he responsible for destroying your business by doing something on his property? Is responsible for paying for the damages? If so, why is he not entitled to some of your profits?

Back to my wireless phone example. If you found that your wireless phone worked on your neighbors phone service, somehow, would using that service be considered stealing?

Using your rationale, it is not. It is a "free service", "beamed" onto your property. However the phone company, government, and the owner probably think it is theft, if not some communications crime.

Most people who pay for the service probably view it as theft. Hence the law. Obviously the ISP's don't like losing business to people who should be paying for it.

The purpose behind the law is presumably to prevent internet crime from occuring using someone else's ISP. There are people who drive around, using other people's ISP's to view child pornography, commit theft, and otherwise shift the blame onto an innocent third party. That this guy was not doing that is probably the reason he got off so light, with basically a slap on the wrist. If the guy was commiting bank fraud, these charges would have been added to his other charges.

 

I think everyone could agree that it would be illegal for him to go behind the store and tap into their internet with an Ethernet cable to get free internet access. Why do you treat wireless so differently? because of the "amount of effort" involved? thats bull.

The store was paying their ISP for a service. They were providing a service to customers with the understanding that the customers were "paying" for the service through purchasing other items. Stealing internet through an open wireless network is illegal, and should be. Next thing you know, you guys will be saying that "stealing" anything broadcast through the air is fine... sat TV? sure, why not... it's broadcast through the air!

Simply put, we don't have anything that we can adequately compare this to except itself. There is no doubt in many of your minds that it would be illegal if he broke into a protected wireless network. No doubt in your minds if he illicitly ran a hardline to connect to their network. But because it's wireless and doesn't require a password, it's suddenly just fine to take.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jgills240 @ May 23 2007, 03:25 PM) [snapback]448412[/snapback]</div>

No, but with Mr. Flatfoot Crimebuster Barny Feife - one bullet in the pocket having so much time on his hand ... heck, the sherrif's department ought to set up a sting! . . . you know, fake coffee shop ... put up a sign stating, "free wifi", then, BAM ! !

boy oh boy . . . we'll have this crime wave cleaned up in NO time
Meanwhile, crack sales are up . . . and hundreds are murdered each week in major cities accross the nation in drug related matters. But now days, that's not even newsworthy.

It is written some where, this kind of philosophy: "They strain out the gnats, yet they swallow the camels"

 

I remember back in the 60's when weather sats. were first put in orbit, someone built his own receiver to pick up the images. He was taken to court, it went all the way to the supreme court I believe, which rulled that the airwaves are free, unless the transmission is encrypted. Again in the late 70's and 80's, there was much ado about people receiving the signals from the C-band sats, there was move to outlaw the reception of the signals, again that move was overrulled, this time by an act of congress introduced by the late sen. Barry Goldwater (R, AZ). At that time and still C-band is primarly used for network feeds, telephone transmission, and cable feeds. Telephone feeds were allready encrypted, networks didn't really care (more people to see their broadcasts), and cable companies started to encrypt.

The bottom line is, the airwaves are free, it's the owner (broadcaster) of the signal who has the responsibility to secure that signal if it's not intended for general reception. Breaking the encryption on the other hand is a crime much the same as wiretaping.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ May 23 2007, 11:36 PM) [snapback]448870[/snapback]</div>

My PDA is a Palm so I'm not worried. My car computer is fully up to date, and has no personal info that anyone can care to extract. If the drive gets wiped, I just use an image and be back up and running in 20 minutes.

For those who like to drive around looking for wifi, check out NetStumbler. There's a whole community that finds open access points.

 

You know what this reminds me of? When some seeds of Monsanto's patented GMO crops wound up in a farmer's field, being blow their by the wind, or dropped by birds, or any one of a hundred other ways. And Monsanto sued the farmer for "stealing" their seeds. And won. This is the main reason I'm against GMOs.

Also, kids, remember, if someone sends you something in the mail you didn't order, you don't have to pay for it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ May 24 2007, 12:02 PM) [snapback]449094[/snapback]</div>

I realize we are straying off topic here, but do you seriously believe that a quantity of seeds large enough to cover 60+% of 4 acres just accitentally blew in on the wind or were dropped by birds?

 

Intresting case, I guess the same could be said of a wirless router in your home or apt and a neighbor uses your connection to view child porn.... I mean its your IP address.... (guilty until proven innocent)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bestmapman @ May 23 2007, 07:42 PM) [snapback]448610[/snapback]</div>

Your light analogy is flawed.

Illuminating your walk doesn't make your neighbor's light any less bright.

But with the Internet, unauthorized users can slow down data transfer, and have a *direct effect* on authorized users.

So, unlike the light, your use of the Internet *does* have an effect on your neighbor.

----

Similarly, with TV/radio signals, more users don't make the picture smaller or slower or whatever and degrade the experience for *everyone* who's viewing at the time (unlike the Internet). The Internet is different in some key ways that have *nothing* to do with transmission over the ariwaves.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bestmapman @ May 24 2007, 06:45 AM) [snapback]448919[/snapback]</div>

I'd tell him to water less and use less, since he's clearly overfertilizing.

But this isn't like unauthorized use of a wireless signal.

This analogy, too, is flawed. The runoff fertilizer from your neighbor is *extra*. That is, his yard is getting all it needs.

But, with unauthorized logins to a wireless network, the people who are supposed to get all of the Internet/fertilizer they need (the authorized users, or your neighbor who applied the fertilizer) may NOT, since the unauthorized users GET THEIR DATA WITH THE SAME PRIORITY as the authorized users (unlike your yard, which gets fertilizer AFTER your neighbor's).

So, no, you're not stealing anything, and it's none of his business...but this isn't the same as the issue we're discussing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ May 23 2007, 06:01 PM) [snapback]448519[/snapback]</div>

CALJIC doesn't apply to FL. They certainly have an equivelent, I'm sure. Even so, THIS pile of steaming poo lacks both specific AND general intent. You gota store dolling out, & advertising free wifi ! !

Doesn't matter if he's sitting in the store, on the patio, on the curb, or in his car ... whether he bought his java today ~ yesterday ~ a bag of beens from last week that he brought with him ... IT'S FREE ! ! !

Hijacking bandwidth (law) doesn't apply to FREE! . . . so this dufus lost because he didn't fight it.

Laws can't be unconstitutionally vauge, where an ordinary reasonable person can't even ascertain whether or not their behavior is breaking a law. Sure, this guy may or may not know this or that, and the store owner may or may not care. Not enough facts. Even so, a blanket arrest for behavior that may or may not be legal?

Wildkow's point above:

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.

This wifi ~ grab the guy off the street thing goes right into the above pile.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ May 24 2007, 01:31 PM) [snapback]449213[/snapback]</div>

I suspect that this coffee shop doesn't just dole out free wireless to whomever happens to live or pass by, with no restrictions, as you're suggesting.

And since we don't know the name of their network, it IS possible that the guy clicked on a network named after the coffee shop.

Also, didn't he admit that he does this sort of thing on a regular basis? This, combined with his physical location (near the coffee shop), can be construed to suggest that he did --intentionally-- locate himself and his laptop in an area which afforded effective connection to *this specific network.*

Many if's, I know.

But...*If* there are rules defining what the coffee shop considers to be a customer (which I suspect there might be), and *if* he didn't meet those criteria (which I suspect he didn't), and *if* he intentionally/repeatedly parked outside this coffee shop (I'll be there must be a witness or two if anyone actually asks around), and *if* he clicked on a network named XYZ coffee shop or whatever, then he DID know what he was doing, had ample indication, and chose to proceed.

We'll probably never know the answers and it does seem lame to prosecute this sort of thing...most logical would be for the coffee shop to require a login to access the free service.

They'd probably find that the network gets LOTS faster!

 

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

IMO, yes, I asked to use this site by creating a logon. As far as I know, Danny is paying for the space and the connection. If he doesn't want me to use it any longer he can terminate my access. At home I am paying the cable company to get me connected. Using without paying or (in this case) permission is theft of service and can be prosecuted. I am surprised that the DA (or prosecutor) filed charges on their own. I would have thought that if the owner didn't want to prosecute they would have dropped the case. Perhaps Mr. E-mail Reader could have been busted for loitering or a parking violation.

(look side to side) I have to leave now. I'm at the hotel on their WiFi and I think I hear the police.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 24 2007, 02:08 PM) [snapback]449255[/snapback]</div>

You bring up some really good points Pinto. In my travels, I get by a quite a few WiFi hotspots and they seem to fall into three catagories. First there are the open types, they require no login, just connect and away you go. With these, you don't necessarly even know whos access point you're connecting to because they broadcast their SSID and it's often the default (linksys for example), and as someone else posted it may be from a different location due to a stronger signal. The second are still open but to connect but intended for customers/residents only, with these the SSID is not broadcast and to connect you need to get this and often a password from the owner, it may be free or there may be a charge, depending on the owner. Many airports and hotels have this type. The third is the type truely not intended for use by the public, they will have (if the owner is smart), no broascast SSID and have a truely encrypted signal requiring a WEP key and possibly even WPA protection. This is what I have in our home because I don't want someone downloading child porn etc. that can be traced to my IP address.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 24 2007, 02:08 PM) [snapback]449255[/snapback]</div>

The only "if" that matters, IMO, is if the sign said "free wifi" OR "free wifi with purchase/for customers".

Starbucks makes a great place to gather with a small group of people and chat, or sit and read a newspaper. It's possible on occasion that someone might try to come in and use the nice chairs without buying anything. Does the manager:

A. Do nothing.
B. Ask the person to leave.
C. Call the cops and have him arrested for trespassing without asking him nicely to leave first.

The cop in the wifi case did C. Why he didn't do B is beyond me...

As others have said, if the store owner wanted the wifi for customers only, and was concerned about others mooching off his bandwidth, there are many things he could have done to address this. But the store owner wasn't even involved in this dispute. He may have cared less what this guy was doing.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 24 2007, 01:13 PM) [snapback]449193[/snapback]</div>

The key word there , "does", is incorrect. It should be "may" have an effect. Depending on the service that the coffee shop owner purchases, it could possibly take a whole parking-lot full of moochers in order to even be discernible by others using the network. Again, if there were complaints about it being slow, the owner could take steps to keep the moochers out. Since he hadn't, it probably never had come up...

 

Let me phrase a question here, if you will -

Would it be illegal to run a hard line ethernet connection from the coffee shop's wired portion of their network without their knowledge someplace else to obtain free internet when you want it?

If not, then what makes this different than steeling cable from your neighbor?

If so, then how is this qualitatively different than mooching off of the wireless network from a location outside of the coffee shop?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 24 2007, 04:06 PM) [snapback]449347[/snapback]</div>

This would depend Eagle, let me explain. If an outlet (RJ45 plug) were placed into the customer area of the coffee shop, then you should be able to connect your laptop to that while in the shop. The FAR and BIS airports have just this setup with signage indicating you are free to use the connection. If on the other hand, you tried to run the cable out and down the block, there would be violation of wiring codes, some people just get uppidy about tripping over a cable laying on the sidewalk. Besides with a 300' limit on a run (max length for cat5 UTP), you couldn't get very far. If on the other hand, there were no outlets in the customer area, he would be breaking other laws just getting to the router.



Now, lets look at something else, any airport I've ever been in has electrical outlets along the walls of the concourses. They are primarly for the use of airport personel doing their duties (cleaning crews, airline people doing their jobs etc.). Now, every day, you se countless numbers of people using those outlets to charge their laptops, Ipods, cellphones, and whatnot. Are these people guilty of stealing electricity? They obviously bought a ticket to fly somewhere, but nothing on that ticket says they have the right to power up their toys with someone elses power. So if you are traveling through MSP and decide to top up the charge on your phone, should you get busted for stealing? After all, there are chargers located throughout the airport where you can charge your phone for a $5.00 fee.

 

I could understand if the guy hadn't paid the wee fee...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ May 24 2007, 08:45 PM) [snapback]449501[/snapback]</div>

So you're saying that it would be legal to run a line down the street if you could get around these wiring codes (do you have a link for these codes? i'm unfamiliar with them)?

So how is this different than running a cable from your local sports bar to steal their sat TV/cable connection? I don't think anyone would argue that stealing that service is legal.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tyrin @ May 24 2007, 03:54 PM) [snapback]449332[/snapback]</div>

I've wondered as well and so did a little more googling. The Village of Sparta, where this occurred, has a population of 4300. I think this is simply a case of small town snoopiness, a cop without much to do, and then his decision to test an untested state law.

Or perhaps he was bored by the ordinances he was supposed to be enforcing:
In its continued effort to enhance Sparta’s image as “What a neighborhood should beâ€, the Village will begin active code enforcement the week of April 9th, 2007. Although the Village will actively enforce all ordinances, the most common violations are as follows:
Junk or Inoperable Vehicle (including boats) Ordinance
Grass and Noxious Weeds Ordinance (includes grass over 10" high)
Sign Ordinance
Solid Waste Collection/Disposal Ordinance
Property Maintenance Ordinance
Off-Street Parking (Residential Front Yard) Ordinance
Placement of Leaves and Other Materials in Streets
The Village is strongly encouraging those property owners who are in violation of any of these Ordinances to take the necessary steps to rectify the matter as soon as possible.