Replies

Or maybe it's more like the equivalent of parking your car in a public lot and going home. We prosecute folks who take cars all day, every day.

Ah, but unlike the car, nobody is stealing the rubber ball...they're simply playing with it in the park. Nobody is "taking" anything away from you, they're simply making use of a resource that you've made public in a public location.

I believe we've already agreed on one notable exception to such a presumption, insofar as your neighbor's phone calls are concerned. Why shouldn't it be treated like a cordless phone?

Perhaps it should, perhaps it shouldn't, but that's an issue for Congress to decide, not an overzealous prosecutor and judge. Congress and the FCC designated certain parts of the radio spectrum as unregulated public domain, and then placed special protections on one specific use of that spectrum. If you believe that it is appropriate to extend that same protection to computer networks, then by all means feel free to contact your congressman and request a new law. But PLEASE don't try to paint people as criminals simply because they're participating in a perfectly legal activity as defined by every applicable federal law.

My personal opinion, of course, is it's a bit leftist to go screaming to the government for protection simply because people can't be bothered to read their owners manuals. Unregulated public spectrum is unregulated and public for a reason, and it's a bit hypocritical to make use of that resource and then whine because other members of the public are also making use of it.

Ah, but unlike the car, nobody is stealing the rubber ball...they're simply playing with it in the park.

By that logic, it's not stealing the car if all I do is pull some donuts in the parking lot.

Congress and the FCC designated certain parts of the radio spectrum as unregulated public domain, and then placed special protections on one specific use of that spectrum....But PLEASE don't try to paint people as criminals simply because they're participating in a perfectly legal activity as defined by every applicable federal law.

Congress has nothing to do with it. Wired or wireless, it's perfectly appropriate for the state of Florida to decide what constitutes electronic trespass or unauthorized use of computers within its borders. The fact that the access was done over the airwaves rather than via a couple of alligator clips on the junction box is wholly irrelevant. The mere fact that the sending and receiving of data over a 2.4 GHz wireless connection is legal doesn't magically make everything you do with that spectrum legal - following along with the argument you're developing, stealing credit card numbers, committing identity theft, and transmitting child pornography must all become legal, so long as you use a wireless connection to do it. After all, Congress said that 2.4 GHz is an unregulated Wild West zone, where no law applies, right?

I think not.

Unregulated public spectrum is unregulated and public for a reason, and it's a bit hypocritical to make use of that resource and then whine because other members of the public are also making use of it.

The issue at hand is not that other people are simply using it, but that they are using the resources of others to do so. You want wireless? Go buy your own.