Using free wireless at library described as theft

There's now a follow-up article to the follow-up article here:

Man who had his laptop confiscated uses library's (Anchorage Daily News; 3/2/07)

It summarizes a lot of what was in this and the previous article, but answers a few questions we've had. In particular, the article adds:

Police first found Tanner, 21, of Palmer parked Feb. 17 in the library parking lot, surfing the Web after hours, and asked him to leave. The next day, police spotted him there again after hours and this time warned him he could be charged with theft of services. The officer confiscated Tanner's computer and chased him off again.

Palmer Police Lt. Tom Remaley said officers are waiting on a search warrant based on the suspicion that Tanner committed theft.

"There may be things on this computer that prove or disprove the crime, but in order for us to look at them you either need to get consent or you need to get a search warrant," Remaley said.

He said Tanner could be charged, at minimum, with criminal mischief for defying a police order to refrain from Web surfing in the library parking lot.

An expert on Internet law, Jennifer Granick of the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School in California, said she feared police may be on a fishing expedition.

They may "use something that's not really illegal as a stalking horse to go looking for something else illegal," Granick said Thursday by phone.

What little case law there is holds that hopping on unsecured wireless networks is not a crime, she said.

Granick said the Internet center could help Tanner should he face criminal charges.

Palmer library director Pat Kilmain said Tanner broke no library rules that night. During the day, anyone in the library can use the wireless service for free. At night, the wireless signal is usually turned off.

However, Tanner happened across the wireless signal during a few days when it was left on for maintenance purposes. Since then, it's been turned off at night.

--Snip--

So the Palmer police still haven't obtained a search warrant for the computer, almost two weeks after it was confiscated. And the library director said no library rules were broken (but parking in the library's lot after hours is technically not allowed but rarely enforced).

The likely criminal law the Palmer police are looking to prosecute Tanner under is criminal mischief in the fourth degree, which is a class A misdemeanor in Alaska. Under section 11.46.484(a)(3) of Alaska law:

A person commits the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree if, having no right to do so or any reasonable ground to believe the person has such a right . . . the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer system, computer program, computer network, or part of a computer system or network

I guess the cops are arguing that because they said so the day before, Tanner had no right or reasonable ground to believe he had a right to access the library's WiFi system on February 18. But do the police have authority to control access to the library's computer system - especially when the library director told the newspaper Tanner broke no library rules?

For the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post, Grannick is partially wrong - there are some cases, one in St. Petersburg, Florida and one in Illinois, of persons being prosecuted for hopping on an unsecured WiFi network. In neither case was the person using a public library's system after hours, though. One would logically assume that a public library would allow people to use its system if it is turned on. A library is supposed to allow people access to knowledge, not prohibit it. That assumption may not be valid for an unsecured home or commercial network.

OH the Irony!

I just heard that the local security (not the police, our building is in a Mall parking lot) stopped a person from using our wireless outside the building, even though our website specifically says that if you can get our signal, you can use it. Of course, it also says you are on your own if it doesn't work. :)

(We are working now to educate the security).

Aren't home networks password protected, or are many too lazy or technically challenged to use a password.

So if a homeowner leaves his front door unlocked, does that still make it legal for someone to come in and steal something from the house?

I have always thought of open WiFi as being open to the public. Many businesses (including my favorite watering hole) have it available. If it was intended to be private it would be secured. It’s not like that is difficult to do.
I would be cautious about using a private home’s signal - but a business and a taxpayer supported library?

I guess all Clearwire users will now be profiled as stealing bandwidth.

hey I agree with your viewpoint, people are slowly losing the concept of private property, you might find this thread interesting;

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1842668/posts