My guess is that is what got him into trouble:
Posted on 05/31/2007 12:51:13 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
A Michigan man has been fined $400 and given 40 hours of community service for accessing an open wireless Internet connection outside a coffee shop.
Under a little known state law against computer hackers, Sam Peterson II, of Cedar Springs, Mich., faced a felony charge after cops found him on March 27 sitting in front of the Re-Union Street Café in Sparta, Mich., surfing the Web from his brand-new laptop.
Last week, Peterson chose the fine as part of a jail-diversion program.
"I think a lot of people should be shocked, because quite honestly, I still don't understand it myself," Peterson told FOXNews.com "I do not understand how this is illegal."
His troubles began in March, a couple of weeks after he had bought his first laptop computer.
Peterson, a 39-year-old tool maker, volunteer firefighter and secretary of a bagpipe band, wanted to use his 30-minute lunch hour to check e-mails for his bagpipe group.
He got on the Internet by tapping into the local coffee shop's wireless network, but instead of going inside the shop to use the free Wi-Fi offered to paying customers, he chose to remain in his car and piggyback off the network, which he said didn't require a password.
He used the system on his lunch breaks for more than a week, and then the police showed up.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Freeping no, YouTubing, yes.
This is going to lead to kids getting arrested in Michigan. My son's PSP (Sony hand held video game unit) detects every wireless network within a couple blocks of us. And people say California is messed up.
Yeah, look at the dates on that document. Antiquated just a bit.
The guy could have gone in and bought a cup of coffee. So he was an idiot for sitting outside in his car accessing the network. The coffee shop owner is really an idiot for allowing his network to be accessible to the public. He is lucky that all the guy did was access the internet, rather than leave him a nasty virus or trojan.
“I think the people on here that want to categorize this as stealing just do not understand technology well enough.”
That could be. But still... anyone wanting to string a man up based on their misunderstanding of technology is still scary!
Does the house at 133 Robinson St. have a big sign that says “Free Phone Service” and an owner that says “I don’t care if he uses my service , I have a fixed rate phone plan?”
Absolutly correct! They were broadcasting an unsecured internet connection signal through the air. It might not be polite to use someones band width but ... the signal is unsecured and avilable through the public airwaves.
I would encourage you to educate yourself about public wifi spots.
1. Most owners WANT the signal to go outside the walls. Ever see them put tables outside the coffee shops? That’s a hint.
2. There is almost zero risk (never say never when it comes to computer security) to the owner’s computers. They are separated from the wireless network by various means.
The guy got busted after he was asked why he parked in the lot every morning. He ratted himself out when he told the cop the truth. Rather than telling the guy to buy something or beat it, the cop just had to charge the guy with this obscure crime.
I think there is a moral there somewhere, but I will let the crowd decide.
True
Good point, but the punishment for using an unprotected WIFI seems to be cruel and unusual when compared to that of prosecution & punishment of illegals.
There is no evidence that each person coming in to the shop doesn’t have to ask for permission to use the connection.
Bottom line is that the shop chose not to protect whatever property right it had in the signal. Ergo, it’s fair game, particularly where they are broadcasting an unsecured signal into public space.
The state has no business interfering here.
"I just curiously asked him, 'Where are you getting the Internet connection?', you know," Sparta Police Chief Andrew Milanowski said. "And he said, 'From the café.'"
Milanowski ruled out Peterson as a possible stalker of the attractive local hairdresser, but still felt that a law might have been broken.
"We came back and we looked up the laws and we figured if we found one and thought, 'Well, let's run it by the prosecutor's office and see what they want to do,'" Milanowski said.
A few weeks later Peterson said he received a letter from the Kent County prosecutor's office saying that he faced a felony charge of fraudulent access to computer networks and that a request had been made for an arrest warrant.
Wouldn't a simple "Move along, buddy," have been sufficient?
“They were broadcasting an unsecured internet connection signal through the air.”
Wait... you are correct but it goes farther than this. Like this...
They were broadcasting an unsecured internet connection signal through the air WITH THE INTENT OF SHARING IT WITH THE PUBLIC.
Tell me how he was supposed pay for a free service?
Absolutely incorrect. If there is an understanding its free have at it but not securing or encrypting information is not *de facto* permission to use the service. If I am telnetting over the internet I am not giving you my password your still sniffing it.
If I do not lock my door and park the car on the stree its not fair game...
Not only that, the shop owner INTENDED to negate his claim to keeping the property from use. He INTENDED to share it.
Thanks for your post. The idiots on this thread are driving me nuts. I should leave for awhile I guess.
My guess is that is what got him into trouble:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.