Skip to comments.
Michigan Man Fined for Using Coffee Shop's Wi-Fi Network
Fox News ^
| 05/31/2007
| Sara Bonisteel
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 ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: nocrimeinmichigan; policestate; wifi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 461-479 next last
To: rwilson99
He parked his car on private property to steal internet service.I don't see that in the article. It just says he was in his car. He might very well have been parked in a public space.
2. Its Stealing Bandwith
Well if the store advertised "Free" then no, I don't think it is. If they advertised "Free with purchase of coffee, then yes.
Its no different than someone coming over the border illegally.
I find it quite different. I think this fellow could legitimately claim to have not known he was breaking any law. It is a grey area. When you pay a coyote $600 bucks and spend three days and nights avoiding "la migra" you can't claim to have inadvertently broken a little known law in an evolving area of technology law.
To: ColdWater
182
posted on
05/31/2007 2:03:38 PM PDT
by
kinoxi
To: Responsibility2nd
basically fell in our lap and it was a little hard to just look the other way when somebody handed it to us," said Lynn Hopkins, assistant prosecuting attorney for Kent County.
What bull. Prosecutors ignore things all the time, except when they can get a little publicity by destroying a life.
To: art_rocks
The PC/Mac must have copped a deal first. McGruff the crime dog says - "Take a BYTE out of crime"
184
posted on
05/31/2007 2:04:17 PM PDT
by
llevrok
(Beer for my horses and whiskey for my men!)
To: All
I can’t help but wonder that if the perp had purchased a coffee from the coffee shop and then returned to his car to drink it while he accessed their wifi, if prosecution would have been in order then too.
To: N3WBI3
If I do not lock my door and park the car on the stree its not fair game... It is if you put a sign on it that says "free car".
186
posted on
05/31/2007 2:04:20 PM PDT
by
Ramius
(Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
To: N3WBI3
No its not, but you aren’t giving away your car. Please stop with the car analogy - it doesn’t work.
Again, the shop knowingly waived its property right to the signal. You shouldn’t project what you would have done in the same situation into your analysis...
To: Lawdoc
A couple of morals.
1. The cop was an idiot. A true jack booted thug.
2. Smart people understand that many cops are jack booted thugs and learn when to speak and when to shut up.
PS. There’s a handful of fools on this thread who support the cop, the police chief, and the prosecutor. Scary! I expect such on liberal sites but not on conservative sites.
To: dynoman
You pay to broadcast. Do you not acknowledge the inherent risks involved?
189
posted on
05/31/2007 2:05:24 PM PDT
by
kinoxi
To: MplsSteve
I stopped at an Iowa Welcome Center on Interstate 35W and hopped on my girlfriends lap top.GET A ROOM!!
190
posted on
05/31/2007 2:05:24 PM PDT
by
llevrok
(Beer for my horses and whiskey for my men!)
To: rwilson99
He parked his car on private property to steal internet service. WTF? The WIFI was free! Unless theres a line of demarcation outside the store that states in a sign that anyone not within this peremeter cannot use internet, its like saying that the air around my shop can only be breathed in by paying customers!
191
posted on
05/31/2007 2:05:56 PM PDT
by
Bommer
(Global Warming: The only warming phenomena that occurs in the Summer and ends in the Winter!)
To: LetGoNow
I agree with your “idiots” comment!
192
posted on
05/31/2007 2:05:56 PM PDT
by
Red_Devil 232
(VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
To: TommyDale
I would really question the defense attorney for not challenging the fact that the coffee shop did not encrypt or take security measures.Let's see -- $10,000 in atty fees for a trial and risk of a felony conviction to try to prove a point, or the equivlent of a steep traffic ticket. Which would the smart client choose?
193
posted on
05/31/2007 2:06:54 PM PDT
by
PAR35
Comment #194 Removed by Moderator
To: llevrok
Hey llevrok, miss ya around the lounge.
The city of Philadelphia is now one big WiFi network.
Sooooooooooo when one is being murdered, they can get on line help.
195
posted on
05/31/2007 2:10:01 PM PDT
by
HonestConservative
(<just a racist xenophobe Christian radical homophobe with a dream >)
To: MplsSteve
I’m am from Iowa - don’t get me started on the state funding access at rest areas.
196
posted on
05/31/2007 2:10:07 PM PDT
by
CTK YKC
To: MplsSteve
“I ...hopped on my girlfriend’s lap top...In that small area...”
Come on, Steve... Got that all wrong, mate!
Should have hopped on your girlfriend’s LAP! Alot more fun...and the electrons would be humming just as loud, too. *S*
197
posted on
05/31/2007 2:10:58 PM PDT
by
dk/coro
To: N3WBI3
"Lets be clear as to why this law exist. Its to protect individuals and their private homes from having people leach their bandwidth. I secure my network but when I look around I see a dozen or so linksys ids with no security and a couple which I could crack in a few minutes.
The fact this is a private business, thus private property means it should be treated the same way and if the guy did not stop in and ask can I use your service he was in the wrong. Should he go to jail? naaa but a fine is in order..."
It's not often enforced for private homeowners (except for business owners/investors in gated communities). Also, almost every wireless access service has a customer contract that allows for snooping customers' communications, and they'll balk at potential customers who use proxy services with strong encryption. Privacy is more of an issue than "theft of signal" for most wireless customers, but they don't have it.
To: winner3000
Disgusting officer and prosecutor. There is nothing fair about prosecuting someone using a law that nobody heard of and that was put in place to protect against a different crime altogether. It sounds like the locality just needed the guys $400. Then the police and prosecutors wonder why they have such a bad reputation, and why people dont trust them anymore...I suspect those same police/prosecutors would have argued that it was completely legal to use the unsecured, advertised-as-free internet connection by law enforcement if somehow they used it to gain evidence of some other crime.
After all, it's just radiation of a certain frequency eminating from within, like loud music or heat from a marijuana grow operation. The didn't physically go inside the residence, the radiation was detected outside, from the public street.
199
posted on
05/31/2007 2:14:38 PM PDT
by
Squeako
(ACLU: "Only Christians, Boy Scouts and War Memorials are too vile to defend.")
To: Paisan
My understanding of FCC regulaions is that ANYTHING broadcast through the air-waves in the USA is fair game.
I'm surprised that no one else has mentioned this. Under U.S. law, the airwaves don't belong to anyone. The FCC can license bandwidth for commercial use. WiFi operates in an unlicensed slot which is why you don't need a permit to set it up.
Many posters have raised "private property" claims, but the coffee shop's WiFi wasn't really on private property, but public property. If a neighbor sets up a cordless phone or another WiFi that interferes with the coffee shop's network, this also negatively impacts their "service," but because it's all on unregulated network, there's nothing the coffee shop can do.
It looks to me like this coffee shop is trying to claim public property as private. I am not a lawyer, but this state law seems to be a violation of federal law.
200
posted on
05/31/2007 2:15:44 PM PDT
by
Mr. Know It All
(Term Limits: Stop us before we vote again!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 461-479 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson