Posted on 05/31/2007 12:51:13 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Good point...
The Michigan case will yield one benefit for all. People who don’t agree with the conviction do know more about the coffee shop owner. It can now serve the few customers who agree with its beliefs about law and order. ...not to mention the drain of revenues from coffee shops in general.
Miss you too.
I travel so much these days, I live by wifi and where I can bum a signal. The funny part is that in the Philly airport, I get free signals. In the US Air lounge, they seem blocked and I must use t Mobile. Talk about murder!!!!
Regards to all in the Lounge. Miss them too. (That's the Mark Levin FR Lounge. The constantly funniest place on FR daily from 18h00 to 20h00 eastern)
What risks are you talking about?
I've been in numerous coffee shops which display signs that say "Free Wireless Internet". Some of them have those signs placed prominently in the front window, so anyone in the parking lot can see it. I've never seen one that has fine print which adds: "For our customers only".
There was another case like this not long ago, where some guy faced charges for theft of services from a public library WiFi network - but he was parked in front of the place after hours and there was no sign advertising the free service. That case - also purely a revenue-generating exercise by the cops - has a little more about it to suggest theft of service.
Back in the 1980s, when cordless telephones first appeared, some people did the '80s equivalent of "wardriving", driving slowly whild clicking their cordless receiver on and off 'til they got a dialtone on someone else's phone line. This was an especially bad problem in big apartment complexes - and the people who did this would incur specific charges (long-distance calls, etc.). That was *definitely* theft of service.
Here, the coffee shop pays the same amount whether someone surfs the web from their car, or comes in and has a cup of coffee. No specific damages, no theft. This is not only a poorly-written piece of law, it was a horrible legal interpretation as well.
If the coffee shop wanted to restrict the WiFi use to its paying customers, all it would have to do is put an encryption passcode on each register receipt and change it every day. They didn't - because they're using that WiFi hotspot to attract people who they *hope* will buy coffee.
That’s part of the problem - the coffee shop isn’t doing anything.
The police and prosecutor are trying to stand in the shoes of the coffee shop and protect the alleged right to the property right to the signal as if it was their own...
Yes, that’s right, the state saying how private property should be used...
“You mean if you left your car unlocked with the keys in it you are giving permission for anyone to drive off with it?:”
If you left your keys on the hood on a piece of paper that said ‘free car!’ you might not have a case.
The funny thing is, the coffee shop didn’t complain. In fact, nobody had any problem with what he was doing. They were concerned he was a stalker (which he wasn’t).
I do this a lot too. I sit in my car, instead of going inside, because I like to listen to my own Sirius radio or talk radio while I surf. I always buy something, though. My choice, just so that I don’t feel like pirating.
I recently signed up with a WiFi partner of McDonald’s ($20/mo) so that I can sit outside of any McDs on the road and surf guilt free.
IOW if the coffee shop owner does not feel that he has been robbed of anything of any value, then the rest of us should not be screaming theft of private property, services, freeloader, etc.
You don’t broadcast a signal with impunity. If you set up a router with the intention to send a signal, issues are apparent. You do not own the ground/equipment that you send most of your signal to. If I shine a light on it do I own it?
I stopped at an Iowa Welcome Center on Interstate 35W and hopped on my girlfriend’s lap top.
GET A ROOM!!
A CHATroom that is.
Although Peterson escaped prison, his punishment still seems harsh, especially considering his “supposed” victim had no problem with what he was doing - other than the fact he didn't patronise her establishment and his crime was prosecuted as a misdemeanour rather than a felony. Donna May, the owner of the Ru-Union Street Cafe, was far from aggrieved at Peterson's supposed theft of Wi-Fi service. “I didn't know it was really illegal, either,” she told WOOD Tv. “If he would have come in [to the coffee shop], it would have been fine.”
“Its pretty clear that bandwidth is intended for customers..”
The sign didn’t say “Free WIFI with purchase” - it said FREE WIFI.
It didn’t say “Come in for free WIFI”
It said FREE WIFI.
WHy should anything else be clear from that?
It seems to me the cops felt they had to charge him with something once they had him in custody...
The coffee shop never complained or pressed charges. In fact they said he could have come in and used it even if he wasn’t buying anything.
The only complaint was from a barber who incorrectly assumed the guy was stalking one of the stylists. Then, when it turned out he wasn’t, the cops went on a quest to find something they could charge the guy with.
Imagine all the time spent trying to find a crime here that could have been spent actually protecting and serving the public.
It is even worse, because it generates negative publicity for the coffee shop. The coffee shop offered it as a free service to attract business, not to have its name broadcast all over the internet as trying to entrap the public into committing felonies so it can be prosecuted. I have a business, and would be really angry with the state if something like this happened "on my behalf."
You're clearly not a computer person. A WiFi node can be run in locked mode or in unlocked mode, as this one was, as a customer convenience. If unlocked, the owner can have a notice come up, "For use of our customers only...". This coffee shop not only did not do that, but did not press charges against this heinous perpetrator. A messianic sphincter DA had to take special pains to spend the taxpayer funds it took to pursue this case.
It’s a crime in my state too. I’d venture to say it’s probably a crime in most states, maybe even all of them. We live in a society of laws, way too many laws. Our legislators are always coming up with new ones, and often they are stupid laws pushed by stupid people. You don’t have to pass a test or get any sort of specialized training to be a legislator and write new laws. This particular law probably wasn’t designed to protect against some guy checking his email on an open unprotected wireless connection at a coffeeshop, and a lot of prosecutors probably wouldn’t elect to prosecute in this this type of situation, but then again there are plenty out there that feel that if there is a law on the books they have to enforce it, regardless of whether the conduct was that which the statute was designed to protect against or not. At east they let this guy get into a diversion program and keep the felony conviction off his record. I’ve dealt with some anal prosecutors (and judges) that probably wouldn’t have gone so easy on him. And if a case like this goes to trial, the jury won’t even necessarily be told that the crime is a felony or what the possible punishment would be. They’ll just get their jury instruction and be told that if the State met their burden on the various elements of the crime they must come back with a guilty verdict. This guy was smart to plead.
“No one has any right whatsoever to anything bought and paid for with the blood sweat and tears of another.”
Unless it’s offered for free, with a sign stating as much.
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.