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 ...
Could you PLEASE point me to the part of the story that says that?
In other news, “Coffee Shop Sued for sending Cancer-Causing WIFI Signals all over Neighborhood”
Milanowski
All reasons why his defense should have been handled by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. This is the think tank (like Institute For Justice) that jumps in on those RIAA bullying cases.
Does nobody else recognize that “FREE WIFI TO CUSTOMERS” seems a contradiction?
If you require purchase by someone to obtain something, how is that “free?” Maybe the world of marketing and advertising has allowed our brains to accept this new way of understanding the word free?
“WiFi access included with purchase.” Sounds right, probably the best word choice here.
“Complimentary WiFi access for customers.” Might work since “complimentary” seems applicable as in “a compliment to” rather than “free!!!”
Any normal judge would’ve found a way to handle this case fairly, especially when the “injured party” showed no interest in pushing this charge. But $400 and the community service is a wise choice given the prison risk (yes, this was a FELONY with risk of prison) and the cost of attorneys.
Reading more into this thread... guy was an idiot and should have hired a lawyer.
Then again... he was probably to much of a cheap skate to do that.
Whatever that stupid bit of nonsense was supposed to mean.
There are now 3 posts asking you to back up a very specific claim.
Can you do it?
Or are you one of those arrogant jerks who thinks they don’t have to prove anything they say?
Come on... knock off the crap and put up or shut up.
I also sit outside cafe’s when they’re closed; I travel a lot.
This is the high-tech version of “poaching.”
I said nothing about a "Free Wife" sign (whatever that is).
You said "There policy was Free Wifi TO PAYING customers. Fees for non-customers". I showed that wasn't the case. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? I've noticed you've been asked numerous times and have ignored the requests.
You're looking awfully bad here.
...or maybe he’s heard enough frightening stories about judges and realized the risk/reward calculation made the $400 + community service the best path. (all IMHO) Hey...this case is fun to talk about. Only a few namecallers on this thread, too!
How I’d roughly do risk/reward calculation
choose the fine/diversion:
100% chance of $400 expense + loss of hours of community service time.
choose to fight:
COST ISSUE
50% chance of costs being $5,000+
50% chance he gets free service because of publicity, though he’ll probably have to pay court fees
TIME ISSUE
100% chance of losing more than 40 hours in pursing this case
PUNISHMENT ISSUE:
80% chance of no punishment/victory
15% chance of “creative punishment” between $1 and $400
5% chance of actual jail time & resulting life-ruining felony conviction
I provide network testing equipment (full time) to companies that have to go in and clean up the mess from installers who don’t think security is an issue. I can walk down the street with my PDA and pick off any number of home networks. Those aren’t very important, but a business can stand to lose a lot.
Don’t call me ignorant, especially if you advocate no security on a business network.
If you put your property on the curb with a sign saying TAKE ME, your property will be taken.
I didn't say you did.
You said "There policy was Free Wifi TO PAYING customers. Fees for non-customers". I showed that wasn't the case.
I don't think you did but please refer me to the post where you think you did.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? I've noticed you've been asked numerous times and have ignored the requests.
Previously posted.
You're looking awfully bad here.
The truth shall prevail.
I must have missed it, what post number?
You know what? I owe you an apology. Somehow I thought you were saying stuff in the first post I replied to that you were not. A stupid mistake on my part and I am sorry.
WHERE?!
That said, the cheapskate could have parked his car, gone in and ordered something and checked his e-mail for free. Using their Wi-Fi in the parking lot is like sitting at one of their tables without ordering anything.
Beggin' your pardon, but I often do the same thing... Except that I go through the drive-thru and order my coffee... Then go park in the lot to use the net.
He may have done similar, so your "cheapskate" label may not be true at all.
I don't know how they can possibly whack you for simply using unprotected air to do something as mundane as checking e-mail- The bandwidth is inconsequential and there is no damage to anyone.
Considering how important e-mail has become, I truly have sympathy for those on the road that would use open air connections. If you don't want people to access it, then encrypt it. No fault no foul.
-Bruce
Another article along with video here: http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6546307&nav=menu44_1
Speaking of the contradictory “FREE WIFI FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY” point — I wonder if the cafe’ owner isn’t violating a business code in MI. After all, this is advertising something as FREE when its clearly NOT FREE (requiring purchase to access something isn’t the same as FREE).
Since he’s into researching the law, maybe Chief Andy Milanowski of Sparta can find himself another “relatively new and rarely used law” and arrest her too?
If anyone out there knows MI business code as it pertains to advertising something as “FREE,” it might be interesting. And while we’re at it, my guess is that Barber who called the police might have a few violations of “little known” laws himself. Here in CA, “cosmetology” businesses face a myriad of regulations.
Yes I was wrong about that, since the owner was sharing his internet access for free the guy wasn’t stealing.
That doesn’t take anything away from my points about respecting the paid for property of others - he could have at least bought some coffee to show appreciation for the “free” internet access he got because the person paying for it was generous enoug to share it.
Still awaiting your "truth".
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.