Michigan Man Fined for Using Coffee Shop's Wi-Fi Network

Fox News ^ | 05/31/2007 | Sara Bonisteel

[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.

[TChad]

He parked his car on private property to steal internet service.

That is not in the linked article. You apparently just made it up because it sounded good. The article says that he parked in front of the coffee shop, not that it was private property.

It’s no different than someone coming over the border illegally.

Wow, yeah man, now that you point it out I can see that they are, like, practically identical.

[rudy45]

If I post a sign outside my business that says “Free wireless,” and if i don’t care whether or not people who use the wireless buy things from me or not, and someone uses my network without being a customer, is that person stealing?

[TChad]

Still haven;t decided if it’s that they are “jack booted thugs” at heart or just stupid.

You forgot "or both."

[dynoman]

“Yes. My carrier’s plan provides free roaming withing the United States.”

Is your plan free? I’ll assume not so how is the roaming “free”?

Why are cell phones part of this discussion anyway?

[dynoman]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1842668/posts?page=339#339

[twinzmommy]

Spine Team Texas in Southlake, TX already does :)

http://spineteamtexas.com/

I love my neuro doc :) Granted, I really wish I didn’t have to go SEE him at all BUT at least they profide wifi. They also have two computers in the lobby for patient use.

[RJS1950]

In some ways it’s like arresting me for stealing my neighbors water when he turns on his sprinklers and they water half of my yard.

[GATOR NAVY]

It is just leftover bandwidth that will never be used.

What the hell "leftover bandwidth that will never be used"? Personally, I have a 10gb a month free upload/download limit right now (something I'm to change soon because it sucks). If anything more than 10 gb gets used, I pay extra. But even if I had unlimited access, if I'm downloading something and my neighbor is using my signal too, he's affecting my download speed. There is no such thing as "leftover bandwidth that will never be used."

(By the way, my network is WPA2 secured so this is hypothetical).

[pray4liberty]

Anything can be argued but the law is pretty clean an open door is not an invitation to steal.

True, but then the coffee shop itself shouldn't be putting people in a position where the law can be broken so easily, either. They shouldn't be broadcasting or advertising free wi-fi service without a passkey. The way the law is written, this is truly a no-win situation.

Folks, if you drive through Michigan, keep your laptop off! Who knows how many unsecured wireless networks it will sign onto, and it's a felony each time...good grief!

[MondoQueen]

I’m telling you that my grand daughter is sitting in her own home when she is using the bandwidth of the neighbor. She doesn’t know which neighbor, but I think she has a case here of someone invading her privacy!

[MondoQueen]

Oh Homer1, you are so right! If my granddaughter is sitting in her living room and all of a sudden her laptop works, is that stealing? If your home isn’t your private property, what it? It’s like reading by the light of the street light outside the house, for heaven’s sake!

[Mr. Know It All]

That's what's weird about this case:

You know what? You're 100% right. Forget all the legal mumbo jumbo and property rights debate. The citizens of this town should feel really grateful that the cops and the courts are so free of real criminal cases they have to invent them out of nothing.

[dynoman]

The Prisoner’s Dilemma

Pay attention to the part about cheaters and the consequences of not opposing or punishing cheaters.

"Alright, now here come the brass tacks:

If you think about it, all of our laws – and indeed, the very idea of respect for and equality under the law – are written to protect Tit-for-Tat, because Tit-for-Tat produces the best results. You may sell your product at a profit, but if you lie about what it does we will call that fraud and you will go to jail because successful societies start nice but retaliate against those that decide to Screw the Other Guy. The punishment of fraud is what gives us confidence in the claims made by other products. Retaliating against Screw the Other Guy is not mean-spiritedness or a lust for revenge. It is essential to protect the confidence needed to stay focused on long-term wins. And that’s how, in theory, you build a cooperative society.

You retaliate against those that take advantage of the common trust. In other words, you punish the cheaters.

If you do not punish the cheaters, you have an “always cooperate” society that produces, consistently and rapidly, the worst possible outcome because it encourages – it selects – competing nasty strategies, by providing them with what I can only describe as a food source. Without retaliation against cheaters, cheaters thrive because that becomes the smartest strategy. There’s nothing “kind” about non-retaliation, nothing noble or good. Non-retaliation is suicide. Plain and simple.

Remember all those stimuli I mentioned before? What do they have in common?

Cheating in class (or getting a diploma without passing the required tests), cheating by crossing the border illegally, cheating by committing crimes and not paying for it, cheating by bribery and corruption, cheating in general rewards Screw the Other Guy as a social strategy and makes chumps of the people who need a level of societal trust – they need retaliation against Screw the Other Guy – in order to continue to cooperate. Society needs to retaliate against cheaters because not to do so flips the coin from cooperation to betrayal. And that’s the end of everything we have worked for and cherish.

And – and – you don’t need to be a master of game theory to know this in your bones. Because if you are offended by cheaters, it is because you are being betrayed into – you are in fact being forced into – becoming a cheater and betrayer yourself. Always-cooperating dies quickly: if you never betray and the other guy always does, he goes free and you get 20 years every time. (In other words, he’s out getting high while you work to support him.) Sooner or later, even the most dense moralist gets the message.

When a tipping point is reached – when enough people are allowed to cheat – the system swings to a different stability mode (the default mode) and Screw the Other Guy becomes the only rational choice.

The rational choice. Think about that for a moment.

Does that make you angry? It damn well better. And if it does, then you are not alone."



More at link, something to read and think about. Maybe we can stop the slide down this slippery slope.

[tang-soo]

Wow! I've done this several times. While on the road, I've pulled into a Panera Bread to do the same thing. Don't tell anyone.

BTW, I've used Panera as an office away from the office. I've seen all kinds of business meetings there - real estate, insurance. Its a great way to meet clients and I've spent plenty of money there so I never felt guilty about "borrowing" some of their air time when I was too busy to pop in a buy a bagel.

[budwiesest]

bttt. My wireless used to be protected. Don’t know what happened, so it’s off now.

[Ramius]

I’m quite familiar with Bill Whittle, and I’ve already read that essay on the prisoner’s dilemma.

That it has nothing to do with this case is obvious. This isn’t about cheating or punishing a cheater.

The person at the center of this story didn’t cheat. Didn’t steal. The person at the center of this story did nothing actually wrong. The law applied by the prosecutor didn’t even apply to the situation that happened. That the judge failed to note this is curious, but it doesn’t change anything.

[festus]

I was with you on that whole copyrighted music and all that. Then one day I was standing at the local nursery looking at some potted flowers for sale. They had notice on the little sign in the pot that this plant was proprietary and propogation without permission was illegal etc.

That day I wandered off bewildered and a couple days later I decided that this had gone far enough. Intellectual property insanity had hit roman candle proportions.

Man should not be allowed to go so far as to patent plants and such. Its just nuts.

Now I don’t care so much about the whole topic as I used to. Copy what you want. Maybe its stealing but if this crowd had been around in the middle ages all our hymns would be owned by someone and we’d have to pay licensing fees for the King James scriptures.

Its madness I tell you madness.

[dynoman]

That is true but there are poeple on this thread that support cheating in helping themselves to another’s internet access.

Just like those that defend the cheaters who download copyrighted material without paying for it.

I think the article is highly related to the issue of declining respect for private property.

What do you think, do those who provide “free” internet access make it harder or easier for cheaters?

Is cheating on the upswing or downswing?

[jimfree]

Nonsense. The shop has *offered* free wifi access to the public. He stole nothing. He was merely using a service that they plainly offered to anyone that wished to use it.

Not a whole lot different from 1968 when I was stealing a/c by standing in or walking around a store where I wasn't buying anything.

[jimfree]

I only wish they would enforce ALL other property laws as vigorously. Then we could establish a sense of proportion.