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 ...
I agree. “Hacking” is taking affirmative action to bypass some kind of SECURITY THAT’S IN PLACE!
What’s next? Somebody gets sent up to Sing Sing because their third molar with the silver filling starts picking up stuff when he’s near Starburnts?
This article has nothing to do with that. There's yer problem raht ther...
This article is about a badly written law being horribly mis-applied to the wrong situation by an overzealous prosecutor. And a judge apparently too dumb to know the difference.
I pay Verizon. When I roam on Sprint or Alltel, I don't pay Sprint or Alltel, nor do I pay an extra fee to Verizon that they pay to Sprint or Alltel. If Sam Peterson subscribed to McDonald's wifi for fee plan would that make it OK for him to use this coffee shop's wifi? If he used to coffee shop's wifi to connect to his ISP that he pays for would that be OK? I don't see how paying one company impacts on the use of a different company's network. Especially since fee or no fee is not addressed in the statute. It simply addresses unauthorized "access" or "use."
Why are cell phones part of this discussion anyway?
Because if you interpret Michigan's law as making what Mr Peterson did a felony, then cellphone roaming would also be a felony in Michigan as you have not received "authorization" from the other carrier to use their network other than through a machine. No one personally gives you permission. Just as you receive roaming priviledges via PRL on a cell network, you receive permission to access a WAP via the logon handshake sequence. In either case, the network administrators can lock out unauthorized users from accessing their network. You have received express permission to use those networks either by connecting to the cell network or by logging on the wifi signal. It's impossible to access either without permission from the network access point (cell tower or WAP).
Spot on. That sums it up precisely.
I see the problem here. You're acting as if this guy had been piggybacking off his neighbor's wireless access point. While I might still argue that the neighbor was (perhaps through ignorance) volunteering such service, you'd have a better point there.
But this guy didn't do that. He went to a public place that ~offered~ free wireless access to the public without restriction, and used it as it was intended.
Different situation entirely.
“I pay Verizon. When I roam on Sprint or Alltel, I don’t pay Sprint or Alltel, nor do I pay an extra fee to Verizon that they pay to Sprint or Alltel.”
If you did not pay Verizon you would not be able to roam Sprint or Alltel would you?
You have to have a cell phone plan with someone to be able to roam other networks.
The thing is if the guy was willing to use the coffee shop’s internet without supporting the shop by buying a cup of coffee he is more likely to piggy back off anyone, ie become a cheater, ie get everything you can by any means possible at as little cost to yourself - screw the other guy. That seems to be the trend.
Yup, that’s why we can’t round up 12 million illegal aliens; we need our law enforcement officers to concentrate on important crimes like this one.
Do you feel obligated to purchase something off of every web page you visit? Or are you cheating them by stealing their bandwidth when you view their content and saying "screw them"?
Coincidentally, last night I was part of a focus group for our community clinic. They are planning to build a new clinic, and I was asked to be part of a group discussing a "perfect patient experience". We all complained about the lack of stuff to do while waiting. I remembered this thread, and suggested putting wireless Internet access in, and they all thought it was a great idea.
When you think about it, I can imagine a day, not far off, when every one will be carrying around their own personal computer (hand held). And if they are building for the future, they should include everything. Not surprisingly the major theme last night was updated use of all technology.
Thanks for the reply, but didn’t the bandwidth he was “stealing” belong to the coffee shop? And couldn’t the owner of the coffee shop just say that she gave him (and anybody within range of the wireless server) permission to access it by intentionally leaving it unencrypted?
The state can’t prosecute the guy if it can be shown that he had permission to access the internet connection. That would make him no different from a guy 20 feet away inside of the cafe.
Here's how I would rule. The coffee shop owner, having provided a WAP for free use by customers, is within his rights to accuse Defendant of leeching. Some states have specific legislation against this, some don't. Anti-hacking statutes don't apply to leeching, because Defendant is not breaking into the network. If no such statute exists, and if the coffee shop owner does not file charges under it, then all other parties can kindly butt out.
I get what you’re saying about “screw the other guy,” but in this case, the defendant is “the other guy.” He’s getting screwed by big, stupid, unresponsive, unthinking government - how can you possibly defend that?
This kind of thinking dovetails with something that is happening in the immigration debate. The RINO’s want to frame it as a measure that will support business, because they know that conservatives typically support business. Same here - The minute you buy into the thought that this is a “property rights” issue, the statists have you trapped in their web.
Keep in mind, true conservatism doesn’t care about results, just the process. This is why you can have statists on both the left and right - The state is merely a tool to achieve a set of ends.
I can tell that the “property rights” gang are a pretty well read bunch, to their great credit. But they need to “check the premise” that is their starting-off point on this issue...
“They were concerned he was a stalker (which he wasn’t).”
I agree that the prosecutor and police were out of line in this instance and I also can foresee that many folks in that community will be hesitant to call the police to check on potential stalkers. I have a gut feeling that this community just became more “stalker friendly.”
It is a sad situation when those that we are paying to keep us secure, actually could be creating a more dangerous community.
“I think a warning should have sufficed...”
Amen! From what we know of this story at least. Unfortunately, it’s the kind of thing that makes law-abiding folks seriesly angry. But given that they did choose to prosecute, he made the wiser decision .. take the penalty and be done with it .. getting into legal fees, court time lost from work, etc., not to mention the stress, is just way too expensive.
Speaking of stupid laws, Minnesota is touting their new law - Minors can’t get a piercing without parental consent now in MN. They can get an abortion without parental consent, they just can’t get a piercing.
“Then the police and prosecutors wonder why they have such a bad reputation, and why people don’t trust them anymore...”
I wouldn’t piss on them if they were on fire...
The owner of the cafe had no objection and didn’t press the charges. What does that do to your argument?
“If a jury had gotten hold of this, the prosecutor would not only have lost, but might very well have been laughed at by a jury of reasonable people! Certainly more reasonable than he!”
That’s a pretty big risk in MI. In reality, the jury pool is filled with folks that aren’t very “reasonable,” especially considering the politicians that keep getting elected, including this prosecutor. Most people serving on Juries in MI are just trying to get out of it as fast as possible, with no thinking of how it would effect the person’s life.
Do you know how many times I have gone into a coffee shop without ordering anything? I am still legally considered a customer. The distinction between me and a person sitting outside in his car is academic. This cop just didn’t have anything better to do after he left the coffee shop with his donuts.
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.