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 ...
Not the same thing. Comparing this to someone breaking in to your house to steal your property is hyperbole.
They offer the service for free, and they didn’t secure their network, which goes against the most basic common sense. IMO they’d have a much better case if they just secured it with a password.
I did say that I did not see it as being illegal. Did you really think I needed you to tell me something I had already posted? Should I reply to your post with something like "yeah, and it's not illegal", just to add to the redundancy?
I tried to make the same point. Apparently, many freepers cannot see the difference between legality and ethics. It may not have been legally wrong for the guy to use the signal, but it may have been ethically wrong (IMHO).
BINGO! This should have been the last post on this thread.
The shop has offered free WiFi service *to its customers.* It's no different from businesses that allow use of their restrooms by customers only. I assume creamers, sugar packets, napkins and so on are gratis, but if you walk in, grab a handful, and walk out -- and repeat that every day -- they might have something to say about it.
There's a gray area in the law, and some people do intentionally leave their signal open as a public service. One technological means to clarify this would be, when a machine first connects, to intercept any Web traffic with a splash page explaining that use of the service is for customers only. The user would have to click "accept" to continue.
If you're roaming, you have permission to use the other carrier's network, through your network -- otherwise, it wouldn't work. If you intentionally crack their network, say by spoofing someone else's phone, yes, that's a crime.
... which would be why he's not doing any.
... which they'd then have to give to every customer. many of whom wouldn't know where to enter it. More hassle than it's worth.
So you’re complaining about the cruel and unusual punishment he might have gotten — if it wasn’t knocked down to a misdemeanor or dismissed altogether.
Last I heard, for a punishment to be cruel and unusual, there had to be more than a hypothetical possibility that it would ever occur.
By way of analogy: My favorite urban survival tip is that if you need a cab in an unfamiliar city and can't find one, find a reputable-looking bar. Bartenders know the good companies, and they have an incentive to call one that will respond quickly, because if they have to call you a cab they have no incentive to keep you hanging around.
When I do that, if I have time, I'll sit down and have a drink first, and tip well for it. Using the bartender's services without paying for this time certainly isn't illegal, and it's probably not unethical, but it's at least rude.
It's partly a karma thing, partly an attempt to lead by example. i prefer businesses that offer courtesy and good service. If mooching by non-customers or cheapskate customers makes the courtesy too much of a burden, it goes away. I do not want that.
That has no bearing on whether the law is excessive, of course, but it's my philosophy on ethics and courtesy in matters like this.
Back in the day, I used to pull into rest areas with my girlfriend. And it wasn’t her laptop that got hopped on. Time to put away the gadgets and get disconnected for a few hours. It can be really fun. And you don’t need batteries.
We can’t possibly go after all the illegal wi-fi users, lets just give up on the War on WiFi abusers and go after smokers and women who buy disposal diapers instead.
"He could have just come in the cafe, even if he didn't have any money, I would let him get on it," May said (emphasis added).
Saying "I would have given him permission" isn't the same thing as saying he had permission. It's more like saying "I wouldn't mind him coming into my office if he knocked first."
Lots of businesses do it, hotels particularly. What’s the problem? You buy your coffee, they give you the password. Then they setup the service so that when you try to access the web, you are redirected to the cafe’s web page where you enter the password. I’ve seen this before in airports and hotels.
You most certainly have a right to your opinion, but the state shouldn’t be in the business of enforcing ethics...
I don’t read that quote to mean what you suggest it does. I’m not buying it. Sorry.
Once more for those of you in Rio Linda (and Loyolas Mattman): I said that I did not think the guy had done anything illegal. But I just mentioned that he could have saved his cheap a$$ a lot of trouble if he'd bought a cup of coffee.
Seriously, I am less bothered by the Wi-Fi stealer and his predicament than I am by the apparent illiteracy of several Free Republic posters.
Of course, you are entitled to comment on things without reading.
“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”?”
I honestly don’t know what to say if you actually think this comment has anything to do with the ethics of cheating.
Steve, now I know you're lying. Every good Minnesotan knows there is no 35W in Iowa, just the Twin Cities. :o)
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.