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.

[ReignOfError]

I don’t read that quote to mean what you suggest it does. I’m not buying it. Sorry.

Which part of "he could have come inside" implies that she thinks it was okay for him to use it outside?

[dynoman]

“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.”

My last word;

It might not cost you up front but there are consequences to being a cheap skate, this guy found out what they were.

If he hadn’t chosen to be a cheap skate he would not be where he is now.

It was his choice to be a cheap skate, that choice is square one in this story, the primary event which all others follow.

The shop owner said;

“”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.

May said that the wireless connection is free for customers to her cafe.”

So why choose to be a cheap skate?

He could have has fast interent at home for a year for $400.

It is the freeloader “take everything I can, at as little cost to me, for as long as I can, attitude that I’m frustrated with. It seems to be growing especially in the younger generation, and I do not see that as a good thing.

How many here do?

How can freeloading cheap skates live with themselves?

How do people become freeloading cheap skates?

That has been my point from my very first post in this thread.

The younger generation thinks the whole universe revolves around them, look at this guy, people thought he was stalking and he was oblivious to that. That’s how self-centered the young generation has become. Good grief be a little aware of what’s going on around you, be somewhat coherent of the possible consequences of your own actions, don’t make it look like you are stalking on someone - this isn’t rocket science.

It might be legal to be a cheap skate but it isn’t ethical, and like all other personal choices there are consequences.

[ReignOfError]

"I stopped at an Iowa Welcome Center on Interstate 35W..." Steve, now I know you're lying. Every good Minnesotan knows there is no 35W in Iowa, just the Twin Cities. :o)

Besides which, I-35, being odd-numbered, would be a N-S highway.

[Loyolas Mattman]

Sorry, but I read that as a variation on “he had it coming...” If I misinterpreted what you meant, I apologize.

The focus here should be on the outrageous actions on the part of the authorities.

[Loyolas Mattman]

So, he did nothing illegal, but got what he had coming? Because he didn’t buy a cup of coffee?

[Sans-Culotte]

Yes, it is a pity they had nothing better to do than bust that poor schmuck. Can you imagine doing hard time and telling the other inmates you are in the slammer for “illegal e-mail checking in a Starbuck’s parking lot”?

[dynoman]

“So, he did nothing illegal, but got what he had coming? Because he didn’t buy a cup of coffee?”

Well what do you think, if he had been inside with a cup of coffee every day that week would the barbershop have reported him as a possible stalker, would the police have questioned him?

I don’t think so. So he could have chosen a course of action that would not have resulted in the pickle he is in now;

“Then again... he was probably to much of a cheap skate to do that.”

[Kaylee Frye]

Doesn’t matter. His laptop effectively asked the router for permission. The technology equivalent is knocking on someone’s open door. I say open because there are ways to make the network invisible - that is like a closed door. This is an open door, the guy’s computer knocks on it and the router answers and says “hi, come take what you like”. So he proceeds to take what he likes. I don’t see how that can be stealing under anyone’s definition.

[AppyPappy]

“The technology equivalent is knocking on someone’s open door.”

What’s wrong with entering the open door of a business?

[Trinity5]

"Besides which, I-35, being odd-numbered, would be a N-S highway."

While it does go N/S, 35 spilts into two highways just south of the Twin Cities, basically one thru Minneapolis (35W) and one thru St. Paul (35E). It combines again on the north side on its way to Duluth. I was just poking fun with Steve.

[roamer_1]

Hi dynoman,

While I do sympathize with your over-all position and agree with it in large part, I cannot help but consider it "picking nits" in this instance (casual use of open air connections).

If a business has an exterior drinking fountain, it is not considered a trespass to use that fountain without the owner's permission. That is what it is there for.

Likewise, if you were to go to the effort of installing said fountain by the sidewalk on your own property, many would use the fountain and it would not even occur to them to ask your permission. There is a tacit permission assumed because the fountain is by the sidewalk, and that is what fountains are for.

Your benevolence would be noted by many. "What a great guy," they would say...

But if you were to sit on your porch and shoo them away from the fountain because it is on your private property, one would have to wonder why you installed the fountain in the first place.

Certainly one could not accuse those who pass by on the basis of their assumption, even though the letter of the law is on the side of the property owner.

In much the same fashion, open air found at the curb is a welcome relief to those passing by (I am speaking of a quick DL, e-mail, or web-search, not a permanent connection), except the tacit permission is more explicit as permission is actually given in the form of an IP addy assigned by the DHCP server.

If one desires a closed system, it is easily accomplished, denying permission to all but those one chooses. Any who crack that closed system would certainly be trespassing, as everyone would agree.

But in any other case, the server assigning IP is the very definition of permission to use the network (where DHCP is considered). There is just no getting around that fact.

-Bruce

[Kaylee Frye]

Nothing wrong, but in this case, the router still has to “shake hands” with your computer, despite having a wide open door proclaiming that it is open for business.

[TomB]

The truth shall prevail.

Yea, but it sure takes a while...

You got that quote yet?

[FreedomCalls]

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.

How is that any different from wifi? The wifi WAP gives you permission to use it when you logon. It can refuse permission via MAC or IP filtering, passwords, encryption, etc in the same manner that the cell tower can refuse permission to roam. Under this Michigan law there is no difference. And if you break through those access protocols, yes, that's a crime as well. But if the WAP gives you permission to logon and the company is advertising "free wifi" then how is that a crime any different from roaming?

[FreedomCalls]

I honestly don’t know what to say if you actually think this comment has anything to do with the ethics of cheating. That's the problem, you don;t really understnad the technology and the law involved. Because Mr. Peterson did not cheat anyone out of anything. If you interpret the Michigan law as claiming the use of the wifi WAP was cheating, then using someone's fileserver on the web without authorization from them is also "cheating." Here's the law one more time:

A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:

(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

Simply "accessing" or "using the service" of a computer on a network (such as on the web) is unlawful in Michigan as that law was interpted in this case.

You can claim that putting a fileserver on the web is giving Michiganders defacto permission to access or use it, but then that would also have to apply to an commercial open WAP where there is a sign saying "free wifi."

[FreedomCalls]

Oops, I hit "Post" instead of "Spell". Sorry. Here's a corrected version:

I honestly don’t know what to say if you actually think this comment has anything to do with the ethics of cheating.

That's the problem, you don't really understand the technology and the law involved. Because Mr. Peterson did not cheat anyone out of anything. If you interpret the Michigan law as claiming the use of the wifi WAP was cheating, then using someone's file server on the web without authorization from them is also "cheating." Here's the law one more time:

A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:

(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

Simply "accessing" or "using the service" of a computer on a network (such as on the web) is unlawful in Michigan as that law was interpreted in this case.

You can claim that putting a file server on the web is giving Michiganders defacto permission to access or use it, but then that would also have to apply to an commercial open WAP where there is a sign saying "free wifi."

[ReignOfError]

While it does go N/S, 35 spilts into two highways just south of the Twin Cities, basically one thru Minneapolis (35W) and one thru St. Paul (35E). It combines again on the north side on its way to Duluth.

Interesting. I've never seen an arrangement like that. Usually, if the highway splits, one of the parts gets a three-digit number, e.g. 135, 235, etc. Unless there was already a "beltway"-type bypass around the city, in which case it would be weird.

[ReignOfError]

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.
How is that any different from wifi?

Roaming: You have formal prior permission, by contract, in writing.

WiFi: This guy claims he had implied permission because he was able to receive the signal and a sign in the coffee shop window.

It's the difference between a written contract and a wild leap at inferring an implied contract.

The wifi WAP gives you permission to use it when you logon.

The law requires the permission of the owner, not the machine. If I walked up to your computer, and you were dumb enough to choose an easy-to-guess password, would it be okay for me to login because the computer gave me permission?

But if the WAP gives you permission to logon and the company is advertising "free wifi" then how is that a crime any different from roaming?

Would it make any difference to you if the sign in the window said "Free WiFi inside" or "Free WiFi * "?

[FreedomCalls]

He could have has fast interent at home for a year for $400. ... How do people become freeloading cheap skates?

He was on his lunch break from his job checking his e-mail, like 90% of people who have e-mail at work do. Since he didn't have e-mail at work or didn't want to use his company's e-mail to cheak his personal e-mail, he used the cafe's wifi during his lunch break. He couldn't get home to use his home ISP and manage to get back to work in 30 minutes. Given that no one had ever been prosecuted for this before in Michigan, how was he to know it would be considered illegal? From the story:

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.

[Sparta Police Chief Andrew] Milanowski doesn't believe Peterson knew he was breaking the law. "In my opinion, probably not. Most people probably don't."

Kent County Assistant Prosecutor Lynn Hopkins said, "This is the first time that we've actually charged it."

I think another problem is that sometimes we stake out a position on something, and then after we are proven wrong, we are so afraid of 'losing face' that we refuse to back down from our position, no matter how silly the argument we start putting out to justify our position becomes. Then, once our argument deflates we resort to name calling (such as "freeloading cheap skate"). Once Chief Milanowski decided that Mr. Peterson was doing something wrong but wasn't sure if a law was being broken, he stated to research it to see if he could interpret (or misinterpret) a law to apply to this case. He didn't want to 'lose face' by admitting that Mr. Peterson wasn't doing anything wrong. This quote from Chief Milanowski is telling:

"I had a feeling a law was being broken, but I didn't know exactly what," said Sparta police chief Andrew Milanowski.

[ReignOfError]

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.

I've never seen it in cafés and airports that didn't require a subscription. I can't think of a time I got a password request in a hotel -- A few years ago, when wired in-room access was more common and it was billed to the room, I got a splash screen to accept the charges, which then went on my tab. On more recent trips, there hasn't been even that, because it's been mostly free wireless. I've never tried logging in from a hotel parking lot.

As I wrote earlier, it wouldn't be too onerous to restrict access -- even without a password, it would be easy enough to put up a splash screen and trms with an "accept" button. But that is not what the law requires.