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 ...
What’s your point? That the cop and the prosecuotor decided to “screw the other guy” to get ahead and cheated by applying a a law which wasn’t written for the situation and pressed charges even the “victim” was not ammenable to charges even being pressed?
The guy probably had a decent lawyer. He was chrged with a felony and was probably left with the option of either an expensive trial and rolling the dice 12 folks who couldn’t spell HTML, or avoiding jail, paying a small fine and doing a little community service. Once charged with a felony, I can’t see the prosecutor’s office backing down much from that.
“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. “
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1842668/posts?page=427#427
“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). “
Yes it is nit picking but as is said - “the devil is in the details”.
Even if he hadn't bought a cup of coffee every day -- If he'd bought a cup of coffee two or three days a week, and was welcomed inside on other days, getting out of the car would be a good first step.
To expand on the point, it's common sense to avoid "looking suspicious." Like, pulling into a parking space, idling for several minutes, never getting out, then driving away. Every day for more than a week. Or hanging around the playground with a camera with a long lens every day. Maybe you're just a bird-watcher, but it's gonna look weird.
A lack of common sense isn't a crime, and thank God -- there would be more people in prison than out. But avoiding "weird" behavior is a good way to avoid wasting your time and that of the police. And the less "weird" you are, the more likely the cop is to let you off with a warning.
Then do you have to have formal permission, by contract, in writing to access someone's web page on the internet? The law as interpreted in this case would apply to your access and use of any computer serving up a webpage on a computer network. Quoting the law again:
A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:Some web sites offer "terms of use." Most don't. Is it a felony in Michigan to access a web server on those web sites that lack a "terms of use" disclaimer explicitly granting authorization to view those pages?(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.
The prosecutor is a dick for pushing this though, but of course I generally find that most prosecutors share that trait. ;-)
Yes, because we must avoid all behavior that might seem weird or we’ll be arrested. Must conform. Must conform. Must conform. Welcome to the new Amerika.
I'll disagree. If there even a 5 % chance that a group of computer illiterates would find him guilty, then he has to take the deal. In fact, I'd say that the genorosity of the deal makes me believe that they know they have a very weak case. He could probably serve his community service right at his volunteer fire house.
No one's telling you what you have to do. Just common sense. If you want to attract hassles, feel free; I got over that in high school.
Something like this should have been a warning that if he wanted to use the wifi he had to make a purchase!
Or the next time he would be find!
I am glad I don't live in Michigan any more....
Something like this should have been a warning that if he wanted to use the wifi he had to make a purchase!
Or the next time he would be find!
I am glad I don't live in Michigan any more....
You said: This guy was using internet being paid for by someone else without their permission. That is stealing pure and simple. I don’t know what is so hard to understand about that.
***
This is little different than stealing music. It seems more analogous to standing outside the shop and reading by the coffee shop’s lights...
"Have to" isn't the issue. The issue is whether you have the user's permission. Permission in a formal written contract is easy to establish and pretty much bulletproof. Implied permission is a much trickier case to make. There might be some merit to the guy's claim that the "free wi-fi" sign in the window constituted permission to use the signal from the parking lot, but that's an argument his attorney would have to make.
It is relatively easy to make the argument that putting a server on the Internet, without a password, with a domain name (i.e. not accessible only by numeric IP address) constitutes permission for anyone to access it. That volitional act -- Web servers don't happen accidentally -- makes it easy for anyone in the world to gain read-only access.
It is far more difficult to make the case that a sign in a coffee shop window gives permission to anyone within a hundred feet or so. The law in Wisconsin says explicitly that it doesn't. The defendant in this case could have challenged the law in court, but he chose not to -- and I can't blame him. Four hundred bucks and 40 hours of community service is cheaper than a defense lawyer's prep work before the trial has even begun.
Let me ask you -- what if this guy lived a block away from the coffee shop? What if he used a directional antenna and used their Internet connection from home rather than pay for his own? Would you feel differently about his actions? The difference is one of degree, not of principle.
Some web sites offer "terms of use." Most don't. Is it a felony in Michigan to access a web server on those web sites that lack a "terms of use" disclaimer explicitly granting authorization to view those pages?
Ask the Michigan supreme court. Or a Michigan lawyer. I'm neither a Michigander nor a lawyer. Black-letter law isn't the end of the law, and common law and common sense are still most of it. No sane judge or jury would convict someone of a felony for viewing a Web site. If an insane judge or jury did, an appellate court would overturn before you could say res ipsa loquitur.
I don't encrypt becuase the nearest house or road is over 1/2 mile away.
A hassle is one thing, a felony arrest is a whole different level.
I have been able to "see" a local bar's WiFI network. It is about a half mile way.
So get yourself a Pringles can and cancel your ISP service.
Seriously, do you pay for other things people are _giving_ you for free?
I take it you don't contribute to FR..
“A lot of people tell me I should fight this, but they’re not the ones looking at the felony charges on their record if it happens to go bad,” Peterson said. He says it all right there. It’s easy for people to come back and second guess him, but if they were in his position there’s a good chance they’d end up coming to the same conclusion he did. It would have cost him thousands of dollars to try the case and there was a chance (a pretty good one I think) he would have been convicted of a felony. Taking the plea deal he took will cost him a few hundred bucks and a little time, but by taking the deal he’s insuring against that possible felony conviction.
You say that if there was even a 5% chance he’d be found guilty then he has to take the deal. I’d say there was at least that, probably a lot more than a 5% chance. Look, juries tend to convict most everyone. They tend to walk in the door in the morning thinking that whoever comes in front of them accused of a crime will probably be guilty. The defense attorney will hope in a case like this that the jury will use good sense and not convict, but you can’t count on that. They’d be instructed to convict if they think the use of the network was unauthorized. If the owner gets up and says her wireless access is for customers who come into her coffee shop, but is not intended for just anyone who happens to be in range, I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see a jury conclude that use by someone who is not a customer who is accessing the network from a car nearby is not authorized. Then this guy would be stuck with a felony conviction. Would you take that risk if you were in his shoes?
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.