Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Michigan Man Fined for Using Coffee Shop's Wi-Fi Network
Fox News ^ | 05/31/2007 | Sara Bonisteel

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: nocrimeinmichigan; policestate; wifi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460461-479 next last
To: dynoman

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?


441 posted on 06/01/2007 3:23:51 PM PDT by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: dynoman

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.


442 posted on 06/01/2007 3:31:22 PM PDT by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

“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


443 posted on 06/01/2007 4:52:46 PM PDT by dynoman (Objectivity is the essence of intelligence. - Marylin vos Savant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

“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”.


444 posted on 06/01/2007 4:56:34 PM PDT by dynoman (Objectivity is the essence of intelligence. - Marylin vos Savant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: dynoman
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?

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.

445 posted on 06/01/2007 5:42:50 PM PDT by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

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

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:

(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.

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?
446 posted on 06/01/2007 7:29:01 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: bw17
The owner could have said this man had permission, but apparently she didn’t. According to the article, the wireless access was for paying customers. The owner did say that even if the guy didn’t have any money he could have come in her store and she would have let him use it, but she stopped short of saying access to her network is free for anyone within range of it. Did she mean she would let him use it if he asked her nice? I don’t know. We can’t get all the “facts” from a single newspaper article. The Michigan law in question says that it is a felony to access a computer network without authorization. I don’t know that a jury would have determined that this guy was authorized to use a wireless network the coffee shop provides free to paying customers. This guy obviously did not want to risk having a jury determine that his use was unauthorized. He said, “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.” He makes a good point. A felony conviction can really make your life difficult, and just with what information we have I’d say there is a really good chance that a jury would determine that his use was unauthorized. He opted to take the diversion program, where he’ll have to pay a $400 fine, be on probation for six months, and perform 40 hours of community service. That’s pretty harsh punishment for what he did, especially the community service. In my county you have to do that on weekdays during business hours. But, with most of these diversion programs people end up with no record of any sort of conviction, so I think I probably would have bit the bullet and taken the diversion program too rather than risk getting a felony conviction, which of course would cause me to lose my law license in my state.

The prosecutor is a dick for pushing this though, but of course I generally find that most prosecutors share that trait. ;-)

447 posted on 06/01/2007 8:59:26 PM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

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.


448 posted on 06/02/2007 5:26:59 AM PDT by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
just with what information we have I’d say there is a really good chance that a jury would determine that his use was unauthorized.

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.

449 posted on 06/02/2007 5:32:10 AM PDT by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: Homer1
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.

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.

450 posted on 06/02/2007 11:27:01 AM PDT by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
This kind of fishing for a law to steal from a person his earnings makes me want to say bad words at the government!

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....

451 posted on 06/02/2007 12:13:04 PM PDT by restornu (Matt.10:16 Lord's sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye wise as serpents & harmless as doves ~ Mitt 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
This kind of fishing for a law to steal from a person his earnings makes me want to say bad words at the government!

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....

452 posted on 06/02/2007 12:13:25 PM PDT by restornu (Matt.10:16 Lord's sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye wise as serpents & harmless as doves ~ Mitt 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dynoman

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...


453 posted on 06/02/2007 12:18:48 PM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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

Then do you have to have formal permission, by contract, in writing to access someone's web page on the internet?

"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.

454 posted on 06/02/2007 12:19:29 PM PDT by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Just another reminder for those who would put Wi-Fi capability into their own homes: use the encryption feature!

I don't encrypt becuase the nearest house or road is over 1/2 mile away.

455 posted on 06/02/2007 12:28:42 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi (The Democratic Party will not exist in a few years....we are watching history unfold before us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

A hassle is one thing, a felony arrest is a whole different level.


456 posted on 06/02/2007 12:42:34 PM PDT by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
I don't encrypt becuase the nearest house or road is over 1/2 mile away.

I have been able to "see" a local bar's WiFI network. It is about a half mile way.

457 posted on 06/02/2007 12:50:54 PM PDT by EVO X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: Black Birch
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?

458 posted on 06/02/2007 12:52:48 PM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale
Seriously, do you pay for other things people are _giving_ you for free?

I take it you don't contribute to FR..

459 posted on 06/02/2007 1:51:38 PM PDT by EVO X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: Homer1
Generosity of the deal? He has to pay a $400 fine, do 40 hours community service, and be on probation for six months, all for checking his email using a free wireless connection. That’s not a good deal at all. I get people a lot better deals than that all the time for far worse crimes. As for being able to do his community service at the volunteer fire department, I don’t know about that. It wouldn’t work that way where I practice law. In my county he’d be showing up every morning at the courthouse, Monday through Friday, so they could send him out to cut grass, pick up trash, or do some other crappy slave labor.

“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?

460 posted on 06/02/2007 4:14:51 PM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460461-479 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson