Posted on 05/31/2007 12:51:13 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
But the business owner in this case said it was OK, so your analogy doesn’t wash. It’s more like taking a drink from the outside water fountain at our local ice cream stand, when you didn’t take an ice cream. If you think that’s felony stealing, well, I can’t post what I think of that, without fear of banination.
This is a clear case of an overzealous prosecutor trying to make a name for himself. If there’s any justice, Granholm will fully pardon the guy tomorrow.
But, like the defendant said, would you bet a felony conviction that you would win in court?
None of the signs I've seen in coffee shops say "customers only". They say "free wifi". That's good business. Whether everybody using it buys a coffee there today, or every hour on the hour, or once a week they get lots of people to come to their coffee shop and they sell lots of coffee.
If they start harassing their customers that in order to use the wifi access they *must* currently have a warm cup of coffee in front of them... is stupid and counterproductive.
In this story, even the coffee shop owner said that he didn't care that the guy was out in his car using the service. That's good business. Maybe the guy isn't a customer at the moment, but he may have been before or might be tomorrow. Plus... the sign just says "free wifi", not "wifi with a cup of coffee".
Its given *to their customers* not to freeloading thieves too lazy to go home and too cheap to buy a cup of coffee..
This is why jobs are fleeing Michigan...
>>>The law, introduced in 1979 to protect Internet and private-network users from hackers, and amended in 2000 to include wireless systems, makes piggybacking off of Wi-Fi networks, even those without a password, illegal.
They also proscecute people who have police scanners in their car.
“Do you have a cellular phone?”
Yes.
(This should be interesting..)
It’s no different than someone coming over the border illegally.
Give him amnesty!!
No he hasn’t...
He parked his car on private property to steal internet service.
1. It’s Trespassing.
2. It’s Stealing Bandwith
It’s no different than someone coming over the border illegally.
There are a lot of good decaffeinated brands on the market these days................
And if I had such a thing or if your system was not secure out of the box would it be ok for me to call my buddy in Ireland?
This is the equivalent of taking some napkins from an outdoor cafe’s dispenser when you’re not a customer...
The ultimate crime. (sarc/off)
Anyone who would have a wide open connection and then complain about someone using it is a total idiot.
Section 752.797
FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER NETWORKS (EXCERPT)
Act 53 of 1979
752.797 Penalties; prior convictions; presumption; reimbursement order; definition.
Sec. 7.
(1) A person who violates section 4 is guilty of a crime as follows:
(a) If the violation involves an aggregate amount of less than $200.00, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00 or 3 times the aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine.
(b) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $2,000.00 or 3 times the aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:
(i) The violation involves an aggregate amount of $200.00 or more but less than $1,000.00.
(ii) The person violates this act and has a prior conviction.
(c) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00 or 3 times the aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:
(i) The violation involves an aggregate amount of $1,000.00 or more but less than $20,000.00.
(ii) The person has 2 prior convictions.
(d) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than 3 times the aggregate amount, or both imprisonment and a fine:
(i) The violation involves an aggregate amount of $20,000.00 or more.
(ii) The person has 3 or more prior convictions.
(2) A person who violates section 5 is guilty of a crime as follows:
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both.
(b) If the person has a prior conviction, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $50,000.00, or both.
(3) A person who violates section 6 is guilty of a crime as follows:
(a) If the underlying crime is a misdemeanor or a felony with a maximum term of imprisonment of 1 year or less, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.
(b) If the underlying crime is a misdemeanor or a felony with a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 1 year but less than 2 years, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.
(c) If the underlying crime is a misdemeanor or a felony with a maximum term of imprisonment of 2 years or more but less than 4 years, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.
(d) If the underlying crime is a felony with a maximum term of imprisonment of 4 years or more but less than 10 years, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 7 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.
(e) If the underlying crime is a felony punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more but less than 20 years, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both.
(f) If the underlying crime is a felony punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years or more or for life, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both.
(4) The court may order that a term of imprisonment imposed under subsection (3) be served consecutively to any term of imprisonment imposed for conviction of the underlying offense.
(5) If the prosecuting attorney intends to seek an enhanced sentence under section 4 or section 5 based upon the defendant having a prior conviction, the prosecuting attorney shall include on the complaint and information a statement listing that prior conviction. The existence of the defendant’s prior conviction shall be determined by the court, without a jury, at sentencing. The existence of a prior conviction may be established by any evidence relevant for that purpose, including, but not limited to, 1 or more of the following:
(a) A copy of the judgment of conviction.
(b) A transcript of a prior trial, plea-taking, or sentencing.
(c) Information contained in a presentence report.
(d) The defendant’s statement.
(6) It is a rebuttable presumption in a prosecution for a violation of section 5 that the person did not have authorization from the owner, system operator, or other person who has authority from the owner or system operator to grant permission to access the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network or has exceeded authorization unless 1 or more of the following circumstances existed at the time of access:
(a) Written or oral permission was granted by the owner, system operator, or other person who has authority from the owner or system operator to grant permission of the accessed computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.
(b) The accessed computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network had a pre-programmed access procedure that would display a bulletin, command, or other message before access was achieved that a reasonable person would believe identified the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network as within the public domain.
(c) Access was achieved without the use of a set of instructions, code, or computer program that bypasses, defrauds, or otherwise circumvents the pre-programmed access procedure for the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.
(7) The court may order a person convicted of violating this act to reimburse this state or a local unit of government of this state for expenses incurred in relation to the violation in the same manner that expenses may be ordered to be reimbursed under section 1f of chapter IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.1f.
(8) As used in this section, “prior conviction” means a violation or attempted violation of section 145d of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.145d, or this act or a substantially similar law of the United States, another state, or a political subdivision of another state.
History: 1979, Act 53, Eff. Mar. 27, 1980 ;— Am. 1996, Act 326, Eff. Apr. 1, 1997 ;— Am. 2000, Act 180, Eff. Sept. 18, 2000
The fact this guy day after day was doing this makes him somewhat of an idiot in my mind..
If you broke encryption or a password scheme, of course not. If I left the thing wide open, yes it would be. Would I be mad when I got the bill? You bet. But would I leave the thing wide open after that? No.
1. It’s Trespassing.
2. It’s Stealing Bandwidth
It’s no different than someone coming over the border illegally.
He parked in a public parking lot so it's not trespassing. They didn't password protect their network and they broadcasted the signal beyond their store. Outside the store was a sign that simply said "FREE WI-FI". It didn't say anything about buying anything first. The store is to blame and this guy got screwed because of a lousy law. There was a CNN video about this last week, but I can't seem to find it now.
I missed that part, could you please repost that from the article?
I don’t think there is more to it. Just another case of too many laws, and a legislature that doesn’t care. The legislature fills our jails with people who should not be there, so that they have an excuse for not throwing the book at those who should be there.
And they may feel that the goal of forcing people to buy a coffee so as to make free wireless a profitable activity justifies this kind of draconian penalty, but I at least do not. If the price of protecting coffee houses that offer free wireless is that we have to fill our jails with otherwise law abiding citizens who weren’t aware they were violating the law, then I would rather not have the free wireless service.
My understanding of FCC regulaions is that ANYTHING broadcast through the air-waves in the USA is fair game. If you want to broadcast TV signals, anyone can receive them. Same with radio of ANY type. If you want to protect those signals, you encode them and require customers to buy your decoder box. In short, if you have the time and money to receive signals broadcast through the air, you’re free to do so - ANY signal
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.