Michigan Man Charged for Using Free WiFi 848
Nichole writes "Sam Peterson II was charged with unauthorized use of computer access for using a coffee shop's free WiFi. He is facing a 5 year felony charge and a $10,000 fine but apparently got off lucky and received only a $400 fine and 40 hours of community service because he was a first time offender. 'it seems few in the village of Sparta, Mich., were aware that using an unsecured Wi-Fi connection without the owner's permission--a practice known as piggybacking--was a felony. Each day around lunch time, Sam Peterson would drive to the Union Street Cafe, park his car and--without actually entering the coffee shop--check his e-mail and surf the Net. His ritual raised the suspicions of Police Chief Andrew Milanowski, who approached him and asked what he was doing. Peterson, probably not realizing that his actions constituted a crime, freely admitted what he was doing ... [the officer] didn't immediately cite or arrest Peterson, mostly because he wasn't certain a crime had been committed.'"
Here We Go (Score:5, Funny)
-Peter
Re:Here We Go (Score:5, Funny)
"Come and get them!"
Re:Here We Go (Score:5, Funny)
"Our WiFi access will blot out the Sun!"
"So we will surf in the shade!"
Re:Here We Go (Score:5, Funny)
Let's just say for arguments sake... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Let's just say for arguments sake... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, piggybacking is different and philosophically wrong for two reasons. First, Wi-fi use DOES impact other users, as bandwidth is finite and allowed users may theoretically wind up having diminished use of the service due to piggybacking. But more importantly, you CANNOT just sit in a parking lot and use Wi-fi without deciding to ACTIVELY log on to the access point. While you may have a right to sit in the parking lot and use your computer, you are actively deciding to use someone else's resources when you log on, and doing so certainly is not unavoidable while using your laptop in that parking lot.
I'm not saying I like the law, because if they're too dumb to require a login, they will have issues bigger than this fellow who was quite up-front about what he was doing. But the previous analogy is a good example of why it is not quite as harmless as it seems.
Re:Let's just say for arguments sake... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's just say for arguments sake... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that stealing bandwidth is wrong, the punishment certainly does not fit the crime. This type of thing should be a civil infraction, not a felony. People who steal actual physical goods don't even have to face the kinds of penalties this guy potentially could have. When there's a complete disconnect between the severity of punishment and common sense, it causes contempt for the law.
Amen. All kinds of minor offenses have been trumped up into felony status by legislators gone wild. They seem to be engaged in zero-tolerance one-up-manship grandstanding as being tough on crime.
Re:Let's just say for arguments sake... (Score:5, Insightful)
What responsibility does the wifi owner have in all this?
At what point do I have to take care of his network and specifically avoid it?
If a laptop has been connected to the wireless network "Linksys" with no WEP before and is set to automatically connect to it, and a coffee shop has no wep enabled and the same SSID then a laptop will automatically connect to it! I would have to activly stop my laptop from connecting to it. Now this is either entrapment or criminal negligence. Since I would face penalties from the act.
It's a simple process to give out a key at the register on the reciepts each day, or set up a basic gateway with a password. You could even turn off the SSID broadcast function and have people type it in manually.
These places try and make as easy as possible for people to access their network and then have a problem when their efforts result in people using the network.
Take some responsibility. The law shouldn't protect those too ignorant of their own actions from facing the consequences of those actions. After all, that's why the man in the car had to pay a fine and do community service!
Lawmakers need to get a clue, hold people accountable, and hold themselves to the same standard while they're at it! Quit lagging behind the curve, we're supposed to be a great nation and we constantly act like a bunch of neanderthals.
Re:Let's just say for arguments sake... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let's just say for arguments sake... (Score:5, Insightful)
Doing so would put the onus of enforcement on the owners of the WiFi and would put them in the position of a) identifying the people "stealing" their bandwidth... b) going to even more trouble by first attempting to quantify their real damages
Good. If the offense is so trivial that it's not even worth identifying the people stealing the bandwidth, it's pretty clear it's not important enough to worry about to the owner--so why should law enforcement?
This is even more silly because the user wasn't circumventing security or illegally accessing a secured, for-pay access point. He was utilizing an intentionally open AP that was put there specifically for people to use for free. Granted, the idea is you come in for coffee, but if the coffee shop didn't even know it was illegal and apparently didn't notice or care, then why should law enforcement take any action?
Re:Let's just say for arguments sake... (Score:5, Interesting)
And when the WiFi owner doesn't realy care much, why was this even pursued at all?? Waste of the court's time, I think. From TFA:
Re:Let's just say for arguments sake... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't some setups automatically find the nearest unsecured access point and connect to it, without intervention from the user? What if I were to open my laptop in an unfamiliar area, only to have it automatically connect to an access point before I was able to halt the connection? Do we place the blame on the hardware/software maker for configuring their device to do this by default, or the user for not disabling it?
Most of the access points at the coffee shops around here don't mention anything of "Free Wi-Fi access with purchase!". While it could be argued that the "with purchase" is implied in those situations, I think it could be easily argued in a court that since there was no specific mention of it, patronage of the establishment was not required.
IMHO, if an access point is unsecured and available, it should be fair game for public use without any implied fine print.
Re:Let's just say for arguments sake... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's just say for arguments sake... (Score:5, Informative)
I installed WI-FI back in 2000 in my house in Tokyo. I didn't bother setting up WEP. One day I was checking my server logs and I saw that someone was ssh'ing in, as me, from an unfamiliar IP address. After a bit of frantic security work I looked at the IP numbers a little more closely and then checked my laptop. The IP number was me! One of my neighbors had set up WI-FI themselves and from certain areas of the house their network was picked up in preference to my own.
So, by your analogy, this is like me wandering into my neighbor's house by accident, sitting down and watching their TV and having NO CLUE I'm in the wrong house and then getting arrested for trespassing.
These days I often see multiple WI-FI networks available anywhere I go. If I go to a coffee shop that has free WI-FI access I might wind up connected not to their network but to their next door neighbor's network, making me, technically, a felon.
The judge should have thrown the court out of case, given genius boy a lecture on ethics (like, go buy some coffee the next time you want to use the free WI-FI) and the prosecutor a long lecture on wasting the court's time.
Re:Let's just say for arguments sake... (Score:5, Insightful)
What about if someone creates a website to distribute pictures to their friends, but doesn't protect it in any way. Should it be an offence for someone to access that site as explicit permission has not been granted?
What about if someone creates a site about a polarising political viewpoint and places a banner stating that anyone opposed to that viewpoint is not permitted to view the site. Should accessing that if you have a differing view be an offence?
Lets take it one step further and assume that the individual who owns the first site pays for data transfer on a per Mb rate, if an undesirable person views the site could they be deemed as having stolen whatever the monetary value is of the data transfer they used?
If the above is deemed as true then, even if no fee is calculated on the transfer of data, surely simply making that bandwidth unavailable to other legitimate users would be sufficient for a prosecution?
If an individual accesses these sites without consent (other than that implied by the existence of the sites) should they be held liable?. I don't think so.
Wi-fi and web sites are comparable simply because they are both technological in nature, both require one person or organisation to acquire a service, and then provide information using that service in an indiscriminate manner analogous to broadcast. Both require a concious effort to access (either typing an address / clicking a link or selecting a network to use), and yet often neither explicitly grants nor denies permission to do so. Lastly, and most importantly both can be configured so that casual access is not easily possible.
In short, whilst it is not possible to secure light and prevent others from accessing it without making it totally unavailable, it is possible to secure an access point or a web site so that it is still available but not usable without further action.
The onus to protect against unauthorised access should be on the providers of services that are broadcast indiscriminately. Where protection is in place and is then broken, the responsibility lies with the person having broken it. However deciding what is adequate protection is another matter and outside of the scope of this comment.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not necessarily true. With my old iBook it would just autodiscover, and login to open wifi networks, without my help, or any other conscious action by me. Does this then make mac owners less culpable than others? I doubt it.
I don't understand how it could be a felony, if you leave your wifi open, people will use it. It takes all of 2 seconds to secure it. I'm also not going
But, maybe he didn't break the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the law text [mi.gov] (I'll highlight the relevant portions):
So using this logic.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:4, Insightful)
That analogy holds right up to the point you send your first packet to their network. After that, you are no longer a passive spectator...you are playing in a completely different ballgame, with completely different rules.
When you ask yourself "am I allowed to use this network?", "I don't know" does not equal "yes". The onus is upon you to verify that you are not trespassing before proceeding. In this particular case, it doesn't initially appear that any malice was involved. $400+40hrs sounds a little steep, but not in the realm of the unreasonable.
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:5, Interesting)
What about when my very first act is to ask the network administrator if I'm allowed to use his network, and he says "yes"? Is it okay then? What if my NIC asks his router if I'm allowed to use his network, and his router says "yes"? Is it okay then?
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Judges are ignorant, film at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Only because judges are generally illiterate on things tech. DHCP is exactly a request to be assigned network resources. Your workstation/laptop sends out a request containing a globally unique identifier (MAC addr) and the server is free to permit or deny access based on it. That dhcp server is under your control and making decisions based on a policy you gave it, thus it is acting on authority you delegated unto it. By default most routers will hand out an address to anyone who asks for one, which implies a GRANT ANY policy. However almost all DHCP servers offer more restrictive options, even those found in consumer electronics class wireless routers.
Perhaps we need a warning label on the boxes:
"Warning, by default this product will grant access to anyone within it's range who asks. If this is NOT what you want please follow the directions to change it's policy."
Re:Judges are ignorant, film at 11 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is true if and only if his router speaks for him. Legally, since you can't transfer power of attorney to an inanimate object, this is legally dubious. It makes perfect sense that his router speaks for him if you are not a lawyer, not trained as one, and have basically no knowledge of the law.
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:5, Funny)
These places are called stores.
Re: (Score:3)
When an OS on 98% of all computers automatically makes you a criminal under your reading of the law, somet
Re: (Score:3)
If you're saying that the presumption must be that even if a connection is open, you're not welcome, then how do I set up a hot spot that I want people to use? Do I need to put my
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I don't understand how you can say with a straight face that web servers indicate and intent to share and broadcasting gateways do not. For one thing, most web services specifically forbid all sorts of uses in their terms of use. For example: http://www.ostg.com/terms.htm [ostg.com]. For another, many people assume that information they post on the web is private (they shouldn't, but they do) if it isn't linked in to a well-known web page.
Second, couldn't you make the same argument about not wanting anonymous third parties using email servers? I only want authorized people to email me, not Mexican pharmacy bots. But since I have a publicly accessible email address I'm likely to get some such email, whether I want it or not.
I don't support the "it's open so I have a right to use it" viewpoint, but there are reasonable technical and social measures that could be employed to indicate that you don't want to share your gateway. They could simply add a the WEP password "pasword". Or not broadcast the SSID. Or put up a terms-of-use page for the first port-80 request from a new MAC address. Or posted a sign outside that said "WiFi access for customers only". Or they could have walked out to his car and asked him to stop using their network.
If they had done any one of those things and he continued using the access point I'd have no trouble prosecuting him. But when people physically trespass, they must have bypassed reasonable security measures and/or be asked to leave before they've committed a crime, and I don't see the benefit of a stricter standard for access points.
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:5, Interesting)
First, we identify the players in this game.
You = You.
Network = House.
Router = Door.
Now, what we have is a House, protected by a Door with a button and a sign. The sign says, "Push the button and I'll open the door if you meet my criteria." The button causes the Door to be opened if you meet the criteria set forth by the owner of the House and the Door.
You walk up to the House, read the sign and push the button. The Door opens to allow you into the House.
Is it trespassing? No. The button is a machine tasked with carrying out the owner's directions. It's interesting to note that replacing a button with a motion sensor gives you the very same automatic doors that most retail stores have. It is not trespassing.
So change the nouns around. Is it trespassing if a router gives you access to a network according to the owner's directions? Answer: No it is not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's an SSID? (Service Set ID)
When it broadcasts, it IS advertising service. (WiFi Service here!)
You don't have to broadcast SSID's and without them, you can't attach to the Wifi Network. (Many routers offer the ability NOT to broadcast the SSID.)
But if your broadcast that you're offering service, you then answer in the affirmative when asked for a IP (DHCP) I simply can't see how anyone can consider this "unauthorized." Short of getting written, signed by the authorized agent o
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know we all love analogies around here, and most of them are pretty off the wall, so let me see if I can come up with a more direct correlation to all the parts of the "crime" here.
Your front yard has a water fountain sitting next to the sidewalk. You pay for the water. The fountain only works by use of a key. But you have a machine sitting next to the fountain that produces a key for anyone who presses a button labelled "Press here to request access to water fountain". Am I committing a crime by pressing the button and then drinking the water?
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry, your analogy must contain at least one automobile. Please try again.
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably a world in which we are granted or denied access to all kinds of things by machines every day of our lives.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't in any way matter what the machine-to-machine protocol is!
Excuse me while I slap my forehead in disbelief at what I've been reading here. Extending permission to use the network is the whole point of those protocols. That is what they (e.g., DHCP) do, and that is the only reason you'd be running them on a machine connected to a wireless router.
This guy was charged with a felony because the owner of the network (who didn't press charges, as I understand) might not have realized that he was giving permission to others to use his network, which in fact he was. Prett
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, if our legal system were rational, there would be a trivial answer: As soon as that packet is either accepted (and forwarded) or rejected (and bounced) by the AP, you'd know. If the packet was accepted, then the AP has in fact allowed you to use it. And it didn't do this by accident. It was explicitly programmed to behave that way. Or, more likely, the software has config setting saying whether to accept or reject packets from unregistered devices, and the AP's owner has set this to "accept". You should be able to tell the court "My packets were accepted and delivered; it's clear that I was in fact allowed to use the AP."
The tired old road analogy might help: If you're driving along, pass through an intersection, and continue on the road on the other side, how do you know if it's legal for you to drive there? Pretty much everywhere in the world, the same rule applies: If there's some sort of "no entry" or "private road" sign, then you probably shouldn't drive there. If there's no such sign restricting access, then you are allowed to drive there. Any court would interpret the lack of an explicit sign to mean that the public is permitted to use the road. The fact that someone (maybe the town, maybe a private owner) owns the road is irrelevant; you won't be arrested for driving on a road without signs that tell you the rules. We all understand that, without this rule, our road system would be unusable.
But someone else pointed out the magic word that makes this case an exception: "computer". We seem to be in a phase where, the instant a computer gets involved, all social and legal precedent goes out the window, and everything must be relearned from scratch. Any attempt to explain the precedent gets a "But that's different" reply, with no coherent explanation of what the difference is or why it matters. The mere presence of a computer invalidates everything you ever knew, and you have to fight all the old fights all over again.
But in a few centuries, it'll probably settle down, and computers (like roads, cars, etc.) will just be tools that are treated like all other tools.
We can hope that freedom of speech, communication, expression, whatever survive the relearning process
(I do wonder what the court would say if the defendant here were to file an "entrapment" suit against the store owner. After all, there are a lot of open-access APs around. How is one to know while traveling whether any given AP is legally usable? This decision potentially makes it rather risky to just be a traveler in Michigan, especially now that cars are starting to come with onboard networks and comm equipment. It's just a matter of time until someone is arrested while driving along I-94 because their car used a local AP to talk to the factory or download a map.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I do wonder what the court would say if the defendant here were to file an "entrapment" suit against the store owner. After all, there are a lot of open-access APs around. How is one to know while traveling whether any given AP is legally usable? This decision potentially makes it rather risky to just be a traveler in Michigan, especially now that cars are starting to come with onboard networks and comm equipment. It's just a matter of time until someone is arrested while driving along I-94 because their car used a local AP to talk to the factory or download a map. ;-)
I remember talk of some Windows O/Ses (possibly others too, not singling out Microsoft here) automatically connecting to the strongest available WiFi - add various network-sensing apps into the mix (EG. Windows Update, spyware, whatever) that auto-transfer whenever a connection is available and Joe Sixpack could potentially be committing a felony without even knowing he is doing it. Say the fella happened to stop within range of the WiFi, opened his laptop and started working on a Spreadsheet or some other
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Michigan's unauthorized access statute, does in fact grant a rebuttal presumption that access was unauthorized. This means that the defendant, not the prosecution has the burden of proof on this question. This is unusual. Usually, the operator must make the exclusion clear and the prosecution must prove that the defendant ignored and/or circumvented the prohibitions. Michigan's law may in fact be an unconstitutional violation of due process as a result. See Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979) [findlaw.com]
Second, even if the statute is constitutional, the law may been misapplied. The access is not illegal if
So basically this guy had a bad lawyer. What he did was in fact not a crime.Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. In your example, there's no computer involved.
Really, there are two contradictory laws at stake, here.
1) According to the FCC, it's perfectly legal to receive ANY BROADCAST TRANSMISSION. I can set up a radio receiver and pick up whatever happens to be in the air. This includes wifi broadcasts, which are really nothing more than a cordless phone combined with a MODEM.
2) But, it's also illegal in most areas to "access computers or computer networks without permission". They stand in contradiction to each other. The part that's odd here is that the WIFI spot announces itself as unencrypted, sort of like a welcome sign. How did this guy not have permission to access the network?
I personally think that wireless networks, even those that are being broadcast in unlicensed spectrums (like wifi) should be illegal to access if the "digital doorknob" is locked. If you have to enter in a password or decryption key, even a weak one like WEP, it's illegal to access. But, if it's open/unencrypted, then you should be free to act with impunity.
This is how we interpret things more physically. AFAIK here in California, if you approach my house and the front door is closed such that you have to turn the doorknob to enter it, it's illegal to enter without a specific invitation. (EG: "Come on in" sign, me hollering for you to, whatever) But if the door is open, you can enter with impunity - having the door open can be considered an invitation to enter.
(IANAL, etc)
So why would wireless networks be any different? Don't want people accessing your network? Put up a password/encryption key. Otherwise, your door is open, and people can (and probably will) enter.
PS: More than once, I've trolled middle-class neighborhoods for a hotspot in a pinch. It seems that the best neighborhoods are the straight-up middle class ones - lower classes don't tend to have high-speed connections, upper classes tend to hire tech weenies to set up their networks, and they usually secure them. But the guys in the middle buy their Linksys routers at Best Buy, take them home, plug them in, they work, and they stop there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While it might be legal to receive any broadcast transmission, it would be difficult to check email and surf the web without transmitting something.
This application of the law is, of course, ridiculous. The EFF or someone should really step-in a
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd say that a network that is unsecured and broadcasting its SSID is essentially an invitation to join that network. An unsecured network that is not broadcasting an SSID is like a house with the door closed but not locked -- you don't have permission to enter, even though it is still trivial to do so. A secured network, even if the security is weak, is like a locked door. It might only take a single kick to knock it in, but that's still B&E.
The problem though is that the default setting of wireless routers is unsecured and SSID broadcast enabled, and of course like with everything few people ever change the defaults. It makes it easy for anyone to set up a network -- turn on the router, click "Find network" on the PC, done -- but the result is we have tons of unsecured, open networks whose owners may not want to be open but don't know how to say that in wireless protocol terms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dumb is not a valid excuse anymore. Not on this topic, and not for the last 4 or 5 years.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh well that makes the totally unreasonable nature of what happened OK then. I'm glad that I'll only ever be arrested for things that are illegal so as long as I'm not a terrorist criminal pirate general bad guy I'll be fine. I'm also glad I can trust the government to keep the letter of the law such that it only makes bad stuff illegal.
I like it here in your little fantasy world. I'd stay, except I'm not a total bloody retard.
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hear hear!!
Man..this sucks...neither he nor the operator of the coffee shop knew they were committing a crime, it sounds like the owner of the open wifi didn't care to press any charges, and YET, this guy while getting off 'easy' is now a convicted FELON!! So much for the rest of his life as far as getting jobs, owning a firearm, or possibly even voting.
On another note....I wonder what other states have laws like this??
Re:So using this logic.... (Score:5, Informative)
It was the officers choice to be a raging asshole in this case, and that is how they act there. dont drive 1 mph over the speed limit (one part of sparta on a main through road has 3 signs you can see at once. 45,35,25 it is intentionally confusing so they can nail you for speeding tickets.) as they gladly give you a ticket and look over your car for more they can write.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Inconsistant article (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So it seems this service was provided by the coffee shop. IOW, in Michigan, it is a felony to sit outside a coffee shop or other establishment with "Free WiFi" without buying something.
"unauthorized use"? (Score:5, Interesting)
You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't know he was breaking the law
The COP didn't know he was breaking the law
The STORE OWNER didn't know he was breaking the law
So how exactly did he wind up getting a $400 fine, community service, and a diversion sentence out of it?
Common sence tells me that there's nothing for him to "divert" - I suspect if you had just TOLD him he was breaking the law, he'd have said "oops - sorry - I won't do it again"
What a waste of resources.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. The GP called this a "waste of resources", but the only one who is out anything is the guy, for whom I guarantee the $400 is only the beginning of his expenses. He's probably also paying court fees, paying fees to whoever tracks his community service (probation officer, maybe, though TFA doesn't mention probation), and paying fees to enroll in whatever a "diversion program" is.
They may have actual
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
If public parks are paid for by citizens of that municipality, are people from out of town allowed to use them? Free means free. I was under the impression that if something is only free to customers as a marketing ploy, you have to do something to keep it from those who are not customers. How is this a crime? If a store offers free candy bars to the first 1000 shoppers on Saturday morning as a marketing ploy, have you committed a crime if you take one of the candy bars but don't buy anything? I think that we need to ensure that businesses advertise that they have either FREE Wi-Fi or Free-to-customers Wi-Fi to clear this up. Once it is posted (like no trespassing signs) there is no longer any question about whether it's a crime or not.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here, we have a specific case where neither the perp, the cop, NOR the store owner were aware of the existence of the law - it seems to me that "justice" would have been much better served by just *informing* everybody about the law, so that it wouldn't happen again.
The point of law is NOT to prosecute people, or put them in jail - it's an agreed-upon set of rules that we agree to follow when we join a society, so that society can function smoothly. Prosecution - and subsequent punishments - are intended to be coercive measures to enforce compliance with these rules.
If ever there was a case of "This time, I'll let you off with a warning", this is it.
It's supposed to be the *justice* system (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that you, like many other people, misunderstand this precept. The idea is that ignorance of the law cannot be considered a valid legal defense, basically because it would be absurd to have to prove that someone knew the law in question.
The justice system is supposed to be about justice, however, and while a person's ignorance is not a legal defense, it is something that should be taken into consideration when deciding whether it is just to punish them. If someone does not know the law, it is reasonable for them to think their action is legal, and no significant harm is done, then justice is NOT served by prosecuting them. They intended no harm. They are not a threat to society. Society will be harmed more by using the resources to prosecute them than it will be aided by the prosecution. It is completely foolish to prosecute someone when simply telling them not to do it will be just as effective, and such needless prosecution is befitting of a police state not a free society.
People who enforce the law are supposed to do so judiciously. They are not supposed to blindly apply the letter of the law but rather they are supposed to use their human judgement to decide what is the just application of the law. And people in law enforcement and the justice system do this all the time. Cops let people off with a written warning (or sometimes just a verbal warning). DAs elect not to prosecute a person (or to give them a generous plea deal) if prosecution under the stautory penalty would be unjust. This is a vital part of their job. Both the cop and the county attorneys failed in doing their job in this case.
ignorance of the law... (Score:3, Interesting)
It actually goes deeper than this.
The legal concept of Ignorantia juris non excusat is that you should be not be able to escape liability for a law that you should have reasonably known.
So for everyone, obvious crimes against people and property do not necessarily req
This is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Fore what it's worth... (Score:4, Informative)
More info in a video story here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=332971257
There is an open access point here at a local coffee shop entitled "[Name of shop] - NOT FREE", and the reason why the owner chooses to leave it open is because of problems the occasional customer has with various security mechanisms/passwords that customers simply don't have when he leaves it open. So, he's made his choice, and I doubt whether he'd really care if someone else used it, but at the same time, it is intended for customer use only.
Windows XP just connects... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Damned if ya do....You know the rest.
Re:Windows XP just connects... (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't the provider have any responsibility? (Score:5, Interesting)
If people don't want everyone on their WiFi, they should have to either secure it with a key or restrict it to the premises.
Don't talk to cops! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't talk to cops! (Score:4, Informative)
In the US, if you're driving a motor vehicle, you can be compelled to show your driver's license. In any other situation, however, you do not even have to carry ID, let alone show it. You can be compelled to identify yourself (for example, giving your name, DOB, and address) if you are being arrested or ticketed, but other than that you don't even have to give the cops any information.
This is silly (Score:5, Insightful)
If a coffee shop wants to limit its "free wifi" to paying customers only, there is plenty of technology out there to do that. Having worked for a company that sold wireless equipment to coffee shops, I can't believe that they would have been ignorant of this fact, as my company and several others probably would have been constantly bombarding them with sales people trying to sell them products that do exactly that.
If a coffee shop has big signs that say "Free WiFi!" and I am able to pick up a clear signal outside of the coffee shop and connect to it, I can't reasonably be expected to know that "free" to them means "to paying customers only" unless it was explicitly stated on those same signs. Even so, what if this guy picked up the signal from somewhere out of sight of the coffee shop? How could he reasonably be expected to know it was not intended as a public access point, unless the SID was something like "buycoffeeorGTFO"?
Keep your mouth shut. (Score:5, Insightful)
Question: "What are you doing" (cop probably thought he was looking at porn and masturbating in public) Answer: "I'm working on my computer. How's your day going?" Question: "Great. Have a nice day."
Re:Keep your mouth shut. (Score:5, Funny)
Even better, just fondle your WWGD bracelet, ask yourself "what would Gonzales do?", and reply, in your best Steve Martin voice: "I forgot."
Re:Keep your mouth shut. (Score:4, Interesting)
Though this cop was nicer than most, he was still lying. Even if he asks, you don't have to tell him what's in the bag at all, unless he has reason to believe that you're committing a crime that involves that bag. We have a basic constitutional protection against unreasonable search, and that includes having to give a verbal inventory of everything we're carrying.
And if he has reason to believe that you're carrying contraband in the bag (which he didn't in this case), you still don't have to tell him, because the 5th amendment says we can't be compelled to incriminate ourselves.
But to be fair, the cop may not have been lying - he may have genuinely believed that you were required to submit to an arbitrary search/interrogation simply because he asked - which is even scarier in my opinion!
Fair or not, your responsibility... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd argue against it but, frankly, without it, Paris Hilton's, "Like, uh, I'm rich! My nail buffer said I could like totally keep driving with a suspended license. I, like, had no idea that was bad." would have been a valid defense.
Something doesn't add up here. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not clear from the article... (Score:3, Insightful)
If it was for private use, shouldn't it be the owner pressing charges? I mean, that's the person nominally injured. And it's not like this was, say, a murder.
Still, lesson learned.
Bravo! (Score:5, Insightful)
A job well done to chief Milanowski. Way to dig for a tool to hit the guy with. Instead of tracking down drug dealers, thieves or physically abusive spouses - or even setting speed traps - he's protecting the town against wi-fi users. I feel so much safer...
I wonder if it came into consideration the idea that a) using a freely offered wi-fi connection doesn't seem to cover the intent of the law as described; and b) the cafe offered the wi-fi connection _freely_. Whether it was offered specifically to customers or anyone in a radius - which isn't made clear - the cafe was offering and didn't even complain about the guy using it. They certainly could either post a sign saying, "Must be a customer to use this service," like restrooms, or enable a key that would be given out only to customers.
Again, Bravo! to chief Wiggum - oops, Milanowski - for going well out of his way to bust someone. You, sir, are a shining example of what law enforcement should be like - in a police state...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fifth amendment? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. The fifth amendment doesn't guarantee you protection against self-incrimination. Rather, it allows you to legally deny requests from the authorities whose results may incriminate you (e.g., avoidance of obstruction of justice charges). You can have a right not to answer their questions, deliver evidence, etc., etc., etc, on the condition that it would demonstrate you guilty of *some* crime.
If we assume voluntary confessions inadmissible in court as a result of the fifth amendment
Cafe owner is an idiot (Score:3, Informative)
But he didn't. It would have cost him nothing, but he let a fellow citizen get convicted for nothing.
Boy, that really doesn't sound like good advertising to me....
Contact Info (Score:5, Informative)
Chief Andrew Milanowski
260 W. Division
Sparta, MI 49345
General Phone: 616-887-8716
Fax: 616-887-7681
Email: policechief@spartami.org
T Lynn Hopkins
Firm: Kent County Prosecuting Attorney
Address: 333 Monroe Ave NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2211
Phone: (616) 774-3577
Fax: (616) 336-3095
Laws and Mores (Score:5, Insightful)
We can not legislate all aspects of human behavior. It simply won't work.
Healthy societies have both laws and mores to shape human behavior. Laws derive from a logical/thinking framework, and mores are primarily from an emotional/feeling framework. All people have the ability to use both thinking and feeling in making decisions about what is right or wrong. But in American society, and more generally in a capitalist mentality, laws and money interests have so completely dominated that people have forgotten about the mores.
Mores are like laws, but enforced by society feedback, typically emotional feedback. People frown at Bob if he acts like an ass, and he understands that he should stop acting like that, because Bob doesn't like it when people frown at him. That is because Bob is healthy and likes to have healthy happy people around him. Note, nowhere in here are we able to legislate that Bob "acting like an ass" is illegal in a logical way.
We can that the Bush administration as the PRIMARY promoter of this mentality: "If it is not illegal, than I can get away with it." As such shining examples leading the USA today, more and more people (like Enron) are saying, "Hell, why not me too?"
This problem will not stop unless and until people start giving strong emotional feedback (disapproval, and eventually ostracizing people) for bad behavior.
Sparta... (Score:3, Informative)
Felony == criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an example of why mandatory minimum sentences are bad. It's done to "get tough" on criminals, but all it does is force judges to "get stupid" and not be able to apply any judgement to cases like this one.
Re:Felony == criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Felony == criminal (Score:5, Informative)
From the original article:
Re:Felony == criminal (Score:5, Interesting)
Milanowski, who eventually swore out a warrant for Peterson, doesn't believe Milanowski knew he was breaking the law. "In my opinion, probably not. Most people probably don't."
Where I grew up, the police would've just come over and said, "Hey, you shouldn't be doing that. Don't let me see you down here again." Instead, this jerk writes up a warrant. I guess that "To protect, and to serve." idea is really an anachronism these days.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, especially since the cop wasn't actually aware this was a crime, you'd think he just could have gave the guy a warning and let it drop. I don't think he even checked with the store owner to see if she cared. It does seem like quite the asshole mo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can encrypt it, or in this case ask for a password.
Broadcasting my radio into your house doesn't mean it's a crime for you to listen to it. The fact that you need a reciever changes nothing.
Don't like it? don't broadcast.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cue the Slashdot chorus... (Score:4, Insightful)
Your insurance company sure thinks it is. Ask them if they will pay out under these circumstances?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is similar to a shop-owner buying a fancy new LED sign that has the options of "Open", "Closed", and "Everything in the store is free to take, no questions asked". The shop-owner plugs in the sign, but doesn't bother checking to see what it's set at.
I don't know if that makes an argument
What If... (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's say you are meeting a friend at a coffee shop. You walk into a coffee shop, open up your laptop, plug it into the wall and check your email. You see a late email from your friend that he isn't going to be able to make it. So you pack your things up and walk out the door. You did not buy anything because your friend did not show and thus you had no purpose in staying.
Did you commit a felony? You have used the shop's electricity, indoor space, and internet access without permission. (The store owner does not permit non-customers to use the facilities). Did your actions deserve that you be automatically excluded from most (well paying) jobs? There is a dangerously fine line between this situtation and the one described in the article. (e.g. let's say you meet your friend weekly for years and he doesn't show half the time).
What exactly defines a "customer"? It is one who buys goods,services -- but WHEN??? If I buy coffee daily in January, February, and March, does this make me a "customer" at any point in April?
What if you live behind the shop? You walk in buy a coffee, and return home where you make use of the free WiFi provided by the shop. How long does that cup of coffee entitle you to use the WiFi from the shop? [A cup of coffee per day could be cheaper than paying for high-speed internet at home]
Looks like Sparta,MI only has population of 4,159. Looks like the police chief coerced the shop owner into believing what happened was wrong. I think the chief had a personal dislike for the "offender" or wanted to drum up some funds for a raise^H^H^H^H^H^H^ the police department.
Read the Fine Print (Score:3, Interesting)
It depends. If the advertisement in the shop was simply "Free WiFi", any decent lawyer could argue that he was granted permission to use it. If the ad instead read "Free WiFi* (some restrictions may apply)", I'd say it's likely he did not have permission, as the restrictions were likely that the person needed to be a customer or in the establishment.
In the parent's example, if the coffee shop was advertising "Free Electricity", I'd say wa
Re: (Score:3)