Can the police arrest you because they had "a feeling"

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheKub
If someones front door existed in my livingroom or car was in my garage then yes Id use it!

So in your opinion, it's okay to steal anything that isn't bolted down?

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm sure the business had a sign that said "Free wifi to our customers" just like it probably also has a sign that says "Public restrooms for our customers."

Well now if your going to make assumptions on there being a sign or not Im going to assume this guy purchaced something from this store at somepoint since the Wifi became available. Is he still in the wrong?

Ive seen tons of places that just say "Wifi Here" it doesnt say for customers. Do I assume the owner of the network means customers or do I assume that he/she is cool and allows everyone?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smack Down
The law isn't clear what defines unauthorized access. That is what the problem is. If you didn't secure it in anyway and it is broadcasting its ID that gives anyone and everyone implied authorization.

Prime example of entitlement mentality.

Call it what ever you want that is how the internet works. How does a user on the internet know which pages they are allowed to view and which they are not allowed to view. They connect to the server and request the page. If the request is denied they are not allowed to view that page. If the request works they are "entitled" to view the page.

A wifi access point is not the internet.

Nothing is "the internet" of course a wifi access point connect to the internet is part of the internet and what I said applies to more then just pages, it applies to FTP servers, proxy servers, in fact ever single service on the internet.

Let me rephrase what otherwise should have been simple to understand. A wifi access point might provide a connection TO the internet, but it is not a part of the internet. You are not using the internet when you use a wifi's connection TO the internet. It is not the internet, any more than the computer you are typing on right now is the internet.

So is your point that wifi access points give out IP in the private IP range rather then an IP address that is addressable by the internet?

Anyways like my computer it is set up so anyone on the network can see my computer name and download files from the directory that I have shared. Are they breaking the law if they access it. I shared the folder so that my Linux box had access to the files but was to lazy to bother with passwords so it isn't my intent that other people have access.

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheKub
If someones front door existed in my livingroom or car was in my garage then yes Id use it!

So in your opinion, it's okay to steal anything that isn't bolted down?

If your playing catch and your ball falls on my property, I may keep it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm sure the business had a sign that said "Free wifi to our customers" just like it probably also has a sign that says "Public restrooms for our customers."

Well now if your going to make assumptions on there being a sign or not Im going to assume this guy purchaced something from this store at somepoint since the Wifi became available. Is he still in the wrong?

Did you even read your own OP?

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm sure the business had a sign that said "Free wifi to our customers" just like it probably also has a sign that says "Public restrooms for our customers."

Well now if your going to make assumptions on there being a sign or not Im going to assume this guy purchaced something from this store at somepoint since the Wifi became available. Is he still in the wrong?

Did you even read your own OP?

Yeah it said "it was reserved for customers". Didnt say there was a sign stating that fact.

Ive seen tons of places that just say "Wifi Here" it doesnt say for customers. Do I assume the owner of the network means customers or do I assume that he/she is cool and allows everyone?

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
The real sad thing is that nobody seems to realize that the ONLY reason those laws exist is because cell phone companies are lobbying for them. Free wifi is direct competition to cell phone-based Internet services. It's bullsh1t.

If I want to share my WIFI that I pay for, there should be no law against it. The Internet should be as free and as widely available as possible - certainly as much as people are willing to make it.

 

[SirStev0]

I want to know how he is technically getting in trouble. If they owner of the cafe really didn't have a problem with it... who is pressing charges?

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
I want to know how he is technically getting in trouble. If they owner of the cafe really didn't have a problem with it... who is pressing charges?

It's probably a matter of the state. So the state is pressing the charges. Though I can't be positive as I only have the info that is in the article.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down
So is your point that wifi access points give out IP in the private IP range rather then an IP address that is addressable by the internet?

Anyways like my computer it is set up so anyone on the network can see my computer name and download files from the directory that I have shared. Are they breaking the law if they access it. I shared the folder so that my Linux box had access to the files but was to lazy to bother with passwords so it isn't my intent that other people have access.

No, that's not my point, and neither does the law define it that way. Text of law.
Relevant passage:

752.794 Prohibited access to computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

Sec. 4.

A person shall not intentionally access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to devise or execute a scheme or artifice with the intent to defraud or to obtain money, property, or a service by a false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise.

In this case, the accused made unauthorized access to a private wifi in order to obtain a service, namely the internet, by fraudulent pretense, namely that he was a customer.


A wifi access point is (in essence and for all practical purposes) a private computer, and just like no one could access your own computer without your permission, the same thing applies. Just because you leave your door wide open doesn't mean that just anyone can walk in. Sure, they can if you let them, but they can't if you don't let them. Get it?
How many times are you going to make me post the same damn thing? If you come back again with another stupid "gee i think things should be this way even though that's not the way it is" reply, it's not going to mean you won any argument, it's just going to mean that you're dense to the point of mental retardation. What are you, shadow9d9's other account?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smack Down
What makes it PRIVATE?

Addressing and no transport agreement in place.

You know I would think a better test would be if the public has access to the network or not.

Private addressing isn't a valid test because the only way to know if the network is using private address is to connect to it in the first place. And with no transport agreement we are back to the question of if a services is accessible by the public does that give the public implied consent to access the services.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: brxndxn
The real sad thing is that nobody seems to realize that the ONLY reason those laws exist is because cell phone companies are lobbying for them. Free wifi is direct competition to cell phone-based Internet services. It's bullsh1t.

If I want to share my WIFI that I pay for, there should be no law against it. The Internet should be as free and as widely available as possible - certainly as much as people are willing to make it.

Ah FFS... there are no laws against sharing your own wifi if you want to. Share all you want. OTOH, a person's property is protected should they wish to share their wifi with some but not with others, i.e. if a store wants to share with its customers but not the guy parked across the street (this is analogous to the way you can let guests in your house while trespassing is against the law).

Put the tinfoil beanies away.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Private addressing isn't a valid test because the only way to know if the network is using private address is to connect to it in the first place. And with no transport agreement we are back to the question of if a services is accessible by the public does that give the public implied consent to access the services.

And as I keep saying and saying, you are connecting to a computer you do not own or operate without permission.

Stop trying to justify illegal activity. That's what these laws are there for.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
I want to know how he is technically getting in trouble. If they owner of the cafe really didn't have a problem with it... who is pressing charges?

The cafe is. Text

Neither did the coffee shop owner Donna May. "I didn't know it was really illegal, either," she told 24 Hour News 8. "If he would have come in (to the coffee shop) it would have been fine."

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: Vic
If you come back again with another stupid "gee i think things should be this way even though that's not the way it is" reply, it's not going to mean you won any argument, it's just going to mean that you're dense to the point of mental retardation. What are you, shadow9d9's other account?

Um?. I havn't been saying that its not against the law, Im saying that it shouldn't be against the law. I read it and understand.

You keep bringing up physical items one owns to prove your point. That is not a proper analogy as your car/house/girlfriend/HDTV/whatever isnt magically appearing in my livingroom. So I don't feel the same laws should apply.

Your statement about changing the SSID to "free for all to use" isnt exact either. As it is a burden for me to have such an SSID as it would for a private network to set up simple security. Again, locked door analogy does not work becasue I have to go TO your door to see if its locked. If I have a unsecured wireless signal in my house do I start walking around the area looking for signs that say Free for all? or Free for customers?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down
So is your point that wifi access points give out IP in the private IP range rather then an IP address that is addressable by the internet?

Anyways like my computer it is set up so anyone on the network can see my computer name and download files from the directory that I have shared. Are they breaking the law if they access it. I shared the folder so that my Linux box had access to the files but was to lazy to bother with passwords so it isn't my intent that other people have access.

No, that's not my point, and neither does the law define it that way. Text of law.
Relevant passage:

752.794 Prohibited access to computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

Sec. 4.

A person shall not intentionally access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to devise or execute a scheme or artifice with the intent to defraud or to obtain money, property, or a service by a false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise.

In this case, the accused made unauthorized access to a private wifi in order to obtain a service, namely the internet, by fraudulent pretense, namely that he was a customer.


A wifi access point is (in essence and for all practical purposes) a private computer, and just like no one could access your own computer without your permission, the same thing applies. Just because you leave your door wide open doesn't mean that just anyone can walk in. Sure, they can if you let them, but they can't if you don't let them. Get it?
How many times are you going to make me post the same damn thing? If you come back again with another stupid "gee i think things should be this way even though that's not the way it is" reply, it's not going to mean you won any argument, it's just going to mean that you're dense to the point of mental retardation. What are you, shadow9d9's other account?

Wow you posted the laws but of course missed the point which is what is unauthorized access. And that issue hasn't been decided in the case law, and in fact it is up to the jury to decided if a user has implied authorization.

 

[xtknight]

Yeah that's pretty lame. I'm willing to bet most people have no idea that unsecured wireless networks are still illegal to use. I agree with "send him away with a warning". Anything more is pretty much useless, as it's not like wireless networks are common sense for most. If it wasn't labeled in any way then how can they hold it against the guy? Besides, couldn't he just go in there and sit down at a table with a bunch of friends without buying anything and do the same thing?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Vic
If you come back again with another stupid "gee i think things should be this way even though that's not the way it is" reply, it's not going to mean you won any argument, it's just going to mean that you're dense to the point of mental retardation. What are you, shadow9d9's other account?

Um?. I havn't been saying that its not against the law, Im saying that it shouldn't be against the law. I read it and understand.

You keep bringing up physical items one owns to prove your point. That is not a proper analogy as your car/house/girlfriend/HDTV/whatever isnt magically appearing in my livingroom. So I don't feel the same laws should apply.

Your statement about changing the SSID to "free for all to use" isnt exact either. As it is a burden for me to have such an SSID as it would for a private network to set up simple security. Again, locked door analogy does not work becasue I have to go TO your door to see if its locked. If I have a unsecured wireless signal in my house do I start walking around the area looking for signs that say Free for all? or Free for customers?

There's a very simple legal test involved here. If you don't know whether or not you have permission, then you don't. The physical items apply because a computer is in fact OMG a physical item. If you and your neighbor owned the same model cordless phone, and you found that (somehow and purely hypothetically here) you were able to make phone calls using his base from your handset, that still wouldn't be legal without his express permission. How is this difficult to understand?

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Besides, couldn't he just go in there and sit down at a table with a bunch of friends without buying anything and do the same thing?

Exactly! The article said "If he would have come in (to the coffee shop) it would have been fine." Didn't say come in and BUY something.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Wow you posted the laws but of course missed the point which is what is unauthorized access. And that issue hasn't been decided in the case law, and in fact it is up to the jury to decided if a user has implied authorization.

Okay, you are deluded. Unauthorized access is whatever the owner determines is unauthorized access. That issue has been decided in case law for hundreds of years. If I leave my car parked on the side of the street right in front of your house with the doors unlocked, windows down, and keys in the ignition, you still can't legally take it without my express permission. If you do have my permission, however, then all is good.
Where is the confusion here. And yes, these analogies regarding physical items do apply because computers are physical items.

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: Vic

There's a very simple legal test involved here. If you don't know whether or not you have permission, then you don't. The physical items apply because a computer is in fact OMG a physical item. If you and your neighbor owned the same model cordless phone, and you found that (somehow and purely hypothetically here) you were able to make phone calls using his base from your handset, that still wouldn't be legal without his express permission. How is this difficult to understand?

That then brings back to the point that you have kept dodging. Its imposible for someone to share a connecting as is with out the hassle of someone "Checking". Even if I had no problem with people attaching to my network and using it they couldn't becasue they dont know they have my permission with out finding me and confirming it. I see that as an issue with the current law.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smack Down
Private addressing isn't a valid test because the only way to know if the network is using private address is to connect to it in the first place. And with no transport agreement we are back to the question of if a services is accessible by the public does that give the public implied consent to access the services.

And as I keep saying and saying, you are connecting to a computer you do not own or operate without permission.

Stop trying to justify illegal activity. That's what these laws are there for.

I don't think it should be or is currently illegal. I connect to computer everyday I don't own or operate and without permission.

Where do I get permission to ping google.com? Because I just did. Did I break the law, no because if google.com didn't want me to connect to their computer they wouldn't have made it avaible to the public.

The same should apply for a wifi network, if you don't want me connecting to a network then don't make it public.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Vic

There's a very simple legal test involved here. If you don't know whether or not you have permission, then you don't. The physical items apply because a computer is in fact OMG a physical item. If you and your neighbor owned the same model cordless phone, and you found that (somehow and purely hypothetically here) you were able to make phone calls using his base from your handset, that still wouldn't be legal without his express permission. How is this difficult to understand?

That then brings back to the point that you have kept dodging. Its imposible for someone to share a connecting as is with out the hassle of someone "Checking". Even if I had no problem with people attaching to my network and using it they couldn't becasue they dont know they have my permission with out finding me and confirming it. I see that as an issue with the current law.

I haven't "dodged" this point at all, you're just being obtuse. Because you don't understand physical analogies, I'll switch to an intangible. A copyright is only good so long as the rightful copyright holder chooses to enforce it. So suppose you hold a copyright, but decide to let the protected work going into the public domain by choosing not to enforce it. Same thing. You can do that.
Suppose you want to share your wifi with all your friends who come over with their laptops. No problem. Suppose you own a business and want to share your wifi with all your customers. No problem. Share all you want, it's yours to do so.
As the owner, you decide what is authorized and what is not. That is your legal privilege.

If the accused would have come into the coffee shop, the owner would not have preferred charges. However, he didn't so (when the police brought the issue to her attention) she did.

 

[senseamp]

You completely dodged the point of how the accused was supposed to know who the shop owner intended to share the internet with? Also, if the accused went into the coffee shop and used the internet, what is to stop the owner from accusing him of stealing the internet by claiming it's for employees only or it's a paid service? Or one day saying it's OK to use it in the parking lot and later changing his story and getting you arrested? Do we really need to give people that kind of power to ruin other people's lives with what they feel like today? The burden should be on the owner to set proper permissions for people he intends to share the connection with, and if he puts no restrictions and makes no effort to communicate the access limits to anyone, then he is knowingly providing unrestricted access to his network, by definition.

 

[mercanucaribe]

THIS IS MADNESS

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