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

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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.

So what you're saying is that it's okay for me to walk right into your house just because you left the door open, right? Is your fridge locked? Because I'm hungry. Did you leave the keys in the car? Because I'll be taking it.

I haven't dodged sh!t. Authorized access is whatever the owner says is authorized. THAT IS THE LAW. The burden is not on the owner, they have the legal privilege to determine usage (which is what ownership legally is BTW). Get over it. I've explained this issue in considerable detail, and no amount of covering your ears and yelling lalalalala like you and smackers usually do in P&N when the truth and law conflicts with your selfish greed is going to make your little entitlement fantasies come true. If want to share, then share. If you don't want to, then you don't have to. No matter how the thieves might wish otherwise.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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.

So what you're saying is that it's okay for me to walk right into your house just because you left the door open, right? Is your fridge locked? Because I'm hungry. Did you leave the keys in the car? Because I'll be taking it.

I haven't dodged sh!t. Authorized access is whatever the owner says is authorized. THAT IS THE LAW. The burden is not on the owner, they have the legal privilege to determine usage (which is what ownership legally is BTW). Get over it. I've explained this issue in considerable detail, and no amount of covering your ears and yelling lalalalala like you and smackers usually do in P&N when the truth and law conflicts with your selfish greed is going to make your little entitlement fantasies come true. If want to share, then share. If you don't want to, then you don't have to. No matter how the thieves might wish otherwise.

I agree that you can decide if you want to share or not, but you shouldn't be allowed to configure your router to share, and then get people arrested because you claim that you didn't really mean to share.
You dodged this question:

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?

I guess we have to decide if we want a free society, where things are allowed unless they are forbidden, or an authoritarian society where things are forbidden unless they are allowed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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.

So what you're saying is that it's okay for me to walk right into your house just because you left the door open, right? Is your fridge locked? Because I'm hungry. Did you leave the keys in the car? Because I'll be taking it.

I haven't dodged sh!t. Authorized access is whatever the owner says is authorized. THAT IS THE LAW. The burden is not on the owner, they have the legal privilege to determine usage (which is what ownership legally is BTW). Get over it. I've explained this issue in considerable detail, and no amount of covering your ears and yelling lalalalala like you and smackers usually do in P&N when the truth and law conflicts with your selfish greed is going to make your little entitlement fantasies come true. If want to share, then share. If you don't want to, then you don't have to. No matter how the thieves might wish otherwise.

You dodged this question:

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?

I guess we have to decide if we want a free society, where things are allowed unless they are forbidden, or an authoritarian society where things are forbidden unless they are allowed.

That's not a question, that's a red herring for morons who cannot grasp the simple concepts being discussed here.

I think what we need to decide is why our educational system has failed us so badly that our youth cannot understand simple issues like these. An "authoritarian society" is one that says it can take whatever and everything you've worked for whenever it wants to do and for no reason at all.
Can I come over to your house and take a sh!t on your kitchen table? Not just today but whenever I feel like it? What? I can't? Why not? Why should I be forbidden unless you allow it? Why are you suppressing my rights, you fascist!

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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.

So what you're saying is that it's okay for me to walk right into your house just because you left the door open, right? Is your fridge locked? Because I'm hungry. Did you leave the keys in the car? Because I'll be taking it.

I haven't dodged sh!t. Authorized access is whatever the owner says is authorized. THAT IS THE LAW. The burden is not on the owner, they have the legal privilege to determine usage (which is what ownership legally is BTW). Get over it. I've explained this issue in considerable detail, and no amount of covering your ears and yelling lalalalala like you and smackers usually do in P&N when the truth and law conflicts with your selfish greed is going to make your little entitlement fantasies come true. If want to share, then share. If you don't want to, then you don't have to. No matter how the thieves might wish otherwise.

You dodged this question:

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?

I guess we have to decide if we want a free society, where things are allowed unless they are forbidden, or an authoritarian society where things are forbidden unless they are allowed.

That's not a question, that's a red herring for morons who cannot grasp the simple concepts being discussed here.

I think what we need to decide is why our educational system has failed us so badly that our youth cannot understand simple issues like these. An "authoritarian society" is one that says it can take whatever and everything you've worked for whenever it wants to do and for no reason at all.
Can I come over to your house and take a sh!t on your kitchen table? Not just today but whenever I feel like it? What? I can't? Why not? Why should I be forbidden unless you allow it? Why are you suppressing my rights, you fascist!

You can keep dodging the question all day, because you simply don't have an answer.
The guy was in his car, not your house. His router sent a request for connection to cafe's router over the public airwaves, and the router granted that connection over the public airwaves. Cafe owner configured the router to grant connection to everyone within range. He shouldn't later be allowed to claim that he meant something other than what he configured his router to do, and get people arrested.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: pontifex
dude...
the guy wasn't arrested because the cop had a feeling...he was arrested because he was using the wifi illegally.

the cop was suspicious, asked the guy what he was doing, the guy told him - basically a confession, so the cop arrested him.

My thoughts exactly, there's nothing legally wrong with what the cop did

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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.

So what you're saying is that it's okay for me to walk right into your house just because you left the door open, right? Is your fridge locked? Because I'm hungry. Did you leave the keys in the car? Because I'll be taking it.

I haven't dodged sh!t. Authorized access is whatever the owner says is authorized. THAT IS THE LAW. The burden is not on the owner, they have the legal privilege to determine usage (which is what ownership legally is BTW). Get over it. I've explained this issue in considerable detail, and no amount of covering your ears and yelling lalalalala like you and smackers usually do in P&N when the truth and law conflicts with your selfish greed is going to make your little entitlement fantasies come true. If want to share, then share. If you don't want to, then you don't have to. No matter how the thieves might wish otherwise.

You dodged this question:

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?

I guess we have to decide if we want a free society, where things are allowed unless they are forbidden, or an authoritarian society where things are forbidden unless they are allowed.

That's not a question, that's a red herring for morons who cannot grasp the simple concepts being discussed here.

I think what we need to decide is why our educational system has failed us so badly that our youth cannot understand simple issues like these. An "authoritarian society" is one that says it can take whatever and everything you've worked for whenever it wants to do and for no reason at all.
Can I come over to your house and take a sh!t on your kitchen table? Not just today but whenever I feel like it? What? I can't? Why not? Why should I be forbidden unless you allow it? Why are you suppressing my rights, you fascist!

You can keep dodging the question all day, because you simply don't have an answer.
The guy was in his car, not your house. His router sent a request for connection to cafe's router over the public airwaves, and the router granted that connection over the public airwaves. Cafe owner configured the router to grant connection to everyone within range. He shouldn't later be allowed to claim that he meant something other than what he configured his router to do, and get people arrested.

I have never dodged it. You and your buddies just got your hands over your ears screaming lalalalala. The wifi was for customer use only.

"If he would have come in (to the coffee shop) it would have been fine."

Just because the door is open, does not mean you are welcome to come in. That's the law, and despite your idealistic upside-down Orwellian fantasies, these laws protect both your rights and your well-being, as I have cited through a billion examples. Or do you want someone to be able to steal your car because you left the keys in it?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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.

So what you're saying is that it's okay for me to walk right into your house just because you left the door open, right? Is your fridge locked? Because I'm hungry. Did you leave the keys in the car? Because I'll be taking it.

I haven't dodged sh!t. Authorized access is whatever the owner says is authorized. THAT IS THE LAW. The burden is not on the owner, they have the legal privilege to determine usage (which is what ownership legally is BTW). Get over it. I've explained this issue in considerable detail, and no amount of covering your ears and yelling lalalalala like you and smackers usually do in P&N when the truth and law conflicts with your selfish greed is going to make your little entitlement fantasies come true. If want to share, then share. If you don't want to, then you don't have to. No matter how the thieves might wish otherwise.

You dodged this question:

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?

I guess we have to decide if we want a free society, where things are allowed unless they are forbidden, or an authoritarian society where things are forbidden unless they are allowed.

That's not a question, that's a red herring for morons who cannot grasp the simple concepts being discussed here.

I think what we need to decide is why our educational system has failed us so badly that our youth cannot understand simple issues like these. An "authoritarian society" is one that says it can take whatever and everything you've worked for whenever it wants to do and for no reason at all.
Can I come over to your house and take a sh!t on your kitchen table? Not just today but whenever I feel like it? What? I can't? Why not? Why should I be forbidden unless you allow it? Why are you suppressing my rights, you fascist!

You can keep dodging the question all day, because you simply don't have an answer.
The guy was in his car, not your house. His router sent a request for connection to cafe's router over the public airwaves, and the router granted that connection over the public airwaves. Cafe owner configured the router to grant connection to everyone within range. He shouldn't later be allowed to claim that he meant something other than what he configured his router to do, and get people arrested.

I have never dodged it. You and your buddies just got your hands over your ears screaming lalalalala. The wifi was for customer use only.

"If he would have come in (to the coffee shop) it would have been fine."

That's what the owner said after the fact. So you are saying that whether something is against the law or not should be decided by one interested party's words after the fact? Owner configures his router to grant access to everyone in range, then says he meant only for people inside to have access and cries theft. Kind of like a woman who sleeps with everyone than changes her mind and cries rape. You are still dodging my question:

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?

 

[smack Down]

Just because the door is open, does not many you are welcome to come in. That's the law, and despite your idealistic upside-down Orwellian fantasies, these laws protect both your rights and your well-being, as I have cited through a billion examples. Or do you want someone to be able to steal your car because you left the keys in it?

Even the law you cited doesn't support your position. The law you cited only makes it illegal under false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise. So unless you have something to show that he lied to get access to the network he didn't break the law you cited.

 

[Vic]

Sorry all, I'm gonna have to stop feeding the trolls here. I can only answer the same question a dozen times over before I get sick of being told I'm dodging what I am directly answering.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Vic
Sorry all, I'm gonna have to stop feeding the trolls here. I can only dodge the same question a dozen times over before I get sick of being told I'm dodging what I am directly dodging.

Fixed that for you.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic
Sorry all, I'm gonna have to stop feeding the trolls here. I can only answer the same question a dozen times over before I get sick of being told I'm dodging what I am directly answering.

Of course your done, because your wrong and can't even come close to establishing fraud because the person didn't even know the requirements to access the network which makes proving fraud impossible.

 

[imported_Baloo]

This happened in michigan, it is illegal here to steal wifi. Just that act of doing so is fraudulant. However, the accused was unaware he was breaking any laws, so intent was not there. Keep in mind, some places offer it for free. A good lawyer could probably get the charges dismissed, though it would cost more than a guilty plea.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Baloo
This happened in michigan, it is illegal here to steal wifi. Just that act of doing so is fraudulant. However, the accused was unaware he was breaking any laws, so intent was not there. Keep in mind, some places offer it for free. A good lawyer could probably get the charges dismissed, though it would cost more than a guilty plea.

There is no specific law about stealing wifi, well at least that anyone has posted.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic
Sorry all, I'm gonna have to stop feeding the trolls here. I can only answer the same question a dozen times over before I get sick of being told I'm dodging what I am directly answering.

Of course your done, because your wrong and can't even come close to establishing fraud because the person didn't even know the requirements to access the network which makes proving fraud impossible.

You can't be serious. Did you miss this part?

"he will pay a $400 fine and do 40 hours of community service, and the arrest will not go on his record. "

Strange how the prosecutor didn't seem to have a problem establishing fraud in a court of law.... but obviously the burden of proof is so much higher on internet message boards.

Wow... you are fsckin' comical beyond all belief.

There is no specific law about stealing wifi, well at least that anyone has posted.

I posted it. It's the 2000 amendment to the 1979 law.

Keep those hands over your ears and keep screaming lalalalalala as loud as you can!

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Linflas
Another person screwed because he insisted on providing way too much information. The proper response would have been "Sitting here in my car". He should have watched that ACLU video on how protect your constitutional rights on one of his visits outside the cafe.

Exactly. People need to beat this into their heads: cops are not your friends.

Their job is to make arrests and feed the system that writes their paychecks, period.

Never divulge more than the absolute bare minimum of information to a police officer unless you are actively soliciting their services.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic
Sorry all, I'm gonna have to stop feeding the trolls here. I can only dodge the same question a dozen times over before I get sick of being told I'm dodging what I am directly dodging.

Fixed that for you.

So why are you still oppressing my rights by not letting me sh!t on your kitchen table?

Just because you're stupid (or giving you the benefit of the doubt, in denial) does not mean I'm dodging.

 

[TheKub]

*shrug*

You are still arguing that it is illegal which I am not contesting.

I'm making a case that it shouldn't be.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Linflas
Another person screwed because he insisted on providing way too much information. The proper response would have been "Sitting here in my car". He should have watched that ACLU video on how protect your constitutional rights on one of his visits outside the cafe.

Exactly. People need to beat this into their heads: cops are not your friends.

Their job is to make arrests and feed the system that writes their paychecks, period.

Never divulge more than the absolute bare minimum of information to a police officer unless you are actively soliciting their services.

Oh I totally agree with us.
Or he should have worked out something quietly with the cafe owner. Instead, once this became public, she had no choice but to prefer charges lest everyone in the world follow his example.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic
Sorry all, I'm gonna have to stop feeding the trolls here. I can only dodge the same question a dozen times over before I get sick of being told I'm dodging what I am directly dodging.

Fixed that for you.

So why are you still oppressing my rights by not letting me sh!t on your kitchen table?

Just because you're stupid (or giving you the benefit of the doubt, in denial) does not mean I'm dodging.

Yeah, I know you are here to make some aimless rant about "entitlement mentality," or some other tripe you heard on AM radio, but really if you keep dodging simple questions, there isn't much to talk about.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheKub
*shrug*

You are still arguing that it is illegal which I am not contesting.

I'm making a case that it shouldn't be.

Then write your congressperson.

But you should at least be aware that your case is weak when you're trying to put the burden on the owner. It's quite possible that some people want to share their homes with strangers too, but that doesn't mean that the people who don't want to share should have to lock their doors just to legally keep people out.

 

[AnMig]

is accessing free unsecured networks illegal now? or is state by state?

I thought it was the owners irresponsibility to secure there network?

Its not like the person hacked into his network it was being broad casted unencrypted.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic
Sorry all, I'm gonna have to stop feeding the trolls here. I can only dodge the same question a dozen times over before I get sick of being told I'm dodging what I am directly dodging.

Fixed that for you.

So why are you still oppressing my rights by not letting me sh!t on your kitchen table?

Just because you're stupid (or giving you the benefit of the doubt, in denial) does not mean I'm dodging.

Yeah, I know you are here to make some aimless rant about "entitlement mentality," or some other tripe you heard on AM radio, but really if you keep dodging simple questions, there isn't much to talk about.

I've answered that exact same question more times than I should have, absolutely irrelevant as it is.
I didn't bring up the entitlement mentality, that was spidey07's rant, and I absolutely never listen to the radio, AM, FM or satellite, so that's just you fallling back on ad hom as all else fails.

The REAL question is why do YOU keep dodging all of my questions?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: AnMig
is accessing free unsecured networks illegal now? or is state by state?

I thought it was the owners irresponsibility to secure there network?

Its not like the person hacked into his network it was being broad casted unencrypted.

It has never been legal to access someone's network without authorization.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: AnMig
is accessing free unsecured networks illegal now? or is state by state?

I thought it was the owners irresponsibility to secure there network?

Its not like the person hacked into his network it was being broad casted unencrypted.

Stop making sense. Please. The owner didn't really mean what he configured his router to do. It's all the "entitlement mentality" at fault. The only entitlement should be for business owners to use the law enforcement as rentacops to do things they are too lazy or careless to do themselves. :roll:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Baloo
This happened in michigan, it is illegal here to steal wifi. Just that act of doing so is fraudulant. However, the accused was unaware he was breaking any laws, so intent was not there. Keep in mind, some places offer it for free. A good lawyer could probably get the charges dismissed, though it would cost more than a guilty plea.

There is no specific law about stealing wifi, well at least that anyone has posted.

1-8-2007 Broadcasting Unprotected Wi-Fi is illegal in New York and California