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

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: 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.

See, the owner didn't really authorize the connection, even though he configured his router to authorize it, because you see, he later said that he only meant it for people inside the cafe to use, and of course what we say is a lot more important than what we actually do. :roll:

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: Vic
she had no choice but to prefer charges lest everyone in the world follow his example.

Be careful, you?re berating people for using logical fallacies (Red Herring) when your tip toeing into a ?slippery slope argument? as not everyone in the world as access to the shops WiFi.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: 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.

From your own like you fool.

Kent County prosecutor's office decided not to charge Peterson with a felony. Instead, he'll be enrolled in the county's diversion program.

There was no trail, conviction, or appeal so nothing was proven. But hey pretend tight it might make you feel smart but it sure makes you look stupid.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Vic
she had no choice but to prefer charges lest everyone in the world follow his example.

Be careful, you?re berating people for using logical fallacies (Red Herring) when your tip toeing into a ?slippery slope argument? as not everyone in the world as access to the shops WiFi.

The difference here is that Red Herring is always a fallacy whereas slippery slope is only a fallacy when used improperly.

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: Vic
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.

Maybe I am/will doesn't mean that its not up for discusson on a public forum.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: spidey07
Prime example of entitlement mentality.

What you call entitlement mentality I call wanting the laws to work for the people, not against them.

The laws are working for the people in this case, by protecting their property.

Here's something for you to consider... suppose the laws "working for the people" said that anyone could enter your house whenever they felt like it and stay as long as they want. Would you buy a house then? Of course not. And neither would anyone else. And that wouldn't be laws "working for the people" then, now would it?
Hey, where did you park your car? I want to drive it and think that the laws should work for me in such fashion that you can't stop me from doing so as much as I like.

:roll:

Now maybe you'll reconsider your bizarre Orwellian brainwashing.

What about those that wish to freely share their connection?

As the law is written anyone would still have to track you down and get permission.

The law is preventing one from sharing with out strings being attached.

Many states have made it illegal to broadcast free Internet.

Soon it will be nationwide.

Blame Terrer Terrer Terrer

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 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.

From your own like you fool.

Kent County prosecutor's office decided not to charge Peterson with a felony. Instead, he'll be enrolled in the county's diversion program.

There was no trail, conviction, or appeal so nothing was proven. But hey pretend tight it might make you feel smart but it sure makes you look stupid.

So? He took a plea bargain. Probably because he felt confident that he would be found not guilty in court, right?

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: Vic
The difference here is that Red Herring is always a fallacy whereas slippery slope is only a fallacy when used improperly.

But if the shop owner didn't care and press charges the odds are slim that anyone other than those listed in the article would have known, thus no massive migration of people to the parking lot outside of the cafe for all the "free Wifi".

So to say that the only reason she had to press charges was becasue if she didn't the "world" would take advantage of her thus causing her business harm.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Many states have made it illegal to broadcast free Internet.

Soon it will be nationwide.

Blame Terrer Terrer Terrer

Actually, that blame falls squarely on people like TheKub, smack down, and senseamp. Have you not actually read the thread again, Dave? Their argument all along has been that every wifi should be free for use unless it's locked down, much like (my argument which they've repeatedly dodged) every door should be free for them to open and walk through unless it's locked.

 

[smack Down]

So? He took a plea bargain. Probably because he felt confident that he would be found not guilty in court, right?

Yeah it most have been that, it couldn't have been that a lawyer is going to cost more then the plea bargain.

Which is of course not the point, the point is the prosecution didn't prove anything.

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: Vic
So? He took a plea bargain. Probably because he felt confident that he would be found not guilty in court, right?

Or that the cost to defend would be greater than the punishment. I fought a traffic ticket (wrong way on a one way) becasue there wasnt a sign stating it. The judge decided against me but I could choose to hire a lawyer and press the matter Im sure I would have won but the lawyer and the extra time would have cost more than the $75.

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: Vic
every door should be free for them to open and walk through unless it's locked.

Again!???

Every door is not in my living room!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Vic
The difference here is that Red Herring is always a fallacy whereas slippery slope is only a fallacy when used improperly.

But if the shop owner didn't care and press charges the odds are slim that anyone other than those listed in the article would have known, thus no massive migration of people to the parking lot outside of the cafe for all the "free Wifi".

So to say that the only reason she had to press charges was becasue if she didn't the "world" would take advantage of her thus causing her business harm.

Please don't nitpick something that was obviously not literal.

The funny thing here is that I believe that people should be allowed to share their wifi's as much as they want. I don't take spidey07's extreme side. The problem though is, that by eroding private property rights and claiming you should be able to access any wifi you want unless the owner secures it, you are working against exactly what you claim you want. I argued this earlier when I used the analogy of who would buy a house if their property rights weren't protected? No one. So be respectful of other peoples' property, so that they will be more inclined to share.
This ain't rocket science.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Many states have made it illegal to broadcast free Internet.

Soon it will be nationwide.

Blame Terrer Terrer Terrer

Actually, that blame falls squarely on people like TheKub, smack down, and senseamp. Have you not actually read the thread again, Dave? Their argument all along has been that every wifi should be free for use unless it's locked down, much like (my argument which they've repeatedly dodged) every door should be free for them to open and walk through unless it's locked.

We have ignore your physical world comparison because it isn't a network.

Explain why connecting to an open wifi over public airwaves is illegal when connecting to Google over the public internet is legal.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Many states have made it illegal to broadcast free Internet.

Soon it will be nationwide.

Blame Terrer Terrer Terrer

Actually, that blame falls squarely on people like TheKub, smack down, and senseamp. Have you not actually read the thread again, Dave? Their argument all along has been that every wifi should be free for use unless it's locked down, much like (my argument which they've repeatedly dodged) every door should be free for them to open and walk through unless it's locked.

Your argument has been answered long time ago that radio waves that you are broadcasting are not private property. Not only that, but the owner configured the router to grant access to anyone in range. It's not just leaving the door unlocked, it's also putting an "Open House" sign on it. The access was authorized by the owner's router in a manner that the owner configured it.
You of course continue to dodge my question.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Vic
every door should be free for them to open and walk through unless it's locked.

Again!???

Every door is not in my living room!

It's not magic. The radio waves are real physical things even though you can't see them. The "door" is not in your living room, it's in the access point in your neighbor's living room. Remember when I used the analogy about your cordless phone handset working on your neighbor's base so that you could access his phone line? Is that the "door" in your living room, too?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Vic
The difference here is that Red Herring is always a fallacy whereas slippery slope is only a fallacy when used improperly.

But if the shop owner didn't care and press charges the odds are slim that anyone other than those listed in the article would have known, thus no massive migration of people to the parking lot outside of the cafe for all the "free Wifi".

So to say that the only reason she had to press charges was becasue if she didn't the "world" would take advantage of her thus causing her business harm.

Please don't nitpick something that was obviously not literal.

The funny thing here is that I believe that people should be allowed to share their wifi's as much as they want.

... and later be able to claim that they didn't really mean to share it and put people in jail for using it. It's very generous of you.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Which is of course not the point, the point is the prosecution didn't prove anything.

They had a confession.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down
Which is of course not the point, the point is the prosecution didn't prove anything.

They had a confession.

They had a confession that he used the network not that he committed fraud to use the network as required by the statue you posted.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down
We have ignore your physical world comparison because it isn't a network.

Explain why connecting to an open wifi over public airwaves is illegal when connecting to Google over the public internet is legal.

I already addressed this. A wireless access point is not the internet, even if it provides access TO the internet. It is not analogous to Google or any other public internet website (which itself is analogous to a storefront).

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down
We have ignore your physical world comparison because it isn't a network.

Explain why connecting to an open wifi over public airwaves is illegal when connecting to Google over the public internet is legal.

I already addressed this. A wireless access point is not the internet, even if it provides access TO the internet. It is not analogous to Google or any other public internet website (which itself is analogous to a storefront).

It is still a public network, it is public because the public can access it.

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: Vic
Please don't nitpick something that was obviously not literal.

The funny thing here is that I believe that people should be allowed to share their wifi's as much as they want.

I do too but as it stands I have to get your permission to use your wifi. Maybe you don't want to be bothered by people constantly asking you if its ok but you cant just in your mind say "I dont care who uses it" becasue I dont know you think that and therefore sharing it willingly. So your previous argument of "if you dont know you cant access it" its impossible for anyone to share a connection free of any strings. Thats what I have a problem with. If Im in an appartment complex that has 50 units within a Wifi range and the name is linksys how the hell am I to find and ask the owner if its ok? Call it entitlement if you want but the internet is go anywhere unless if you cant and if a wireless signal is penetrating my property and I see that there has been no attempt to secure it (even with stupid measures like hidden ssid and mac filter) I believe you are sharing it as a kind gesture.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Vic
The difference here is that Red Herring is always a fallacy whereas slippery slope is only a fallacy when used improperly.

But if the shop owner didn't care and press charges the odds are slim that anyone other than those listed in the article would have known, thus no massive migration of people to the parking lot outside of the cafe for all the "free Wifi".

So to say that the only reason she had to press charges was becasue if she didn't the "world" would take advantage of her thus causing her business harm.

Please don't nitpick something that was obviously not literal.

The funny thing here is that I believe that people should be allowed to share their wifi's as much as they want.

... and later be able to claim that they didn't really mean to share it and put people in jail for using it. It's very generous of you.

Oh that's right... you're the idiot who doesn't understand public and private and so he thinks that "an authoritarian society where things are forbidden unless they are allowed" even when those forbidden things are someone else's private property.
So where is your car parked? When can I make long distance calls on your phone line?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down
We have ignore your physical world comparison because it isn't a network.

Explain why connecting to an open wifi over public airwaves is illegal when connecting to Google over the public internet is legal.

I already addressed this. A wireless access point is not the internet, even if it provides access TO the internet. It is not analogous to Google or any other public internet website (which itself is analogous to a storefront).

How do you know google is a public website? Maybe they only meant it for their friends to use?
Was it the lack of password protection that tipped you off?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down
We have ignore your physical world comparison because it isn't a network.

Explain why connecting to an open wifi over public airwaves is illegal when connecting to Google over the public internet is legal.

I already addressed this. A wireless access point is not the internet, even if it provides access TO the internet. It is not analogous to Google or any other public internet website (which itself is analogous to a storefront).

It is still a public network, it is public because the public can access it.

As is your car if you leave the keys in the ignition.