Internet WIFI Freeloader Charged by Police

[boffo]

In Michigan a man was charged by police for using a coffee shop's Wifi Lan while sitting in his car outside the donut shop.
Hard to believe the police don't have more important things to do.

CNN videos, go to "Sci Tech"
"WiFi" freeloader Gets Nabbed"

http://www.cnn.com/video/

 

[papasmerf]

In Michigan a man was charged by police for using a coffee shop's Wifi Lan while sitting in his car outside the donut shop.
Hard to believe the police don't have more important things to do.

CNN videos, go to "Sci Tech"
"WiFi" freeloader Gets Nabbed"

http://www.cnn.com/video/

Theft of services is theft of services.

 

[boffo]

Papasmerf, thanks for that revolutionary insight. Never thought of that.

 

[papasmerf]

Papasmerf, thanks for that revolutionary insight. Never thought of that.

Sometimes we feel that a little crime is ok

Reality is crime is crime

 

[great bear]

Sometimes we feel that a little crime is ok

Reality is crime is crime

Ya sure, but its ok to shoot bears?

 

[papasmerf]

Ya sure, but its ok to shoot bears?

Everyday and twice on Sundays

 

[LancsLad]

Ya sure, but its ok to shoot bears?

Not all bears, just those that type.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Sometimes we feel that a little crime is ok

Reality is crime is crime

I understand your point of view but, unless the coffee shop has a clear policy stating WIFI can only be used by customers inside the shop, this may not even be theft.

As boffo stated, surely the police have bigger fish to fry.

 

[james t kirk]

stupid.

If they put the signals in the air, then it's free to the world as far as I am concerned.

If you don't like it, password protect it...

 

[danmand]

stupid.

If they put the signals in the air, then it's free to the world as far as I am concerned.

If you don't like it, password protect it...

Normally, you can only sue for damages, that you have suffered.
In this case, the damage seems to be the profit on a cup of coffee.

 

[Hard Idle]

Theft of services is theft of services.

Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. The connection invaded his car (and body) without asking permission or paying anything. He was perfectly entitled to it. It's like a rapist charging the victim for stealing semen.

The air and everything that travels through it belongs to everyone.

 

[l69norm]

It really is against the law (in Canada)

...The air and everything that travels through it belongs to everyone.

"Theft of Communications" is a federal offense under the Canadian Criminal Code (s.326). It's interesting to note that the burden of proof is reversed and the accused must prove he had permission to use the facility.

www.robic.ca/publications/Pdf/222-03LPG.pdf

CANADIAN CRIMINAL PROVISIONS DEALING WITH TELECOMMUNICATIONS
by Louis-Pierre Gravelle*

The Canadian Criminal Code (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46) establishes a number of specific offences dealing with telecommunications, notably theft of a telecommunication service (s. 326) and possession of device to obtain telecommunication facility or service (s.327). Other criminal provisions dealing with the unauthorized use of a computer and invasion of privacy are beyond the scope of the present article.

For the purposes of these two sections, «telecommunication» is defined as any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images or sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, visual, or other electromagnetic system, which encompasses in exhaustive manner any form of communication at a distance (s. 326(2)).

Theft of telecommunication service will occur when any person, in a fraudulent or malicious manner, or without colour of right, (1) uses, consumes or abstracts electricity or gas, or causes it to be wasted or diverted; or (2) uses any telecommunication facility or obtains any telecommunication service. Accordingly, the application of this section will be triggered by the mere fact of falling within one of the circumstances stated above. The state of mind of the accused is unimportant, but the act must be fraudulent, malicious or without colour of right. The section imposes a reversal of the burden of proof, so that it is up to the defendant to prove that he or she has colour of right to the use of the telecommunication service, or that the use is not fraudulent or malicious. It is important to note that the conditions with respect to the taking or conversion are not cumulative, but rather are in the alternative, so that the act does not have to be fraudulent, malicious and without colour of right; only one of these is necessary.

 

[Hard Idle]

"Theft of Communications" is a federal offense under the Canadian Criminal Code (s.326). It's interesting to note that the burden of proof is reversed and the accused must prove he had permission to use the facility.

www.robic.ca/publications/Pdf/222-03LPG.pdf

CANADIAN CRIMINAL PROVISIONS DEALING WITH TELECOMMUNICATIONS
by Louis-Pierre Gravelle*

The Canadian Criminal Code (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46) establishes a number of specific offences dealing with telecommunications, notably theft of a telecommunication service (s. 326) and possession of device to obtain telecommunication facility or service (s.327). Other criminal provisions dealing with the unauthorized use of a computer and invasion of privacy are beyond the scope of the present article.

For the purposes of these two sections, «telecommunication» is defined as any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images or sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, visual, or other electromagnetic system, which encompasses in exhaustive manner any form of communication at a distance (s. 326(2)).

Theft of telecommunication service will occur when any person, in a fraudulent or malicious manner, or without colour of right, (1) uses, consumes or abstracts electricity or gas, or causes it to be wasted or diverted; or (2) uses any telecommunication facility or obtains any telecommunication service. Accordingly, the application of this section will be triggered by the mere fact of falling within one of the circumstances stated above. The state of mind of the accused is unimportant, but the act must be fraudulent, malicious or without colour of right. The section imposes a reversal of the burden of proof, so that it is up to the defendant to prove that he or she has colour of right to the use of the telecommunication service, or that the use is not fraudulent or malicious. It is important to note that the conditions with respect to the taking or conversion are not cumulative, but rather are in the alternative, so that the act does not have to be fraudulent, malicious and without colour of right; only one of these is necessary.

Ahem! As I said , absolute bullshit.

I didn't say it wasn't legal - just that it was bullshit - or more specifically, feudalism.

The "law' can be anything. Throughout history there have been "laws" which made it illegal to own your own residence, or which made it "legal" to trade and own slaves - not every law is legitimate, and this an example of that.

 

[red]

Sometimes we feel that a little crime is ok

Reality is crime is crime

should they have seized his donut as proceeds of crime?

 

[l69norm]

..The "law' can be anything. Throughout history there have been "laws" which made it illegal to own your own residence, or which made it "legal" to trade and own slaves - not every law is legitimate, and this an example of that.

It's the law they used to charge the kiddie porn guys who get caught surfing on other people's connection, so it really is legit. Maybe this is what the guy in the states was doing?

The only issue I have with this law is that you are guilty till you prove yourself innocent.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/26/wifi_hacker_caught_downloading_child/

Wi-Fi hacker caught downloading child porn
In his car, pants down

By John Leyden

So you catch a man driving with his pants around his ankles who's paying more attention to the child porn video running on his laptop than the road ahead. What do you charge him with?

That's the dilemma Toronto traffic police found themselves in when they arrested a man driving the wrong way down a residential one-way street.

Walter Nowakowski, 33, of Delhi near Toronto, Canada, was watching child porn images downloaded using a hijacked wireless Internet connection when he was pulled over by the police in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

Following his arrest, Police searched Nowakowski's home when they recovered 10 computers along with thousands of CDs and floppy disks suspected to contain child porn images.

Nowakowski faces numerous charges, including possession of child pornography and theft of communications, the Winipeg Sun reports. What, no driving offences?

 

[tboy]

I agree, if you don't want me to access your signal, encrypt it. Then if I purchase an item or piece of equipment to hijack your signal then fine, charge me. But if you are giving away something for free, how can one steal it?

In this case if I were the defendant I would want to see the regulations starbucks has on their wifi service. If it is for customers only, how long do they have to use this service? What is the minimum purchase required before you can use it? Do you have to be within the confines of the store's property line in order to use the service?

The reason I ask all this is because if there isn't a statute of limitations on the wifi entitlement then this guy is off scott free. Because if they don't have a statute of limitations then he could say he is entitled because he purchased an item previously but didn't have his computer with him at the time so now he is making use of his priviledge.

The free access to wifi and charging someone who accesses it is no different than putting a 1 carat diamond ring on the sidewalk then charging anyone who picks it up with theft.

 

[Aardvark154]

Theft of services is theft of services.

I'd be willing to place money that it wasn't that the police had nothing better to do, but rather that the business had lodged a complaint with the police.

The business was paying for the Wifi service and (given normal circumstances - such as transmitter strength) they were entirely within their legal rights to limit its use to their customers and to ask for police action against non-customers.

It may not be a particularly popular opinion on TERB, but such prosecutions occur with some regularity and generally result in convictions. Those that don't like the fact that this sort of behaviour is illegal can of course request legislative repeal of the applicable laws, but yours is a minority opinion.

 

[Aardvark154]

The free access to wifi and charging someone who accesses it is no different than putting a 1 carat diamond ring on the sidewalk then charging anyone who picks it up with theft.

But as an aside the person picking up the ring doesn't have a legal right of possession even if they aren't guilty of theft. A similar analogy can be used regarding unauthorized use of computer services.

 

[tboy]

But as an aside the person picking up the ring doesn't have a legal right of possession even if they aren't guilty of theft. A similar analogy can be used regarding unauthorized use of computer services.

Actually they do as long as they a) try to locate the owner and b) do so for more than 90 days. At least that was what the rule was in the 70's when I found something valuable and turned it in to the police.

I really don't know what the problem is with people owning wifi networks. Why don't they just password protect it? I mean you could easily program your cash register that prints a daily password on a receipt when you buy something.

I agree with the poster who said: I'm sure the police had more important things to worry about but as with all things, Corporate America takes precedence over right and wrong. Now if a (more) serious crime occured while they were arresting the individual I'd say the defendant would have a great case of dereliction of duty. I could see the headlines now "Woman is raped 1 block away while Police arrest wifi thief"......that'd go over well lol.

Again, I say if you're going to operate a wifi network as a perk to ONLY your customers, it would be relatively easy to limit the strength of that signal to within the confines of your property or to install shielding so the signal doesn't penetrate the walls.

 

[trisket]

Why didn't the store manager just talk to the guy?

There was no reason to call the cops and waste their time.