Internet WIFI Freeloader Charged by Police

[Berlin]

Hmm... I don't know how the Michigan court will deal with this case as there may be some grey area auggested by some already, but I still view this freeloading as stealing, no more and no less.

The wifi service is paid for by the business owner intended for on premise patron use only, simple as that.

Then again how this case will be viewed by their court , who knows really.

 

[danmand]

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

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

It was a donut shop, get it?

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

It was a donut shop, get it?

Yep, no need to call the cops.

 

[Aardvark154]

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'm pretty sure the law is still the same. However this isn't the same as you own the ring the instant you pick it up.

I agree that the business should have done more but that's different from their having to have done more.

 

[Aardvark154]

Hmm... I don't know how the Michigan court will deal with this case as there may be some grey area auggested by some already, but I still view this freeloading as stealing, no more and no less.

The wifi service is paid for by the business owner intended for on premise patron use only, simple as that.

Then again how this case will be viewed by their court , who knows really.

It depends on how the Michigan Statute reads, but generaly these type cases result in convictions - it is in sentencing that there is wide variation.

 

[Fred Zed]

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...

That is quite correct. It's the coffee shop's responsibility to password protect their site. Otherwise the Wi-Fi signal is a free commodity.

 

[Aardvark154]

That is quite correct. It's the coffee shop's responsibility to password protect their site. Otherwise the Wi-Fi signal is a free commodity.

Respectfully Fred, although as I already posted I agree that the business should have done more, that's a different thing from their being required to have password protected their Wifi. Had this incident happened at some Toronto bistro I see nothing in the Criminal Code which would require them to password their signal to assure prosecution - there may however, be legal precedent on this issue of which I'm unaware.


"326. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently, maliciously, or without colour of right,
(a) abstracts, consumes or uses electricity or gas or causes it to be wasted or diverted; or
(b) uses any telecommunication facility or obtains any telecommunication service.

(2) In this section and section 327, "telecommunication" means 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.

 

[Hard Idle]

The wifi service is paid for by the business owner intended for on premise patron use only, simple as that.
.

If it's for "on premise" use only, then what was it doing in somebodys car?

This would be like a guy who runs a video store throwing a bag full of tapes & dvds through somebody's window and then asking them to pay the rental fee because they had physical posession of the videos.

 

[Hard Idle]

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....

If that's true, why has the provice not layed thousands of charges against the TTC for their anual auction of lost items? What gives the right to dispose of items which belong to someone else?

 

[Hard Idle]

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.

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.

Well you see, corporations don;t think they shoud even have to go through the minuscule expense of reprograming their cash registers.

The overarching principle behind these laws is that publically paid LE and courtsystems do their work for them, while they have a free hand to trespass into people's homes and vehicles, and beam their signals through your person, your computer, engine control module, pacemaker ect.

 

[Berlin]

This would be like a guy who runs a video store throwing a bag full of tapes & dvds through somebody's window and then asking them to pay the rental fee because they had physical posession of the videos.

...

Look , you don't have to agree with anything or anyone here, but at least throw in a better example just for the sake of discussion.

 

[l69norm]

....unless the coffee shop has a clear policy stating WIFI can only be used by customers inside the shop, ...

Yes, the CNN video showed a sign "Wifi for customer use only".

 

[l69norm]

..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....

The way the Canadian law is written, it's the opposite and the onus is on the user to prove that he has the right to use the service. If there is any question in the user's mind, then he should have first asked the owner.

 

[l69norm]

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.....

I also think there's more to it that what the CNN clip shows.

It appears that the guy has been doing this at the coffee shop on a daily basis for a long time (over many months) and that the owner has spoken to him several times.

The interview also has the owner, the guy and the Chief of Police all saying that they (originally) weren't sure that any law was being broken. It seems unusual then that the Police would immediately lay criminal charges (as opposed to a minor charge where a ticket is issued). Wouldn't a warning have made more sense if it really was a honest mistake as it is being reported by CNN? It would be kinda of tough for the prosecutor to explain to a judge how the guy had previous discussions about the legality situation with an officer whom himself didn't know, and then was charged.

If he's driving to the coffee shop daily, it's costing him at least $2 a day for car expenses. The $40 /mo would more than pay for his own high speed connection so why is he going the coffee shop? If it's truly a cost issue, how can he afford a laptop?

 

[tboy]

If that IS the case (where he's been doing this for months and has been warned) then he deserves to be charged. I was under the impression that this was a one time offence.

The cost factor is just another indicator of how stupid people can be. I mean, I know people who drive across the GTA to save $1.00 on a pound of coffee (with a limit of 4) but burn $8.00 in gas to get there. it would be far cheaper to just get his own connection.

However, with that being said, if he was accessing sites that could be traced back to him and he didn't want anyone to know, then that is reason enough. (like maybe he was looking at porn and he didn't want his wife to know?).

 

[Aardvark154]

If that's true, why has the provice not layed thousands of charges against the TTC for their anual auction of lost items? What gives the right to dispose of items which belong to someone else?

Because Ontario has a statute, as do I believe all States and Provinces (certainly all of which I'm personally aware) which addresses the quieting of title (bailment) on lost and mislaid personal property.

In the case of the ring, picking it up does not give you a right of ownership à la the children’s rhyme "finders keepers, loosers weepers" it actualy places you into a specific type of legal relationship with the owner.

My analogy was that because a Wifi signal is interceptable does not thereby give you the right to use the internet service. (least what I'm saying be mistaken, it certainly gives you the ability to use it, but not the right).

 

[l69norm]

If that IS the case (where he's been doing this for months and has been warned) then he deserves to be charged. I was under the impression that this was a one time offence. ..

A coffee shop with free wifi must attract a lot of salesmen and real estate people - uploading orders, checking e-mail, downloading listings, etc, washrooms, coffee and snacks etc. Probably 50%+ of these activities are done inside the car (mobile office), so the coffee shop must be used to having a lot of people sitting around in the parking lot.

There must have been something really different about this guy in particular to have the cops involved to the extent of laying criminal charges. Perhaps other customers were complaining? The guy, the Chief of Police and the prosecutor all seemed pretty normal in the TV interview. It must be a porn related thing

 

[l69norm]

$400 US Fine

He was fined $400US!!!

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3175

Steal some Wi-Fi, go to jail. In the sleepy town of Sparta, MI, Sam Peterson, perhaps the cheapest man in the world, sat in his car outside the Union Street coffee shop using its network - without the decency to buy a lousy cup of joe, reports News.com.

Peterson would log on around noon everyday, arousing the suspicions of local Police Chief Andrew Milanowski. Peterson, probably not knowing his actions were criminal, freely admitted what he was doing.

“I knew that the Union Street had Wi-Fi. I just went down and checked my e-mail and didn’t see a problem with that,” Peterson said.

In fact, Milanowski was unaware the practice known as “piggybacking” was illegal, so his did a bit of legal research. “I had a feeling a law was being broken,” said Milanowski. He found Michigan’s “Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks” law, a felony punishable by five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

“This is the first time that we’ve actually charged it,” Kent County Assistant Prosecutor Lynn Hopkins said, adding that “we’d been hoping to dodge this bullet for a while.”

Milannowski wrote Peterson out a ticket but he won’t do time. Peterson, however, will have to pay a $400 fine, do 40 hours of community service and enroll in the county’s diversion program. Perhaps it would be fitting punishment to make him spend that $400 on coffee at the Union Street and do his community washing dishes

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Yes, the CNN video showed a sign "Wifi for customer use only".

Oh. I didn't see it. For some reason I couldn't open the page.

 

[l69norm]

.... He found Michigan’s “Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks” law, a felony punishable by five years in prison and a $10,000 fine....Milannowski wrote Peterson out a ticket but he won’t do time. ....

I always thought a felony was a criminal charge, so how could you get just a ticket?