Laptop user arrested for WiFi use

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by J Christopher This is a valid argument if and only if the resource is limited such that by joining the network, the "leecher" was using non-surplus bandwidth.

Try doing a speed test with only one computer on your internet connection, then do it again with two computers simultaneously. I think you'll find that the speed won't be as high the second time around.

Quote: Originally Posted by J Christopher That also supports my assertion that it is the network's owner who is legally responsible to secure the network.

That's true as far as the ISP is concerned, but not the wifi owner. The ISP goes after the wifi owner who in turn goes after then interloper.

I don't want to say that the wifi owner shouldn't take action to protect themselves. They should, but the fact that they haven't done so does not give permission to abuse their naivety.

[NovaScotian]

I think cwtnospam got it in one simple phrase -- "... the fact that they haven't done so does not give permission to abuse their naivety." My view exactly.

[biovizier]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotia So you're implying that I couldn't complain if my neighbor filled his hot tub from my hose connection because I should have turned it off at the winter cock inside the house if I didn't want him to or that my neighbor should pop off the breaker on his yard outlets when he isn't using them himself? That the issue is whether you are actively preventing such use?

Those examples imply that it would be ok to do something just because you can, and weren't explicitly told you can't. I don't agree with that at all.

However, with the wifi, the laptop is asking permission to connect, and the router is granting it. In the absence of any hacking, permission to connect is explicitly being granted by the router (all this I am assuming because I don't really understand wireless networking).

The router, behaving according to how it was configured, is playing an active role in not just allowing, but establishing the connection, maintaining it, and serving as a go between for the laptop and whatever server it wants to connect to. Computer hardware "talks" to each other, but a dumb electrical socket or water faucet can't grant permission, so unless you had a sign saying "Permission is granted to anyone who wants to take water" hanging from the tap, I would say it is off limits - it would not be necessary to have a sign saying "don't take my water".

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam Try doing a speed test with only one computer on your internet connection, then do it again with two computers simultaneously. I think you'll find that the speed won't be as high the second time around.

I agree. But if the network owner wasn't accessing the internet at the time, then it is very possible there were no quantitative damages.

Quote: I don't want to say that the wifi owner shouldn't take action to protect themselves. They should, but the fact that they haven't done so does not give permission to abuse their naivety.

I'm not saying the leecher acted ethically. I'm saying that it does not appear that the leecher acted illegally. I believe there is a big difference between the two.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by J Christopher I'm not saying the leecher acted ethically. I'm saying that it does not appear that the leecher acted illegally. I believe there is a big difference between the two.

There often is, but it isn't legal to trespass, even if there is no sign. Signs only make it harder to say you didn't know. No one is going to be arrested, let alone convicted of trespassing for knocking on some one's door, but cross the lawn to plug your extension cord or hose in, and that can certainly be added to the charges.

I think the law varies enough that where you're from it may not be that he acted illegally, but in many places, and most importantly, where he was caught, he was acting illegally. Just as it is in the wifi owner's best interest to know how to secure their network, it's a good idea to know the law before logging into an unsecured hotspot.

[NovaScotian]

Parking in a handicap spot does no one any harm most of the time because others are often unoccupied. If, by chance, having lived in a cave, you didn't know what the white wheelchair/stick figure on a blue field meant, you'd still get a ticket. Ignorance of the law is no defense.

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam There often is, but it isn't legal to trespass, even if there is no sign.

Actually it is legal, at least every place in the US I have lived. Trespassing is not a crime. Criminal trespassing is a crime. For it to be criminal trespassing, the trespasser MUST be aware, via signs, fences, verbal or written warnings, that his presence is not welcome.

Quote: I think the law varies enough that where you're from it may not be that he acted illegally, but in many places, and most importantly, where he was caught, he was acting illegally. Just as it is in the wifi owner's best interest to know how to secure their network, it's a good idea to know the law before logging into an unsecured hotspot.

Are you sure? I'm not familiar with the laws that apply in London, but I've not seen anyone point out the exact law that was broken (Did I just miss it?). It could be there was a law violated. Or it could be that this is an example of overzealous policing that made the news specifically because he was arrested without having actually broken any laws.

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian Parking in a handicap spot does no one any harm most of the time because others are often unoccupied. If, by chance, having lived in a cave, you didn't know what the white wheelchair/stick figure on a blue field meant, you'd still get a ticket. Ignorance of the law is no defense.

Ignorance is no defense, but handicapped spaces are clearly labeled as such, both pictorially and in clearly worded signs. If they are not properly labeled, the tickets are (ideally) not issued, or are easily beaten by pointing out the fact. Due process still exists from time to time.

Related anecdotal support:

Quote: Originally Posted by Andy Hertzfeld One day in October 1983 I got a phone call at my desk at Apple from the Cupertino police department saying something like, "You reported that Mercedes parked in the handicapped space at your lot at Apple. Well, we sent a car out there but we can't really tow it away because the handicapped space is improperly designated." I had no idea what he was talking about. A few hours later, I found out that Apple's other cofounder, Steve Wozniak, who was a prolific prankster, called up the Cupertino police and reported that a silver Mercedes was illegally parked in a handicapped space and told them the person reporting it was Andy Hertzfeld, giving them my phone number at work. I decided not to inform Apple's facilities department about the improperly marked space, just in case Woz decided to try it again.

Source

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by J Christopher Actually it is legal, at least every place in the US I have lived.

Have you lived in Michigan?

Quote: Some local ordinances do not require any prior notice at all.

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam Have you lived in Michigan?

Nope. I've never lived in Michigan. It gets too damn cold in Michigan for my tastes!

Your quote, "Some local ordinances do not require any prior notice at all," has been taken out of context. That's a little disingenuous, don't you think? You neglected to add the preceding passage. To be honest, I expected better from you, sir. Allow me to clarify. I'll even leave your quote in for clarity.

Quoting your source (emphasis mine):

Quote: There are two types of trespass and related legal remedies - criminal trespass and civil trespass. Criminal trespass is what most lay people think of when they consider pursuing legal action against someone for trespass. There are potentially three laws available whereby a trespasser can be prosecuted. First, under state law, trespass is illegal pursuant to several statutes. MCLA 750.552 is the general state statute for trespass. This statute prevents anyone from trespassing upon the premises of another after having been forbidden to do so. Violation of the statute is a criminal misdemeanor offence, punishable by a fine of up to $50.00 and 30 days in jail or both. There are also several statutes which make it illegal to trespass and to damage property, cut trees, destroy or take crops, etc. Under such statutes, someone who is found guilty of entering the Land of another without permission and destroying property is potentially liable for actual damages, and in some cases, even double or triple damages. See MCLA 600.2919,750.546 and 750.547. Second, some local municipalities (ie. cities, villages or townships) have their own trespass ordinances. Finally, the Michigan Recreational Trespass Act (MCLA 324.73101 et seq.) ("RTA") covers trespass involving recreational uses. … Although under most laws it is not technically true that someone has to trespass a second time before they can be prosecuted, it is true that most laws require some type of prior notice. For example, MCLA 750.552 requires that the trespass occur after the trespasser has been "forbidden to do so by the owner or occupant" or that the trespasser neglects o r refuses to leave when requested by the owner or occupant . The RTA requires that a property be posted with no trespassing signs or at least be fenced prior to a violation occurring but it does not require any other notice to the trespasser. Some local ordinances do not require any prior notice at all. … The various trespass laws differ regarding whether or not a property must be posted before a trespasser can be pursued. The RTA requires signage at every visible point, or, alternately fencing Some local ordinances do not require any signage or fencing while others do. To be safe, it is best to post your property, utilize fencing or use both methods if you are concerned about trespassing. If you are dealing with a relatively small lot, a confined area or lake bottomlands where fencing or posting is not practical, either you or your attorney should send a warning letter to whomever has been a trespasser in the past warning that person not to trespass or you will take appropriate legal action. Obviously, you should keep a copy of the letter in your file and preferably send it by registered mail to the potential trespasser so you can later prove that he or she had prior notice if court action should be necessary. …

So while in a few cases there may be no prior notice necessary, it is clear those jurisdictions are the exceptions, and not the rule. I'm pretty sure I have stated as such already, in previous posts.

[Jay Carr]

Quote: Originally Posted by biovizier However, with the wifi, the laptop is asking permission to connect, and the router is granting it. In the absence of any hacking, permission to connect is explicitly being granted by the router (all this I am assuming because I don't really understand wireless networking).

This works until you realize that electronic devices are not allowed to make legally binding decisions. If the owner intended to make it so the router was going to allow you access then you are fine, if not, well, you're on shaky ground if this thread is any evidence.

The bottom line is that you can't say "well the router was okay with it" and pretend like it's a legal defense. That doesn't stand up to moral or legal reasoning.

The real question here is whether or not someone's naivety should be factored in when considering the legality or morality of a decision. If someone doesn't know any better and you take advantage of them, is that right? I tend to think it isn't, and I've noticed two other posts that agree with me.

[Jay Carr]

J. Christopher-- You seem to be pretty good at research, can you tell us if the FCC has anything to say about taking someone elses signals. They are in control of all signals in the air (in America anyway)...

[NovaScotian]

I think J Christopher's point about trespass is well taken in most places. Hunters in Nova Scotia can hunt in any woods that are not posted against it. You cannot own a natural body of water in Nova Scotia and you cannot prevent fishermen or wardens from crossing your fields to get to lakes and streams provided they do no damage.

Folks routinely enter your property to knock at your front door. My postman has been cutting across my lawn for years, but I don't want to piss him off and I know he has standing orders to take the shortest path between front doors.

Cell phone jammers are illegal here in Canada (and I suspect, in the US too) because you are not permitted to trespass on the public airwaves except for the purpose for which they are licensed. They're available in Japan (and I'd dearly love to have one for use in restaurants, and for when the idiot in front of me sits idling at the now green light while fiddling with their phone). But that's another story, perhaps another thread.

But then we aren't really talking about trespass here, are we? We're talking about using someone else's resource without their permission even if we do no "harm".

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by J Christopher Your quote, "Some local ordinances do not require any prior notice at all," has been taken out of context. That's a little disingenuous, don't you think? You neglected to add the preceding passage. To be honest, I expected better from you, sir.

Well, I figured that since you took me out of context...
What I had said was that if you "cross the lawn to plug your extension cord or hose in, and that can certainly be added to the charges." Basically, you've done harm, and you can be charged with trespassing even if there was no sign. The amount of harm isn't important either, so the whole argument about whether or not the wifi owner felt the harm is immaterial. Some of the bandwidth is taken for the interloper's purposes, so there is harm, however small, and hence trespassing.*


*I am not a lawyer in Michigan, or any other state. All claims subject to judicial review. All information provided for entertainment purposes only. Do not attempt this at home. Do not attempt this at some one else's home. Do not use Sunshield while driving. Do not operate heavy machinery...

[Alex Yeh]

My home internet connection is distributed to the home LAN by a wireless/wired router. I always make sure to encrypt the wireless part using WPA-PSK with a complex password, because otherwise, our neighbors *inevitably* tap in to our internet connection - usually within a few hours, but sometimes just within a few minutes.

Of course, if I had my druthers, I would be using Flashdist on a Soekris with IPSec encryption to ensure network integrity - but I don't really have the resources or the time for that at the moment…

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by Zalister This works until you realize that electronic devices are not allowed to make legally binding decisions. If the owner intended to make it so the router was going to allow you access then you are fine, if not, well, you're on shaky ground if this thread is any evidence. The bottom line is that you can't say "well the router was okay with it" and pretend like it's a legal defense. That doesn't stand up to moral or legal reasoning.

Tacit consent, given by virtue of the network being open, is often legally recognized.

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by Zalister J. Christopher-- You seem to be pretty good at research, can you tell us if the FCC has anything to say about taking someone elses signals. They are in control of all signals in the air (in America anyway)...

I'm not sure what their stand on the topic is. I've not looked into it.

[cwtnospam]

Given the fact that most home users aren't even aware that wireless routers need or even have security options, I doubt that a judge would recognize a network in basically the default configuration as being tacit consent. If every router made forced you to go through a security "setup wizard" by default, then there would be some basis for claiming consent if it were left open.

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam The amount of harm isn't important either, so the whole argument about whether or not the wifi owner felt the harm is immaterial. Some of the bandwidth is taken for the interloper's purposes, so there is harm, however small, and hence trespassing.

I'm not sure legally establishing that damages have been caused is that easy. It would be very difficult if the wi-fi owner didn't perceive any problem. Without established damages, it becomes essentially a victimless crime.

Also, most judges don't like their time wasted with frivolous lawsuits, and likely won't recognize damages that amount to only a few cents.

[cwtnospam]

If it were only about one wifi setup, I'd agree. The problem is that if something isn't done, this can easily become a big problem. What happens if it is legally ok to interlope on any wifi that isn't secure? How do you police a situation in which you can't stop a real criminal from interloping until and unless you catch him in some criminal activity? It would be exponentially harder to catch him.