Sam Peterson was arrested under a Michigan law barring access to anyone else's network without authorization; he is being prosecuted for using a cafe's free WiFi from his car. The cafe's WiFi network was reserved for customers – Peterson never came into the Union Street Café – and instead used its free WiFi from the comfort of his car, every single day. A police officer grew suspicious of Peterson and eventually questioned him as to what he was up to. "I knew that the Union Street had WiFi. I just went down and checked my e-mail and didn't see a problem with that," Peterson told a reporter.
Under Michigan's "Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks" law, Peterson's actions could result in a five-year felony and a $10,000 fine. However, prosecutors do not plan to throw the book at him, as they don't believe that Peterson was aware he was even breaking the law. Instead, he will pay a $400 fine and do 40 hours of community service, and the arrest will not go on his record. Coincidentally, the cafe owner that Peterson was leeching WiFi off of didn't even realize that what Peterson was doing was a crime at the time. Neither did the police officer. "I had a feeling a law was being broken, but I didn't know exactly what," said Sparta police chief Andrew Milanowski.
News source: Ars Technica
Under Michigan's "Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks" law, Peterson's actions could result in a five-year felony and a $10,000 fine. However, prosecutors do not plan to throw the book at him, as they don't believe that Peterson was aware he was even breaking the law. Instead, he will pay a $400 fine and do 40 hours of community service, and the arrest will not go on his record. Coincidentally, the cafe owner that Peterson was leeching WiFi off of didn't even realize that what Peterson was doing was a crime at the time. Neither did the police officer. "I had a feeling a law was being broken, but I didn't know exactly what," said Sparta police chief Andrew Milanowski.
News source: Ars Technica
p.s. gives me another reason not to like cops... and i think it's safe to say most people aint a big fan of cops (especially the average cop) either (note: i generally dont get in trouble with the law myself!, so dont try to use this as to why i dont like cops in general)
If someone is to stupid to secure it's wifi access that is the same to me as "he provides wifi access for me".
When someone gives me wifi access for free, I'm in. When I can get a connection to that network, I'm in.
If you provide free wifi-acess you should install a proxy behind it which gives you the rules you have to follow when you want to use that connection.
These things can only happen in America.
Even the police officer didn't really know what law was being broken.
A four hundred dollar fine for checking his email (if that was all he was doing) seems a little harsh.
They should have advertised:
"Free WIFI to customers--but only if you were a regular there, and ordered something, and that police officer knows you as well, and you better buy something everyday or we'll slap you with a $400 fine and some community service."
See how many customers they get then...
He should have gotten warned.
"Hey, you know what? This is leeching and you really need to buy a coffee first--or go inside and make sure it's okay. It does say you need to be a customer ...see?"
"Oh I'm sorry, I didn't think it affected them that much. I'll stop. Thanks for the warning."
And that would be the end of it. Instead we have an article on the internet (and in the local paper maybe) stating that a person got fined $400 dollars for using a free WIFI spot.
Last edited by Ned on 22 May 2007 - 19:33
exactly!
another bs case where the cop wanted to be a prick! (basically cop was bored, had nothing to do, and just wanted to screw with someone) ... screw cops they need to catch "real" criminals instead of petty stuff like this.
The store owner didn't demand anything.... the cop is the one who noticed the guy outside the store..
The store owner didn't demand anything.... the cop is the one who noticed the guy outside the store..
Woooooosh!
exactly!
another bs case where the cop wanted to be a prick! (basically cop was bored, had nothing to do, and just wanted to screw with someone) ... screw cops they need to catch "real" criminals instead of petty stuff like this.
You're really overlooking something. The guy said he was sitting there checking his e-mail, but did the article mention whether or not that was verified? He could have very easily been doing something illegal with the connection (aside from using it for e-mail). I think that might be why the officer wanted to investigate it. It might be that they just had to find some sort of law first that let them do that.
Last edited by 64Bit_Oddity on 22 May 2007 - 17:20
My dad gets bitchy if I set up any encryption on my network. "What? I didn't need a password (encryption key) to get in before!" ....blah.
If you sat outside my house you would probably need a tin can waveguide antenna to get a signal.
How to build a tin can waveguide antenna
I have encryption enabled right now, so someone would be breaking the law if they used my connection. No gray area whatsoever.
I just figure that it's my personal responsibility to protect my own network, not the government's.
You wouldn't use your neighbour's lawn mower without asking permission to do so, whether the neighbour is standing next to the lawn mower or in his/her house. Same here. True, the network wasn't secure. True, it is tempting. Is that however good reasons to commit such act? No. In this case, benefit of the doubt stands, and I have nothing against that. What he got was fair.
Yeah, it's free access to a wifi network, but condition is that you have to purchase something. In other words, you have to be a customer. That is true to most coffee shops and whatever other shops, too, unless specify otherwise. What this café offered is a wifi network to its customers to that they can use the Internet while enjoying their coffee or whatever they ordered. And even though, the network was opened (not secured), it's still a private network, meaning it doesn't belong to you, but to the coffee shop. If you want to use it, just go in, buy a coffee, get a seat, and use the Internet as you wish.
This is in no case similar to free access through wifi hotspots offered by some people or organizations, and still sometimes there are conditions to use such networks.
Last edited by Chad on 23 May 2007 - 00:46
It is not stealing. The bloke didn't know it was illegal. The cafe owner didn't know it was illegal, hell even the copper didn't know it was illegal.
To steal something is to obtain something by fraudulant means knowing you are comitting an offence.
The only "crime" this bloke did, was to sit outside each day and "look suspicious".
He should have simply be given a warning, no more. That would have been sensible, fair and balanced policing and justice.
Another over the top sentance dished!
...
Peterson's actions could result in a five-year felony and a $10,000 fine. However, prosecutors do not plan to throw the book at him, as they don't believe that Peterson was aware he was even breaking the law. Instead, he will pay a $400 fine and do 40 hours of community service
to me your examples are totally different.. it's a damn internet signal that aint harming anyone "financially"! ... cause look at it this way... stealing a chocolate bar every day COSTS people money... the free internet did not cost that guy who owns the shop a single dime and like i said before it did not interfere with the paying customers inside the shop... me personally though i think if they dont want people using the internet it's there problem to "secure" it... cause seriously... who aint going to use free internet if they can get it? (ill bet high percentage of people would use it)
to me your examples are totally different.. it's a damn internet signal that aint harming anyone "financially"! ... cause look at it this way... stealing a chocolate bar every day COSTS people money... the free internet did not cost that guy who owns the shop a single dime and like i said before it did not interfere with the paying customers inside the shop... me personally though i think if they dont want people using the internet it's there problem to "secure" it... cause seriously... who aint going to use free internet if they can get it? (ill bet high percentage of people would use it)
not necessarily.... an increase in traffic by "unauthorized" users could put the store owner in a different bracket as far as allotted bandwidth for the month, so it could cost more that way. I mean, if you make the customer buy something to use your internet, at least you're recouping SOMETHING, however small, from every customer that uses it.
Also, securing it goes against the principles of "free wifi".... i mean even if they did and hung up a sign in the store that had the password on it, one could still go there one day, get the password, and never go inside again, just sitting outside the store and getting the signal, so "securing" it is pointless if the idea is to provide "free wifi".... A lot of it is about relying on the honor system. The store trusts you'll order something if you plan to use their wifi, and you trust them not to hack into your comp from the network and steal all your porn :-p
+1
There's one in every thread.
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=562138
Just encrypt the network, and at your next outing at the coffee shop, you get a "FREE ENCRYPTED KEY PASS" for the day with the purchase of your coffee.
Under Michigan's "Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks" law
WTF? I guess the next time you access a FREE WIFI NETWORK to check your email, your a criminal at work. How pathetic. And this is nothing like stealing a chocolate bar from the candy store guys. Besides, maybe some of your are accessing Neowin.net as we speak from a non-authorized FREE WIFI spot, and your committing the same crime?
He was using what was on offer !
It's NOTHING like stealing a chocolate bar at all !
Yes, if you broke the law. It's not that a crime is committed if you, or anyone for that matter, feel that "there's something wrong".
/ontopic
I don't really think people should be able to be arrested for "free wifi" that is unless there was rules inside the cafe stating that a purchase of something was required. its not exactly stealing if its there for "free", don't get me wrong if this was someones house it would be a different matter but only because they wouldn't be advertising "free wifi".
If there's not a rule that you had to access it inside the cafe and the cafe owner didn't report/realise who the hell cares.
/ontopic
I don't really think people should be able to be arrested for "free wifi" that is unless there was rules inside the cafe stating that a purchase of something was required. its not exactly stealing if its there for "free", don't get me wrong if this was someones house it would be a different matter but only because they wouldn't be advertising "free wifi".
If there's not a rule that you had to access it inside the cafe and the cafe owner didn't report/realise who the hell cares.
yes but ATLEAST satelite just aint handed to you... you clearly got to go out of your way alot to get it for free... and it aint like there official satelite receivers just "get the signal"... cause computers will automatically use a wireless signal if it's aquired. ... so basically im saying i think theres a differance between the satelites and free internet.
/ontopic
I don't really think people should be able to be arrested for "free wifi" that is unless there was rules inside the cafe stating that a purchase of something was required. its not exactly stealing if its there for "free", don't get me wrong if this was someones house it would be a different matter but only because they wouldn't be advertising "free wifi".
If there's not a rule that you had to access it inside the cafe and the cafe owner didn't report/realise who the hell cares.
yes but ATLEAST satelite just aint handed to you... you clearly got to go out of your way alot to get it for free... and it aint like there official satelite receivers just "get the signal"... cause computers will automatically use a wireless signal if it's aquired. ... so basically im saying i think theres a differance between the satelites and free internet.
Actually your quite entiled to point a sateliite dish at the Satellites and pickup the FTA channels which are broadcast unencrypted, be that with an "Sky" "Freesat" or some other Satallite decoder. you would need a TV licence of course (In the UK) it's only illegal if you were to use something to circumvent the encryption on the non FTA channels.
I know a fair few people who have cancelled their Satallite tv sybscription but still use the STB to watch the Free channels for whatever reason (Rubbish terristrial reception.etc)
It doesn't matter what the shop owner thinks. A crime is a crime, period. That's why there's so much debate around euthanasia or assisted suicide.
It doesn't matter what the shop owner thinks. A crime is a crime, period. That's why there's so much debate around euthanasia or assisted suicide.
The law states that it is a crime to access a wireless network without the owners authorisation. What constitutes permission? Do customers have to ask the staff before using the network, even if they are purchasing food and/or beverages from the cafe? does the purchase constitute permission? Having a sign up that says free wireless could have been, and in all likelihood was interpreted as having permission from the owner. The wording of this law seems kind of vague in this article. Anyone else here agree?
It doesn't matter what the shop owner thinks. A crime is a crime, period. That's why there's so much debate around euthanasia or assisted suicide.
i dont know about you but i like to "think" about whats right and wrong instead of just going by what the law says without question! ... cause for me the bottom line is... this is "petty" crap... cops need to go after real criminals.. thats the bottom line.
p.s. on a side note... i do think euthanasia/assisted suicide is basically murder ... especially abortion!
Pip'
cause the bottom line is.... no one was harmed physically/mentally or financially... i dont see how this can be a crime personally.... cause for someone to get in trouble for this they should clearly state it in there shop.... and like i said many times before aint cops got better things to do like going after real criminals that are a threat to society?
so even though i think your right about most people just looking out for themselfs in here... you gotta admit i got a pretty damn good point
So I see that you don't see anything wrong downloading "free" mp3? Sad people.
So I see that you don't see anything wrong downloading "free" mp3? Sad people.
he said he just did some basic email... how is this mp3 related?
That in itself should cause all charges to be dropped surely. whole things ridiculous.
Michigan Fon network:
If someone sets up a wireless network and doesn't secure it, it should be assumed that they are allowing anyone to use that connection (for legal purposes and not to hack into their system). If I leave my hose on and the street gets flooded, I have no right to demand that everyone stays off "my water".
Just secure your networks and zip the lips
Then again, how many people do you see getting $400 fines for drinking from a water fountain... There isn't ANYTHING around it saying "You are allowed to use this." Or heck, not even "You can't use this!" yet, it's understood that it's alright to drink from it since it's not chained off/behind an area stating "Public not allowed."
This really seems like an abuse of the law. A law like this should only be used if there was INTENT to do harm. At which point, I could easily assume that the owner of the AP wouldn't want their connection being used for ill use. (By should, I mean that that's what I see its intention to be.)
An example would be if my neighbor stored his lawnmower outside his gate and unsecured, am I in my right to use his lawnmower? Well, what if I use it everyday without my neighbor’s permission; but put it back and filled it with gas when I was done… would that be wrong? I’m not causing harm to my neighbor or his lawnmower. Like I said, it’s more a question of morals and ethics, and in the State of Michigan, using someone else’s network without permission is illegal. If you don’t like it, repeal the law, or fight it.
And, no, baskingridge, I'm not a open source hippie, a piracy advocate, or a communist, like allegedly many people on this forum.
Land of the free, don't make me laugh.
It's like prosecuting someone sitting outside an arena and listening to a live concert for not having bought a ticket.
Then again the guy could have been doing some serious torrenting and slowing the network down for paying customers.
The onus, however, is on the owner of the network to secure it.
Want to limit access to your network? Encrypt it. That is what encryption is for! What's more, you will have recourse to then prosecute any unauthorised access.
Yep, I'm American. I'm not proud anymore. With all the laws & camera's floating around, it feels like I live in a "FREE PRISON". About the only thing between me and a convict is, I have more area to walk around.
''The rights to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized"
"I had a feeling a law was being broken, but I didn't know exactly what"
The guy was in his car.
Having a feeling isn't probable cause, i would file criminal charges on the officer and sue the city for rights violation. Correct me if i am wrong.
Last edited by Xsabin on 23 May 2007 - 18:44
its just the internet...if they cant secure it tough sh*t then!..their problem!
i use my neighbours connection some times...do i care?? NO!........finders keepers...u dont secure it..guess wot?..im IN!
dont have time for pathetic people like yourself who argue over a simple situation....this obviously only would happen in the US...back here in the Uk...u either secure it..or as we say ''on your bike'' mate!
pathetic!
thats life..deal with it u pathetic degenerates!
wireless signals are different from physical properties...there's usually no specific range...Mr. Peterson got the signal in public area...he didn't invade into other people's property and steal their stuff...this is just like someone find a $5 bill on the street and pick it up...that's not stealing...
police should care about real thefts and robbers...instead of catching someone who just using open wifi...
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.