A Michigan man has been fined US$400 and must work 40 hours of
community service for using a local café's Wi-Fi connection from his
parked car to check his e-mail and surf the Web.
He got off easy, according to the local TV station that reported the
case: under Michigan computer access law, using a Wi-Fi connection
without authorization is a felony, punishable by as much a US$10,000
fine and five years in prison.
But the story raises more questions than it answers, including
whether the café's Wi-Fi connection was a fee-based service, which
would imply authorization was required, or a free service that,
without any security restrictions, could be accessed by anyone within
range, including someone outside the restaurant. The story also
doesn't say whether the defendant, Sam Peterson II, of Sparta, Ill.,
was convicted of the crime or pled to the charge.
Peterson routinely drove to Sparta's Re-Union Street Caf, to check
his e-mail but never went into the coffee shop. His regular routine
drew the attention of Sparta Police Chief Andrew Milanowski, who
asked Peterson what he was doing. Peterson told him. After checking
the Michigan statutes, the chief swore out a complaint of fraudulent
computer access.
On May 24, 11:56 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> <http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,132218-c,internetlegalissues/articl...>
>
> A Michigan man has been fined US$400 and must work 40 hours of
> community service for using a local café's Wi-Fi connection from his
> parked car to check his e-mail and surf the Web.
>
> He got off easy, according to the local TV station that reported the
> case: under Michigan computer access law, using a Wi-Fi connection
> without authorization is a felony, punishable by as much a US$10,000
> fine and five years in prison.
>
> But the story raises more questions than it answers, including
> whether the café's Wi-Fi connection was a fee-based service, which
> would imply authorization was required, or a free service that,
> without any security restrictions, could be accessed by anyone within
> range, including someone outside the restaurant. The story also
> doesn't say whether the defendant, Sam Peterson II, of Sparta, Ill.,
> was convicted of the crime or pled to the charge.
>
> Peterson routinely drove to Sparta's Re-Union Street Caf, to check
> his e-mail but never went into the coffee shop. His regular routine
> drew the attention of Sparta Police Chief Andrew Milanowski, who
> asked Peterson what he was doing. Peterson told him. After checking
> the Michigan statutes, the chief swore out a complaint of fraudulent
> computer access.
I'm sorry, but my take on wireless poaching is that it is up to the
network owner to secure his network. Otherwise he is polluting the air
with his wireless signals and inviting all to breathe in that polluted
air.
> I'm sorry, but my take on wireless poaching is that it is up to the
> network owner to secure his network. Otherwise he is polluting the air
> with his wireless signals and inviting all to breathe in that polluted
> air.
There's a coffee house in the library near me that has free Wi-Fi. The
library now has its own Wi-Fi, but before they installed it the staff
would tell people that needed wireless access to sit in a certain area
so they could use the coffee house's network.
The defendant probably didn't get a lawyer and just plead guilty, which
was stupid as now he has a record. The owner of the cafe didn't care,
according to the story. Did the cafe have a policy that only people that
bought something could use the network? What if you bought something but
sat outside the cafe and used the network?
On May 28, 7:44 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> dejola wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but my take on wireless poaching is that it is up to the
> > network owner to secure his network. Otherwise he is polluting the air
> > with his wireless signals and inviting all to breathe in that polluted
> > air.
>
> There's a coffee house in the library near me that has free Wi-Fi. The
> library now has its own Wi-Fi, but before they installed it the staff
> would tell people that needed wireless access to sit in a certain area
> so they could use the coffee house's network.
>
> The defendant probably didn't get a lawyer and just plead guilty, which
> was stupid as now he has a record. The owner of the cafe didn't care,
> according to the story. Did the cafe have a policy that only people that
> bought something could use the network? What if you bought something but
> sat outside the cafe and used the network?
The cop is overzealous and has too much free time on his hands.
dejola wrote:
> On May 24, 11:56 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> <http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,132218-c,internetlegalissues/articl...>
>>
>> A Michigan man has been fined US$400 and must work 40 hours of
>> community service for using a local café's Wi-Fi connection from his
>> parked car to check his e-mail and surf the Web.
>>
>> He got off easy, according to the local TV station that reported the
>> case: under Michigan computer access law, using a Wi-Fi connection
>> without authorization is a felony, punishable by as much a US$10,000
>> fine and five years in prison.
>>
>> But the story raises more questions than it answers, including
>> whether the café's Wi-Fi connection was a fee-based service, which
>> would imply authorization was required, or a free service that,
>> without any security restrictions, could be accessed by anyone within
>> range, including someone outside the restaurant. The story also
>> doesn't say whether the defendant, Sam Peterson II, of Sparta, Ill.,
>> was convicted of the crime or pled to the charge.
>>
>> Peterson routinely drove to Sparta's Re-Union Street Caf, to check
>> his e-mail but never went into the coffee shop. His regular routine
>> drew the attention of Sparta Police Chief Andrew Milanowski, who
>> asked Peterson what he was doing. Peterson told him. After checking
>> the Michigan statutes, the chief swore out a complaint of fraudulent
>> computer access.
>
> I'm sorry, but my take on wireless poaching is that it is up to the
> network owner to secure his network. Otherwise he is polluting the air
> with his wireless signals and inviting all to breathe in that polluted
> air.
That's my take too, but that is not what the legislator feel about it.
Sounds like someone with time and money needs to challenge the
constitutionality of the law.
For those folks that set up wide-open WiFi networks and do not bother to
change the router factory defaults, I usually access their router admin
page, add some security and of course a password. If they happen to also
have a network printer with no share password, I also try to print out a
list of the changes I made for them :)
Philip <me@xanadu.net> wrote:
> For those folks that set up wide-open WiFi networks and do not bother to
> change the router factory defaults, I usually access their router admin
> page, add some security and of course a password. If they happen to also
> have a network printer with no share password, I also try to print out a
> list of the changes I made for them :)
Now, _that_ you should get arrested for. ;-(
Who are you to change someone else's setup?
--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
dold@89.usenet.us.com wrote:
> Philip <me@xanadu.net> wrote:
>> For those folks that set up wide-open WiFi networks and do not bother to
>> change the router factory defaults, I usually access their router admin
>> page, add some security and of course a password. If they happen to also
>> have a network printer with no share password, I also try to print out a
>> list of the changes I made for them :)
>
> Now, _that_ you should get arrested for. ;-(
>
> Who are you to change someone else's setup?
Technically they never set it up, that's the problem. If a really bad
person hit that kind of set up, the victim might not ever know they were
hosting internet scam sites or handing out porn :)
>Technically they never set it up, that's the problem. If a really bad
>person hit that kind of set up, the victim might not ever know they were
>hosting internet scam sites or handing out porn :)
Hmmm... You're in Vacaville California? Therefore, I guess California
law is what you should be watching. This *MIGHT* help in the future:
California Law to Require Wi-Fi Warnings, "WiFi User Protection Bill".
<http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3638936>
<http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a46/press/a462006072.htm>
<http://www.netgear.com/About/PressReleases/en-US/2006/20061009.aspx>
Peter - you are being an angel, but some sorry lawyer can easily make
you look like the devil and get you into lots of trouble.
Please be careful!
On May 31, 4:03 am, Philip <m...@xanadu.net> wrote:
> dejola wrote:
> > On May 24, 11:56 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> <http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,132218-c,internetlegalissues/articl....>
>
> >> A Michigan man has been fined US$400 and must work 40 hours of
> >> community service for using a local café's Wi-Fi connection from his
> >> parked car to check his e-mail and surf the Web.
>
> >> He got off easy, according to the local TV station that reported the
> >> case: under Michigan computer access law, using a Wi-Fi connection
> >> without authorization is a felony, punishable by as much a US$10,000
> >> fine and five years in prison.
>
> >> But the story raises more questions than it answers, including
> >> whether the café's Wi-Fi connection was a fee-based service, which
> >> would imply authorization was required, or a free service that,
> >> without any security restrictions, could be accessed by anyone within
> >> range, including someone outside the restaurant. The story also
> >> doesn't say whether the defendant, Sam Peterson II, of Sparta, Ill.,
> >> was convicted of the crime or pled to the charge.
>
> >> Peterson routinely drove to Sparta's Re-Union Street Caf, to check
> >> his e-mail but never went into the coffee shop. His regular routine
> >> drew the attention of Sparta Police Chief Andrew Milanowski, who
> >> asked Peterson what he was doing. Peterson told him. After checking
> >> the Michigan statutes, the chief swore out a complaint of fraudulent
> >> computer access.
>
> > I'm sorry, but my take on wireless poaching is that it is up to the
> > network owner to secure his network. Otherwise he is polluting the air
> > with his wireless signals and inviting all to breathe in that polluted
> > air.
>
> That's my take too, but that is not what the legislator feel about it.
> Sounds like someone with time and money needs to challenge the
> constitutionality of the law.
>
> For those folks that set up wide-open WiFi networks and do not bother to
> change the router factory defaults, I usually access their router admin
> page, add some security and of course a password. If they happen to also
> have a network printer with no share password, I also try to print out a
> list of the changes I made for them :)
> Technically they never set it up, that's the problem. If a really bad
> person hit that kind of set up, the victim might not ever know they were
> hosting internet scam sites or handing out porn :)
That's a problem by your definition.
What you did was to break their network so they couldn't use it, to teach
them a lesson.
I doubt if anyone will appreciate the help, and some will be rightfully
incensed that you took it upon yourself to tamper with their computing
environment.
You were "a really bad person", even if you had good intentions.
--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
On Wed, 30 May 2007 22:54:01 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , Philip
<me@xanadu.net> wrote:
>dold@89.usenet.us.com wrote:
>> Philip <me@xanadu.net> wrote:
>>> For those folks that set up wide-open WiFi networks and do not bother to
>>> change the router factory defaults, I usually access their router admin
>>> page, add some security and of course a password. If they happen to also
>>> have a network printer with no share password, I also try to print out a
>>> list of the changes I made for them :)
>>
>> Now, _that_ you should get arrested for. ;-(
>>
>> Who are you to change someone else's setup?
>
>Technically they never set it up, that's the problem.
If you left your house door unlocked and a random stranger nipped in
changed the locks without telling you, how would you react?
> If a really bad
>person hit that kind of set up, the victim might not ever know they were
>hosting internet scam sites or handing out porn :)
Sure. Trespass is still trespass, even if done with good intent. If I
had forgotten to lock the front door at bedtime, do you think I'd
react well on finding you in my kids' bedroom at 4am, "checking the
windows"?
--
Mark McIntyre
Mark McIntyre wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 22:54:01 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , Philip
> <me@xanadu.net> wrote:
>
>> dold@89.usenet.us.com wrote:
>>> Philip <me@xanadu.net> wrote:
>>>> For those folks that set up wide-open WiFi networks and do not bother to
>>>> change the router factory defaults, I usually access their router admin
>>>> page, add some security and of course a password. If they happen to also
>>>> have a network printer with no share password, I also try to print out a
>>>> list of the changes I made for them :)
>>> Now, _that_ you should get arrested for. ;-(
>>>
>>> Who are you to change someone else's setup?
>> Technically they never set it up, that's the problem.
>
> If you left your house door unlocked and a random stranger nipped in
> changed the locks without telling you, how would you react?
>
>> If a really bad
>> person hit that kind of set up, the victim might not ever know they were
>> hosting internet scam sites or handing out porn :)
>
> Sure. Trespass is still trespass, even if done with good intent. If I
> had forgotten to lock the front door at bedtime, do you think I'd
> react well on finding you in my kids' bedroom at 4am, "checking the
> windows"?
You all have the wrong analogy.
Bringing home a wireless router and just turning it on is more like
buying a house with no doors or windows. Then erecting a big flashing
neon sign (the SSID) that says "open house house, please come and take a
look. Make yourself at home and feel free to use the phone and watch
television".
The California initiative requires a label on wireless equipment warning
users to add the doors and locks. The sign is still often left out on
the street.
In article <zrL7i.24763$JZ3.3246@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net >,
Philip <me@xanadu.net> wrote:
> > Sure. Trespass is still trespass, even if done with good intent. If I
> > had forgotten to lock the front door at bedtime, do you think I'd
> > react well on finding you in my kids' bedroom at 4am, "checking the
> > windows"?
>
> You all have the wrong analogy.
>
> Bringing home a wireless router and just turning it on is more like
> buying a house with no doors or windows. Then erecting a big flashing
> neon sign (the SSID) that says "open house house, please come and take a
> look. Make yourself at home and feel free to use the phone and watch
> television".
Real lousy analogy since the sign requires an active behavior on the
part of the "homeowner". In the case of wi-fi, problems occur because of
lack of an active behavior. The better analogy is leaving the doors and
windows unlocked. One has to test the doors before one knows if the
house is open. Of course even then it trespassing.
NEWS: Wi-Fi Poaching Draws Fine 
Linear Mode
