Come on guys, would you go this far?
- Thread starter DaleM
- Start date
- Status
lucafu1 said:
That is the part that violated the rules. There is no context that would justify it. If you cant follow the rules when posting, then do NOT post.
03CobraDude
New Member
I'm glad I live in Kansas. Although there is a coffee shop in town that many people here use. :??:
mswaim said:
Over legislation is the devil. People that are too ignorant (The average politician) to understand internet technology have no business making laws that govern it.
I love blanket laws like this, it keeps lawyers in business arguing vague wording in laws forever.
Last edited:
Cobra-Commander
Banned
FordSVTFan said:
actually the shop was giving the internet access away for free.. it is a WiFi hotspot and anyone w/ a laptop can use it. The shop does it to bring in customers and business. Now how is taking something that someone is GIVING AWAY FOR FREE stealing??
Just a note. Many coffee shops and public libraries do the same. Some of the cops in here should know all about WiFi in coffee shops i would imagine..
If they didn't want to make their network available to the public, it would take less then 1 minute to password protect their network using a WEP key or a WPA key to block the public's access. Not to mention they could disable the broadcast of their SSID for their wireless network to hide it as well.
This is just another example of over zealous law enforcement where law enforcement can change their "interpretation" of any law to make anyone they want guilty.
Last edited:
Cobra-Commander said:
Actually, you are not correct. The shop allows CUSTOMERS to use their connection as part of their purchase. Since he didnt purchase anything, it is not free for him, nor is he entitled to it.
Original Article said:
Cobra-Commander said:
Why, when there is a MDT in the car
Cobra-Commander said:
The owner of the connection is not required to go to extra steps to protect their property (internet connection) from theft, so a thief would be less inclined to steal.
Cobra-Commander said:
The legislation is clear, it has nothing to do with overzealous law enforcement. The L.E.O. brought would he suspected to be a crime to the Prosecuting Attorney for interpretation, the Prosecutor decided it was a violation of the State Law and he brought the charges not the L.E.O.
You really have no idea how the Legal/Judicial System works, do you?:shrug:
taronis
Banned
FordSVTFan said:
HMMMM............A BROADCAST RADIO INTERCEPT..........IT'S UP TO THE COFFEE SHOP TO PROTECT IT.............TECHNICALLY IT'S LIKE HIS LISTENING TO A NEIGHBOR'S LOUD RADIO...........THE FCC ALSO COULD RULE THAT THE WIRELESS BROADCASTS TOO FAR.............AND FINE THE COFFEE SHOP..........THEY'D BETTER SHIELD THE SHOP! He is stealing nothing..........unlike CATV theft, he has made NO PHYSICAL CONNECTION.
There seems to be a lot of misinformation going around.
1. For almost every source of access to the Internet, there is a customer paying for that connection, that service. In this case, the coffee shop. Just because they make it available to their customers via a wireless network and someone off the street can connect to that network doesn't mean they are entitled to access it legally, because the shop owns the access and can stipulate who is allowed to use it. To make a blunt analogy, I can go buy a gun, some ammo, and shoot people, but my ability to do so doesn't make me legally entitled to do that.
2. The coffee shop is not obligated to protect their network. From a theft perspective, it's not a very smart thing to do: It's like leaving your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition. But if you do that and someone steals your car, it's no less of a theft than if they conjured up an elaborate scheme to steal your car in spite of your best efforts to protect it. However, from a customer satisfaction stand point, it's less of a hassle to have to give every WiFi utilizing customer a key to access the network. And they have the right to stipulate who they want to access it, protections or not. It's like if you had a beer fridge in your garage that was open to your friends whenever they came over, but you don't want just any Joe Schmoe off the street drinking all of your beer, leaving none for your friends when they come over. (WiFi bandwith can be much like the quantity of beer in your fridge).
Think of it this way. Would you go into a sit-down restaurant, partake in the free water, chips & salsa, and bread, and then not order anything, not tip the waiter/waitress and just leave?
1. For almost every source of access to the Internet, there is a customer paying for that connection, that service. In this case, the coffee shop. Just because they make it available to their customers via a wireless network and someone off the street can connect to that network doesn't mean they are entitled to access it legally, because the shop owns the access and can stipulate who is allowed to use it. To make a blunt analogy, I can go buy a gun, some ammo, and shoot people, but my ability to do so doesn't make me legally entitled to do that.
2. The coffee shop is not obligated to protect their network. From a theft perspective, it's not a very smart thing to do: It's like leaving your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition. But if you do that and someone steals your car, it's no less of a theft than if they conjured up an elaborate scheme to steal your car in spite of your best efforts to protect it. However, from a customer satisfaction stand point, it's less of a hassle to have to give every WiFi utilizing customer a key to access the network. And they have the right to stipulate who they want to access it, protections or not. It's like if you had a beer fridge in your garage that was open to your friends whenever they came over, but you don't want just any Joe Schmoe off the street drinking all of your beer, leaving none for your friends when they come over. (WiFi bandwith can be much like the quantity of beer in your fridge).
Think of it this way. Would you go into a sit-down restaurant, partake in the free water, chips & salsa, and bread, and then not order anything, not tip the waiter/waitress and just leave?
Adam,FordSVTFan said:
Is that part of the agreement the coffeeshop has with customers? I did not see that written anywhere. I may have missed it. Why not password protect it for your customers, put the PW on the coffee receipt. It is his shop I guess he can run it his way and this case may make others think twice about "stealing" a broadcast like police radio.
taronis said:
He is transmitting and there is a statute against it. There need not be a physical connection.
DaleM said:
That quote was taken directly from the article.
taronis
Banned
FordSVTFan said:
i don't know about that..........as the means are legal............the band is open for use for this purpose...........no license is required for his broadcast........and, proper care against intercept is not given.....a pretty tough call............if you were playing loud music, i could listen or call the cops........I doubt you could ban me from singing along.............
FordSVTFan said:
I thaught for sure, maybe this will be the thread where FordSVTFan finally doesnt agree with the actions of a law enforcement agency, but I was wrong.
Sounds like bs and I bet a judge will throw it out. Did the coffee shop want to press charges
We offer free internet access at some of our stores. You can definatly get it in the parking lot. We would never go after someone for it.
I did not see where he did but it does not matter. A law (felony charge) was broken, I think the DA would not want to press charges (or some figure like that) for it to get dropped. The coffee shop owner was not aware of such a law and surprised by the law if my memory serves me at all.Bullitt995 said:
Bullitt995 said:
You obviously dont understand the issue. This has nothing to do with law enforcement.
I am typing slowly, so you will understand. Someone reported suspicious activity, it was investigated by L.E. The officer thought something was wrong and referred the situation to the prosecuting attorney. The prosecuting attorney found that he was violating a state statute and had the person arrested.
Additionally, you must have conveniently missed my comment about this being a silly arrest, let me quote it for you.
FordSVTFan said:
:rollseyes
In my area, there are WiFi hotspots all over the place. Barnes & Noble, Starbucks, The Apple Store, and several area shopping malls all encourage people to come in and use their free WiFi. It is open and available to anyone who would like to use it, without a purchase requirement. How would one determine that they were not connecting to one of these truly free connections but instead to one that the owner did not want someone to have access to?
I would compare this to placing a television within view of the public sidewalk and showing The Super Bowl. Would it be illegal for someone to stand on the sidewalk and watch the game? Seems to me that it would be the owner's responsibility to install curtains or move the television so that it was not visible from the sidewalk. On the same token, it should be the WiFi owner's responsibility to properly secure access to their internet connection. This can easily be done by providing secure keys, not broadcasting the SSID, adjusting the signal strength, or simply moving the antenna so that the signal does not reach outside of the building.
I do agree that the law is there and the actions taken were justified by the law. However, I also believe that the law should be challenged. I am surprised that this guy could not find an attorney that was willing to take this on. I'm sure it would have been expensive, but I think challenging it would beat a felony conviction.
I would compare this to placing a television within view of the public sidewalk and showing The Super Bowl. Would it be illegal for someone to stand on the sidewalk and watch the game? Seems to me that it would be the owner's responsibility to install curtains or move the television so that it was not visible from the sidewalk. On the same token, it should be the WiFi owner's responsibility to properly secure access to their internet connection. This can easily be done by providing secure keys, not broadcasting the SSID, adjusting the signal strength, or simply moving the antenna so that the signal does not reach outside of the building.
I do agree that the law is there and the actions taken were justified by the law. However, I also believe that the law should be challenged. I am surprised that this guy could not find an attorney that was willing to take this on. I'm sure it would have been expensive, but I think challenging it would beat a felony conviction.
FordSVTFan said:
It's like talking to a spoiled child. I'm not even going to get into it with you again.
Bullitt995 said:
There is nothing for you to get into. I understand the situation and make a cogent argument, while you toss barbs and post supposition.
You are wrong, it is as simple as that. I stated the arrest was silly, but it wasnt a L.E. issue, it was the prosecutor.
ImShakn said:
Good analogies and I agree.
It doesn't matter whether there is a law on the books that may or may not apply to this situation and make it a felony. The guy who is being prosecuted for this is probably just a normal law abiding citizen who has a family and honestly didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Now he's going to jail.
It's totally absurd.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
