lucafu1 said:i really wish you would post the whole thing, not a snip.
mswaim said:I agree with you, to me this is more of the civil issue than a criminal one since the "loss" is not very tangible. The problem lies in the fact there is very little legal ground to stand on, since the closest, applicable sections are being stretched to cover situations the authors never thought of. In the case you cited, the closest applicable section was a felony, however the prosecutor chose to settle it at a much lower level.
Also keep in mind almost every municipality has city ordinances, most if not all of them are misdemeanors. In some cities, water your lawn on the wrong day and you are guilty of a misdemeanor.
We don't write them, however we are responsible for enforcement.
FordSVTFan said:He is stealing an internet connection. They justify it because the state legislature ratified it.
Cobra-Commander 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??
Original Article said:He got on the Internet by tapping into the local coffee shop's wireless network, but instead of going inside the shop to use the free Wi-Fi offered to paying customers, he chose to remain in his car and piggyback off the network
Cobra-Commander said: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.
Cobra-Commander said: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.
Cobra-Commander said: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.
FordSVTFan said:He is stealing an internet connection. They justify it because the state legislature ratified it.
Adam,FordSVTFan 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.
taronis 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.
DaleM said:Adam,
Is that part of the agreement the coffeeshop has with customers?
FordSVTFan said:He is transmitting and there is a statute against it. There need not be a physical connection.
FordSVTFan said:He is stealing an internet connection. They justify it because the state legislature ratified 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:Did the coffee shop want to press charges?
Bullitt995 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
FordSVTFan said:While I agree this is silly, the law is in place for a reason and that is probably why the judge offered the settlement he took.
FordSVTFan 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.
:rollseyes
Bullitt995 said:It's like talking to a spoiled child. I'm not even going to get into it with you again.
ImShakn said: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.