Man Arrested for Wireless Piggybacking 925
Sommelier writes "As reported by KATU in Portland, Oregon, a man was arrested for parking outside a coffee shop in nearby Vancouver, Washington, and using their open wireless AP — for three straight months. '"He doesn't buy anything," Manager Emily Pranger says about the man she ended up calling 911 about. "It's not right for him to come and use it."' Turns out the guy was a registered sex-offender as well." A different computer expert might have pointed out some ways to see if anyone is piggybacking on a wireless signal (many APs have a Web-interface client list), or even suggested something like NoCatAuth.
OpenBSD / pf / authpf (Score:4, Informative)
Wrap around some web based account password generator which prints a ticket to a simple serial line printer to hand over with the coffee, set a script to remove the account after the allowable period, and away you go...
I do it too... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:AP Mac Tracking (Score:5, Informative)
Print that day's nocat code on the recipts and that stops the leechers.
dont need to know squat about any user hardware with that setup
Re:Service? (Score:2, Informative)
It's called ad hominem [wikipedia.org]. The fact that he is a sex offender has nothing to do with the argument unless a) he was living in his car and didn't notify the neighborhood homeless or b) he was squatting within X feet of a school or public park (or where ever else the local jurisdiction prevents sex offender from hanging around). None of this information was present in TFA.
811? (Score:5, Informative)
I completely agree. Wasn't there an effort (like 10 years ago) to get 811 pushed through as the number to call for non-emergency needs? Sure would be handy, since no one ever knows the local numbers, especially as mobile as people are today.
So they should publish what their terms are. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:811? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure about 811, but in my area 311 will connect you to a non-emergency dispatcher.
Re:3 straight months! (Score:1, Informative)
~nate
Re:Owner is a lame coward (Score:4, Informative)
"When deputies told Smith to knock it off, he came back and is now charged with theft of services. "
He was told by police to leave. He came back. It becomes trespassing. Jesus... and that comment was marked "Insightful"?
Re:3 straight months! (Score:5, Informative)
It's not clear from what I've read exactly what they suspected of this guy when they arrested him; there are a variety of things they could probably put down that would fly on paper though, at least enough to haul him in for 24 hours. Suspicion of theft of services, fraud, maybe stalking if one of the people in the restaurant filed a private complaint ahead of time. The police and district attorneys do this for a living -- they're pretty good at finding ways to hold on to people if they think they've done something.
Just from reading the article, it sounds a lot like the people from the restaurant complained to the police about this guy, so they went out there and arrested him, and now they're going to try and figure out whether he broke any laws. It's not really the way that the system is intended to work, but it's how it often does.
Example rules of criminal procedure [state.ar.us] (These are for AR, but just as an example.)
Re:This country's starting to scare me (Score:2, Informative)
You're right they should at least provide minimal protection for their own good, but verbal should be enough for legal purposes.
Re:3 straight months! (Score:3, Informative)
But the proper charge for arrest would be trespassing, not theft of services. This is no more a theft than "stealing" a cat that prefers to eat your cat food than that of it's owner who lets it roam.
Re:Owner is a lame coward (Score:1, Informative)
Re:3 straight months! (Score:3, Informative)
On this point I completely agree. I was refering more to the GP's perceived stance that the WiFi was the issue.
If someone breaks the TOS, you ask them to leave. Breaking a TOS is not a crime.
Once again I agree, but I'm not refering to the arrest, I was refering to the fact that the shop dictates the rules of use concerning its hub. They should have asked him to leave, then arrested him for tresspass if he didn't.
It is not a crime to be on a shop's property that is open to the public, and to use their service which they make open to these people, just because I don't abide with whatever rules they have set.
Actually, yes it is. A private business has the right to refuse service to anyone. This covers any service they provide - from Wi-FI to coffee. I think the free Wi-Fi issue brings up an interesting question. Is it illegal for someone to syphon off of signal you pay for without permission? Technically, there probably is not a law against that at this time - but there might be others that could be used in regards to this scenario.
Then comes the issue of when is it a crime. Reporters cannot sit on your front lawn and take pictures of you, but they can sit on the public street outside and do it. Does this type of approach work here also? Should it be illegal if the syphon is on your property, but not if the syphon is on public property? Does your control of your signal become moot when your signal passes into "public" areas? Frankly, I don't know where to start.
While I think the guy doing this was an ass, I think arresting him may have been a little much.
Re:3 straight months! (Score:5, Informative)
Not always. Many default setups will detect an open network and connect to it with no action on the users part.
2) Being a technically minded person, it can easily be argued in a court of law that you were aware this "magical free wireless" connection was owned by someone, and was probably owned by the coffeeshop. If someone leaves their bike out on the public sidewalk unattended, are you free to take it for a spin? No. Illegal. Not yours despite someone being ignorant enough to leave it unlocked. The fact it's on public property is meaningless.
There are lots of people who intentionally leave connections open for people to use. Take a look here. [wififreespot.com] It isn't unreasonable to assume that an open, unencrypted network is intended for public use. The bicycle analogy simply isn't the same thing. I've yet to find a web site which lists spots you can go to find free bicycles to ride.
3) Not only do you know the signal comes from some owner, but there's not just the TOS of the "wireless connection" (which may be posted inside, or may be nonexistent) -- there is the TOS of the ISP serving bandwidth to the coffeeshop.
The ISP's TOS is an agreement between the shop and the ISP. It has nothing to do with me. I'd assume that the TOS are such that it allows the coffeeshop to share it's bandwidth as it sees fit. If not, then is the shop violating those TOS' by allowing customers to access its bandwidth? I'd be willing to wager that there IPS's TOS don't say "You're allowed to share this bandwidth if you want, but only with people who are paying customers of yours."
I'm growing really tired of the way people are trying to justify what they know is stealing by arguing that because a wireless signal is "intangible" or "encroaches public property", it's somehow public domain. It's not. Someone owns the device that's transmitting it, and someone pays for the connection to the internet that it's using.
And I'm growing really tired of people who don't understand basic principles. By all means, it's your bandwidth. Share it or not, as you choose. But if you choose not to, then take steps to make it clear that it's not an open access point. If you don't, then I'm perfectly justified in assuming that it's an intentionally open spot, just like thousands of others all across the US.
more from local newspaper (Score:3, Informative)
Seems like he was parking in their parking lot, and refused to go even after they repeatedly asked him to leave, so I don't see why this isn't an open-and-shut trespassing case. (Of course, IANAL.)
I'll let others comment on the mention of "erotic services".
Re:Six of one and half a dozen of the other (Score:4, Informative)
*streaking
*public urination
*"criminal restraint" -- Fark has a story a while back about a guy who nearly ran a kid over and got outside to yell at him. Because he grabbed her arm, he was found guilty and had to register.
*"false imprisonment if not a parent" -- Haven't heard of this yet, but it would probably apply to anyone who found a teenager stealing/vandalizing their home/store and made them remain while they called the police.
Re:3 straight months! (Score:4, Informative)
Here in NH we used to have a law (not sure if we still do) that states something to the effect of any unsecured wireless network that can be accessed without trespassing is considered public. That is to say that if you're WiFi network isn't secured in some way and you have credit card and other personal info shared out in the open, you can't hold other's accountable for accessing it. Some hardware store had their network unsecured and someone copied some files off it... the store tried to sue but it was throw out of court. Basically it was the store's own dumb fault for not securing their network. Similarly if I'm piggy backing off of my neighbors signal my neighbor is the one who is held accountable for providing a public signal. If his ISP has a problem with it he's the one who goes to court, not me.
IMO that's the way it SHOULD be but who knows how it will work out for this guy.
Re:3 straight months! (Score:3, Informative)
The legal system just picked a legal term and gave it a name that has an emotional meaning. Think before you decide to harass someone because they are a sex offender.
Re:takes nothing to become a registered sex offend (Score:3, Informative)
I think the norm is the other way actually.
In any case, suppose she is not quite 16 yet, or that she just turned 15. It makes little difference.
Re:3 straight months! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:3 straight months! (Score:5, Informative)
-h-
Re:3 straight months! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:3 straight months! (Score:3, Informative)
The shop have the right to tell him to leave their property, and if he refuses that would be trespass. Did they do this? It is not a crime to be on a shop's property that is open to the public, and to use their service which they make open to these people, just because I don't abide with whatever rules they have set.
The article specifically says that he was asked to leave but came back anyway. It was only then that he was arrested.
Re:3 straight months! (Score:1, Informative)
A restraining order coupled with a police report and witness testimony by the neighbors would almost ensure a conviction. If he didn't just plea guilty outright. While he'd probably only get probation or a suspended sentence for a first offense, it would put a damper on his idiocy unless he was very insane.
Police are not legislators (Score:1, Informative)
Re:3 straight months! (Score:4, Informative)
According to the article, this guy had previously been asked by the police to move along and stop using their wireless network... Rather, he was continuing to use a network that he had been instructed at least once he was not welcome to use. Even if you hold that a network's being open is generally reasonable permission to use it, this guy knew he did not have permission.
I don't think this has any bearing. You see, the police enforce the law, they don't make them or interpret them. The police often order/request people to do things, which often they have authority to do. For example, you walk into the woods from a park and the police stop and tell you to get out of there, it is private property and you are trespassing. They have no legal right to tell you to leave. If there are no signs posted and you come back and they catch you again, you still aren't guilty of anything, despite the fact that you knew it was private property. The fact that they told you you weren't welcome, makes no difference.
As to the central issue, I have talked to a lawyer about it. He researched the issue after someone told him to stop using the open WAN outside a coffee shop. His professional opinion is it will be ruled legal, based upon property law precedents, but you might want to wait till it makes it through the courts to save yourself a hassle.
Re:3 straight months! (Score:5, Informative)
Form the Americal Civil Liberties website - (they happen to know a little about police rights) - http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14528res20040730.h
. You must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. Otherwise, you don't have to answer any questions if you are detained or arrested, with one important exception. The police may ask for your name if you have been properly detained, and you can be arrested in some states for refusing to give it.
Notice how "detain" and "arrest" are two seperate things? And that you may be detained without being arrested??
Or from another criminal law site - http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/police_
Can The Police Stop And Question People Who Are Not Under Arrest?
Yes. The police can stop a person, and ask questions, without "arresting" the person. Upon seeing suspicious activity, the police may perform what is called a "Terry Stop," and may temporarily detain people to request that they identify themselves and to question them about the suspicious activity. The scope of a "Terry Stop" is limited to investigation of the specific suspicious activity, and if the police detain people to question them about additional matters, the stop can turn into an "arrest."
Haven't you ever heard of Guantanomo Bay?? The US is "detainig" hundreds of "suspected terrorist" without arresting a single one of them. Or is that "utter baloney" too?
Re:3 straight months! (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, they do other things - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla [wikipedia.org] - to American citizens they detain without arresting...
Re:3 straight months! (Score:3, Informative)
setting precedent (Score:1, Informative)
-- Justice Hugo Black, Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)