It was a joke....trying to be funny...... I actually use netflix and enjoy it.

My subscription to http://thepiratebay.org/ costs 0 dollars. I still think NetFlix is a ripoff.

Why don’t you just disable “offensive” comments from being posted as many other sites do? I would think that would be the responsible thing to do. Also, since there was not any crime that was committed why would you feel the need to track down the sender of the comment and report it to his ISP which was in this case a school system? I would think that this would be the only allowable reason to attempt to identify your visitors. The poster in question, merely posted the word “pussy” twice on your poll, that surely you knew would be a target for off-color comments. Surely you knew that saying the word “pussy” is not illegal and would be protected speach under the 1st amendment, and you would be violating your your own privacy policy by attempting to identify the poster in question. Hypothetically, your poster in question could have been someone that refers to felines as “pussy” and that would be a strange and uncommon food, but felines are eaten in some cultures. His answer to your poll question I don’t think it could even be considered offensive in the context of your question because the poster could have been referring to eating a cat which would indeed be a strange food to most people. In short, I think that your reaction was unwarranted and could be libel, for you personally and the St. Louis Dispatch. Interesting to see if the “victim” in this case will seek legal advice for your overreaction and the consequences of your actions.

Another case of the person in authority not knowing what they are talking about when it relates to technology. Here is an email I wrote to the reporter that wrote this story and forwarded to the chief of police. To: policechief@spartami.org Subject: Fwd: Wireless Felony ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Justin Chapman Date: May 23, 2007 10:02 PM Subject: Re: Wireless Felony To: target8consumer@woodtv.com It's a shame that this case didn't go to trial. I doubt that it would have made it past a grand jury. Obviously, there was no crime that took place. He did not break in to anything. Chances are he had atleast once stopped into the coffee shop. The owner of the coffee shop did not want to press charges. The access point was intentionally left open with no authentication mechanism. Did the accused have any criminal intent? From Michigan State Code.... (6) It is a rebuttable presumption in a prosecution for a violation of section 5 that the person did not have authorization from the owner, system operator, or other person who has authority from the owner or system operator to grant permission to access the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network or has exceeded authorization unless 1 or more of the following circumstances existed at the time of access: (a) Written or oral permission was granted by the owner, system operator, or other person who has authority from the owner or system operator to grant permission of the accessed computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. (b) The accessed computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network had a pre-programmed access procedure that would display a bulletin, command, or other message before access was achieved that a reasonable person would believe identified the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network as within the public domain. (c) Access was achieved without the use of a set of instructions, code, or computer program that bypasses, defrauds, or otherwise circumvents the pre-programmed access procedure for the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. Obviously, the access was open and he was assigned an IP address and default gateway and DNS information automatically by the access point. So the argument could be made that the store owner was potentially giving unauthorized access to his computer to others connected to this access point. The access point transmits it's SSID and often people have their computers set to connect open access points that broadcast their beacon. So i don't see that if this is actually a crime that entrapment did not take place. I think that your story vastly misrepresented the facts of what happened and was uninformed. Sincerely, Justin R. Chapman