Can the police arrest you because they had "a feeling"

[13Gigatons]

Thank God they are catching the terrorist, rapist and robbers ehh and those filthy criminals that leech wifi !!!!!

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
Thank God they are catching the terrorist, rapist and robbers ehh and those filthy criminals that leech wifi !!!!!

Next time someone is stealing from you. Don't report it to the cops. Just complain to ATOT.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
The real sad thing is that nobody seems to realize that the ONLY reason those laws exist is because cell phone companies are lobbying for them. Free wifi is direct competition to cell phone-based Internet services. It's bullsh1t.

If I want to share my WIFI that I pay for, there should be no law against it. The Internet should be as free and as widely available as possible - certainly as much as people are willing to make it.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Laws against leeching wifi don't really benefit cell phone companies. They don't prevent people from giving away free wifi, they just prevent people from using people's wireless Internet without permission.

 

[sumguy1]

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Golgatha
Meh, if the hotspot isn't secured then he ought to be able to access it.

I think this Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks law should be amended to state "secure" networks vs networks in general.

Well on one hand, just because somebody accidentally forgets to shut the door to their house all the way and the wind blows it open doesn't give anybody the right to walk in off the street. Or if you forget you car keys in the ignition of your car with the door unlocked while you go in the store it doesn't give somebody the right to get in your car and take it for a drive. It is foolish of you to do so but people make mistakes.

On the other hand, and more case in point, when I got my new laptop a while back which has a built in wireless adapter, I booted it up and went about trying to connect to my new wireless Linksys cable/dsl router for my home network. Turns out one of my neighbors, unknown to me at the time, was also running a wireless network. My laptop picked up on his signal before my own and connected to his network automatically. It took me a while before I realized/figured out that I was not on my own home network accessing the internet but rather his. Totally unintentional, totally accidental. Of course I fixed my own configuration to correct the problem and make sure it wouldn't happen again as soon as I realized what was going on. But, if he had reported me before I had realized the problem would I technically be a criminal under this law? In my opinion, no. The fault lies with my neighbor mostly in this case. But how could I prove it was an accident? If you don't know how to secure your home wireless network, you shouldn't be running one and you certainly shouldn't be able to charge somebody with a crime for accessing your network unless you can prove the access was intentional and with malicious intent. If I had had to hack into his secure network to gain access, that proves intent. But if it isn't secure, you can't prove anything.

In regards to this particular guys case, wouldn't the owner of the cafe have to press charges against this guy? What if he has no problem with people sitting in his parking lot checking their emails? Is he supposed to post a sign outside the store that says: "Attention police! It is fine by me if people use my wireless network in their cars outside my cafe."

 

[Cattlegod]

That is crap.

So you can be arrested if you go into a cafe, sit at a table and use WiFi, and don't buy anything?

Because that is no different than what he did.

Both his situation and the one I made above are potential customers and doing the same thing.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
That is crap.

So you can be arrested if you go into a cafe, sit at a table and use WiFi, and don't buy anything?

Because that is no different than what he did.

Both his situation and the one I made above are potential customers and doing the same thing.

If he went in, I think it would be up to the cafe to decide whether to ask him to leave or pay or whatever.

 

[FoBoT]

he is guilty

digg sucks

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: sumguy1
If you don't know how to secure your home wireless network, you shouldn't be running one and you certainly shouldn't be able to charge somebody with a crime for accessing your network unless you can prove the access was intentional and with malicious intent. If I had had to hack into his secure network to gain access, that proves intent. But if it isn't secure, you can't prove anything.

In regards to this particular guys case, wouldn't the owner of the cafe have to press charges against this guy? What if he has no problem with people sitting in his parking lot checking their emails? Is he supposed to post a sign outside the store that says: "Attention police! It is fine by me if people use my wireless network in their cars outside my cafe."

The thing is, the guy knew it wasn't his network, but I don't think many people would say he should go to jail for checking his e-mail. Note that what really helps set the opinion is what he was doing as well as how he did it. The amount of network resources (which in my opinion is the more important aim of this bill... to squash unauthorized heavy use of network resources) that he was using was probably very very minimal, hence why the cafe owner had no idea what he was doing.

Things like this just aren't incredibly clear cut. I mean the cafe is a public place, unlike someone's home. You could expect that a public place's public (i.e. unprotected) wifi could be simply meant for... public consumption.

Personally I don't think he should get any sort of punishment but this should be a good notice for people to ask for permission even to do minor things such as checking e-mail. I bet the cafe owner wouldn't have cared, even if he didn't buy anything... as long as it didn't get out of hand 😛.

 

[mcvickj]

WHOA! I live in Sparta, MI and this is the first time I'm hearing about this. I need to watch the 6PM news a little more often. I am very surprised by Milanowski's actions. My father is good friends with him and I've met him several times. The biggest worry for a Sparta police officer is the occasional speeder. Sure the law is the law but the guy didn't know what he was doing was wrong and the cafe owner sure didn't know. A warning would have been more than enough.

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
And it's only about a two hour drive to dine in Hell!

- M4H

Eh.. There is only one place to eat in HELL and it just so happens to be for sale! 3rd listing down.

Originally posted by: sumguy1
Well on one hand, just because somebody accidentally forgets to shut the door to their house all the way and the wind blows it open doesn't give anybody the right to walk in off the street. Or if you forget you car keys in the ignition of your car with the door unlocked while you go in the store it doesn't give somebody the right to get in your car and take it for a drive. It is foolish of you to do so but people make mistakes.

I don't agree with unlocked door analogies, they require physical trespassing. Wifi is radio waves that can and do pass beyond the bounds of your property. Would collecting water from a sprinkler that over shoots the owners property line constitute stealing? How about standing on a side walk and watching a pay per view movie though your living room window?

From what I have read of the law, atleast it has leveled punishment based on the dollar amount of damage caused to the victim. Surfing the internet/checking email (not heavy p2p usage) would cause 0$ of damage.

 

[theeedude]

How would the cop know you are using WiFi and not a cellular card?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
The real sad thing is that nobody seems to realize that the ONLY reason those laws exist is because cell phone companies are lobbying for them. Free wifi is direct competition to cell phone-based Internet services. It's bullsh1t.

If I want to share my WIFI that I pay for, there should be no law against it. The Internet should be as free and as widely available as possible - certainly as much as people are willing to make it.

Actually, certain cell phone companies will be coming out this year with their own VOIP services and cell phones that will seamlessly switch from traditional cellular transmissions to VOIP transmission when a network connection is available. They'd love it if there were more free wifi spots, it would help them sell more of their VOIP-enabled phones.

ZV

 

[Vic]

Can the police arrest you because they had "a feeling"?

Yes, you can be arrested and detained for up to 48 hours (or until you are brought before a judge, whichever is less) for any and no reason whatsoever. At that point though, the police are required to fulfill habeus corpus and bring an actual charge with some form of corroborating evidence or they must release you.

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: Linflas
So next time if he is smart he goes in and drops a quarter on a newspaper making him a customer.

Well the definition of customer is one who buy's goods or services. Is there a time limit when the purchase occured? What if he bought a coffee a week ago, would that change the outcome?

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: senseamp
How would the cop know you are using WiFi and not a cellular card?

Unfortunately, he confessed and said that he was using it.

Originally posted by: mcvickj
WHOA! I live in Sparta, MI and this is the first time I'm hearing about this. I need to watch the 6PM news a little more often. I am very surprised by Milanowski's actions. My father is good friends with him and I've met him several times. The biggest worry for a Sparta police officer is the occasional speeder. Sure the law is the law but the guy didn't know what he was doing was wrong and the cafe owner sure didn't know. A warning would have been more than enough.

Make sure to let him know he made national news. When searching for more info I found the article on a number of news sites like news.com and msnbc.

 

[randumb]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Yeah, pretty much. What's the phrase, reasonable doubt? No that doesn't sound right. It doesn't mean that you can't get them in trouble for harassing you if there isn't any law being broken. Possibly you might be able to if your on your own property (which does not include cars parked on other publice or other private property).

Reasonable suspicion

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Golgatha
Meh, if the hotspot isn't secured then he ought to be able to access it.

I think this Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks law should be amended to state "secure" networks vs networks in general.

reasonably secure.


and that chief of police really must have a slow town if hes out worrying about that kind of stuff. sucks that guy has to do 40 hours of service for it, they go by minimum wage. i think its a bit excessive to charge him 400 as well as 40 hours.

 

[ch33zw1z]

LOL, oh no..you didn't buy a coffee first!!

 

[BoomerD]

The original question was asked incorrectly IMO...Can they ARREST you based on "a feeling" or a hunch? NO
Can they investigate you based on that same "feeling" or hunch? You betcha...Then, if they find anything "criminal", they can act on it if they choose.
I have mixed feelings on the "theft of Wi-Fi service"...Businesses provide free W-Fi for their customers...does that make it free to anyone who wants to use it, but is NOT a customer?
IMO, no, but, it's pretty dammed difficult (if not impossible) to restrict that signal to just the business's building, so how do you regulate the signal that "leaks out"?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Vic

Can the police arrest you because they had "a feeling"?

Yes, you can be arrested and detained for up to 48 hours (or until you are brought before a judge, whichever is less) for any and no reason whatsoever. At that point though, the police are required to fulfill habeus corpus and bring an actual charge with some form of corroborating evidence or they must release you.

That's correct.

And you are going to see more and more people arrested for stealing wi-fi. It's happening with increasing frequency. Stealer, stop stealing.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: senseamp
How would the cop know you are using WiFi and not a cellular card?

Unfortunately, he confessed and said that he was using it.

Originally posted by: mcvickj
WHOA! I live in Sparta, MI and this is the first time I'm hearing about this. I need to watch the 6PM news a little more often. I am very surprised by Milanowski's actions. My father is good friends with him and I've met him several times. The biggest worry for a Sparta police officer is the occasional speeder. Sure the law is the law but the guy didn't know what he was doing was wrong and the cafe owner sure didn't know. A warning would have been more than enough.

Make sure to let him know he made national news. When searching for more info I found the article on a number of news sites like news.com and msnbc.

One more reason to not talk to the cops. You'd think after all the cop dramas and reality shows we have, people would get a clue that the cops often have nothing on them until they snitch on themselves.

 

[Matthias99]

Things like this just aren't incredibly clear cut. I mean the cafe is a public place, unlike someone's home. You could expect that a public place's public (i.e. unprotected) wifi could be simply meant for... public consumption.

Businesses (even ones that are nominally 'public' and will most people walk in uncontested) are NOT 'public property'. They are private property and the property owner gets to make the rules.

You don't have a right to use an unencrypted wireless network without paying for it unless the owner gives you permission to do so (or states that it is usable by anyone). It is your responsibility to make sure you have permission to use a network. Saying "they should have secured it" doesn't really change the situation, as they may have simply decided it was more convenient for their customers to just have it unsecured.

I have mixed feelings on the "theft of Wi-Fi service"...Businesses provide free W-Fi for their customers...does that make it free to anyone who wants to use it, but is NOT a customer?

No. It's no different than if they, say, provided free newspapers for people who bought coffee. You can't just walk in, take one, and leave, or sit there and read the paper without buying anything if they don't want you to.

it's pretty dammed difficult (if not impossible) to restrict that signal to just the business's building, so how do you regulate the signal that "leaks out"?

Within reason, users are responsible for making sure they don't access things they aren't supposed to. If you wander onto someone's property without realizing you did so (for instance, if they're next to a state park and you are hiking), you're still trespassing.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Golgatha
Meh, if the hotspot isn't secured then he ought to be able to access it.

Whether or not something is easy to do has no bearing on whether it is (or should be) illegal.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Things like this just aren't incredibly clear cut. I mean the cafe is a public place, unlike someone's home. You could expect that a public place's public (i.e. unprotected) wifi could be simply meant for... public consumption.

Businesses (even ones that are nominally 'public' and will most people walk in uncontested) are NOT 'public property'. They are private property and the property owner gets to make the rules.

You don't have a right to use an unencrypted wireless network without paying for it unless the owner gives you permission to do so (or states that it is usable by anyone). It is your responsibility to make sure you have permission to use a network. Saying "they should have secured it" doesn't really change the situation, as they may have simply decided it was more convenient for their customers to just have it unsecured.

I have mixed feelings on the "theft of Wi-Fi service"...Businesses provide free W-Fi for their customers...does that make it free to anyone who wants to use it, but is NOT a customer?

No. It's no different than if they, say, provided free newspapers for people who bought coffee. You can't just walk in, take one, and leave, or sit there and read the paper without buying anything if they don't want you to.

it's pretty dammed difficult (if not impossible) to restrict that signal to just the business's building, so how do you regulate the signal that "leaks out"?

Within reason, users are responsible for making sure they don't access things they aren't supposed to. If you wander onto someone's property without realizing you did so (for instance, if they're next to a state park and you are hiking), you're still trespassing.

Like I said, I tend to agree on this...it's ALMOST like saying if I leave my front door open, you're welcome to walk in and help yourself to my stuff...although I realize it's NOT the same thing, as nothing is actually stolen (physical property) it COULD certainly be considered to be theft of services...

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Things like this just aren't incredibly clear cut. I mean the cafe is a public place, unlike someone's home. You could expect that a public place's public (i.e. unprotected) wifi could be simply meant for... public consumption.

Businesses (even ones that are nominally 'public' and will most people walk in uncontested) are NOT 'public property'. They are private property and the property owner gets to make the rules.

You don't have a right to use an unencrypted wireless network without paying for it unless the owner gives you permission to do so (or states that it is usable by anyone). It is your responsibility to make sure you have permission to use a network. Saying "they should have secured it" doesn't really change the situation, as they may have simply decided it was more convenient for their customers to just have it unsecured.

What exactly is not using encryption if not giving access to everyone?
They decided that it would be convenient to their customers to leave the network open to everyone to use. That is their decision, but then they shouldn't complain that everyone is using their network, if that's the setting they chose.

I have mixed feelings on the "theft of Wi-Fi service"...Businesses provide free W-Fi for their customers...does that make it free to anyone who wants to use it, but is NOT a customer?

No. It's no different than if they, say, provided free newspapers for people who bought coffee. You can't just walk in, take one, and leave, or sit there and read the paper without buying anything if they don't want you to.

He didn't go in and take anything. They provided the service to his car.
It's no different than if they were playing music loud and he would listen to it in the car.
They can't blast their music everywhere, and then complain that it was only intended for the customers to listen to. Why should they be allowed to do it with broadband?

it's pretty dammed difficult (if not impossible) to restrict that signal to just the business's building, so how do you regulate the signal that "leaks out"?

Within reason, users are responsible for making sure they don't access things they aren't supposed to. If you wander onto someone's property without realizing you did so (for instance, if they're next to a state park and you are hiking), you're still trespassing.

There is nothing about a signal that says you aren't supposed to access it, unless the owner choses to encrypt it. There is no way to say if the signal was intentionally left for everyone to use, or only for select people unless the owner takes steps to restrict access. In some places we have free wireless for everyone to use. Google runs a system in Mountain View. This is only going to get more prevalent. Laws need to adjust and not expect the user to correctly guess the owner's intent or face criminal charges. The burden should be on the owner to encrypt access and provide password to customers.