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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Matthias99

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2003
8,808
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Matthias99
If the owner of the network doesn't want you to use it, you are not allowed to use it, regardless of whether it is encrypted or not. The router and network are their private property, and they have a right to control how that property is accessed and used. This is 'unauthorized use of a computer system', and is a federal crime.

But he is not using anything. He is simply broadcasting information requests over public airwaves, and listening for information that is sent over the public airwaves. The owner is free not to send him any information. If he decides to configure the router to send this information, he has no right to say who can listen to what is broadcast over the public airwaves.

The responsibility is not on the owner of the router -- encrypting the network is like putting a lock on your front door, or building a fence around your property. Doing these things may prevent someone from willfully misusing your property, but you don't have to do these things in order to assert private property rights. Forcing them to use encryption to legally keep you out is not a fair solution, as it pushes the burden onto the owner and the people who have permission to use the network. It's like changing the law so that you're not considered to be trespassing unless the property has a 10-foot fence around it (except that it is more difficult and expensive than using wireless security, but it's the same idea.)

The fact that you're connecting to the router using 'public airwaves' instead of a physical wire is irrelevant.
 

Gooberlx2

Lifer
May 4, 2001
15,381
6
91
Coincidentally, the cafe owner that Peterson was leeching WiFi off of didn't even realize that what Peterson was doing was a crime at the time. Neither did the police officer. "I had a feeling a law was being broken, but I didn't know exactly what," Sparta police chief Andrew Milanowski told the TV station.

I would bet money that the quote is being taken out of context. Local TV news, IMO, seem to liberally cut and paste sound bytes where they like to essentially create a story. The cop may have said that phrase in relation to what he thought was suspicious activity leading up to the arrest. By only quoting that part, the news makes it sound like the cop arrested the guy first and then did the investigative work.

If you decide to take a different perspective on that phrase/paragraph, it really gives no true indication of the timeline of events. I just consider it poor reporting.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,088
722
126
Originally posted by: senseamp

But he is not using anything. He is simply broadcasting information requests over public airwaves, and listening for information that is sent over the public airwaves. The owner is free not to send him any information. If he decides to configure the router to send this information, he has no right to say who can listen to what is broadcast over the public airwaves.

This argument makes the most sense to me.
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
Originally posted by: Matthias99

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).

You mean like putting a sign outside that says "FREE WIFI!"
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,159
18,650
146
Originally posted by: Dean
Figures the cop would be hanging around a coffee shop.

Based on caffeine being one of the most used drugs in the U.S., duh!
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: MrPickins
Originally posted by: senseamp

But he is not using anything. He is simply broadcasting information requests over public airwaves, and listening for information that is sent over the public airwaves. The owner is free not to send him any information. If he decides to configure the router to send this information, he has no right to say who can listen to what is broadcast over the public airwaves.

This argument makes the most sense to me.

Senseamp doesn't understand how wireless works however.

He is actively soliticing the wireless network to connect to it. Just like actively pluging into somebody elses network. Wired or wireless is irrevelavent. This is why microsoft got slammed so hard by the security community, windows used to connect to wireless networks without notifying the user....which is of course against the law opening the user to liability/punishment. So microsoft fixed that behavior.

As you can see in the OP there are laws to prevent and punish this kind of theft.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
Originally posted by: Matthias99
It's the responsibility of the user to make sure they have permission -- this is not a 'wireless network' thing, it's a private property law thing. It's no different than someone being responsible for making sure they don't trespass on private property if they're out hiking near the edge of public land. The private property owner doesn't have to put up a big fence or specifically mark the border (which may be infeasible if it is many miles long) to enforce his or her property rights. The hiker is responsible for knowing where they are and making sure they don't wander into private property.

If the city (or a private entity) is going to operate a free city-wide network, they are responsible for making sure people know about it.

Ummm then why do I see tons of "Private Property" signs in the country? If it ain't marked, how's someone going to even know.

The part that makes it seem ludicrous is that the cafe owner didn't even seem to care that he was using it.

I still think it's quite ridiculous that he was even charged with anything for how minor of an offense. It also doesn't even make sense unless the owner actually cares. He makes it a publicly available service and has no mentioned notices that it is for paying customers only. For all he knew, it was available to anyone. Hence why I said he should've inquired.
 

TheKub

Golden Member
Oct 2, 2001
1,756
1
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: waggy

i agree it is a crime. but a federal crime? wow. seems harsh for something minor.

Yep. It's under the main section of "connecting to a computer you don't own or operate without permission". So the stealer could have gotten hit with state AND federal crimes. They're really cracking down on this kind of stuff.

Check out the OP - 5 year felony.
"Under Michigan's "Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks" law, Peterson's actions could result in a five-year felony and a $10,000 fine. However, prosecutors do not plan to throw the book at him, as they don't believe that Peterson was aware he was even breaking the law. Instead, he will pay a $400 fine and do 40 hours of community service, and the arrest will not go on his record.
"

That punishment is reserved for those that actually cause monitary damages (in the thousands of dollars).

From Act 53: "(a) If the violation involves an aggregate amount of less than $200.00, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00 or 3 times the aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine."

 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Citrix

Radio waves are not private property.

But the access point IS private property. Connecting to it and using it's services invaded on property rights. And as I've already pointed out, a federal crime.

He is not connecting to it in a way that is violating anyone's rights. He is simply broadcasting a request for information on the public airwaves, and listening to broadcast information on the public airwaves. There is not trespassing or circumventing encryption here.

The law doesn't care about your semantics.
 

Matthias99

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2003
8,808
0
0
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: Matthias99

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).

You mean like putting a sign outside that says "FREE WIFI!"

...except his sign would have said "FREE WIFI! (for paying customers)"

Ummm then why do I see tons of "Private Property" signs in the country? If it ain't marked, how's someone going to even know.

It's your responsibility to make sure you don't wander onto private property without permission. Putting up signs or fences may keep people from wandering in by mistake, but the responsibility is not on the owner to keep unwanted trespassers out.

The part that makes it seem ludicrous is that the cafe owner didn't even seem to care that he was using it.

I still think it's quite ridiculous that he was even charged with anything for how minor of an offense. It also doesn't even make sense unless the owner actually cares. He makes it a publicly available service and has no mentioned notices that it is for paying customers only. For all he knew, it was available to anyone. Hence why I said he should've inquired.

If the service is truly for unrestricted public consumption, no crime was committed. It seemed clear from the story that the cafe owner intended the network to be for paying customers only.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,088
722
126
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: MrPickins
Originally posted by: senseamp

But he is not using anything. He is simply broadcasting information requests over public airwaves, and listening for information that is sent over the public airwaves. The owner is free not to send him any information. If he decides to configure the router to send this information, he has no right to say who can listen to what is broadcast over the public airwaves.

This argument makes the most sense to me.

Senseamp doesn't understand how wireless works however.

He is actively soliticing the wireless network to connect to it. Just like actively pluging into somebody elses network. Wired or wireless is irrevelavent. This is why microsoft got slammed so hard by the security community, windows used to connect to wireless networks without notifying the user....which is of course against the law opening the user to liability/punishment. So microsoft fixed that behavior.

As you can see in the OP there are laws to prevent and punish this kind of theft.

In this case, I feel the law is written in a way as to be too easily broken without realization (by non-techies), and should be changed.

In TX, unless there is a sign, or you are given a documented warning, trespassing inadvertently is legal. IMO, the parallel is obvious.

I think the wireless standard should include some type of communication in the initial handshake which states whether the network is open public access or not. Then there is no doubt about if you are authorized to access the network.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: MrPickins
Originally posted by: senseamp

But he is not using anything. He is simply broadcasting information requests over public airwaves, and listening for information that is sent over the public airwaves. The owner is free not to send him any information. If he decides to configure the router to send this information, he has no right to say who can listen to what is broadcast over the public airwaves.

This argument makes the most sense to me.

Senseamp doesn't understand how wireless works however.

He is actively soliticing the wireless network to connect to it. Just like actively pluging into somebody elses network. Wired or wireless is irrevelavent. This is why microsoft got slammed so hard by the security community, windows used to connect to wireless networks without notifying the user....which is of course against the law opening the user to liability/punishment. So microsoft fixed that behavior.

As you can see in the OP there are laws to prevent and punish this kind of theft.

Uh... actually Windows still does this (except for a brief pop-up bubble after the connection has already been made). My GF and I got a vacation rental on the coast a while back with another couple, and they brought along their newer (2006) Dell laptop with WinXP and Intel Wireless adapter. They're pretty computer-illiterate, and while playing on it, they commented at one point how cool it was that they had internet access, even there. I was confused, so I checked it out, and whaddayaknow there were 3 unsecured wireless access points in the area, and upon bootup, Windows would automatically connect to the one with the strongest signal. Except by actively disconnecting the signal, I could not find a way to prevent this. This computer had all the latest Windows updates BTW.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
Originally posted by: Matthias99
It's your responsibility to make sure you don't wander onto private property without permission. Putting up signs or fences may keep people from wandering in by mistake, but the responsibility is not on the owner to keep unwanted trespassers out.

No one whips out maps with property lines on them when going hiking :roll:. Hence why if someone's on your property and they shouldn't be, you have all the rights to tell them to leave. I don't think you could be arrested unless you refused to leave.

Originally posted by: Matthias99
If the service is truly for unrestricted public consumption, no crime was committed. It seemed clear from the story that the cafe owner intended the network to be for paying customers only.

Intent does not equate to implementation.
 

mcvickj

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2001
4,602
0
76
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: mcvickj
<snip>

Harassing people because you don't agree with them is pretty immature.

Call it what you will but I have provided no information that isn't already public. I'm my opinion no crime has been committed against Kent Count or the State of Michigan and without a complaint filed by the cafe owners I feel the prosecuting attorney doesn't have a leg to stand on. I do not know Peterson but I hope he fights this.


FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER NETWORKS (EXCERPT)
Act 53 of 1979


752.794 Prohibited access to computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

Sec. 4.

A person shall not intentionally access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to devise or execute a scheme or artifice with the intent to defraud or to obtain money, property, or a service by a false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise.

I don't feel this part has been met.


 

Matthias99

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2003
8,808
0
0
Originally posted by: Aikouka
Originally posted by: Matthias99
It's your responsibility to make sure you don't wander onto private property without permission. Putting up signs or fences may keep people from wandering in by mistake, but the responsibility is not on the owner to keep unwanted trespassers out.

No one whips out maps with property lines on them when going hiking :roll:.

Actually, serious hikers do this sort of thing to avoid problems.

Hence why if someone's on your property and they shouldn't be, you have all the rights to tell them to leave. I don't think you could be arrested unless you refused to leave.

In most places if you wander onto somebody's property by mistake with no intent to harm (and leave when informed), it's going to be a misdemeanor at worst if the property owner wants to push it.

Originally posted by: Matthias99
If the service is truly for unrestricted public consumption, no crime was committed. It seemed clear from the story that the cafe owner intended the network to be for paying customers only.

Intent does not equate to implementation.

And it's your responsibility to determine the intent and not just assume that because it's unencrypted you can use it.

I wish the 802.11 protocols had taken this kind of thing into account when they had been written, but they didn't. But, legally -- if it's not very clear that a wireless network is truly for unrestricted public use, and you don't have explicit permission to use it, then you're not allowed to use it.

I don't think that people should be given more than a slap on the wrist and maybe a small fine for unintentionally using a wireless network without permission (and, indeed, unless there was significant financial harm the penalties are light). But the property rights here are quite clear -- you don't have to encrypt a network to control who is allowed to use it and have legal backing to it. If you want to change the laws, go ahead. But that's how they are written now and there are good reasons for it.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: Matthias99
Originally posted by: Citrix
for your other aruguement, i understand what you are saying. BUT, there are public signals intended for use by the public. The city of Longmont Colorado is in the process of having a city wide free WIFI service. my point is how do i mr joe schmo sitting in a park know which wifi signal is ok to use and which is not?

It's the responsibility of the user to make sure they have permission -- this is not a 'wireless network' thing, it's a private property law thing. It's no different than someone being responsible for making sure they don't trespass on private property if they're out hiking near the edge of public land. The private property owner doesn't have to put up a big fence or specifically mark the border (which may be infeasible if it is many miles long) to enforce his or her property rights. The hiker is responsible for knowing where they are and making sure they don't wander into private property.

If the city (or a private entity) is going to operate a free city-wide network, they are responsible for making sure people know about it.

thats not true. if a hiker accidently wonders onto private property and the private property is not posted as such no crime has been commited. the same goes for no hunting signs. the property owner is responsible for posting his property and taking reasonable steps in posting his property in preventing unwanted tresspass.

 

Matthias99

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2003
8,808
0
0
if a hiker accidently (sic) wonders (sic)) onto private property and the private property is not posted as such no crime has been commited (sic). the same goes for no hunting signs.

The key here is "accidentally". Some of the text of the relevant federal law was posted above:

A person shall not intentionally access or cause access to be made...

Sitting in your car and logging into a network that is supposed to be for paying customers only is not "accidental" the same way that you can walk onto private property from public land without realizing it.

the property owner is responsible for posting his property and taking reasonable steps in posting his property in preventing unwanted tresspass.

You may be required to post signs in some places to press charges unless there are repeated or willful infractions. However, in general the responsibility is on the trespasser and not on the property owner to ensure that property boundaries are respected.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
And this, folks, is why my own wireless access point at home is locked down tighter than a drum. The best analogy I can think of is this... you're not required to lock the doors to your house, and it's still against the law for someone to walk into your house without your consent even if your doors are unlocked, but you still lock your doors anyway, right? There ya go.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Vic
And this, folks, is why my own wireless access point at home is locked down tighter than a drum. The best analogy I can think of is this... you're not required to lock the doors to your house, and it's still against the law for someone to walk into your house without your consent even if your doors are unlocked, but you still lock your doors anyway, right? There ya go.

For home use, sure. But to provide the service...

My favorite is per user generated codes that are requested from the owner/operator and good for a certain period of time. You can associate to an AP, but can't communicate to anything but the captive portal until you present valid credentials. On the login page are acceptible use policies and a denial of privacy. From there any and all communication is tunneled to the captive portal. This is a good way to offer the service and keep stealers off. Billing can also be incorporated. Of course it cannot prevent certain denial of service attacks, but for some of those there IS no countermeasure.

On "public" types of implementations encryption is not used because of ease of use. There are other means to keep off the leechers. But a good captive portal and security system is nice to have. Problem is small shops can't afford this level of sophistication.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: Vic
And this, folks, is why my own wireless access point at home is locked down tighter than a drum. The best analogy I can think of is this... you're not required to lock the doors to your house, and it's still against the law for someone to walk into your house without your consent even if your doors are unlocked, but you still lock your doors anyway, right? There ya go.

your front door is normally on private property.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Vic
And this, folks, is why my own wireless access point at home is locked down tighter than a drum. The best analogy I can think of is this... you're not required to lock the doors to your house, and it's still against the law for someone to walk into your house without your consent even if your doors are unlocked, but you still lock your doors anyway, right? There ya go.

your front door is normally on private property.

This is the U.S., there is no "private" property anymore.