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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,338
1,215
126
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.

If the cafe has free internet access, he wasn't doing anything illegal. If it's free to CUSTOMERS, he was doing something illegal.



 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Matthias99
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:

Sorry but the key is not "accidentally." It is perfectly legal for me to walk up to your house and knock on your door if there are signs indicating otherwise.

If you don't have implied access for connecting to an unsecured network/computer you better get of the internet because how do you know ATOT is anand's private message board that he was to lazy to secure.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,338
1,215
126
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.

So it is ok to steal unlocked cars?

 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,338
1,215
126
Originally posted by: 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.

you may way to retink about the path data travels to and from the internet. Hint.... It has to travel through equipment someone has paid for.

 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
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.

If I put a sign on my house, saying "store," then people are free to come in if the door is unlocked. It is called implied consent, by making it know your house is a store you are giving permissions for anyone to enter. The same should apply to networks if your network is broadcasting "network" it is implied consent to connect to the network because if you didn't want people connect to your network you would post the sign.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
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.

Oh FFS, STFU. 2 wrongs never make a right. You can't justify one wrong with another one. Ever.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: smack Down
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.

If I put a sign on my house, saying "store," then people are free to come in if the door is unlocked. It is called implied consent, by making it know your house is a store you are giving permissions for anyone to enter. The same should apply to networks if your network is broadcasting "network" it is implied consent to connect to the network because if you didn't want people connect to your network you would post the sign.

I'm not sure what your point is, but you can't loiter inside a private business, or use their restroom if they say it's for customers only.

We can debate analogies and the way we'd like things to be in an ideal world all day, but the laws are already in place on this issue. I'll agree that the cop was a jerk in this particular case, but then so was the asshat stealing bandwidth.
 

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
While I'm sympathetic, because I remember the heady days where free wi-fi spots were all over and nobody knew how to secure them, the law in a sense is a good one. Security should play no part in this at all. Think for a second. . . Would it be OK for someone to steal your car if you left it unlocked? How about rob your house because it was unlocked. What if you did lock your house, but it wasn't a very good lock? How good does the lock have to be before it makes it illegal to break in? Philosophical questions, yes. But I think the point remains that lack of security doesn't make it more or less of a theft.
 

TheKub

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

you may way to retink about the path data travels to and from the internet. Hint.... It has to travel through equipment someone has paid for.

Again STILL not physically trespassing. All I am doing is sending the same radio waves back to the source.

Again I bring up the sprinkler analogy. I am on my/public propertly and your sprinkler is over shooting your property. I collect the water (information) that you paid for but is landing on my/public property even though it comes from your sprinkler (wireless network).
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: TheKub
Originally posted by: brandonbull

you may way to retink about the path data travels to and from the internet. Hint.... It has to travel through equipment someone has paid for.

Again STILL not physically trespassing. All I am doing is sending the same radio waves back to the source.

Again I bring up the sprinkler analogy. I am on my/public propertly and your sprinkler is over shooting your property. I collect the water (information) that you paid for but is landing on my/public property even though it comes from your sprinkler (wireless network).

Bad analogy that has been shot down numerous times.

You are connecting to a computer you do not own or operate and consuming resources you do not own or operate and degrading resources that you don't own or operate. What is so hard to understand about this?

When you associate to an access point you are consuming resources (carrier, management frames, bandwidth) even if you aren't moving any data. When you are actually moving data it's even worse.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: smack Down
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.

If I put a sign on my house, saying "store," then people are free to come in if the door is unlocked. It is called implied consent, by making it know your house is a store you are giving permissions for anyone to enter. The same should apply to networks if your network is broadcasting "network" it is implied consent to connect to the network because if you didn't want people connect to your network you would post the sign.

I'm not sure what your point is, but you can't loiter inside a private business, or use their restroom if they say it's for customers only.

We can debate analogies and the way we'd like things to be in an ideal world all day, but the laws are already in place on this issue. I'll agree that the cop was a jerk in this particular case, but then so was the asshat stealing bandwidth.

The law isn't clear what defines unauthorized access. That is what the problem is. If you didn't secure it in anyway and it is broadcasting its ID that gives anyone and everyone implied authorization.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: smack Down
The law isn't clear what defines unauthorized access. That is what the problem is. If you didn't secure it in anyway and it is broadcasting its ID that gives anyone and everyone implied authorization.

Prime example of entitlement mentality.
 

TheKub

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


Prime example of entitlement mentality.


What you call entitlement mentality I call wanting the laws to work for the people, not against them.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: smack Down
The law isn't clear what defines unauthorized access. That is what the problem is. If you didn't secure it in anyway and it is broadcasting its ID that gives anyone and everyone implied authorization.
Uh.... no. The law has been posted here and it is clear that intent makes for unauthorized access. As the user was sitting in his car outside the door accessing the bandwidth without a coffee in his hand, then he was acting with both knowledge and intent. The broadcast ID is not implied authorization, that is there for the convenience of those people who actually do have authorization (as they couldn't access otherwise).

With your posts, why do I get the feeling so often that you are either deluded or you post purely to stir up unnecessary argument?
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: smack Down
The law isn't clear what defines unauthorized access. That is what the problem is. If you didn't secure it in anyway and it is broadcasting its ID that gives anyone and everyone implied authorization.

Prime example of entitlement mentality.

Call it what ever you want that is how the internet works. How does a user on the internet know which pages they are allowed to view and which they are not allowed to view. They connect to the server and request the page. If the request is denied they are not allowed to view that page. If the request works they are "entitled" to view the page.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: TheKub
Originally posted by: spidey07
Prime example of entitlement mentality.
What you call entitlement mentality I call wanting the laws to work for the people, not against them.
The laws are working for the people in this case, by protecting their property.

Here's something for you to consider... suppose the laws "working for the people" said that anyone could enter your house whenever they felt like it and stay as long as they want. Would you buy a house then? Of course not. And neither would anyone else. And that wouldn't be laws "working for the people" then, now would it?
Hey, where did you park your car? I want to drive it and think that the laws should work for me in such fashion that you can't stop me from doing so as much as I like.

:roll:

Now maybe you'll reconsider your bizarre Orwellian brainwashing.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: smack Down
The law isn't clear what defines unauthorized access. That is what the problem is. If you didn't secure it in anyway and it is broadcasting its ID that gives anyone and everyone implied authorization.

Prime example of entitlement mentality.

Call it what ever you want that is how the internet works. How does a user on the internet know which pages they are allowed to view and which they are not allowed to view. They connect to the server and request the page. If the request is denied they are not allowed to view that page. If the request works they are "entitled" to view the page.

A wifi access point is not the internet.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: smack Down
The law isn't clear what defines unauthorized access. That is what the problem is. If you didn't secure it in anyway and it is broadcasting its ID that gives anyone and everyone implied authorization.

Prime example of entitlement mentality.

Call it what ever you want that is how the internet works. How does a user on the internet know which pages they are allowed to view and which they are not allowed to view. They connect to the server and request the page. If the request is denied they are not allowed to view that page. If the request works they are "entitled" to view the page.

A wifi access point is not the internet.

Nothing is "the internet" of course a wifi access point connect to the internet is part of the internet and what I said applies to more then just pages, it applies to FTP servers, proxy servers, in fact ever single service on the internet.
 

TheKub

Golden Member
Oct 2, 2001
1,756
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: TheKub
Originally posted by: spidey07
Prime example of entitlement mentality.
What you call entitlement mentality I call wanting the laws to work for the people, not against them.
The laws are working for the people in this case, by protecting their property.

Here's something for you to consider... suppose the laws "working for the people" said that anyone could enter your house whenever they felt like it and stay as long as they want. Would you buy a house then? Of course not. And neither would anyone else. And that wouldn't be laws "working for the people" then, now would it?
Hey, where did you park your car? I want to drive it and think that the laws should work for me in such fashion that you can't stop me from doing so as much as I like.

:roll:

Now maybe you'll reconsider your bizarre Orwellian brainwashing.

What about those that wish to freely share their connection? As the law is written anyone would still have to track you down and get permission. The law is preventing one from sharing with out strings being attached.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: smack Down

Call it what ever you want that is how the internet works. How does a user on the internet know which pages they are allowed to view and which they are not allowed to view. They connect to the server and request the page. If the request is denied they are not allowed to view that page. If the request works they are "entitled" to view the page.

The Internet is a public network.

The coffee place wireless is a PRIVATE network. Big difference.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: smack Down

Call it what ever you want that is how the internet works. How does a user on the internet know which pages they are allowed to view and which they are not allowed to view. They connect to the server and request the page. If the request is denied they are not allowed to view that page. If the request works they are "entitled" to view the page.

The Internet is a public network.

The coffee place wireless is a PRIVATE network. Big difference.

What makes it PRIVATE?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: smack Down
The law isn't clear what defines unauthorized access. That is what the problem is. If you didn't secure it in anyway and it is broadcasting its ID that gives anyone and everyone implied authorization.

Prime example of entitlement mentality.

Call it what ever you want that is how the internet works. How does a user on the internet know which pages they are allowed to view and which they are not allowed to view. They connect to the server and request the page. If the request is denied they are not allowed to view that page. If the request works they are "entitled" to view the page.

A wifi access point is not the internet.

Nothing is "the internet" of course a wifi access point connect to the internet is part of the internet and what I said applies to more then just pages, it applies to FTP servers, proxy servers, in fact ever single service on the internet.

Let me rephrase what otherwise should have been simple to understand. A wifi access point might provide a connection TO the internet, but it is not a part of the internet. You are not using the internet when you use a wifi's connection TO the internet. It is not the internet, any more than the computer you are typing on right now is the internet.
 

TheKub

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

The laws are working for the people in this case, by protecting their property.

Here's something for you to consider... suppose the laws "working for the people" said that anyone could enter your house whenever they felt like it and stay as long as they want. Would you buy a house then? Of course not. And neither would anyone else. And that wouldn't be laws "working for the people" then, now would it?
Hey, where did you park your car? I want to drive it and think that the laws should work for me in such fashion that you can't stop me from doing so as much as I like.

:roll:

Now maybe you'll reconsider your bizarre Orwellian brainwashing.

If someones front door existed in my livingroom or car was in my garage then yes Id use it!

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: TheKub
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: TheKub
Originally posted by: spidey07
Prime example of entitlement mentality.
What you call entitlement mentality I call wanting the laws to work for the people, not against them.
The laws are working for the people in this case, by protecting their property.

Here's something for you to consider... suppose the laws "working for the people" said that anyone could enter your house whenever they felt like it and stay as long as they want. Would you buy a house then? Of course not. And neither would anyone else. And that wouldn't be laws "working for the people" then, now would it?
Hey, where did you park your car? I want to drive it and think that the laws should work for me in such fashion that you can't stop me from doing so as much as I like.

:roll:

Now maybe you'll reconsider your bizarre Orwellian brainwashing.

What about those that wish to freely share their connection? As the law is written anyone would still have to track you down and get permission. The law is preventing one from sharing with out strings being attached.

This does not stop anyone from freely sharing their connection if they wish to. I'm sure the business had a sign that said "Free wifi to our customers" just like it probably also has a sign that says "Public restrooms for our customers."

If you wanted share the wifi out of your home, there's no reason why you could make your broadcast ID something like "All are welcome, come on in."

I made a point, try addressing it. This is the law working for the people. People and the law have a strong interest in protecting property rights, lest we become like some impoverished African nation where no one will invest because there are no property rights. I'm not interesting in your bizarre upside-down world Orwellian nonsense, where you think not being able to steal another's property is somehow an infringement of your rights.
BTW, where was your car again? And what's for dinner at your house tonight?