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

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down
We have ignore your physical world comparison because it isn't a network.

Explain why connecting to an open wifi over public airwaves is illegal when connecting to Google over the public internet is legal.

I already addressed this. A wireless access point is not the internet, even if it provides access TO the internet. It is not analogous to Google or any other public internet website (which itself is analogous to a storefront).

It is still a public network, it is public because the public can access it.

As is your car if you leave the keys in the ignition.

Now where back to Google, what makes Google public and the wifi private.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Vic
Please don't nitpick something that was obviously not literal.

The funny thing here is that I believe that people should be allowed to share their wifi's as much as they want.

I do too but as it stands I have to get your permission to use your wifi. Maybe you don't want to be bothered by people constantly asking you if its ok but you cant just in your mind say "I dont care who uses it" becasue I dont know you think that and therefore sharing it willingly. So your previous argument of "if you dont know you cant access it" its impossible for anyone to share a connection free of any strings. Thats what I have a problem with. If Im in an appartment complex that has 50 units within a Wifi range and the name is linksys how the hell am I to find and ask the owner if its ok? Call it entitlement if you want but the internet is go anywhere unless if you cant and if a wireless signal is penetrating my property and I see that there has been no attempt to secure it (even with stupid measures like hidden ssid and mac filter) I believe you are sharing it as a kind gesture.

Then, if you want to share, you advertise it and establish a precedent of KNOWINGLY permitting such access. Just like a store or a public website does. Otherwise, just because you find someone's wallet lying on the ground does not make it legal for you to use their credit cards.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Vic
The difference here is that Red Herring is always a fallacy whereas slippery slope is only a fallacy when used improperly.

But if the shop owner didn't care and press charges the odds are slim that anyone other than those listed in the article would have known, thus no massive migration of people to the parking lot outside of the cafe for all the "free Wifi".

So to say that the only reason she had to press charges was becasue if she didn't the "world" would take advantage of her thus causing her business harm.

Please don't nitpick something that was obviously not literal.

The funny thing here is that I believe that people should be allowed to share their wifi's as much as they want.

... and later be able to claim that they didn't really mean to share it and put people in jail for using it. It's very generous of you. 😀

Oh that's right... you're the idiot who doesn't understand public and private and so he thinks that "an authoritarian society where things are forbidden unless they are allowed" even when those forbidden things are someone else's private property.
So where is your car parked? When can I make long distance calls on your phone line?

I didn't know they let you out of retard camp for trips.
It was broadcast over the public airwaves in a public place, and every member of the public within range was granted access to the network according to the owner's router configuration decisions. If you fail to get the difference between that and taking someone's car without permission, then you should really get yourself educated by methods other than listening to rightwing talking heads rant about "entitlement mentality."

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: Vic

As is your car if you leave the keys in the ignition.

But I don't have a pair of shoes that automatically has me enter the nearest unlocked door/car.

Its how the technology is, its the default behavior for many PCs as well as some new devices like handhelds and phones.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Vic
The difference here is that Red Herring is always a fallacy whereas slippery slope is only a fallacy when used improperly.

But if the shop owner didn't care and press charges the odds are slim that anyone other than those listed in the article would have known, thus no massive migration of people to the parking lot outside of the cafe for all the "free Wifi".

So to say that the only reason she had to press charges was becasue if she didn't the "world" would take advantage of her thus causing her business harm.

Please don't nitpick something that was obviously not literal.

The funny thing here is that I believe that people should be allowed to share their wifi's as much as they want.

... and later be able to claim that they didn't really mean to share it and put people in jail for using it. It's very generous of you. 😀

Oh that's right... you're the idiot who doesn't understand public and private and so he thinks that "an authoritarian society where things are forbidden unless they are allowed" even when those forbidden things are someone else's private property.
So where is your car parked? When can I make long distance calls on your phone line?

I didn't know they let you out of retard camp for trips.
It was broadcast over the public airwaves in a public place, and every member of the public within range was granted access to the network according to the owner's router configuration decisions. If you fail to get the difference between that and taking someone's car without permission, then you should really get yourself educated by methods other than listening to rightwing talking heads rant about "entitlement mentality."

:roll:

Quit dodging my arguments and making stupid partisan rants.

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: Vic
Then, if you want to share, you advertise it and establish a precedent of KNOWINGLY permitting such access.

I just feel that that is backwards. I dont think those that are not making money off the service should be the ones required to do extra work to let people legally use it. Id much rather have the business that require you to be a paying customer have to implement something that makes it impossible to "stumble" on to their connection.

But I guess we will agree to disagree.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Vic

As is your car if you leave the keys in the ignition.

But I don't have a pair of shoes that automatically has me enter the nearest unlocked door/car.

Its how the technology is, its the default behavior for many PCs as well as some new devices like handhelds and phones.

Yaknow, we used to have similar arguments here years ago about filesharing copyrighted work. And I sorry, just because you can steal does not mean that it is legal to do so. Haven't you heard of those stings some cops have done where they drive a semi loaded with expensive goods like stereos and TVs into an impoverished neighborhood, leave it unlocked, and then bust all the people who help themselves? I think that's unethical, but the courts have said many times over that it is not entrapment.

I'm not unreasonable here, it's just that smackers and senseamp are known partisan hacks/trolls here.
The facts are just what I'm trying to tell you over and over again. I wouldn't have a fence around my yard if people wouldn't walk through it without my permission. I wouldn't have a lock on my door if people wouldn't trespass. I wouldn't secure my wifi if people didn't think the lack of a lock gave them free access. By abusing what's out there, you ruin any hope of sharing.
And FFS, if their wifis are wide open with the SSID of "linksys," it's pretty damned likely that their PC's are too. Just leave a text doc on their desktop asking for permission. 😛

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Vic
The difference here is that Red Herring is always a fallacy whereas slippery slope is only a fallacy when used improperly.

But if the shop owner didn't care and press charges the odds are slim that anyone other than those listed in the article would have known, thus no massive migration of people to the parking lot outside of the cafe for all the "free Wifi".

So to say that the only reason she had to press charges was becasue if she didn't the "world" would take advantage of her thus causing her business harm.

Please don't nitpick something that was obviously not literal.

The funny thing here is that I believe that people should be allowed to share their wifi's as much as they want.

... and later be able to claim that they didn't really mean to share it and put people in jail for using it. It's very generous of you. 😀

Oh that's right... you're the idiot who doesn't understand public and private and so he thinks that "an authoritarian society where things are forbidden unless they are allowed" even when those forbidden things are someone else's private property.
So where is your car parked? When can I make long distance calls on your phone line?

I didn't know they let you out of retard camp for trips.
It was broadcast over the public airwaves in a public place, and every member of the public within range was granted access to the network according to the owner's router configuration decisions. If you fail to get the difference between that and taking someone's car without permission, then you should really get yourself educated by methods other than listening to rightwing talking heads rant about "entitlement mentality."

:roll:

Quit dodging my arguments and making stupid partisan rants.

Good one :thumbsup:

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: Vic

And FFS, if their wifis are wide open with the SSID of "linksys," it's pretty damned likely that their PC's are too. Just leave a text doc on their desktop asking for permission. 😛

And break the law (2 counts no less) to ask permission! 🙂😉

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Vic

And FFS, if their wifis are wide open with the SSID of "linksys," it's pretty damned likely that their PC's are too. Just leave a text doc on their desktop asking for permission. 😛

And break the law (2 counts no less) to ask permission! 🙂😉

LOL!

I hope you see my point though. Respect private property rights and ask for permission. Otherwise, more and more laws will be passed saying that people will have to secure their networks, and even those who do want to share won't be allowed to.

 

[BoberFett]

I have to disagree with you here Vic. The users computer asked for permission to connect. The wireless router responded in the affirmative when it leased him an IP. If you don't want people to connect to your wireless network, password it. Even the simplest password will suffice, as even breaking that then proves intent to access without authorization. The shop owner could easily get around this printing the password on receipts, therefore only customers would know the password.

 

[PremiumG]

Obviously, this policeman is a douchebag:

"1. Police Chief Andrew Milanowski was not sure if Sam Peterson was engaging in any allegedly illegal activities.

2. The owner of the coffee shop didn't even know it was allegedly an illegal activity, nor did the owner even seem to care.

3. The prosecutor's statement shows that they knew this law is implemented poorly, and was not looking forward to ever having to prosecute someone for breaking it. " - urdaddyhatesu from news.com

This policeman had nothing better to do than to track down the man who is using a coffee shop's wifi?? Why in the world would you take up your own time to find the law about this and arrest him???

Please join me in expressing my displeasure to the police chief:

policechief@spartami.org

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: Vic
LOL!

I hope you see my point though. Respect private property rights and ask for permission. Otherwise, more and more laws will be passed saying that people will have to secure their networks, and even those who do want to share won't be allowed to.

I do understand buts its just a shame that it is the way it is. When I was driving back cross country I hit at least a dozen wifi spots at apartments, office buildings, and hotels (that I was not renting a room from). I did not abuse it, I would send an email of my progress, or look up hotels/directions/phone numbers. Typically less than 15 min. I dont know if the owners were willingly sharing it but it was awfully useful. Maybe the 802.11 spec should impliment some kinda flag that states that its being shared or not. As it was not feasable for me to ask the owner (business closed, unknown location of owner) I would be SOL, and by the current law... I should have been.. Which as I said is sad.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I have to disagree with you here Vic. The users computer asked for permission to connect. The wireless router responded in the affirmative when it leased him an IP. If you don't want people to connect to your wireless network, password it. Even the simplest password will suffice, as even breaking that then proves intent to access without authorization. The shop owner could easily get around this printing the password on receipts, therefore only customers would know the password.

But that would require the owner to do something rational. Why bother with that if you can just expect people to read your mind and stick cops on them if they get it wrong? He didn't really mean to grant everyone access to his network, even if that's what he did. And if he says he didn't really mean it, that's enough for me to make you a thief. You have to respect his private property rights to the electromagnetic radiation emitted by his router. :roll:

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Many states have made it illegal to broadcast free Internet.

Soon it will be nationwide.

Blame Terrer Terrer Terrer

Actually, that blame falls squarely on people like TheKub, smack down, and senseamp. Have you not actually read the thread again, Dave? Their argument all along has been that every wifi should be free for use unless it's locked down, much like (my argument which they've repeatedly dodged) every door should be free for them to open and walk through unless it's locked.

Your argument has been answered long time ago that radio waves that you are broadcasting are not private property. Not only that, but the owner configured the router to grant access to anyone in range. It's not just leaving the door unlocked, it's also putting an "Open House" sign on it. The access was authorized by the owner's router in a manner that the owner configured it.
You of course continue to dodge my question.

Again. You don't know how wireless works.

You ACTIVELY solicit a connection to an access point. This has nothing to do with airwaves.

You are ACTIVELY connecting to a computer/network you do not own or operate. It really is that simple. No analogies, no nothing.

the AP doesn't jump out and connect to you, it's the exact opposite. Look at the 802.11 protocol on the messages SENT by the client. The AP just responds.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Many states have made it illegal to broadcast free Internet.

Soon it will be nationwide.

Blame Terrer Terrer Terrer

Actually, that blame falls squarely on people like TheKub, smack down, and senseamp. Have you not actually read the thread again, Dave? Their argument all along has been that every wifi should be free for use unless it's locked down, much like (my argument which they've repeatedly dodged) every door should be free for them to open and walk through unless it's locked.

Your argument has been answered long time ago that radio waves that you are broadcasting are not private property. Not only that, but the owner configured the router to grant access to anyone in range. It's not just leaving the door unlocked, it's also putting an "Open House" sign on it. The access was authorized by the owner's router in a manner that the owner configured it.
You of course continue to dodge my question.

Again. You don't know how wireless works.

You ACTIVELY solicit a connection to an access point. This has nothing to do with airwaves.

You are ACTIVELY connecting to a computer/network you do not own or operate. It really is that simple. No analogies, no nothing.

the AP doesn't jump out and connect to you, it's the exact opposite. Look at the 802.11 protocol on the messages SENT by the client. The AP just responds.

Can you connect to a wireless network if it does not grant you access and assign you an IP address?
You must know something I don't.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Can you connect to a wireless network if it does not grant you access and assign you an IP address?
You must know something I don't.

Yes. That's how it works.

Don't bring a layer3 protocol (DHCP) into this discussion as it is not involved. We're dealing with layer2 here.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: Mardeth

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.

Althought that might be true, I dont see this as unreasonable. The cafe bought the WiFi and was paying for it. And the guy in the car was basically stealing a service. Not really high on my list serious crimes, but a crime never the less.

How can you steel a free "service"? It's the coffee shops responsibility to secure their networks.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: Mardeth

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.

Althought that might be true, I dont see this as unreasonable. The cafe bought the WiFi and was paying for it. And the guy in the car was basically stealing a service. Not really high on my list serious crimes, but a crime never the less.

How can you steel a free "service"? It's the coffee shops responsibility to secure their networks.

You are connecting to a computer you do not own or operate. You are stealing services you do not have permission to use.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

 

[mcvickj]

Here is something for you spidey07... At what point does the customer relationship end? If this man had ever purchased a cup of coffee, then wasn't he in fact a customer? If he turned on his laptop before going to the counter, was he breaking the law until a financial transaction was complete? Or what about if he went inside and purchased a cup of coffee and went back to his car to use the WiFi? Still consider this illegal because he isn't physically in the building?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: mcvickj
Here is something for you spidey07... At what point does the customer relationship end? If this man had ever purchased a cup of coffee, then wasn't he in fact a customer? If he turned on his laptop before going to the counter, was he breaking the law until a financial transaction was complete? Or what about if he went inside and purchased a cup of coffee and went back to his car to use the WiFi? Still consider this illegal because he isn't physically in the building?

The owner/operator of the network says what happens, not the law. As the owner/operator of this private network they say what goes and what doesn't.

What I mean is "permission" is up to the owner/operator and nothing else. The laws just support this.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
Can you connect to a wireless network if it does not grant you access and assign you an IP address?
You must know something I don't.

Yes. That's how it works.

Don't bring a layer3 protocol (DHCP) into this discussion as it is not involved. We're dealing with layer2 here.

That's good enough for me. If you configure your router to grant access, then you have granted access, and the access is authorized.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: Mardeth

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.

Althought that might be true, I dont see this as unreasonable. The cafe bought the WiFi and was paying for it. And the guy in the car was basically stealing a service. Not really high on my list serious crimes, but a crime never the less.

How can you steel a free "service"? It's the coffee shops responsibility to secure their networks.

You are connecting to a computer you do not own or operate. You are stealing services you do not have permission to use.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Because if you didn't have permission to use these services, why did the owner configure the router to grant you permission to use them?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
Can you connect to a wireless network if it does not grant you access and assign you an IP address?
You must know something I don't.

Yes. That's how it works.

Don't bring a layer3 protocol (DHCP) into this discussion as it is not involved. We're dealing with layer2 here.

That's good enough for me. If you configure your router to grant access, then you have granted access, and the access is authorized.

Please learn about the technology before you post again.

I suggest you read about the association process first. Google should help you out. Then you can move onto authorization.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: mcvickj
Here is something for you spidey07... At what point does the customer relationship end? If this man had ever purchased a cup of coffee, then wasn't he in fact a customer? If he turned on his laptop before going to the counter, was he breaking the law until a financial transaction was complete? Or what about if he went inside and purchased a cup of coffee and went back to his car to use the WiFi? Still consider this illegal because he isn't physically in the building?

The owner/operator of the network says what happens, not the law. As the owner/operator of this private network they say what goes and what doesn't.

What I mean is "permission" is up to the owner/operator and nothing else. The laws just support this.

That is absolutely right. What permissions the owner sets on the router is entirely up to him. But if he sets the permissions to allow anyone within range to access the router, he shouldn't later be allowed to claim that he didn't really mean to set those permissions and get someone arrested.