Guy arrested for stealing wi-fi

[z42]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20060623/tc_cmp/189600746

According to the story, the guy had been using this coffee shop's wi-fi for free internet for 3 months, without ever buying anything. While this is rude, should it be against the law? I would think there would have to be some kind of warning that buyng product from the store was required to use the service in order for them to actually make any kind of charges stick.

 

[mugs]

Depends on the store policy.

Edit:

County deputies charged Smith with theft of services after returning to the parking lot after they told him to stop.

Seems pretty clear-cut to me...

 

[KillyKillall]

Usually those stickers say "Free Wi-Fi Here" not.. "Free Wi-Fi Here if You Give Us Money"

If they don't like it, they should have created an access key that changes daily and provide to each person with a purchase.

 

[PinmasterJay]

owned

 

[dullard]

He should have been arrested for tresspassing too. He was asked to leave and not do that and kept coming back.

You do NOT have the right to stay on private property and use private items/services after you are asked to leave.

 

[KillyKillall]

Originally posted by: mugs
Depends on the store policy.

Edit:

County deputies charged Smith with theft of services after returning to the parking lot after they told him to stop.

Seems pretty clear-cut to me...

This goes back to the age old debate - if your neighbor sets up wireless and you use it because he didn't take the time to protect it, should it be illegal.

They said that this charge was typically used for hackers who used service without paying - well, what the hell did this guy hack? nothing. He used a public connection that was set up in the area. If they really care that much, they should monitor usage and protect it.

Since when does store policy mean it's the law???

Originally posted by: dullard
He should have been arrested for tresspassing too. He was asked to leave and not do that and kept coming back.

You do NOT have the right to stay on private property and use private items/services after you are asked to leave.

Since when is being in a public parking lot trespassing? They don't own the lot and can't tell him not to be in it.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: KillyKillall
He used a public connection that was set up in the area. If they really care that much, they should monitor usage and protect it.

But it was more than just that. He was continuously going onto private property after being told to leave. It isn't like you are at home stealing someone else's wireless signal, it is like constantly entering their house without permission to steal their wireless signal.

 

[Juno]

Originally posted by: PinmasterJay
pwned

fixed.

 

[aiex]

They should have just blocked him. I'm guessing by the fact that he had to steal broadband he probably wasn't good enough to get around even a simple MAC filter.

Alex

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: KillyKillall
Since when is being in a public parking lot trespassing? They don't own the lot and can't tell him not to be in it.

It never once said it was a public parking lot. Most parking lots are private. Unless otherwise stated, I just assume when you drive up to a business' parking lot, then it is the business' parking lot and not a city owned parking lot. And even then, you can trespass on city public property.

 

[KillyKillall]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: KillyKillall
He used a public connection that was set up in the area. If they really care that much, they should monitor usage and protect it.

But it was more than just that. He was continuously going onto private property after being told to leave. It isn't like you are at home stealing someone else's wireless signal, it is like constantly entering their house without permission to steal their wireless signal.

Smith allegedly parked his truck in the parking lot to use Brewed Awakenings' wireless access.

The coffee shop told him to leave, not the land owner. I'm assuming this was in a complex and that the "manager" of the coffee shop didn't own. They can't tell people that they can't enter the complex and enter other stores or loiter in the parking lot.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: KillyKillall
The coffee shop told him to leave, not the land owner. I'm assuming this was in a complex and that the "manager" of the coffee shop didn't own. They can't tell people that they can't enter the complex and enter other stores or loiter in the parking lot.

Why make assumptions that the coffee shop doesn't own the land AND even if that is true then also assume that the land owner allows it?

You are really jumping to conclusions without any evidence.

 

[skrilla]

Originally posted by: aiex
They should have just blocked him. I'm guessing by the fact that he had to steal broadband he probably wasn't good enough to get around even a simple MAC filter.

Alex

I don't think they were smart enough to do that. Either block him or give a password of the day to paying customers on the back of their receipt.

An unsecured network is basically fair game. It may not be right but that's the way it is. They have more to worry about than a guy sitting in his truck surfing the web.

 

[KillyKillall]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: KillyKillall
The coffee shop told him to leave, not the land owner. I'm assuming this was in a complex and that the "manager" of the coffee shop didn't own. They can't tell people that they can't enter the complex and enter other stores or loiter in the parking lot.

Why make assumptions that the coffee shop doesn't own the land AND even if that is true then also assume that the land owner allows it?

Most coffee shops in the US are placed in complexes. I would venture to say that less than .01% of those coffee shops own the complex.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: KillyKillall
Most coffee shops in the US are placed in complexes. I would venture to say that less than .01% of those coffee shops own the complex.

I highly doubt your number, but lets assume you are correct in this case. Why still assume that the complex owner doesn't agree with the coffee shop owner?

No complex owner wants his parking lot filled with non-customers so that his tenants leave for complexes with enough parking.

You are making two major assumptions without any evidence. I have evidence that the police agreed it was potentially illegal. Police of course don't judge the case, we'll have to wait and see if it truely was illegal.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: KillyKillall
This goes back to the age old debate - if your neighbor sets up wireless and you use it because he didn't take the time to protect it, should it be illegal.

They said that this charge was typically used for hackers who used service without paying - well, what the hell did this guy hack? nothing. He used a public connection that was set up in the area. If they really care that much, they should monitor usage and protect it.

Since when does store policy mean it's the law???

Ummm... they pay for the Internet connection, they can set the policies for its use.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: KillyKillall

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

You are a turd. Get off the internet

 

[KillyKillall]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: KillyKillall
Most coffee shops in the US are placed in complexes. I would venture to say that less than .01% of those coffee shops own the complex.

I highly doubt your number, but lets assume you are correct in this case. Why still assume that the complex owner doesn't agree with the coffee shop owner?

No complex owner wants his parking lot filled with non-customers so that his tenants leave for complexes with enough parking.

Looks like a complex:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q...2236,-122.505112&spn=0.021344,0.054245

I'm not trying to be an ass. Seriously.

But this goes along with if someone puts a water fountain in a complex next to the bathrooms to the complex and someone drinks out of it too much, they can have them arrested for telling them not to drink out of it. It's the same thing. If you put something out there for public use, you can't tell people who can and can't use it. Otherwise it is descrimination.

By this standard, if my neighbor ever connects to my wireless connection (and let's hypothetically say it isn't encrypted) - I can have him arrested? That is pretty absurd.

 

[Maximus96]

OT: since these parking lots are private, are you legally required to obay the "stop" signs? can cops write you up on private property?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: KillyKillall

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

You are a turd. Get off the internet

Haha

 

[BooGiMaN]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: KillyKillall
Since when is being in a public parking lot trespassing? They don't own the lot and can't tell him not to be in it.

It never once said it was a public parking lot. Most parking lots are private. Unless otherwise stated, I just assume when you drive up to a business' parking lot, then it is the business' parking lot and not a city owned parking lot. And even then, you can trespass on city public property.

i doubt any public parking lots exist....someone owns it and even if the city owns it the city can ask you to leave so its not totally public

with that said..if the coffee shop rents or leases the shop and parking lot, that pretty much means the land owner has given them the right to provide service and parking to whoever they want....

otherwise only your landlord would be able to kick someone else out of your apartment/rented house/yard since you dont own the apartment or lot.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: KillyKillall
By this standard, if my neighbor ever connects to my wireless connection (and let's hypothetically say it isn't encrypted) - I can have him arrested? That is pretty absurd.

It is absurd in that example.

He is doing two things wrong though in this example. No matter what you say, the store owner/complex owner/both have the right to tell people to leave the parking lot. You have both stealing wi-fi AND trespassing no matter how you try to twist the story.

Edit: looks to me like one small building. Possibly the coffee shop is the only tenant. If not the owner.

 

[KillyKillall]

Originally posted by: Maximus96
OT: since these parking lots are private, are you legally required to obay the "stop" signs? can cops write you up on private property?

Link To Answer in California

21107.8. (a) Any city or county may, by ordinance or resolution, find and declare that there are privately owned and maintained offstreet parking facilities as described in the ordinance or resolution within the city or county that are generally held open for use of the public for purposes of vehicular parking. Upon enactment by a city or county of the ordinance or resolution, Sections 22350, 23103, and 23109 and the provisions of Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000) shall apply to privately owned and maintained offstreet parking facilities, except as provided in subdivision (b).

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a), no ordinance or resolution enacted thereunder shall apply to any offstreet parking facility described therein unless the owner or operator has caused to be posted in a conspicuous place at each entrance to that offstreet parking facility a notice not less than 17 by 22 inches in size with lettering not less than one inch in height, to the effect that the offstreet parking facility is subject to public traffic regulations and control.

(c) No ordinance or resolution shall be enacted under subdivision (a) without a public hearing thereon and 10 days prior written notice to the owner and operator of the privately owned and maintained offstreet parking facility involved.

(d) Section 22507.8 may be enforced without enactment of an ordinance or resolution as required under subdivision (a) or the posting of a notice at each entrance to the offstreet parking facility as required under subdivision (b).

(e) The department shall not be required to provide patrol or enforce any provisions of this code on any privately owned and maintained offstreet parking facility subject to the provisions of this code under this section except those provisions applicable to private property other than by action under this section.
Amended Ch. 975, Stats. 1982. Effective January 1, 1983.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: KillyKillall

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: KillyKillall
He used a public connection that was set up in the area. If they really care that much, they should monitor usage and protect it.

But it was more than just that. He was continuously going onto private property after being told to leave. It isn't like you are at home stealing someone else's wireless signal, it is like constantly entering their house without permission to steal their wireless signal.

Smith allegedly parked his truck in the parking lot to use Brewed Awakenings' wireless access.

The coffee shop told him to leave, not the land owner. I'm assuming this was in a complex and that the "manager" of the coffee shop didn't own. They can't tell people that they can't enter the complex and enter other stores or loiter in the parking lot.

Apparently somebody didn't read the article.

County deputies charged Smith with theft of services after returning to the parking lot after they told him to stop.

When the cops tell you to leave, GTFO. It's not that difficult.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: CadetLee
When the cops tell you to leave, GTFO. It's not that difficult.

Oh, make that 3 laws he broke.
1) Stealing wi-fi.
2) Trespassing.
3) Ignoring officer orders.

All that and he still shouldn't be arrested? You are losing the battle KillyKillAll. You won't convince me or anyone else here that you can break 3 laws and not deserve to be taken away by the police.