Say "Good Bye" to free Wi-Fi access... what has this world come to?

Wow... how much public money do you think has gone into this ridiculousness? I understand why the people at the hairdressers called the police but I can't believe that it went past the original Cop who talked to him. Who forwards something like that?

How can you face felony charges for accessing a free Wi-Fi network?

 

It's illeagl to tap into other peoples WiFi networks in most places. The guy got caught. What's the big deal? It doesn't happen much (people getting caught), and $400 may seem a little steep, (a felony is way too harsh :loony but that's life.

The coffee shop put the wifi in place for paying customers to use. Not for leeches who roll up on the curb and sit in their car. It wasn't a free public wifi access spot, like one put in place by the local government/community. Thats the difference.

 

If you don't lock it down, it's public. If you don't have a page-interrupt saying it's for paying customers only, then it should be considered public. Now, if there was an initial page when he opened his browser, saying this is for the whatever coffee shop paying patrons only, and he ignored it, then he deserves the fine.

A felony? You're going to take away someone's voting rights and essentially force them into menial labour because of an Internet connexion that you didn't see fit to lock down?

What a crock of .

 

I totally agree.

 

I completely agree, Zap, and could not have put it any better way. This is ridiculous.

 

The places charges for wifi if you're not a customer. This is a good example of the fact that just because the door is wide open, doesn't mean it is not breaking and entering.

 

WOW what a load of crap dont the authorities have anything else to worry about.

 

At the same time though they should put security measures up..

 

^^right. But like Zaphod said if they have an initial page pop up and give all the details saying its only for customers, then it is his fault.

what would it have hurt for the guy to go in and buy a cappuccino or something? its a lot less than paying a $400 fine.

 

Hmmm, that could depend on local laws. In this case, the guy got arrested. In most cases, a simple tap on the guys car window telling him to get lost would probably suffice, but this went a little far.

Also, if it's a mom-and-pop type coffee shop, they may not know how to lock their WiFi network down, or make a pop-up page for it.

Some of my neighbors leave their WiFi unlocked (I assume they don't know how to lock it) yet I don't tap into their network. I don't know the local law, but it's the same as the "open door" scenario someone stated above: just because someone leaves their front door open, doesn't mean it's OK for you to walk in.

 

I would think that if its a little mom and pop place that they wouldn't take so unkindly to folks using their wireless.

 

If you're going to offer Wi-Fi, it is your responsibility as the shop owner to know how to lock it down, or to hire someone who can. Can you imagine if some paedophile had been using it, and the police or FBI tracked the IP to that coffee shop? Talk about a world of hurt... and all for the want of like two hours of a geek's time.

 

I completely agree. Lets look at tv signals. Satelitte TV is all over the air waves and they secure it. A pop up disclaimer page would really help save directv alot of $$$$ in security, eh? I would argue that his signal made its way into my vehicle/home which is private property. I think airwaves are a whole differnt world.

Common sense has left us.

a compentant lawyer will have this case trashed.

 

The big deal is that just because someone decided to pass a law saying that this is illegal, doesn't mean that it isn't ridiculous. The reason why this is making the news is because IT IS ridiculous and the news editors know it. I see no other reason for them publishing this. How many civilians get arrested every day for other reasons but the news is not published? Making something illegal doesn't make it any more wrong than the things that are legal, it's just an attempt to define what's right or wrong based on the belief of some people (our government), which sometimes make the wrong decisions. It is just some rules written by someone on paper, not a law of physics or nature. To put it another way, making something legal or illegal is just a decision to change what authorities will do when a civilian does something. That's why an 18-year-old can drink in Mexico but not here in the US. That doesn't mean that it is right or wrong to drink at 18.

The problem is that you can't lock down a service that you are offering to your customers for free, unless you are willing to share the WiFi passkey with all your customers which will eventually defeat the purpose. In addition, sharing the key can be more trouble than what it's worth as sometimes a customer may not know how to enter it. So the problem here is not that they didn't lock it, the problem is that this law is ridiculous. What should be illegal is to use that connection to cause some sort of damage, not to use it for its intended purpose.

I heard that the owner of the coffee shop knew the guy would normally sit outside and used the Internet but they never cared or said anything about it, neither did she knew that it was illegal.

However, I wonder at what point does it become illegal. Suppose you buy coffee at the shop and instead of sitting at a table at the coffee shop you go outside and sit in your car. You are a customer of the coffee shop because you are consuming what you bought there. But, does that mean you don't have the freedom to go and sit in your car to enjoy what you bought at the store? How does this law define where you can enjoy the goods and services offered by the shop?

 

I'm not suggesting locking it down with a WEP passkey -- you could do as little as a page interrupt ("this is for the use of paying customers of LMN Cafe, other use may be a felony under whatever statute"), or you could do what most places around here do, and put a code on the receipt and allow that code to access for two hours (or whatever).

 

...or maybe the publishers wanted to make people aware that laws like this do exist, and that people should think before accessing WiFi networks if what they are doing is legal or not.

Just because a WiFi signal is unlocked, doesn't mean it's "fair game". It's a grey area. Some communites have strict laws, others don't. It's up to the WiFi user to know. And if you're in doubt, ask or assume it's illegal.

I personally have no sympathy for WiFi leeches, and think they should be fined. Coffee shops set up WiFi for paying customers, not as a public service. If you want to use their network, go buy a $2 cup of coffee from them. It's the morally (and sometimes legally) right thing to do.

 

Boy, I disagree. First of all, I wouldn't assume something was illegal. Second, if you pick up a Wi-Fi signal called (for example) linksys, how are you going to know whom to ask? If it was called bobscafe or something, then yes, it's obvious.

Coffee shops set up WiFi to attract customers. If they want to go for paying customers only, they need to take steps to lock it down. And if they just want to have it and not lock it down at all, then it seems wrong to prosecute people for doing it.

Information wants to be free.

 

I want you to tell me since when have publishers and the media been worried about people learning something. The news and media are there to make money off advertisers by attracting viewers/readers, and to do that they need to find the most interesting stories available, the kind of story that they know will get people to stay tuned to their station or buying the newspaper or magazine. There are many laws that have been out there for years that many of us ignore, but the media doesn't care because it doesn't make a good story.

There's a big difference between informing people for the benefit of the audience, and informing people for the benefit of Nielsen ratings.

That's a great idea, but I am willing to bet that Donna May doesn't know that's even possible.

 

Personally I think the police & prosecutor have too little to do & were actually trying to find something to charge a person with.

I don't know if there is an easy solution to the problem with free wi-fi, but if it's free then people should have the ability to use it.

 

Wirelessly posted (LGE-VX8300/1.0 UP.Browser/6.2.3.2 (GUI) MMP/2.0)

Fire 14 what part of free 4 cafe patrons you cannot understand with a high end scaner your cordless and even cell phone calls can be herd and some times if you and your nextdoor apt have the same make and freq cordless phone you and they can hear the others call or make a call on the others number the makers answer 2 this is move the base unit so is it ok for u nighbor 2 liston in

 

I think this topic of knowing WiFi laws is a "hot topic" and would attract viewers (and revenue) for the news outlets, since there are a growing number of people going about accessing WiFi signals, and they aren't sure what the laws are and would like to find out.

I did a quick search on Google and there seems to be alot of confusion about the laws regarding free/public WiFi access. The local laws vary, and even then there are different interpretations of them. Like I said before, it's a grey area, and for me, if I'm not sure, I'll play it safe and only access signals I know for sure are meant for the public.

And yes, I agree with everyone who says coffee shops should lock their signal down and give patrons a code on the reciept. But the fact remains that (for whatever reason) alot of coffee shops and private people don't lock it down, and other people are picking up their signal and using it, even tho they aren't the intended recipients or granted permission by the owner of the signal. And this is where the grey area begins...

 

Don't get me wrong, I do understand it's for paying customers as part of the bigger picture.

And yes when Analog was used as well as the old cordless phones, I use to listen to phone conversations when my scanner picked them up randomly. (I never listened on purpose mind you) and no I didn't think it was right or is right now, but in my opinion that is another subject & matter since the article is not on a person hacking into a computer for info.

There are some things that maybe seem extreme when you look at something as simple as someone grabbing a wifi connection every now & then to surf for a short period vs everyday & abusing it too.

Maybe they need to figure another solution to prevent this & I don't know what the answer is to it, but this just seemed extreme to me.

 

ESTO , I totally disagree with you.

I think anybody considering to offer a free service should take measures to avoid unpleasant situations. This is an unplesant situation for both the coffe shop owners and the poor guy surfing the web an reading his emails.

Please read carefully:

-The case has surprised locals, including the owner of the barbershop that initially called police, as well as Donna May, owner of the coffee shop.

"He could have just come in the cafe, even if he didn't have any money, I would let him get on it," May said.

So, this IS a ridiculous incident even for the coffe shop owner. Maybe this incident will help people look more onto the risk they face when offering free unprotected wi-fi service.
But, if the owner of any coffe shop, restaurant, mall or whatever… set up a FREE Hot Spot, just get real – people will use it, and people will use it without paying or buying coffe or drinks or goods because, hey it’s free! I think in legal terms there is nothing like free service IF you need to buy a cup of coffe. Is free or it is not. It doesn’t make sence to post a “FREE Internet Service” sign in your window if you need to buy something ‘to get it free’.

Last night I walked in into a Kmart with a new “Free Internet Café service”, about 5 or 6 stations and a printer, There will be a difference if the poster reads: “Free Internet service for Kmart customers”. I wonder if can use it to buy online at walmart.com?

 

See this tells me that the problem was more with the Police Chief & Prosecutor wanting to cause this person a problem, then the store owner.

It is a very gray area on the laws & I am sure there will be more concerns down the road till things are figured out.

 

Eavesdropping on a phone conversation is totally different because you are tapping into a private conversation between two people. This guy was not watching anyone else's private internet session.

If you've ever studied the OSI Model layers of networking, you'd see that the session layer established between the server he was accessing on the Internet and the user's laptop in the car was like a private conversation between the server and the laptop. He was not connecting to someone else's session layer (eavesdropping). He was not interfering with anyone else's communication. (see Wikipedia)

If you want to make a more "apples to apples" comparison, you can say that he was doing something like breaking into the coffee shop's basement and grabbing a wire and tap into the coffee shop's electrical system to steal electricity. But the problem with that comparison is that he did not break any security to obtain access. The coffee shop says the WiFi is for FREE ACCESS, which is similar to me installing an AC outlet outside my house and then posting a sign saying "FREE ELECTRICITY". Why would I prosecute anyone for connecting to my AC outlet that I purposedly made available for anyone to access?

 

Or "Free Local Calls".

 

I wonder if a cop would arrest me for making a VoIP call using my WiFi phone over a free coffee shop WiFi signal if I was sitting outside the shop.

 

Here in NJ, Most likely they would. :lmao:

 

Wirelessly posted (LGE-VX8300/1.0 UP.Browser/6.2.3.2 (GUI) MMP/2.0)

Thieft is thieft and we wounder where kids get thier morals from