Michigan man dodges prison in theft of Wi-Fi
A Michigan man who used a coffee shop's unsecured Wi-Fi to check his e-mail from his car could have faced up to five years in prison, according to local TV station WOOD. But it seems few in the village of Sparta, Mich., were aware that using an unsecured Wi-Fi connection without the owner's permission--a practice known as piggybacking--was a felony.
Each day around lunch time, Sam Peterson would drive to the Union Street Cafe, park his car and--without actually entering the coffee shop--check his e-mail and surf the Net. His ritual raised the suspicions of Police Chief Andrew Milanowski, who approached him and asked what he was doing. Peterson, probably not realizing that his actions constituted a crime, freely admitted what he was doing.
"I knew that the Union Street had Wi-Fi. I just went down and checked my e-mail and didn't see a problem with that," Peterson told a WOOD reporter.
Milanowski didn't immediately cite or arrest Peterson, mostly because he wasn't certain a crime had been committed. "I had a feeling a law was being broken," the chief said. Milanowski did some research and found Michigan's "Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks" law, a felony punishable by five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Milanowski, who eventually swore out a warrant for Peterson, doesn't believe Milanowski knew he was breaking the law. "In my opinion, probably not. Most people probably don't."
Indeed, neither did Donna May, the owner of the Union Street Cafe. "I didn't know it was really illegal, either," she told the TV station. "If he would have come in (to the coffee shop), it would have been fine."
But apparently prosecutors were more than aware of the 1979 law, which was revised in 2000 to include protections for Wi-Fi networks.
"This is the first time that we've actually charged it," Kent County Assistant Prosecutor Lynn Hopkins said, adding that "we'd been hoping to dodge this bullet for a while."
However, Peterson won't be going to prison for piggybacking. Because he has no prior record, Peterson will have to pay a $400 fine, do 40 hours of community service and enroll in the county's diversion program.
And second/last: This is possibly one of the dumbest laws ever for including coffee shops and other hotspots. It is understandable for private networks, but public ones are just that: public, and it should not be against the law for using them.
Although the common courtesy of springing for a cup of coffee in thanks for the free service might have avoided the whole issue, so would this: people operating under the reasonable assumption that people who don't want to share their wireless are capable of exercising the simple diligence to secure it, and if they do not, the fault and loss is their own. The State is not, and should not become, a substitute for simple common sense.
is using my wireless network. If I ran into a problem then I would
secure it. I believe I am responsible for others jumping on my
network, and I believe it is that simple. Especially considering my
Mac, and soon, my iPhone, will be jumping on wifi networks as I
drive through town! Am I then responsible for DODGING the
networks so that I do not connect to them? Taking routes in which
my always on internet phone does not connect to these networks?
It has a signal I am braking the law.
I can see only braking the law if I would need to enter a password.
So go in a hot spot and get a glass of water and everything is cool.
I leave my wireless on when I am not home If someone has a signal
I let them use it.
prosecuters charged and prosecuted him anyway?
This makes no sense and a waste of taxpayers' money. If I lived in
that city, I would make a big deal out of wasting my tax dollars on
such an idiotic offense. I would hope that it would take the owner
of the WIFI agreeing to prosecution before they would proceed.
This is an example of a stupid police officer and an even dumber
DAs office.
I've set up several free Wi-Fi hotspot areas BECAUSE the owners wanted them free for the neighborhood.
With this kind of threat, how will people know if a Wi-Fi spot in intentionally free for some legal purpose (e.g. to attract people to a mall, or provide access to the underprivileged, etc.), or illegally free because the owner didn't know how to enable security.
(check it out here: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/
2005-2006/billanalysis/House/htm/2005-HLA-0053-5.htm)
there has to be some kind of bad intention on the part o the
actor. I could find no mention of simply surfing the web or
checking e-mail. If he was attempting to gain access to the
owners (or any other users computer) to install spyware or in
any way hack something, then it applies...as it should, but as the
story reads, no wrongdoing occured. Also, with any crime, You
have to have a willing victim. If the owner was cool with it, there
was no crime.
So what is next to this story?
Is the police going to start surveillance on any cars parked near by and knock on neighbors doors to check if they are using someone else's service for free?
I think Sam shouldn't pay any fines for such a ridicules case. Probably Chief Andrew now checks his email in that area for free like many other people, but of course he is probably ok to do it...
was it alleged that he presented false credentials in order to obtain
access to the network. It was no less fraudulent than if he had gone
in the shop and done the same thing.
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.
So, why would you prosecute him? What is wrong with law enforcement these days? The point is no longer to stop people from damaging other people's property, rights, etc. It is now justifiable to potentially put someone in jail for 5 years for something so trivial? I'm sorry, but Mr. Milanowski has no life, and poor morals if this article is in any way accurate. What kind of person could expend so much effort to potentially destroy a man's life for checking his e-mail? Felony convictions are no joke! Sam Peterson would have a nice life with that on his record.
Wake up America!
P.S. It scares me how many unintelligent people wield power over our personal freedom daily.
The user had no malicious intent.
Why waste the time and money?
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.
-----------------------------------
First he didn't use the it to defraud anyone. But that would not be my argument.
My argument would be that my computer asked for a IP address from the networked, and the networked gave permission to use the internet by granting me an IP address, and access to the internet. Therefore, permission was given by the store to use the Wi-Fi.
With nothing though, the Wi-Fi will give permission to anyone to use the network. I think that should make it legal.
- Microsoft make you break laws by default.
-
by callumh
May 24, 2007 8:43 AM PDT
- I'd like to arise the issue of Wireless networking in Windows XP - by default Windows will automatically connect to unsecured wireless networks. If my Access Point is inaccessible,my laptop automatically used to connect to my next door neighbours. I don't think that this man should have to pay or do community service.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 43 Comments >>