first read this....

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story [...] v=menu44_1

then my reaction to how many different ways you can be screwed.

if your wi-fi signal is pumped into my house/onto public space like a street, or anywhere where the public domain applies (such as stores and streets and what not) then it's not stealing anything. If you don't secure your network, it is implied that you are sharing it. There is also a huge community initiative to share your wi-fi connection, some states such as South Carolina are even going as far as making wi-fi everywhere free to access to everyone. Under a law like this, you could get thrown in jail for using something that was purposely made free. If you break into the network, that's another story.

basically what it comes down to, is if you put it out there and don't lock it up, it's going to get used. end of story. it's just ignorant people that have no logical thought process that don't understand this. Not to mention, that every time you turn on your radio,cell phone, or tv, you could be fined just as well as he can because you're accessing a network of one type or another. Unlocked phones? don't even think about it. Want to send a text message to someone from your e-mail? The cell phone companies don't want you to know about it either cuz you're not paying for the transaction and you have not signed a contract as the computer user with that company. that also falls under this law. It's too broad, and they can essentially fine and jail nearly every citizen that's ever used any type of radio broadcast signal. Have a scanner for emergency signals? yup, you're going to prison. cb radio? see ya.
one more note, between the giant fans on the sewage processing plant a few clicks away from my house. (creates metal noise which interferes with radio signals) and the high power lines near my house, i can technically take them both to court because they interfere with my (secured) wireless network, wireless mouse and keyboard. Degrading and sometimes eliminating their performance.

This is just what we need... more frivolous court cases, and innocent people being fined/incarcerated. People are stupid.


if any of you live in the affected area, i strongly suggest you start a community based on thwarting rulings/broad laws that are highly outdated and not specific enough such as this.

The law in the UK takes a dim view of war-driving which may involve malicious use of other people's wireless internet by deliberately hacking secured systems. Most of the publicity about this has centered on the risk of strangers using your internet to access kiddy porn and you the ISP customer getting blamed.

I used to 'borrow' local firms' wireless internet in the innocent days before they realised the risks and turned on WEP/WPA . My view was that what leaked into my home was mine to use -- and there is logical precedent for this in that fruit that falls from a neighbour's tree into your garden is yours to eat, legally.

i like the fruit tree analogy...
response to kiddy pr0n comment: and in all reality it IS open to the public, so the owner of the connection is not technically responsible, same if someone got mugged at the grocery store... is the owner of the grocery store responsible for the incident? no.

in the end of the day an individual that uses wireless internet should be aware of such issues before they even buy it.

if you dont secure your wireless internet, then i would say you are stupid for leaving yourself open to intruders and abusers of what YOU are paying for.

with the fruit tree analogy..... it works in some senses. fair enough if one of my apples falls in your garden you can eat it. however lets say a child is playing football in my garden and he kicks the ball into your garden does that mean you can keep it???

its more about whats acceptable and whats not.

but i would say if u can access it the use it, because the owners should know better

but going back to original post i think that a jail term is insane and would surely only be used for people actually hacking systems such as government services

I don't believe the owner of the network should be punished however they should know the risks and secure it. If you buy a house, there's a chance it might be broken into, so you lock the windows and doors at night, when you go out etc. It should be the same with a wireless network, if you don't want people stealing your connection just secure the network.

I don't think the man in the article violated any law -- he just needs a better attorney. The Michigan statute seems to have two relevant prohibitions: (1) "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. "

Even if he "intentionally access[ed] or caused access" to a computer network, did he do so to "devise or execute a scheme or artifice..."? I think the answer is clearly no.

(2) "A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do ... the following: Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network."

He probably was charged with violating this section. As an aside, you can't be criminally charged for accidentally accessing a hotspot under this section -- only intentionally. if I were his attorney, I would argue that open hotspots impliedly authorize access -- remember, the burden is on the state to prove he wasn't authorized. The cafe could have secured their network. Heck, they could have put up a sign saying the WIFI was for in-store customers only. He wasn't cracking their password or otherwise doing anything that indicated that he did not have authorization (notice my use of "otherwise" in this sentence).

Second, I would argue that the statute's use of "otherwise" after its laundry list of illegal activities is ambiguous. It can be read to imply that only malicious activities similar to those listed before it are prohibited -- why else would you need the word "otherwise"? As an example, re-read my last sentence of the preceding paragraph. Why didn't the legislature just write, "...acquire, alter, damage ... or use"? By using "otherwise," a fair reading is that they meant "use" the network for similar malicious activities. Seem ambiguous to me; when a criminal statute is ambiguous, it is always interpreted against the state.

All of the above is just my opinion and none of it is legal advice!

Then you need to build a bigger fence so that the football doesnt get there in the first place

the apple is a consumable, the football is not... don't skew the analogy... bandwidth is consumable and renewable just like the apple.

I think that hotspots should be shared.... the owner of the hotspot should not be liable for the activities of those who use it in public space. i also believe that any signal coming into any public space is assumed for public use. If nothing else "for customers only" sign could be solved by handing out the ssid and password for the day typed into your reciept where it says "thank you for shopping at...."

it's simple and the man shouldn't be in jail. and he probably should have had a better lawyer... but something like this would just be so surreal that you'd be getting prosecuted for it that it's insane... it just makes me wonder what kind of f-ing douche bag a$$ hole actually prosecuted it and set the sentence? Judge, jury, and prosecuting lawyer have no common sense, no intelligence, and no morals, as well as those ignorant enough to write the law in the first place. It's set for hackers/crackers, etc and malicious activity, not for someone using a hotspot.

FURTHERMORE wireless networks in public were a rarity in the year that it was "revised" (2000) and did not even exist in 1979 when the original law was written, therefore the entire law should have been thrown out and re-written every year or less to accommodate for new technologies.

either way. simply put... he suffers because people are f-ing ignorant about how tech works and how to use it.