Comments on: Wi-Fi Freeloader Arrested in Washington http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/06/22/wi-fi-freeloader-arrested-in-washington/ any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:33:03 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: bsdwork http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/06/22/wi-fi-freeloader-arrested-in-washington/comment-page-1/#comment-80105 bsdwork Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:30:39 +0000 http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/06/22/wi-fi-freeloader-arrested-in-washington/#comment-80105 This is an example of treading carefully when dealing with Internet laws. If someone using an unsecured WAP can be arrested, what is to stop us from being arrested when we use the Internet for personal use at our place of business? (you know we all do it...) I am not saying its the businesses fault for not securing the network, but the owners of the WAP should take care of their network. There are other dangers besides freeloaders. This is an example of treading carefully when dealing with Internet laws. If someone using an unsecured WAP can be arrested, what is to stop us from being arrested when we use the Internet for personal use at our place of business? (you know we all do it…)

I am not saying its the businesses fault for not securing the network, but the owners of the WAP should take care of their network. There are other dangers besides freeloaders.

]]> By: MD http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/06/22/wi-fi-freeloader-arrested-in-washington/comment-page-1/#comment-5911 MD Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:23:54 +0000 http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/06/22/wi-fi-freeloader-arrested-in-washington/#comment-5911 The main problem seems to be that, unlike "stealing" someone's wide-open home network, this case involves a publicly open network. The merchant suggests that "good behaviour" means the users should buy something once in a while. But, analagous to a "public place", unless they explicitly banned him (like the Petty Trespass act?) where's the grounds for their complaint? The police may have warned him to move on, earlier, but if the merchant explicitly said "you are not welcome here", then why would they have grounds to complain? I also suppose there was no "I agree to these conditions" clause in using the wireless. The merchant, if they were the least bit computer savvy, could have used the MAC-exclusion ability of most home routers to prevent his network card from access. I would think that if he had to buy a new network card each time he used their network, eventually the freeloader would have gone elsewhere. Actually, the merchant may have more grounds for complaint if the parking lot was "for the use of patrons only". He could have the car towed. (I recall a case where someone refused to get out of a car so it could be towed, and was charged with obstruction of justice). Finally, the guy could have avoided all this hassle by buying a cup of coffee first, then sitting in his car sipping it for a few hours - thus complying with the letter and spirit of the service. The main problem seems to be that, unlike “stealing” someone’s wide-open home network, this case involves a publicly open network. The merchant suggests that “good behaviour” means the users should buy something once in a while. But, analagous to a “public place”, unless they explicitly banned him (like the Petty Trespass act?) where’s the grounds for their complaint? The police may have warned him to move on, earlier, but if the merchant explicitly said “you are not welcome here”, then why would they have grounds to complain?

I also suppose there was no “I agree to these conditions” clause in using the wireless. The merchant, if they were the least bit computer savvy, could have used the MAC-exclusion ability of most home routers to prevent his network card from access. I would think that if he had to buy a new network card each time he used their network, eventually the freeloader would have gone elsewhere.

Actually, the merchant may have more grounds for complaint if the parking lot was “for the use of patrons only”. He could have the car towed. (I recall a case where someone refused to get out of a car so it could be towed, and was charged with obstruction of justice).

Finally, the guy could have avoided all this hassle by buying a cup of coffee first, then sitting in his car sipping it for a few hours – thus complying with the letter and spirit of the service.

]]>