Categories
Archives
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
There is another recent case of a person getting in hot water for using freely available wireless Internet. We reported on similar cases in the past.
This time it is in the little town of Sparta, Michigan. Each day, around lunch time, Sam Peterson would drive to the Union Street Cafe, park his car, and browse the Internet from the convenience of his car and without entering the coffee shop. His daily routine became suspicious to Police Chief Andrew Milanowski who approached him and asked what he was doing. Peterson, not realizing that his response may get him in trouble, admitted that he was using the coffee shop’s Internet access.
Milanowski didn’t immediately cite or arrest Peterson because he wasn’t certain that a crime had been committed. However, after doing some research, he found out that under Michigan’s “Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks” law, Peterson’s conduct is a felony punishable by five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
The prosecution of Peterson under the Michigan law, originally enacted in 1979 and modified in 2000 to cover wireless networks, is the first time that such conduct has been charged, according to Kent County Assistant Prosecutor Lynn Hopkins.
The good news for Peterson is that he won’t be going to prison for freeloading. 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.
3 Responses to “Another wifi freeloader in trouble”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- Virginia Supreme Court Strikes Down State’s Anti-Spam Law
- Travelers’ Laptops May Be Detained At Border
- File Sharing Data Breach
- No download? Maybe no infringement in another Federal District Court
- CAN-SPAM Rules Modified
- CFAA Damages Calculation Includes Cost of Tracking Hacker
- Courts split on whether making a copyrighted song available for download violates copyright law.
- How to Respond to Data Breach
- Border Agents Can Search Laptops
- What is your return address?
- Proposed FRE 502 is good for electronic discovery, but it is not going to drastically reduce the cost of litigation as the authors are hoping.
- British Authorities: Insult to Injury
- Introduction to James Paulick
- TXJ Costs Continue Increasing
- Proposed Amendments to Section 1030
John Brown 29May2007
This is ridiculous! If the police have to arrest somebody and then dust off the statute books in search of a crime then there is something wrong with the system.
John Police 15June2007
This is a bad example of selective prosecution - there are many cases where people steal wireless internet from their neighbors and nobody does anything about it. Here, the police see someone with a laptop in a public space and they arrest him. Incredibly unfair.
Nick Lockett 26June2007
R v Gregory Straszkiewicz
Wi-Fi unauthorised access
2007 West London
Investigating Officer: Detective Constable Stephone Rothwell Ealing CID
Gregory Straszkiewicz was fined £500 and sentenced to 12 months’ conditional discharge for hijacking a wireless broadband connection. In the first case of its kind in the UK, the Court heard that Gregory Straszkiewicz had “piggybacked” on a wireless broadband network of a local Ealing resident, using a laptop while sitting in his car, having been seen in the area on several previous occasions over the past three months. He was reported to police by a neighbour concerned that he was acting suspiciously.
The crime committed in the case of Straszkiewicz, where he appears simply to have used the network, was that he gained unauthorised access to someone else’s network although in Straszkiewcz’s case, he was prosecuted under the Communications Act and found guilty of dishonestly obtaining an electronic communications service.
The case mirrors that of the US v Brian Salcedo. In the Salcedo case, there wasn’t even an unauthorised access into a computer system, simply an unauthorised access into the openly broadcast data stream.
The prosecution considered that they could have prosecuted under :
• Computer Misuse Act of gaining access to the WiFi stream (which was part of a computer system) or
• Fraud Act
• Communications Act for pretending to be the authorised user
• the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (the successor to the Interception of Communications Act or the Computer Misuse Act if he had simply been eavesdropping.
The Lax security defence holds little water as it has failed in a number of previous cases.