Man in Florida arrested who was using unauthorized Wi-Fi - Page 7

so, using your example, if someone steals your car, you should tell them not to do it again and if they do THEN you could take them to court...

and if you forget to warn them not to steal it again, you'd have to go thru all of that again...

hmmmm, stealin' is stealin'...

EDIT: the law itself is the warning if you wanna look at it that way... and ignorance of the law is no excuse...

besides, just like i said before, YOU USUALLY KNOW WHEN YOU'RE DOIN' WRONG... and you know i'm right too lol

i said it would be dumb to do the car thing... geez, i'm not an idiot... please re-read and notice that i did say that...

i don't understand this comment at all... i'm the one sayin' that even though you leave your home open, your property unprotected, etc. (DUMB AS IT MAY BE) nobody has a right to use/steal your property without your permission...

if you want to leave the world's most expensive diamond (the Hope diamond i believe, and yes it would be totally stupid) and leave it on your front porch, in your yard, etc., NOBODY HAS ANY RIGHT TO TAKE THE DIAMOND... IT IS YOUR PROPERTY TO DO WITH AS YOU PLEASE...

and once again, THESE ARE NOT MY OPINIONS, THEY ARE THE LAW IN THE U.S.... although please understand i'm tryin' to give you some basic legal principles not cover every single nuance of the law... for that you need 3 years of law school and a whole lotta studyin'... so don't assume you know "the law" cause you might know a few parts of it...

as they say "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client"...

btw, on the lighter side, do you know what a lawyer uses for birth control? his personality...

No, it's not.

If stealing was stealing, then the world would be a lot different.

First of all, stealing a car is different from stealing some invisible 2.4 ghz waves in the air. Okay, we need to be realistic here. In the court of law you can never compare one thing to another.

of course you can, it's done every day in courtrooms all across the nation...

again, the law is not perfect, it is controlled by people and none of us are perfect... but the law, usually, tries to be as fair as possible...

and you need to learn that TANGIBLE things are no different (as regards the value of property) from INTANGIBLE ones ACCORDING TO THE LAW... and common sense too, i might add...

you may not agree, you may not like it, but that's the way it is...

there's a whole generation that has rationalized/brain washed itself into believing there is a difference so they can justify stealin' music, movies and other intellectual properties... but just because a lotta ppl believe this DOES NOT MAKE IT THE LAW AND DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT...

hell i don't even need to know any law to know that if it's not my property and nobody's given me permission, then i have no right WHATSOEVER to it, regardless of whether it's "tangible or not"...

BY GAWD I DO KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG... AND I LEARNED IT AT A VERY EARLY AGE... and yes i've done wrong, but at least i didn't lie to myself about it or try to rationalize that it wasn't "really" wrong...

if you're in college or near one, please go to a prof that teaches ethics and tell him that, i'm certain he'll give you an answer that's pure black and white... there's no gray area there at all...

that's usually where the law is the most troublesome... things that are clearly black and white are easy to decide... hell parents do it all the time... they know (or should) what's right and what's wrong... doesnt' take a genius...

back to people on your property w/o your permission...

mailmen, meter readers, etc, ALL have permission to be on your property, but only for a specific purpose...

btw, i want to apologize for the tone of this post, my intent is not to berate you, but i've just seen soooo many ppl tryin' to justify things that are clearly wrong so they can feel good about what they are doin' and all my emotions just kinda came to the surface... but i would ask you politely, to examine what i've said and at least see if you can understand where i'm comin' from... not sayin' that you should agree, just that you understand what i'm sayin'...

take care, g'nite all, tis my bedtime...

First of all, let's please end this extreme and grotesque conversion quickly. Second, if such a thing happened: No, of course that doesn't give anyone such "right". But, again, your argument is empty because what she is doing is also illegal (indecent exposure)...unless you are trying to say that leaving a wi-fi connection wide open should cause some of the responsibility to be upon the owner?

Exactly. Like I have been trying to say: it goes both ways. If one is a purpetrator, so is the other. If someone can get onto a wi-fi network by simply opening up their laptop, then it's partially the network owner's fault for being ignorant, lazy, or apathetic.

Interesting, I didn't know that. Where, exactly, in Canada are you referring to? Anywhere?

Well i live in the province of Quebec , near the city of Montreal actually on the south shore of Montreal .

Ive asked an officer , if for example you go to the mall , and an officer can see that you doors arent locked well he can simply give you a ticket , ok its nothing serious but still you have to pay something like a 100$( i have no idea about how much you have to pay for an offense like this , but its nothing major)

[quote=Dozzit]i said it would be dumb to do the car thing... geez, i'm not an idiot... please re-read and notice that i did say that...

i don't understand this comment at all... i'm the one sayin' that even though you leave your home open, your property unprotected, etc. (DUMB AS IT MAY BE) [b]nobody has a right to use/steal your property without your permission...[quote]

thats exactly what i mean ,
When i said , because a door is unlocked it doesnt give you the right to enter , I mean if your door is unlocked , it doesnt give the right to anyone to enter without permission ...

again, i'm not stating my opinions but the LAW as it is...

and just because she commits a crime (indecent exposure - a misdemeanor) has no connection to someone committing a rape (a felony)...

where i live it's against the law to leave your car unattended with the engine running... BUT regardless of whether you break this law or not it has no bearing on someone stealing your car...

just a note... a law enforcement officer is the wrong person to ask about the law... if they knew the law they would be lawyers...

i taught a course at a local technical college in criminal law... about half the class was from the law enforcement program and the other half was from the paralegal program..

btw, a paralegal is an assistant to a lawyer and needs a pretty good understanding of the law (both statutes and case/common law), how to research cases, etc.

several times there would be disagreement about a point i would raise (this was intentional on my part in order to require them to use critical thinking skills)... invariably the law enforcement students would base their arguments on what they felt was right/wrong or something they'd heard...

the paralegal students based their arguments on statutes and case law they'd learned/researched...

this is the case here... i'm not stating my opinion in most cases, just explaining what the law currently is and some basic principles upon which it's based...

i don't always agree with the law lol far from it... BUT it is the law and if a lawyer wants to do a good job he/she must base their arguments on it, otherwise the court will ignore it...

good research is the key to convincing a judge that your position is the correct one... you must base your arguments on precedent - those cases that preceeded yours and had points that support your position...

when watching a trial, you should know that many more hours were spent doing research to find cases that support the lawyers' arguments...

this again is a generalization, but just tryin' to point out that new law is built upon existing law...

it's why the law is slow to change... the old adage "don't try to fix it if it ain't broke" certainly applies to law...

[quote=Tsukihime][quote=Dozzit]i said it would be dumb to do the car thing... geez, i'm not an idiot... please re-read and notice that i did say that...

i don't understand this comment at all... i'm the one sayin' that even though you leave your home open, your property unprotected, etc. (DUMB AS IT MAY BE) [b]nobody has a right to use/steal your property without your permission... yep, you're right on point... it's why the law says "breaking OR entering" and not "breaking AND entering" as most people (wrongly) think...

so far, it is legal to be connected on the WIFI of someone else, unless someone here can PROVE me the contrary!

in some coutries, if you run out of fuel, you get a ticket...simply because you are an idiot to go on the highway without fuel!!!and you could have caused an accident.

if you let open your WIFI connection, and your complain to the cops because someone is using it , your risk to pay a fine, because you are the idiot who has managed to install the system...so be responsible !

and please stop your analogies with something you can steal and something you can not steal (Air, WIFI...).You can not run away and go home with a WIFI!!!!!!!!!!!

we are talking about radiowaves, not about cars, houses, or whatever!!!
so please, if you want make some analogies, make it with X ray, light, AM/FM, nuclear frequency, by exemple....

Wow...good point John, that makes a lot more sense to compare it to other "unseen" examples. So, here goes...

If you are standing at the end of your yard, are you stealing your neighbor's sunlight by casting a shadow onto his yard?

this is obviously not gettin' through... my last shot at this one...

under US law, tangible (things you can physically touch) and intangible things (music, software, ideas [consider patents for certain processes that produce a medication, chemical, etc.]) ARE THE SAME THING... THEY ARE PROPERTY... intangible PROPERTY is usually referred to as "intellectual property rights", but has the same right of protection as tangible things...

please google intellectual property rights... i got about 115,000 hits... this is just one of the first...

if they didn't have the classification as property, then IBM, MS, etc. would not be creating software and patenting manufacturing processes...

one thing i would agree with you on though and i've said it to many people... until/unless you can cite a statute or case law that says what someone is doin' is illegal, then it's legal... of course the people i'm sayin' that to are LAWYERS not lay people... lawyers know how to find statutes/case law that supports their position... it's what lawyers do...

and new law is being made all the time even though it may not be earth shaking... it's called case/common law and grows out of other laws... and if you lose a case like that then you have to show that the interpretation was flawed...

btw, as i said early on, since there probably aren't many statutes covering this yet, people probably aren't guilty of commiting a crime... HOWEVER, with only current law as a basis, they ARE commiting a TORT (civil wrong) against the person who owns the network, broadband, etc. and that person has every right to file a cause of action (lawsuit) against you and the court will certainly rule in his favor...

so beware...

the courts have already ruled on this... it's a very complicated area... but in the simplest sense yes your are... what if you build on your property so that my property is in the shade and all my plants die?

what if you build and block my reception of satellite waves? are you denying me of my right to free speech?

the court has ruled that very large buildings (skyscrapers) are damaging their neighbors by depriving them of sunlight, etc.

see how far you can take just one example? This is why lawyers spend so much time researching laws, new and old, and why we have so many lawyers but they all still manage to make a living… there are very few easy answers in law… those that do never even see the inside of a courtroom because the client’s own attorney tells em “hey, the law is on their side, we have no chance”…

it’s also why law is so fascinating, you can spend the rest of your life arguing about just a small area of it…

it’s also a pain in the butt and very illogical at times, or at least appears that way… that’s why I decided to go into IT… computer languages are totally artificial, they were designed from the ground up to be logical… and when problems are found they can be changed very easily – far easier than the law… I’m glad I made the decision I did but I still enjoy discussin’ the law and helpin’ (hopefully) others understand it somewhat and why it’s not black and white, cut and dried… why lawyers can’t necessarily (hell usually lol) give you a clear cut answer to legal questions… because the lawyer himself doesn't even know... he'll say i think we have a good chance, we have a lotta law on our side, BUT there's no guarantee...

Lolll

[quote=johnhamler]so far, it is legal to be connected on the WIFI of someone else, unless someone here can PROVE me the contrary!

in some coutries, if you run out of fuel, you get a ticket...simply because you are an idiot to go on the highway without fuel!!!and you could have caused an accident.

This is a good point , i agree with you on this...but even if you did not protect it , you have the right to sue the person who used your WIFI without your permission.

You can steal sattelite signal to get illegal cable on your televison , and yet you cannot steal the signal itself and take it somewhere ..... but it is considered stealing , Receiving signals you should not be receiving IS stealing

You cannot run away and go home with a Cable/Satellite/TV signal and go home with it either , but still getting cable illegally is considered as stealing ...

I can understand that you are pissed off because of all the trouble you are going through , but you have to understand that even if you did not steal a car or something like that it Is still stealing .

Lets put it this way , When i said that if a guy is caught walking around in a house which does not belong to him , even if the house he was in , did not have any door so to get in he did not have to break in , So..... he is just walking around doing nothing , not stealing or anything , but in fact even if he did not break in , he is TRESPASSING which the law sees as an offense .

Even if you did not break in the house , you have no right to be there without the owner's permission, thats a fact !

Since in your case we are talking about Radio Waves , it is physically impossible for a human being to steal waves ... but it becomes possible to steal waves .. when using a communication tool , like a computer ...

Those waves are not meant to be use by anyone but the owner and "other people who received a permission from the owner to do so" , even if its protected or not , just like the house , even if theres a door or not , you have no right to be there if the owner did not give you permission .

So then , it means that you are VIRTUALLY TRESPASSING , since you are INTERCEPTING waves that are not meant to be received/Intercepted by you.

This is where you have to understand that , no you are not actually stealing "a wave" because its impossible to do that , but your computer is interceptiong waves that are private ....

Now you're gonna tell me that if it was meant to be private , then he should have protected his WIFI access... well ill have to disagree with that ,

Do you have to put a lock on your door , for your neighboor to understand that your house is a private property ? NO... this is common sense , things that you dont owned should be seen as private.

If you see a car on the street with doors unlocked , will you get in and take a ride around the city ?? No.. why because it is common sense , We(most of the people) see things that we dont owned as private property , so you will not get in that car , because it is not yours , so you do not have permission to get in .

I dont think i can make myself any clearer than this ,
Let's see what kind of feedback im gonna get

YOU are one patient man Tsukihime... i salute you...

i think after our last two posts he either gets it or not...

i really hope he does or else he's possibly gonna get into even more trouble later on...

i wish him well...

Well were both pretty patient
We must have written like 10 pages worth of text in the last 24 hours

And i do hope that this time , he's gonna get it
because like you said , he's one stubborn guy ... but let's be honest , if he wasnt doing anything else that checking emails , its a bit stupid to put him in as much trouble as he is right now ...

But like i said in an earlier post , if we dont make any rules right now , wireless is just getting bigger and bigger , and its gonna be hell of a ride to deal with this at a later time ... we have to take actions now to prevent ....

Bed time for me !
Have fun !

of course I am stubborn, I dont see why I should pay 500$ to a guy who dont lock his line and who broadcast openly on a super market where thousand people come in and out .then they asked me to accept I did a felony with a 1 year criminal record!

and based on what???so if someone is in the same situation , I would suggest him to plaid not guilty, and do not accept any responsability.

no new so far!!!seem this case has been closed.

lol you are a trip...

back to the car... if someone leaves their car running and with the doors open, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DRIVE THAT CAR...

this is key to your problem, people don't want to accept personal responsibility for their actions... you WERE TOTALLY AWARE OF WHAT YOU WERE DOING...

NOBODY MADE YOU TURN ON YOU NOTEBOOK AND USE THAT WIRELESS NETWORK...

i know i'm on my wireless network now because all the wireless profiles i have use WPA-PSK...

nm, i give up... you win... lol

I haven't posted in here in a while, but I have been coming back and watching some of the argunments. I can see how using an unprotected wifi signal that is not your own can be considered stealing, if you know what you are doing. The key is something that goes back to one of Dozzit's earlier posts regarding intent.

I agree that the legislators need to put some priority on establishing proper laws on the topic that will hopefully include defining what constitutes a private signal and a public signal, and a means that ANY user that sits down at a PC and sees a wifi signal will know if it they are allowed to use it or not.

Regarding the analogies of enetering an unlocked house or car or a naked woman walking down the street, the offendor is in my eyes (and all of yours I'm sure) guilty of the crime commited, be it breaking or entereing, tresspassing or rape, however, as I've mentioned before, as soon as you report it to the cops the first thing the cops will ask you is if you are stupid. How many times have we heard the campaigns for women to protect themselves? How many of us grew up being told to lock the door?

I'm not justifying the crimes and neither would the cops be diong it, but a certian degree of precaution is just common sence. I think this knowledge needs to be passed on to people that buy these devices and put up wireless networks as well so that they may also posess the common sence to protect themselves from the violation of their property rights in the first place.

Back to the original point, regarding intent, I think the laws need to be made in such a way as some of the copyright laws go for digital media. If you have to intentiaonally tamper with a encrytion or protection in order to use someting then you are doing something wrong. If you can just pop it in and use it then the way you are using it is fine. However it doesn't seem to be like that... yet.

Going back to John's case I guess if you knew that it wasn't a public wifi access and you used it anyway, then you're out of luck. But if you didn't know you were not supposed to use it then you should have just been given explained what you may and may not do, given a slap on the wrists and told to be careful next time.

Please don't compare what I am saying to rape or anything like that since rape, breaking or entering and the like are direct violations of others' property and persona. Using someone's wifi will just piss that somebody off and is still an area of debate with laws that either don't exist or are way too vague.