Man in Florida arrested who was using unauthorized Wi-Fi - Page 8

everyone seems to be talking about criminal law and it's very gray in this area...

but there is no doubt about a tort being committed and that is the avenue i'd pursue if anyone used my network without my explicit permission... there would be very little if any gray area there... if you use my property (network) without my permission, i have a whole menu of items you will be paying for... lol you'd probably be glad to plead guilty to a criminal charge compared to what it's gonna cost you to defend the cause of action (lawsuit) i'm gonna bring...

if this guy in Florida has a good lawyer, he should tell him to forget any criminal action - it's just a mess because there's no clear law in this area... but pursue a civil suit instead...

hell even if the guy gets convicted, he won't get any money outta it...

but back to criminal law since that's the way the tide is running here lol

just because you have a duty/responsibility to lock your car (that is the law where i live) it's a misdemeanor (a minor violation of the law)...

stealing a car is a felony (major violation of the law)...

your minor violation/negligence does not rise to the level of mitigating (lessen, reduce in degree) the deliberate, premeditated commission of a felony...

one is a stupid, negligent, dumb thing that most humans (being imperfect) do from time to time...

the other is a planned criminal act that nobody could argue was "accidental" or "i just wasn't thinking"...

but again, the easiest way by far to keep this from happening and/or at least making it much clearer, is that all wireless hardware should be required by statute to come from the manufacturer with security enabled and it should take an overt action on the part of the end user to disable the security... this is analogous to having all cars default to locked whenever they are unattended...

with this solution the vast majority of home users (who are ignorant about wireless security) would be protected and if they decided to disable the security, then they would have the burden of proof if they claim they didn't want others to use their network...

i would like to say that this has been a very good and friendly discussion (unlike many others on here hehe)... it's nice to see people thinking about these things that, hopefully, the law will address soon...

just wish ya'll knew a lil bit more about the law so you wouldn't have to waste your time on things that are already settled in law... i'm glad you're thinking and i understand your points, but a lotta these things have been looked at by the courts and legislators many years ago... even though the technology is different, some things in law are settled and will not change so there's no point in discussing them...

A TEST FOR YOU HEHE

i should get you started on NIED (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress) or IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)... it's settled law and probably won't change...

for example, you, your wife and young daughter witness a drunk driver run through a large group of people leaving many dead, many mangled, body parts everywhere, people crying and screaming - a truly horrific scene, as bad as you can imagine...

now suppose your wife and daughter are so overcome by this horrible scene that both of them never speaks and never reacts to anything - they are basically emotionless zombies and no treatment helps... they're lives are basically over... nothing brings them out of their shells ever... you pay for all kinds of psychiatric treatment, etc., everything you can think of... you go bankrupt trying to pay for all the treatments yet nothing works and now you are broke to boot...further assume that the driver was not injured and he's enormously wealthy and has been convicted of drunken driving numerous times...

do you think that your wife and daughter should be awarded money in a civil suit to compensate them for their obvious damages? for all the medical expenses you've had to pay?

again, the answer has already been decided by the courts so i can give you the LEGAL answer but i'm curious what ya'll think...

Do I think they SHOULD? Yes, by all means.

But since this is a test, I'm sure there's a twist someplace so I'm willing to bet that the answer to whether they will recieve anything is that they will not. I hope I'm wrong.

everything is irrelevent... in the fact that

under law you have to take reasaonble measures to secure your property. Neligence or failure to limit losses is your own problem.

You can't leave $100000 of cash outside your front door and then charge everyone with teft that grabs a $20 that the wind blew.

you are totally wrong although there are tiny grains of truth in what you say but they have nothing to do with what we've been discussing or the examples i've given...

yes i can leave $1,000,000 in cash on my front porch and that in NO WAY gives you ANY license to take it...

if it blows off my property that in NO WAY gives you ANY license to take it... IT IS STILL MY PROPERTY NOT YOURS...

one exception that's ridiculous but to satisfy you that the law does do some of the things you're talking about but not in the way you think... if you own some real property (land) and i come along and build a little cabin on it and (btw this all differs from state to state AND there are more requirements than i'm giving) you don't tell me to get off your property FOR 7 YEARS and i do some legal stuff, i can take possession of that property... see the law does do things like that but it's gonna be hard as hell to not be caught in 7 years... and most ppl/companies that own large tracts of land have people that inspect it every so often so that would burst your little bubble, you'd have to start your little clock all over again...

you should read this thread from the beginning... i've given a lotta examples...

my property is my property, regardless of how negligent/stupidly i may treat it, AND NONE OF THAT GIVES YOU ANY RIGHT TO IT... IT IS MINE... NOT YOURS...

please read the above example i gave about leaving the car running, the door open and it being against the law to do that... THAT STILL DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO STEAL MY PROPERTY...

very short course in law (any lawyers reading this please note that i don't practice just had the education some years ago and i'm doing the best i can with people that have no basic knowledge of law at all)

if you own real property (land and everything attached) you have a duty (responsiblity to you non-lawyers)

- to a trespasser your duty is to not have any traps (i think that's all)
- to a licensee (someone you permit to enter your property for their own purpose) your duty is to warn them of any hidden defects/dangers that might injure them. basically you owe them the same knowledge you have about hidden defects.
- to an invitee (someone that owns a retail store and is inviting the public to come in for the property owner's benefit) your duty is very high, much higher than either of the other two... the invitee (customer) has every reason to believe that the property (store) is safe and if they are injured there, the property owner will probably have to pay for any damages they incur... an example is a grocery store where a bottle of oil has broken on the floor and the customer is injured... the owner may not have even known about it but the law says he must have a safe place for his customers...

the one point that you did bring up is very timely... if a storm blows the roof off your home and you are aware of it and have the opportunity to cover it BUT DON'T and then it rains and more damages occur, your insurance company is NOT responsible for those damages that occured AFTER you had a chance to prevent them... you have a duty to prevent (it's in your insurance contract to MITIGATE (lessen/soften) any damages that you REASONABLY can... reasonable is the most widely used word in law - it's what lawyers argue about in court... what would a reasonable person do in this situation?

lol btw, a REASONABLE person does not steal a car... he does not take cash that is not his...

geez, i gave ya'll a test above, see how you handle it...

btw, thanks g00nter for your answer... i was waiting for a few more before i gave out the answer but if you want to know (cause you're a very good student who hands his work in on time hehe) just say so and i'll tell ya BUT NOBOBY ELSE YET...

class dismissed...

No hurries, I can wait. Plus I'd like to see what others say as well.

Still slight nuance

All the technologies you mentioned are primarily ONE way communications. IF I pick up a WI-FI signal we are OK. Once I start to send packets (by connecting) and USE two-way communication and the bandwidth, this is stealing from BOTH the person AND the ISP.

However, if you and your neighbor had wireless systems and you set up your equipemnt to pickup any available signal, and you used your neighbor's wireless signal, it would be interesting to see if negligence or ignorance would be a valid defense.....

Obviously, you have never worked for a Telecom company; otherwise, you would realize that bandwidth is expensive. IF I have a pipe such as a T-3 that accepts so much bandwidth, and you intrude and start to use some of that bandwidth, I would need to divert the extra bandwidth to another T-3 WHICH IS NOT FREE. Do you HONESTLY believe that routers, OC-48's, administrators, modem pools, DSLAMS, etc., are FREE?

The reason why Telecoms give unlimited as the majority of people do NOT abuse their connections. Other countries DO have caps - New Zealand, Australia, and some ISP's in Europe BECAUSE IT COSTS MONEY!

I love the rationalization of theft here.....

just a note: if everybody thought of this like a water connection to your house, it might make more sense for those that think it's ok...

just as the post about bandwidth, it's the same with water, there's only so much to go around...

if you saw New Orleans a few weeks ago you should truly understand that concept...

i kinda explained some "duties" above... well with the rights we have, we also have duties (responsibilities)... the rights permit you to do certain things but the duties say "you can't abuse those rights to the extent that you harm others or deprive them of their rights, therefore you have a duty to see that you don't infringe on others' rights"

very very good, you're reasoning is excellent...

first, in the US ignorance of the law OR of what you are doing wrong is no excuse... all people are assumed to know all laws... i realize this is not realistic but it's the way the law works and because we are a nation of laws, must be the assumption we make, else everyone would use the excuse "i didn't know"...

also about your ignorance of using something you don't know about... this is getting into a gray area of law but generally speaking if you make an overt act and end up breaking the law, you are responsible... the law generally holds adults accountable for their actions again using the premise that if you are not sure about what you are doing you should find out (before using a backhoe, you should know how to use it properly)... you can't damage/allow someone else to suffer and then claim, once again, "i didn't know"... the burden is gonna be on the person "doing something" to prove they had permission to do it...

i could tell you about the reverse of taking from another and through mistake or ignorance, you help them... this is called "unjust enrichment"... it's very complicated but a quick example is if a contractor is hired to build a house on a certain piece of property but builds it on someone's elses property, that person has been unjustly enriched - that property is now worth more than it was... not even gonna try to explain all this but the person who owns the land it was wrongly built on does not get to say "oh goodie, you screwed up so i get a free house" lol... BUT, because it was not that person's fault, they do stand in a much stronger position in this situation and it won't cost them - it will cost the person that screwed up...

so my point is that even if you in essence accidently "give property to someone else" (as opposed to taking it), it's YOU that screwed up so don't expect to get all your assets/money back - this will end up costing you in the end...

btw, an exception, if you find out that your bank account has $1,000,000 extra in it, IT'S NOT YOURS! you know it's not and you will have to give it back... if you withdraw it and run you are guilty of stealing... sorry but no freebies hehe...

it really is scary... but i think it has to do with people stealing music, software, etc... they seem to think it won't hurt MS if they steal a copy of Windows... of course it won't even make a dent BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT... just as you said IT'S STEALING! you can try and rationalize it all you want but in the end it is stealing...

i'm glad you pointed out the hardware involved... maybe that will give them a clue that it does cost money and is property that is not theirs to use... (although i doubt it, even after all the examples it just doesn't seem to get through)...

i have the feeling that some of the folks here believe that if you don't have your home protected by razor wire, landmines, guard dogs, machine guns, etc., then they are welcome to take/use whatever they want BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T PROTECT IT ENOUGH! lol

it really would be funny if it wasn't so sad...

just like little kids are taught that they have to ask permission if they want to play with another kid's toy (property), it's that simple... you're supposed to learn this stuff when you're a little kid...

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 ...


lol, woulden't the cable\satellite\TV signal already be at your home?



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

Well for one YOU SHOULDEN'T BE LEAVING YOU CAR UNATTENDED WILE IT'S RUNNING. The whole WIFI stealing can be PREVENTED by simply putting a WEP on the signal. If the whole thing can be prevented by you taking 1 extra mim of you precious sweet time, but you don't well then tough sh** for you. If you want to be TOTALLY secure DON'T have a wireless network.

Have you ever gotten ANY spyware? A cookie? A virus? Ever? Then I guess you didn't secure your computer so you deserve it. Did you pay for wireless access?
Then you broke the law and you deserve the fine. Does not completely covering the windows in your house give someone the right to spy on you with a telescope? Does leaving one of your doors unlocked while you lounge around on the sofa mean you deserve to have your home invaded and your wife raped? Does leaving a cardoor unlocked while you drive down the street mean you deserve to be carjacked? (Hey, you're driving on a public road with public access
so anything is fair game, right?) Justifying stealing and thievery because someone didn't use a password can't even be called faulty logic, its just plain the thinking of an amoral asshole.

you have electricity, phone, water, sewer, etc. already attached to your home too, but if you use 'em without paying you are stealing...

btw, it's not "considered as stealing" - IT IS STEALING...

if someone's briefcase lands in your yard, you open it and it is full of cash IT'S NOT YOURS...

anybody that can't understand that doesn't understand ethics or the difference between right and wrong...

is sooo simple, is it yours? then you can do pretty much what you want with it...

if it's NOT yours AND you don't have permission to it, then you have no business messing with it...

Mad109er had it right, this is an ethically challenged generation... they seem to have tried to use every excuse/reason they can think of to do whatever they want with other's property...

just a couple of notes cause i saw them on the news...

no court in the US has ever upheld the taking of life for the protection of property and they never will... the only time you have the right to take another's life is to protect your own or another's...

if you kill someone who is running away from you and there it doesn’t appear he's endangering anyone else, you will be charged with murder...

same thing if you kill someone who is stealing your property...

if you have a store that is constantly being broken into and you set a trap that kills a thief, you will be charged with murder... there’s a store owner in FL now that is serving life because he electrocuted a thief using a trap...

just thought I’d pass along these so you don’t get yourself in trouble…

if someone's briefcase lands in your yard, you open it and it is full of cash IT'S NOT YOURS...

OHH yes it is. The main idea is the whole thing could be prevented easly, and if you don't well then why do you whine when it does happen?


Have you ever gotten ANY spyware? A cookie? A virus? Ever? Then I guess you didn't secure your computer so you deserve it.

Well I used to, but then I totally secured my comp with every free spyware and antivirus program, and run them every night. When I first did yes it was my fault, tough sh** for me. Now I am secured and am more carefull about what I download and do on the net. My freind is the same way, except his antispyware\virus programs havent even found a virus or spyware program since he got his comp which is about a little over a year. Yes he does every little trick to make sure he is secure turns off system restore to scan better, and he dosen't have a network everyone is wired in.

On the same page

You crack me up because what you say is the truth! You forgot to add a moat to the list ;-)

I hate the American mentality that you should get everything for "nothin'".....the dotcoms spurred this on even worse! You want good service, lower insurance costs, lower medical costs then DON'T defraud the system!!!!

Oh no it is NOT yours....backed by ethics and by law. Here is a good analogy: you buy a laptop on EBay which is stolen. The cops track you down. You *CAN* get arrested for buying stolen goods even if you were unaware. The best case scenario is that they drop all charges and just take the laptop. It would be up to you to file a civil lawsuit against the seller....

Just my .02

Well I would try and at least strip the laptop before they took it. LOL, if you haven't noticed I'm not the most ethical or moral guy, but I do belive in karma.

well thank goodness, an honest answer lol

my point wasn't what was right/wrong morally or my personal opinion, just trying to let people know what our LAWS say about things...

btw, i too certainly believe in karma and multiple lifetimes... as one of my spirtual teachers told me when i made a rather rash statement (ok, it was TOTALLY out of bounds hehe, i was talking about suicide) "you can deal with your problems now or bail out, but if you do bail out, in your next lifetime you might be a begger in a very poor country or have other additional burdens and still have these same problems to deal with"

i wonder if most people, if they thought they could get away with it, would take a large amout of cash... i know i would BUT it's gotta be enough to make it worthwhile - i'm not cheap...

one of the most honest incidents i know about was a highway patrol officer who stopped a guy late at night on a lonely back road... he found over $3,000,000 in cash in the car's trunk, arrested him and turned the money in...

it would have been so easy for him to take the guy down a dirt road, kill him and take the money... or to take the money, hide it and let the guy complain, which would be very doubtful because he would have to establish his title to it which he probably couldn't...

point of law, cash is said to "carry its own title" meaning whoever possesses it is assumed to have title, unlike houses or cars which have legal documents that state who the owner is...

Hey Dozzit looks like youre having fun again

Ok , XYPEX , take a minute here and think about what you just wrote , and if you cant see that it doesnt make sense , you got a big problem ,

I dont really feel like getting into the argument again , ive said enough and at this point , people who dont get it , just DONT WANNA get it .


So XYPEX , what you are saying with your brifcase analogy is that if for exemple , one of your friend come to your house and park is car in your driveway than his car now belongs to you ..... because it on your property...what the hell , i dont know where you from but damn i wanna go live there for sure , ill be rich in no time !!........... does that make any sense to you???


NB: Well if you were talking about the cash itself , well then its a different story , i believe that money ownership belongs to the person who is in possesion of the money at that moment , but since in this case the money was in a briefcase , and the briefcase belongs to the guy throwing the briefcase , you have no ownership right on it .

And by the way money and Wireless Signal are not the same thing in a law point of view , different laws apply to these 2 items ... money has no direct ownership but wireless signals have direct owner/ownership.

yeah, when i'm not doin' this i enjoy goin' out and beatin' my head against a brick wall lol

no you wouldn't, nobody would ever go anywhere, they'd all be behind their walled fortresses

btw, brings back a very sad feelin' i had when i was in Venezula - land of a few very well off and the huge majority very poor... neighborhoods with very high steel-barred fences around every home (don't understand why they don't just have gated communities like we have here) and homes with high brick walls where the builders had laid a layer of cement on top, pushed empty soda bottles into it and when it had hardened, they broke off the tops leaving only ugly glass shards to climb over...

during the day men were sitting around everywhere, seemed like the only people who worked were women and children... god that was sad to see... especially considering it's a member of OPEC...

yes we have poverty in this country and yes we should come up with creative ways to reduce it, but that was my first experience with true, widespread, hardcore poverty...

Well when you said it isn't yours well really it isn't, but am I gonna turn it in NO. The main point of the post was it's so EASY to secure you wireless network, but people seem to find it not neccessary, and bit** when their connection gets jacked, why? Like if you didn't lock your doors to your house and someone breaks in, you have no right to BIT**.