Man in Florida arrested who was using unauthorized Wi-Fi - Page 14

you must have reasonable grounds (a tort - a personal wrong) for filing a cause of action (lawsuit)... if you don't you can be looking at being sued big time for filing a frivilous lawsuit...

the courts don't consider it funny and they will indicate that fact in their judgment... so there are not nearly as many silly lawsuits as you might imagine...

also the fact that most lawsuits are filed (and defended) by lawyers working on contingent fees - that is they receive a % of whatever they win for their clients so they're not gonna take a case unless they think they have a chance of winning and deep pockets to collect...

but it is ridiculous...

thats right its his fault if hes taht stupid to tailgate u jsut to c ur tv then he ahd it comin he was "following too closely to avoid a collision" his insurance would go up and u could make some pretty nice money did i aldo mention taht he was stupid if an accident like that happened everyone would be rofl id definitely roflmao thats wat u get when u tailgate to watch tv when ur supposed to be driving

It is obvious the guy knew he was doing something wrong, if he thought he was using public acess why would he "quickly close the laptop" as the other guy approached him - seems like his actions shows his motives

this thread must die

He wasn't stealing anything. The guy broadcasting the wifi should be prosecuted for the wifi extending off his property. if you dont wANT som1 using your wifi then protect it or use a direct connection.

If I can turn on my computer, and it automatically connects to a unsecured WiFi network, does this mean my computer needs to be put in jail?

Shame on my laptop!

Seems simple to me ... If the owner of wireless network does not secure the system , then by default it is open. I think the onus is on the owner to secure the network.

Yea I will have to agree with the guys above me that if the owner did not take 5 minutes to put WEP on then he cant blame anyone for using his open connection. Who is he to blame when hes at fault fo rnot securing his wirless connection? Thats like leaving a pot of gold outside and suing some guy for taking it when it didnt have your name on it, a lock, or was anywhere near you... Think about this. The charges should go the other way around if anything >_>

man - I am always doing that!

T

Ok if I use a pay service at my home and go outside with my laptop and the signal from my neighbor is stronger and my laptop happens to go online through his which is open is it my fault? Also since my mother dose not have a secure network if i am at her house and go online am I stealing bandwidth?

I've been getting 2 good signals at my house since we bought it 2 years ago and I haven't paid for internet service since.
I guess I'll have to change all that huh?

Ok 19 pages, wow. So how did this turn out? Was the guy found guilty? Or is it still in progress?

dunno lol

yeah i can leave valuables openly on my property and not only sue you if you take 'em but have you convicted of takin' em too, duh...

goes back to the misnomer about breaking OR entering... if i leave my door open you have no right to enter my private property w/o my permission...

geez all you young guys are just lookin' for an excuse to steal... you have no ethics or morals or, if you do, you ignore them... sad, very sad...

again, some of you might wanna actually learn what the law has to say about these things 'cause that's the yardstick that will be used to judge your actions...

and again, the courts couldn't care less about YOUR opinion of what is "right" or "what the law is"... it is assumed that everyone KNOWS what the laws are - if you don't that's your problem...

i agree with dozzit. with anyone with an auto-connect feature on their wireless laptop, believe it or not tahts still considered actively taking the connection, not passive, even if you didnt consciously do it. ignorance is never a defense.

I disagree with that. It is not the same as leaving your door open and someone entering. because the signal extends beyond the range of their property. If you leave your valuable in the middle of the street or vacant lot across the street (not your yard), it is considered abandoned and there for up for grabs.

If the signal did not leave his property and the user had to actually sit in the guys yard or driveway to get the signal then I would agree, but such is not the case.

And being wireless makes me think about cellphones which has always had more leinent laws on tapping than a land line.

But in any case if it goes beyond his property then it is either public or the onus is on him to secure it.

-D-

<<< ...Cannot BELIEVE ppl are STILL debating this… obviously they’re NOT readin’ the entire thread… >>>

LOL! Whether you agree with it or not is meaningless, it’s the law… obviously you haven’t studied law… the air waves, for the most part, belong to the public in a manner similar to our highways… I dare you to “grab” a vehicle that is left (“abandoned” according to you) along the highway and convert it to your personal use. You can be convicted of a criminal violation (a felony) and you can be sued in a civil action.

Your use of the conventional definition of abandonment shows your ignorance of the law. The law has its own definitions which are sometimes quite different from those we use in everyday conversation.

In law, abandonment requires two elements. 1) the intention to abandon and 2) the act of abandonment itself. If you have to leave your vehicle beside the highway because it won’t run or something similar, a reasonable person would assume that you intend to retrieve it at some future time. btw, reasonable is the most widely used word in law. I recommend you remember to apply it in almost all legal situations.

Legally, if you intend to leave your newspaper in a waiting room and leave it, that’s abandonment. If you leave it but don’t intend to, then you have not abandoned it.

About cellular phone tapping laws being more lenient than conventional land lines, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina was charged with taping a cellular conversation. He pleaded guilty because he knew he would be convicted.

I’m offering the following to any of you that really want to engage in a meaningful debate about law, duty, rights, etc. this is the kind of question that would be asked in law school.

What is the difference between false imprisonment and kidnapping?

Hint: it can be expressed in one word if you are familiar with law - that would be the only acceptable answer in law school...

Confinement?

You can be charged with kidnapping by simply moving someone against their will, while false imprisonment would more be holding or restraining them against their will. Usually they are in conjunction with each other; kidnap then falsely imprison.

Regardless I like how you equate the bandwidth, a nonconcrete item, worth $40 - $60 a month to a vehicle which can be worth upwards of $25,000+. Especially since vehicles are commonly parked on curbside.

Now leave a pair of shoes or something that would not be readily and normaly seen left unattended in the middle of the street or in public. I live on the corner of busy street and often times "trash" shows up in my yard. Including article of clothing, which I throw away as it is on my property and considered litter. Stealing?

And by your definition I think he has abandoned it. He knows it goes beyond his property and yet fails to secure it. Therefore he has knowing allowed it go beyond the borders of his property unsecured and abandoned.

Had he not known it could be accessed outside of his house I would agree, but he obviously after the first incident.

This point was brought up at the beginning of the discussion and only touched on, but I felt it was important. When pertaining to Internet use, I do not know specifics of AUP's, but I have experience with satellite T.V. AUP's.
I worked in a restaurant where the owner installed a satellite dish under a residential account. The T.V. was in view of customers (and anyone that happened to pass by for that matter), and they freely watched it while they ate. The owner never gave explicit permission to customers to watch the T.V.. However, the owner got into trouble for violating the user agreement. He was fined and required to start a much more expensive business account to provide publicly accessible T.V.. I later worked for a satellite company for a few years and saw many similar cases. In each instance, the owners were found responsible whether they intended it for customer use or not.
I guess my question is how is a publicly accessible wifi connection different? No legal action was taken against the customers by the owner. The satellite provider was always the one taking legal action against the owners for allowing public use of the service whether that was their intent or not.

Another point:
What do you do if you (as an owner) have an employee restroom? You put up a sign warning the public that the restroom is for employees only - you don't wait for someone to use then call the authorities because you didn't think anyone would use it.
I just think that the owner should not only be obligated to, but also want to at least make a wifi connection inaccessible to the public for liability purposes.