NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook News › Man in Florida arrested who was using unauthorized Wi-Fi
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Man in Florida arrested who was using unauthorized Wi-Fi - Page 15

post #281 of 406
4/5/06 at 8:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draigas
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.
You keep attributing everything in my posts to me. I’m simply using what the law says not my opinion. Again this is the way it is NOT necessarily what I think or believe. Some law sucks but it’s still the law – the rules our courts use, good or bad. I DON'T WANNA BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR LAWS OR THE WAY THEY ARE APPLIED lol

THE AIRWAVES ARE PUBLIC PROPERTY… what don’t you understand about that? You keep referring to “his property” and property. The airwaves are PUBLIC. WE CAN USE THEM for the most part. So it’s not past “his” property. Public property is your property and mine so to speak, communal as it were.

Back to your example which is very poor and incorrect for this discussion. It’s like you have a public park abutting your yard. You can freely walk in your yard and in the park, therefore you can walk directly from your yard into the park and it’s ok. You’ve never left “your” property. You’ve simply gone from your personal property to our (yours and mine) public property. Unless something left on public property is yours the reasonable person assumes that it belongs to someone else, therefore you know the signal ain't yours SO LEAVE IT ALONE or get persmission from the owner to use it.

Bottom line, ignorance of the law is no excuse so you can't use that as a defense. Therefore if you KNOWINGLY OR NOT use another's wireless signal w/o their permission, it is theft.

You did well with the question - you got the movement part right, which is the key.

Actually false imprisonment comes first. It’s the “unjustifiable restraint of a person for any appreciable duration.” Kidnapping is false imprisonment + transporting the person to another place.
Reply
Reply
post #282 of 406
4/5/06 at 9:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpsejockey
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.
don't have time to discuss your points now but i have to say how refreshing it is to see such a thoughtful, relevant, reasonable, germane post…

one quick comment is that the business/residential distinction should be fairly obvious. If it’s in a residential setting and you’re not actively soliciting paying viewers lol to watch I think you’re ok…

if, however, you’re in a commercial area and it’s in view of your customers, then I think the onus would be on the owner to ensure that it’s not seen by the customers, unless of course, it is under a business license…

thanks for such a breath of fresh air!
Reply
Reply
post #283 of 406
4/5/06 at 9:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dozzit
You keep attributing everything in my posts to me. I’m simply using what the law says not my opinion. Again this is the way it is NOT necessarily what I think or believe. Some law sucks but it’s still the law – the rules our courts use, good or bad. I DON'T WANNA BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR LAWS OR THE WAY THEY ARE APPLIED lol

THE AIRWAVES ARE PUBLIC PROPERTY… what don’t you understand about that? You keep referring to “his property” and property. The airwaves are PUBLIC. WE CAN USE THEM for the most part. So it’s not past “his” property. Public property is your property and mine so to speak, communal as it were.

Back to your example which is very poor and incorrect for this discussion. It’s like you have a public park abutting your yard. You can freely walk in your yard and in the park, therefore you can walk directly from your yard into the park and it’s ok. You’ve never left “your” property. You’ve simply gone from your personal property to our (yours and mine) public property. Unless something left on public property is yours the reasonable person assumes that it belongs to someone else, therefore you know the signal ain't yours SO LEAVE IT ALONE or get persmission from the owner to use it.

Bottom line, ignorance of the law is no excuse so you can't use that as a defense. Therefore if you KNOWINGLY OR NOT use another's wireless signal w/o their permission, it is theft.

You did well with the question - you got the movement part right, which is the key.

Actually false imprisonment comes first. It’s the “unjustifiable restraint of a person for any appreciable duration.” Kidnapping is false imprisonment + transporting the person to another place.

When I refer to his property I mean the house and yard that is in his possession. Not the property of the signal. By your response I was not sure you and I were on the same page as far as "property"

But by your post seems to conflict itself. I can't take something that doesn't belong to me but the airwaves are public property? So if the airwaves are public property then why is it the users fault for using the signal in the airwaves? Like a park bench, it is there when I arrive, I use it, and it is there when I leave. The same thing with the signal in airwaves, it was there when he arrived, he used it and it was there when he left.

Unless I have totally missed your point on the law.

Cheers
Reply
Reply
post #284 of 406
4/5/06 at 10:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draigas
When I refer to his property I mean the house and yard that is in his possession. Not the property of the signal. By your response I was not sure you and I were on the same page as far as "property"

But by your post seems to conflict itself. I can't take something that doesn't belong to me but the airwaves are public property? So if the airwaves are public property then why is it the users fault for using the signal in the airwaves? Like a park bench, it is there when I arrive, I use it, and it is there when I leave. The same thing with the signal in airwaves, it was there when he arrived, he used it and it was there when he left.

Unless I have totally missed your point on the law.

Cheers
you learned it b4 you could read or write - if something is not yours (wireless signal) then, generally, you must get permission to mess with it or you are doing something wrong... a child knows if a toy is his or not and doesn’t need to be told… just watch ‘em holler if another kid grabs it lol

You seem to be looking at the signal as an infinite resource which it isn’t. For example I have 6100kbps download. So if you are downloading and I want to download you are using some of my finite resource. I’m paying for a finite sized “pipe” but I’m actually getting a smaller pipe because you are using part of it.

I agree that if my pipeline was unlimited in size, I couldn’t care less if you’re using it. But it’s not. You’re eating some of my pie so I have less. Don’t know how else to say it.

Oh, and for all those that haven’t read the early part of this thread, this is how i think we should solve this whole mess: I THINK THAT ALL WIRELESS HARDWARE SHOULD COME WITH THE SECURITY FEATURES FULLY FUNCTIONAL AND THAT THERE SHOULD BE A LARGE, BRIGHTLY COLORED TAG THAT MUST BE REMOVED BEFORE SECURITY CAN BE TURNED OFF, THAT REMOVING IT GIVES PERMISSION TO ANY AND ALL TO USE THE DEVICE AND IT SHOULD EXPLAIN SECURITY FOR THE MASSES, UNLIKE US, THAT DON’T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT IT. I’m certain that this is something we can all agree on

lol actually not, since that has never happened in the history of the internet
Reply
Reply
post #285 of 406
4/6/06 at 2:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dozzit
you learned it b4 you could read or write - if something is not yours (wireless signal) then, generally, you must get permission to mess with it or you are doing something wrong... a child knows if a toy is his or not and doesn’t need to be told… just watch ‘em holler if another kid grabs it lol

You seem to be looking at the signal as an infinite resource which it isn’t. For example I have 6100kbps download. So if you are downloading and I want to download you are using some of my finite resource. I’m paying for a finite sized “pipe” but I’m actually getting a smaller pipe because you are using part of it.

I agree that if my pipeline was unlimited in size, I couldn’t care less if you’re using it. But it’s not. You’re eating some of my pie so I have less. Don’t know how else to say it.

Oh, and for all those that haven’t read the early part of this thread, this is how i think we should solve this whole mess: I THINK THAT ALL WIRELESS HARDWARE SHOULD COME WITH THE SECURITY FEATURES FULLY FUNCTIONAL AND THAT THERE SHOULD BE A LARGE, BRIGHTLY COLORED TAG THAT MUST BE REMOVED BEFORE SECURITY CAN BE TURNED OFF, THAT REMOVING IT GIVES PERMISSION TO ANY AND ALL TO USE THE DEVICE AND IT SHOULD EXPLAIN SECURITY FOR THE MASSES, UNLIKE US, THAT DON’T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT IT. I’m certain that this is something we can all agree on

lol actually not, since that has never happened in the history of the internet
You dont need to ask to use something all the time. If you want to use these stupid analogies we could say "you must ask before you can breeth air because it doesnt belong to you" NO its stupid. I have a 9000kbps download and if someone chooses to use my OPEN connection that is their decision. if i happen to notice that they are using it i just block their mac address. and YES wireless routers should have a disclaimer because there are stupid people out there.
Reply
Reply
post #286 of 406
4/6/06 at 4:35am
Leaving your network unsecured is like putting a dish of m and m's on the front porch, you can hardly not expect someone to take some and if you dont like it then why leave them out????
Reply
Reply
post #287 of 406
4/7/06 at 2:24am
I've read various parts of this 20 page thread, but I feel like something must be clarified by Dozzit.
You stated that the air waves are free, but then claim that "if something is not yours (wireless signal) then, generally, you must get permission to mess with it or you are doing something wrong..."
But as Draigas pointed out, if the air waves are free, then isn't the owners wireless signal free? Or were you meaning that it is free for the owner to us, but not free for someone else to access?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think we should be able to freely use other peoples networks, and for that reason I agree that wireless routers should come with wireless features off. And to turnning it on should first apply a security measure and then a warning when making the network open. Too many computer novices plug it in, see it's working and forget about it, without realizing what can happen.
Reply
Reply
post #288 of 406
4/7/06 at 2:57pm
This argument seems to be pointless to me. I pay for a fixed width line, (sadly only 512kbs and 20 gigs a month). This is mine, to use how I see fit. If I broadcast my SSID, and you can see it from your house, great! Feel free to look at it! You can even connect to my network if you like, and try ping my pcs or whatever buggery you want to do- as has been said, its in public property.

But you can't use my bandwidth, I pay for that. Bad.
Reply
Reply
post #289 of 406
4/7/06 at 4:12pm
There is a house on my way home that has a rather large 50+ inch tv sitting in a room with a larger picture window. The window is directly in my line of site while I am on a certain road so that I have no choice but to see what is on tv.

If I wanted I could sit there watching tv all night. If I were to be caught by the police watching the tv from 100 feet away what would I be charged with?

I see it the same as an unsecured wireless connection. If my laptop connects to an unsecured wireless router while I am sitting at my table then what is the issue? I find it rather difficult to be stealing something from a neighbor while sitting in my house.
Reply
Reply
post #290 of 406
4/7/06 at 4:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dozzit
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...
1) I dont get how and why you have to first point at this with "young guys".

2) Also, anyone and everyone who compares Wireless / Wifi to PHYSICAL property is going in the wrong direction

3) Wireless is transmitted through AIR. Your usual LAN is transmitted over a CAT 5/6 cable. Both the cable and the air are what is called as MEDIUM. MAC - Medium Access Control techniques are what allow us to use these mediums.

The thing is with wireless there is a very fine line between ethically correct and incorrect.

To give u a real life example. I had a linksys router that I CHOSE TO KEEP OPEN because I WANTED to SHARE it with people .. my roommates, my friends and ANYONE ELSE who might need to use it in some odd emergency to look up something. This sharing is not STEALING or RE-SELLING since it has already been PAID for and is not even in use 24/7 in terms of service capacity utilization.

How does my neighbour or anyone know if someone INTENDED to SHARE or did not INTENT to SHARE? The simple logic is if its open you do share even if you did not intend to. Now if you dont intend to share then you need to fix it. Hence, AM FM TV broadcasts are unencrypted, and certain satellite transmissions are encrypted. Just because someones device can consume your signal which is OPEN does not mean they are in violation. What if I want to keep it open and allow others to use it? How will my temporary guests know if I was okay with it... because I kept it open.

Now, I realized over sometime that there was a neigbouring signal that had the same LINKSYS SSID as my router. Now I have the ability and background to understand this.. For any average person whose computer is configured to connect to an SSID called LINKSYS when it finds it, is not at fault if the machine logs on to the neighbours LINKSYS instead of his own LINKSYS.

This is a technology gap or should I say... DESIGN FOR SIMPLICITY.

Why logging on to the neighbours Wireless is not equivalent to going into their house and borrowing something. Its not. Because, you are not going in, but their WIRELESS SIGNAL is going beyond their AIR SPACE and DOMAIN. E.g. You play satellite radio at the top volume from ur house.. You are POLLUTING my AIR SPACE.. does not mean I am STEALING the music you paid for.

Air space transmissions are OPEN unless DESIGNED for PRIVACY. Simple.

So lock your routers if you dont want to share.

OR

Keep them open if you want to share.

You are sending out one of the above messages depending on how you configure it.

PS: Several hotels have OPEN wireless for guests. How do you figure out of the people logged on who is living and paid for it? Thats the reality.

PPS: I have managed enterprise class initiatives for fortune organizations and know what it takes to build secure and tolerant systems.. from networks to applications to shared services.
Reply
Reply
post #291 of 406
4/7/06 at 5:01pm
Quote:
But you can't use my bandwidth, I pay for that. Bad.
How do I know you are not a friendly neighbor who doesnt mind me using it?

Cause I am a friendly neighbour that doesnt mind you using my network.

What happens when we both use the same SSID and neither you or I are capable of changing it or even know that the two of us exist and in REALITY we end up using each others wireless router signals some or the other time. (This has happened to me.. but me being techie.. I was able to figure out). I dont think my neighbour had any idea if or when he was using my open wifi..

Should that give me the right to sue him because we had the same SSID?

INTENT to publicize(abandone, share) or privatize is determined by how you place it. If you place 100 glasses of lemonade in the middle of the street on a hot day.. I'll think its a charitable friendly neighbour who wants to help. If you place it inside your porch.. guess what.. its not an invitation.

Your intent on wireless signals are determined by your "ENCODING" of them. HAM radios go all over.. Private satellite conversations between Federal Agencies are ENCODED and ENCRYPTED.
Reply
Reply
post #292 of 406
4/8/06 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by eminem3150
You dont need to ask to use something all the time. If you want to use these stupid analogies we could say "you must ask before you can breeth air because it doesnt belong to you"
yeah it does. It’s public property so it belongs to all of us in essence. According to our system of law, everything has an owner. It could be the public, an individual, a corporation, etc. btw, a funny way to remember a corporation’s standing in law – it is a person with no soul to be damned or butt to be kicked.

and, ah, yeah we do need to use these analogies. It’s one of the way cases are decided in our justice system. It refers to stare decisis “let the decision stand” in Latin. The doctrine of precedent – legal decisions are based on what has been decided before/what has happened before. This is to provide consistency and predictability to the system. So we all know what to expect and to know it will (or at least should) be the same for all. One of the easiest ways to explain something is to offer an example that is easily understood. In law, you use the facts of the instant case to analogize to and distinguish them from established law. (Show where it agrees and where it disagrees with cases that have already been decided) The Supreme Court has ruled that so-called “obscene” words are allowed on bumper stickers and t-shirts as free speech. People may like this or not but if someone wants to wear a t-shirt with a politician’s name and “obscene” words, they can be pretty sure that if they are charged with a crime they will prevail in court. (and I for one think that’s fookin’ great!)

Quote:
NO its stupid.
You are welcome to feel that way and say it because the highest law in our land, the Constitution, allows it, just as it allows others to disagree with you.

Quote:
I have a 9000kbps download and if someone chooses to use my OPEN connection that is their decision. if i happen to notice that they are using it i just block their mac address. and YES wireless routers should have a disclaimer because there are stupid people out there.
Again, you are pretty much allowed to do whatever you want with your own property, personal or real.

Everyone please, please appreciate these rights. Most ppl in this world will never have them and those of us that do have had to pay the highest price for them. Maybe not us personally, but many have paid the ultimate price.

Glad you agree with me that wireless should come with security enabled, etc. It should be easy to enable security and difficult to disable it.

These ppl are not necessarily stupid – most are just ignorant. All of us are ignorant of the vast majority of things but this is no crime or anything to be ashamed of. There’s just too much to know!

Take for example the following two facts:
- well over half the scientists that have ever lived are alive today
- over 99% of all computer programmers that have ever lived are alive today (glad I’m not in that 1% lol)
Reply
Reply
post #293 of 406
4/8/06 at 12:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by crashnburn
1) I dont get how and why you have to first point at this with "young guys"...
I’m listening for a denial but don’t hear any lol... see my prior posts about mostly “young guys” looking for any and all excuses/justification/rationalizations to steal – whether it is software, music, games, whatever... it’s just the way it is these days...

Quote:
...2) Also, anyone and everyone who compares Wireless / Wifi to PHYSICAL property is going in the wrong direction
In law, there is seldom any difference between tangible and intangible property rights. Copyrights, trademarks, etc. are examples... BUT THAT ISN'T RELEVANT - WIRELESS IS PHYSICAL, LOL... uh, ah, might wanna study this some... things called electrons...

Quote:
3)... Wireless is transmitted through AIR. Your usual LAN is transmitted over a CAT 5/6 cable. Both the cable and the air are what is called as MEDIUM. MAC - Medium Access Control techniques are what allow us to use these mediums...
Air has nothing to do with it. Radio waves travel just as easily through the vacuum of space. Geez, you haven’t studied this? They go billions and billions of miles. Wow you are young hehe

I EXPECT ya to be ignorant of law but this is just plain, elementary school science!!! omg this is so sad... LITTLE CHILDREN UNDERSTAND THIS...

Quote:
...The thing is with wireless there is a very fine line between ethically correct and incorrect...
No there really isn't for ethical ppl lol refer back to #1...

But since you have a problem with basic science, i understand how you have a problem with abstract concepts like ethics, morality, etc.

Sorry but you need to learn more b4 you are qualified to enter this discussion/debate... most of the others at least understand the basics of what we’re discussin... even if they aren’t educated in the law, they grasp the concepts we’re talkin’ about...

Bandwidth is finite so we are dealin’ with personal property that is limited, therefore if you use some of mine, I have less, you have diminished how much I have...

And just so everyone knows:
I THINK THAT ALL WIRELESS HARDWARE SHOULD COME WITH THE SECURITY FEATURES FULLY FUNCTIONAL AND THAT THERE SHOULD BE A LARGE, BRIGHTLY COLORED TAG THAT MUST BE REMOVED BEFORE SECURITY CAN BE TURNED OFF, THAT REMOVING IT GIVES PERMISSION TO ANY AND ALL TO USE THE DEVICE AND IT SHOULD EXPLAIN SECURITY FOR THE MASSES, UNLIKE US, THAT DON’T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT IT.
I’m certain that this is something we can all agree on...
Reply
Reply
post #294 of 406
4/8/06 at 12:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zerboxx
I've read various parts of this 20 page thread, but I feel like something must be clarified by Dozzit.
You stated that the air waves are free, but then claim that "if something is not yours (wireless signal) then, generally, you must get permission to mess with it or you are doing something wrong..."
But as Draigas pointed out, if the air waves are free, then isn't the owners wireless signal free? Or were you meaning that it is free for the owner to us, but not free for someone else to access?
yes in essence the air waves are public but a PARTICULAR SIGNAL THAT IS BROADCAST MAY NOT BE. Just as the highways are "free" for us to use but you and i and our vehicles are private property... i.e. you are free to listen to TV, radio, etc. but not to mess with that signal...

go fook with a TV/radio station/emergency service’s signal if you think all signals are “free”... the FCC will certainly pay you a visit – I know, a friend of mine had it happen to him...
Reply
Reply
post #295 of 406
4/8/06 at 12:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by snafle
This argument seems to be pointless to me. I pay for a fixed width line, (sadly only 512kbs and 20 gigs a month). This is mine, to use how I see fit. If I broadcast my SSID, and you can see it from your house, great! Feel free to look at it! You can even connect to my network if you like, and try ping my pcs or whatever buggery you want to do- as has been said, its in public property.

But you can't use my bandwidth, I pay for that. Bad.
YEP! you got it!
Reply
Reply
post #296 of 406
4/8/06 at 5:15pm
Just to add my 2cents here in the uk provided there is no protection of any kind bypassed then you can use any signal you can find.
In fact I use my laptop on my local shops network excelent equipment and bandwidth and no security what so ever. But only works in front half of my house so not perfect.
Reply
Reply
post #297 of 406
4/8/06 at 6:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by crashnburn
How do I know you are not a friendly neighbor who doesnt mind me using it?
You don't. You assume I'm not, just like I assume you aren't a friendly neighbour who doesn't mind me borrowing his car without asking. You can't just say "Well, I thought he didn't mind lol?" and expect to get away with stealing sometihng.

If my SSID was "Cummon! Free interweb!" then sure, feel free. But since it isn't, assume my property and services are mine and don't try take them.

Have an analogy- I pay for water, I pay for gas, I pay for electricity. I don't have a sign up saying "No stealing!" but I do have pipes running into my home. If you started nabbing some water, or using electricity which I'd payed for, them I'd be pissed. Same deal for my connection.
Reply
Reply
post #298 of 406
4/8/06 at 6:58pm
Its so easy to be immoral when you don't have to put the effort in- stealing from shops? Bah. Running is boring. Copying from a mate? Takes time, boring. Downlading of BitTorrent? Hey, that requires no input.

Same with wireless- stealing cable? Bah pooey, all that climbing. Stealing internet? Sit on yer arse.
Reply
Reply
post #299 of 406
4/9/06 at 1:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpsejockey
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.
Why? Sure it would be SMART to protect your connection but there's no law that says you need to. If you don't lock the doors to your car and it or something inside gets stolen, should you be SOL? If it's not your connection and you don't have permission to use it then you can't use it. Should be common sense and you should be subject to punishment.

Your neighbor leaves their lawn mower in their front yard while they go inside to do something and you take it to mow your lawn. Are you allowed to do that? No.
Reply
Reply
post #300 of 406
4/9/06 at 10:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by huskyfan23
Why? Sure it would be SMART to protect your connection but there's no law that says you need to. If you don't lock the doors to your car and it or something inside gets stolen, should you be SOL? If it's not your connection and you don't have permission to use it then you can't use it. Should be common sense and you should be subject to punishment.

Your neighbor leaves their lawn mower in their front yard while they go inside to do something and you take it to mow your lawn. Are you allowed to do that? No.
QFT.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Notebook News
NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook News › Man in Florida arrested who was using unauthorized Wi-Fi