Can Retailers Who Provide Free WiFi Get Freeloaders Arrested?
from the questions-questions dept
The rise of WiFi has certainly brought out some interesting and challenging legal questions over the past few years. There's the question of whether or not you're liable if someone does something illegal on your WiFi and (the big one) whether or not it's illegal to use someone else's WiFi. Of course, most of these questions focus on homeowners who have setup WiFi for their own convenience at home. The questions can get even trickier when you move to a retail setting, where WiFi is designated for customers. While it comes as part of a typical local reporter fear mongering about WiFi article, the opening of this article includes the story of a man arrested for freeloading on a coffee shop's free WiFi from their parking lot. In true fear mongering fashion, the article mentions that the guy is a convicted sex offender -- though the reporter has no idea if that's even relevant to the wireless angle. However, it does raise some legal questions.If the coffee shop was broadcasting the WiFi in the open, inviting customers to use it, can they then have someone else arrested for using it? It's not a case where it's just some homeowner who doesn't know any better and doesn't secure his network. This network is specifically configured to be open for people to use. In this case, the guy was sitting in his truck in the parking lot using the WiFi for 3 months -- so you could make a case for trespassing once they asked him to leave, but he was charged with theft of services. Also, what if he accessed the network from the road, rather than the private property of the parking lot? Is it still trespassing, even though they broadcast out their welcoming signal that far? Finally, there certainly are technical means available to the coffee shop to prevent such freeloaders -- whether it's giving out codes to customers to simply having a splash page popup when you first get on the network, notifying users that you may only use the network if you're a paying customer. Does the fact that the shop chose not to employ those methods weaken the case against the freeloader? It seems that police and the courts in Vancouver, Washington will now get to tackle at least a few of those questions.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
a little math...some directional antenna...problem
Though I find it very unsettling that you can arrest someone so easily for using a service you offered them... At least secure your damn system first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
General wi-fi ignorance
But it does introduce risk - being hacked/captured or freeloaded.
There's a question about legaility of using someone's connection which is "broadcast" out into the open - but I have the problem of NOT using my neighbors. Although I'm a Network Engineer, my new IBM/Lenovo T43 has built in wireless with the ... shall I say "worthless" (to be polite) Windows Zero Config for wireless. So, I have some basic precautions on my Linksys - such as a changed SSID that I'm not broadcasting - but my Windows insists on connecting me to either one of my neighbors on both sides of me before my own wireless.
So, three houses, three wireless. None of use encryption. None of use MAC filtering. If I weren't techncial, I wouldn't even know which AP I'm associated with (thanks again Windows) - I would just wonder why it's so dang slow.
So, if I accidentally connect to my neighbors and then fire up bit torrent or something like that and start going crazy with music sharing - and the RIAA comes after my neighbor, is it their fault? Maybe fore being ignorant. But I would suggest the manufacturers are just as much to blame - for making it too easy for them to install a Wireless Access Point without knowing what they're doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: General wi-fi ignorance
Anyway Good point. I have several neighbors that have linksys routers and for some odd and da** annoying reason I can't access my wireless network with a password set on it. I've called both llinksys and the company that sells the USB wireless trash. Neither could give me a decent solution. Guess it shows you that it gets difficult to secure your network unless everything's the same company. (but heck the USB thing was 10 bucks. where the heck are you going to get something for ten bucks today?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: General wi-fi ignorance
i believe they might have fixed it with SP2 some, but its best to know exactaly what SSIDs you have in your allowed wireless networks thing (in the advanced setup of the wireless connection)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: General wi-fi ignorance
Of all the computers I have setup with wireless cards, none of them have automatically connected to _anything_ without me telling it to. So you have "linksys" saved as an auto connect profile for wireless, and your neighbors is called "linksys". Yeah, you might have connected to his, but why is this Microsoft/Windows' fault? To me, _that_ is ignorance.
Try opening up the advanced wireless configuration page and take a look at how to make wireless networks "on demand". Also, you'll find the option that says "only connect to preferred wireless networks".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: General wi-fi ignorance
Also, I did have it set to connect to "Wireless" and "Anything" so it will pick up AP's and when I am travelling through airports, starbucks, etc.
So rather than ding my skills, or lack thereof, how about my point that most NON-technical people won't know where they're connected to - especially if they didn't set up their own AP. Most technically challenged users I deal with certainly wouldn't know how to go into their NIC config - perhaps you have better educated users you've dealt with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: General wi-fi ignorance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IS illegal to intercept satellite TV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IS illegal to intercept satellite TV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IS illegal to intercept satellite TV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IS illegal to intercept satellite TV?
But to recieve a satelite signal you need a reciever made just for one service provider and a card with a computer chip on it registered with the provider. The provider has gone to great length to protect his signal. You would have to go to a great length to intercept that. The coffee shop did not require a password.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IS illegal to intercept satellite TV?
However, some satellite signals are not encrypted and yes, you can tune into them for free just like your local broadcast television. The courts have long up-held that.
There is a grey area around listening to transmissions "not intended for you" even if they are un-encrypted. For example, the courts have said tuning into a satellite is fine, but listening in on a cell phone conversation (old, unencrypted, 800 Mhz AMPS system) is illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Joys of Fear-Mongering
'A computer expert told KATU News there is no way to know if someone is using your wireless connection without permission.' ?
Has this expert never logged into a router to look at the DHCP table?
Plus most manufacturers provide the ability to look at the access log, so if you have 2 computers in your house, and see more than 2 ip addresses in the outgoing log, seems pretty obvious you have an extra user.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Joys of Fear-Mongering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Joys of Fear-Mongering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Joys of Fear-Mongering
Aside from that they rarely ever report on anything in southwest Washington, even though Vancouver is the closest city to Portland (where they're all based).
Most anything they report on when it comes to computers, myspace, stupid parents it's always that evil computer's fault.
Oh, and like most other news outlets their website sucks complete and total donkeys. They have these retarded commercials for local companies with "the yellow box". So rather than listing the company's website in the commercial, they have you go to KATU's site and type in some stupid phrase into "the yellow box". Why would anyone want to go that far out of their way to get information on a company? What and entirely unprofessional way of doing things.
I swear, they're all idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So is it illegal to use someone else's home wi-fi? I do believe so. Unless they have it advertised that their house is a free wi-fi spot, no can do.
But if you do go onto someone else's wi-fi and so something illegal, is it the wi-fi owner's fault? Well, is it a car owner's fault if his car gets stolen (because he did not lock it) and it is used as the getaway vehicle in a crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kind of a strange analogy ...
... with wi-fi, it's frequently isntalled and used by people who don't know how it works, or the basics of making it more secure.
Its purposefully UNREGULATED by the FCC. This is EXACTLY why they regulate the majority of the radio frequencies - to control ignorant, uneducated use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the guy was sitting in the parking lot off and on for 3 months I believe the laws on trespassing and loitering cover that already. He was already warned by the cops, so I think there's every right to prosecute him now - I can't say I agree with any prosecution for the WiFi use, but for trespassing, after being asked to leave, most certainly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And to the other person who made a comment about this and DirecTV.
1) DirecTV is clearly a paid service so gaining access to it without paying is clearly illegal and would be theft of services.
2) Obtaining Free access to a WiFi that clearly says Free isn't illegal and would not be theft of services.
So the two are non-comparable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think it could well be argued that the point of free networks is to entice customers to become active patrons of their store. Keep in mind the retail view that shoppers are customers in a real sense, even if they have not bought anything.
Truth is providers of free products/services provide them as a way to ENTICE someone to make use of their paid products/services.
Forget wifi a moment and think of a simple free service most coffeeshops provide. Restrooms.
Do they mind if I use the restroom before or after I get my coffee? Heck I might even go in there twice if I'm there a while -- once to wash my hands before I order and another time before I leave to "output" part of what I just drank as "input".
And god forbid sometimes I have gone into a restraurant or coffee shop and USED THEIR RESTROOM WITHOUT BUYING ANYTHING.
Hide your shock. It's OK.
When the restaurant manager scolded me on my way out and told me the restrooms were for paying customers, he got a little shock of his own.
I told him, "Um, I was GOING to be a paying customer until I saw your restroom had cr** all over it, smelled like a pit-toilet outhouse and the sink had no soap and no paper towels.
"There's a little sign in there, 'Employees must wash hands before returning to work.' but that's exactly what's so disturbing. I want to vomit at the thought that the guy who would be making my sandwich had to wash his hands in THERE. And you really expect me to place an ORDER FOR FOOD before I leave? GET REAL."
So there's a good case of a free service which was using a convenience as an enticement, but it ended up being a deterrent toward my patronage. True, there is a direct correlation there between cleanliness of the restroom vs. sanitation in the product I would be buying.
But who's to say that shouldn't be the same for a coffeeshop? Perhaps the enticement there is on the verge of working. I want to go pay for a coffee while I do some work over the Internet for free. But before I go to the trouble of going into the shop, I see whether or not my network card is working before I go in. Or maybe I can't remember what type of a wifi this is -- is it a paid one or a free one. If it's not truly free wifi but instead like a pay-required T-mobile hotspot, then perhaps I'll choose not to go in and drive on down the street. I might even try and USE the free connection for a moment quickly to see if it's worth me carrying my stuff into the shop or not.
It's simple, and others have made the point well elsewhere above. If you're going to run a "free" wifi network as a service to anyone, or if you're going to run any type of unsecured wifi network, you need to be savvy enough to be aware of the technical issues involved in setting up such a point and taking steps to secure it against unwanted access.
If you want an analogy to use, consider homeowners who live along a creek. On the other side of the creek is a woods that the neighborhood kids play in. The kids all figure their own way across til one day one of the parents decides it would be safer to build a nice little bridge. Some of the other neighborhood kids start using the bridge. The bridge builder has no fence around his property and the bridge has no gate or other way to secure who uses the bridge. But the yard and the bridge still belong to the bridge builder. Anyone who goes across their can be charged with tresspassing.
UNLESS
The bridge-builder continues to allow the neighborhood kids to make use of his property (the yard and the bridge) for years and years. Then it's possible, courts have ruled, if you don't enforce your property rights, you are silently giving permission. Classic cases involve kids or dogs who always cut through yards to get from the street to a school behind the property or whatever. What happens is that unless you stand by your rights, you lose them.
This could also be the case with free wifi, were it not for one simple thing. The wifi networks use the purposely unregulated public airwaves.
To me it matters very little whether a business owner enticed someone to their property with a free service or with a paid product. The point is, they invite the general public to make use of their parking spaces and welcome the general public onto their property.
For business owners who insist on offering free and/or unsecured wifi access, it would make infinitely more sense to address the concern as a property rights issue rather than on technical merits. If a guy is sitting outside in his car for six hours while using the cafe's wifi, then the cafe owner should ask him to move his car so that the parking space can be used for paid customers. Let the cafe owner post signs at the parking lot entrance saying there's a two-hour parking limit; violator will be towed. If the cafe doesn't have its own parking lot but is part of a strip mall, then they have to address things like that in cooperation with their landlord.
The legal issue of using wifi and not buying a coffee is not a technical issue. The legal issue of using the restroom and not buying a sandwich is not a plumbing issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also, the signage the coffee shop has regarding the free wi-fi must clearly state for customer use only. Almost all signs for free hi-speed wireless internet access that I have seen neglect to add the "for customer use only" portion to the sign. If the sign simply says "Free Hi-speed Wireless Internet" then they have not clearly defined that the use is limited to customers only.
If you go to a grocery store and sample all of the freebies they are handing out and then leave without purchasing anything, is that theft of services?
The offer of "Free Wireless" does not automatically imply for customers only. The reason a coffee shop or any other establishment offers the wi-fi for free is in the hopes of attracting additional customers. If you offer something for free, and get taken up on the offer without converting the person to a customer can you then sue them for theft of services? You made the offer. These are the questions that the legal community must answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal Acts
That's an interesting point, and it will vary from country to country. I don't think any jurisdiction in the United States would charge the vehicle owner, but military friends have told me that in some cities in Germany, the Polizei will ticket unlocked vehicles.
Can anyone from Europe comment on this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal Acts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal Acts
I can't confirm your statement about the Polizei in Germany, but I know in Belgium they will not ticket unlocked vehicles. And even if they did, if the car gets stolen and used in a crime, the car owner is not considered an accomplice... so in my opinion, the owner of a wi-fi which was used -beyond the owner's knowledge- for illegal activities, is not liable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal Acts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal Acts
If I have a gun that I leave unsecured, and someone takes it without my permission, even though I was fully aware (or stupidly unaware) that the weapon could be taken and used to perform a criminal act, I have facilitated that criminal act.
And whether or not you are legally liable, there are a great many people out in the communities that "self police" unsecure sites, resulting in blacklists and connection refusals for that reason.
So whether or not the legal system gets you, eventually someone will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wi-Fi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open
While you cant walk into someone's wide open front door, there is no law prohibiting you from listening to the XM Satellite radio transmission coming out of it from the sidewalk (if it's up that loudly anyway).
Same principal. You might be charged with loitering, but not theft of service.
Now, if the person was doing something illegal, then something can/should be done. But theft of service on an unsecured network that is advertized as "free" is absurd.
As for blaming the owner of the WiFi if someone else performs an illegal act, that's absurd as well.
If someone picks up my pencil from my desk and stabs someone in the eye, am I responsible? No, why should I be? "I" (no pun intended) didn't do it, and I shouldn't be responsible for the actions of others. Same applies to drugs, and just about anything else that has a legal purpose, but can be used for an illegal one (which is anything that can be used in any manner whatsoever).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Open
Take that pencil and replace it with a handgun. If someone picks it up and uses it to commit a crime, are you liable - legally, maybe. Civilly, damn skippy you are.
You might not get hit with a criminal prosecution, but you can count on the Civil law suit coming your way, and probably losing, in the US at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Open
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Open
Ridiculous. If someone steals a handgun afrom the permitted owner nd uses it in a crime, the owner is NOT resbonsible. (Provided it was reported as stolen.)
I Agree with the pencil analalogy... If someone uses something [any tool: pencil, knife, computer, wifi, nuclear weapon] to commit a crime, it is the person that used it that is responsible.
If the network was purposely left open for the benifit of the customers in the vincity, then I would believe that the AP owner is not responsible, only the perpetrator of the crime.
Likewise, the AP owner is purposely allowing open access, so they cannot claim that anything has been "stolen" from them, either.
Should the responsibility be upon the actual person who committed the legal act? And what right does the "coffee shop (AP owner) have to claim theft of service? None.
Prepostorous.
--Prof HiB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here it the contact info...
16318 Southeast 12th Street
Vancouver, Washington 98683 US
Phone: 360-514-8111
They had no email listed so here is the contact info in case you want to cheer them on....or speak your mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here it the contact info...
The report said deputies were sent to the coffee shop at 6500 N.E. 117th Ave. on Friday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Garbage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is just the beginning, next we will have an a
Arrested for theft for hooking up to a “free” open commercial node, that is plain crazy. Slap on the wrist and a $150 fine like jaywalking if and only if the commercial node announces that net access is for paying customers only. If the unauthorized person is looking at child porn, then he goes to jail for that... and is fined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Signal interception and use
Similarly, the Supreme Court has found, in search and seizure rulings, that a person's automobile functions as an extention of their property.
If you put the two together, the man using the coffee shop's "advertised as free" signal was well within his rights to do so. If there were ANY form of encryption or security on the signal (even a rudimentary login screen), the situation would be completely different, because there would have been an expectation of private use.
Of course, I have no legal experience whatsoever, and my memory isn't what it used to be, so I could be completely wrong... Unless there have been changes in FCC rules, I'm pretty sure this is accurate, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree, but...
Good luck convincing the RIAA's lawyers of that...
John Doe: "It wasn't me!"
RIAA: "Your connection, your fault. Pay us $5000"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1st thought
Another report from the Vancouver WA paper...
First thing I thought was they would get him in Trespass. The theft of services thing suprised me, how can you steal something that is free?
My point of view (I know we all have one), the guy was asked before to stop it, he should have... Did he break the law, I dont know, I dont believe he did. I bet it gets thrown out, however...
It sounds like he was a jerk during the process, and quite possibly the "Theft of Services" charge was an excuse to get ahold of his laptop and investigate hoping to turn up evidence of other crimes, along with impounding his pickup, again to investigate this crime with the hopes of turning up other evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wi Fi nonsense
If this is really tossed out of court, then there should be some recourse for the person arrested -- the wireless service is not contained within the business, and if the business isn't paying lease on public property, then the business may be liable for providing a service on public property without license.
Okay, it was a parking lot, but the whole thing is pretty stupid.
If the coffee shop were to put out full cups of coffee on a table, in public, with a sign "free coffee" hanging from the adjacent shop, would it be illegal to take a cup?
Sounds to me like someone had too much coffee to drink and was looking for a fight (edgy idiot)!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take responsibility
If they do not want users to do things that are "illegal" or porn related then close the ports and install a net filtering program like they use at schools or the library.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are just angry because he wasn't using the services that they charge for that have nothing to do with Wi-Fi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Solution...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about my Home
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a good example...
Try this: You leave the windows and the TV on. Dude parks in the street and looks watches your TV with his binoculars.
Is it wrong? Certainly. It is trespassing/theft? No.
A simple rule of thumb with "public" wi-fi might be: If it is not password protected, you can use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liable
"U.S. courts have found, repeatedly, that if you put something online in a free and open manner, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone linking to it -- even if it hurts your business model."
The cafe owner didn't put anything online but he is offering something free to the public and therefore anyone who wants should have free reign to access it. Is the user liable for the cavalier business practices of the cafe owner? No. If the owner sets limits on the use of the service and the user breaks the rules that would be grounds for liable. When there is no clear ruling, police tend to make up their own minds as to what is lawful or not. In this case the police are dead wrong. They're right about loitering but that's just being petty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WiFi Hijacking
Is the same fate that befell amateur radio broadcasts going to happen to WiFi? Will we soon be forced to register our transmitters with the CRTC in order to ensure that we're not interfering with registered commerical broadcasters?
Hopefully WiMax will render all this a moot point as larger areas become blanketed with connectivity rendering personal APs redundant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
brewed awakenings
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Knee-jerk reactions?
He was "refusing repeated requests to leave." The coffee shop is private property. If they say "Get out and no wifi for you" it doesn't matter that it's unlocked/open, you can't enter their property or use their wifi. It's just like the front door of the shop. If you're asked to leave, even though they don't have a bouncer there to throw you out, you have to leave and not come back. The "theft of service" is probably just the reporter spreading some FUD to get hits. Trespass is what he'd be charged with. The sex offender is also FUD the reporter is using to scare up some hits.
No story here, move along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Knee-jerk reactions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Knee-jerk reactions?
However, that leads me into my rant on the lack of public space in America anymore, but that's another story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wi-Fi "theft"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"illegal" use of "free" WiFi services
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "illegal" use of "free" WiFi services
A personal wifi network at home does not advertise itself as free. They SHOULD set up some sort of security and I believe the instructions for my wifi network included instructions for that, but the average person setting up a network is not computer savvy and can often be described as computer illiterate. Their networks are protected by law the same as an unlocked front door is protected by law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WIFI
One article stated an employee called 911 to have to summon the police. This is clearly not a hostage situation. I hope the employee was reprirmanded for using an emergency line for his peeve with a customer. I also hope someone dying was not put on hold while the operator took this call.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trespassing/Theft of Services?? No, felony fraud.
TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 638
FRAUD
Computer Crime
Section 638:17
Which states:
"A person is guilty of the computer crime of unauthorized access to a computer or computer network when, knowing that the person is not authorized to do so, he or she knowingly accesses or causes to be accessed any computer or computer network without authorization."
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/638/638-17.htm
The rest of the statute is harsher if you care to read it.
The list of affirmative defenses does not include "(s)he was too dumb or lazy to secure his/her network"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My WiFi is really free
So there. Now you have to know the INTENT of the router owner to know if you are actually stealing, if he can't figure out how to PW his not really "free" service, then he is to blame, and you're to blame if you are looking for adult toys and pay too much http://www.herprettypleasures.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]