Brazilian Telecom Authority Claims Sharing WiFi Is A Criminal Offense

from the can't-have-the-competition dept

Thu, Feb 3rd 2011 11:01am — Mike Masnick

Marcos points us to a story coming out of Brazil, where a guy who had an internet connection with WiFi, and agreed to share that connection with two neighbors is now facing two to four years in jail (Google translation of the original). Not only that but the Brazilian telecom authority ANATEL has seized his computer, modem and router, and have fined him approximately $1,800. They're claiming that sharing his WiFi was "providing an internet service without authorization." The guy is obviously fighting this in court, saying that it's ridiculous to claim that a guy sharing his WiFi should be classified as a regulated service provider...

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

Filed Under: brazil, crime, sharing, wifi

49 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2011 @ 11:13am

They are right though. He wasn't sharing inside his house with his roommates, he was sharing with neighbors, aka, other potential paying customers. It isn't very hard to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2011 @ 11:22am
  
  Re:
  This is the provider's fault then, for not stopping their signal dead at the boundaries of the property.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2011 @ 11:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    crack is whack. put down the pipe.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2011 @ 12:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Said the itinerant plumber.
      
      Can I file charges against a provider for putting their 'property' on my property? I don't ask for it, don't want it, yet it's there all the same. Damn sloppy of them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Steve R. (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 1:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    This raises a very serious concern with those who advocate privatizing the spectrum. The most obvious being radio signals just don't stop at the property line.
    
    The most egregious, aspect would our currently free wireless routes now have to be "licensed" for which we would pay a fee?
    
    Taken to a logical extreme, should the radio spectrum be privatized, those who "own" it should be forced to pay a rental/fine for allowing their radio signal to trespass on my property.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Brandon, 4 Feb 2011 @ 11:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    You do realize that you can purchase your own wireless router, and the provider cannot control the broadcast strength of that router, right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 11:29am
  
  Re:
  So, the charge is "criminal interference with a business model"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 11:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    It could have been worse. He could have been downloading music.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 11:31am
  
  Re:
  @Mike:
  
  Can we have an account option to filter out replies from anonymous trolls?
  
  Thanks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 3 Feb 2011 @ 11:34am
  
  Re:
  They're right only if you interpret every action that anyone takes as being commercial in nature.
  
  Eating before going to a movie theater is cheating the theater out of money you might have otherwise spent on popcorn.
  
  Giving food to the homeless is depriving food vendors of the money they might have gotten from the homeless.
  
  Letting a friend crash on your couch is depriving a motel of the money they would have made renting out a room.
  
  The service they are paying for is the same whether it's 3 neighbors using the access or 10 people who live in the same house using the access.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chris (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 3:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    They're right only if you interpret every action that anyone takes as being commercial in nature.
    
    not paying your due to a large multi-national corporation is a form of piracy.
    
    Eating before going to a movie theater is cheating the theater out of money you might have otherwise spent on popcorn.
    
    yes, it's food piracy.
    
    Giving food to the homeless is depriving food vendors of the money they might have gotten from the homeless.
    
    more food piracy.
    
    Letting a friend crash on your couch is depriving a motel of the money they would have made renting out a room.
    
    bed piracy.
    
    The service they are paying for is the same whether it's 3 neighbors using the access or 10 people who live in the same house using the access.
    
    but the difference is 3 vs. 10 counts of wifi piracy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2011 @ 11:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      *snort* Ha, bed piracy! I'm suing my cats.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2011 @ 11:38am
  
  Re:
  And?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 11:50am
  
  Re:
  I don't want to live in your world where this is easy to understand. This guy is already paying for internet connection. The service is providing what he pays for, no more. The liability, bandwidth, and download caps are all the same.
  
  It's like if I ran a hose between my house and my neighbors, I'd still have to pay for the water service.
  
  This is probably a TOS violation, but that justifies a loss of service, not jail time, large fine, and loss of computer equipment.
  
  But hay, I don't know Brazil, maybe this does make sense. Like how it makes sense to some people to kill women for showing their faces (I don't want to live in that world ether).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 11:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Like how it makes sense to some people to kill women for showing their faces (I don't want to live in that world ether)."
    
    Unless we can write specifics into the law, of course. The Nat'l Rosie O'Donnell Burkha Act of 2011 would certainly get MY vote....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Berenerd (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 12:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ...Some people juggle geese...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2011 @ 2:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I swear to god...live geese...goslings
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Any Mouse (profile), 4 Feb 2011 @ 8:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Can't stop the signal, Mal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Steve R. (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 1:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "This is probably a TOS violation, but that justifies a loss of service, not jail time, large fine, and loss of computer equipment." Private industry seems to have convinced the government that when a customer "violates" a TOS that it is a criminal offense. As a society, we seem to have lost the concept of two parties negotiating the terms of service for a civil business deal. It has become, "Take what I give you. Should I not like what you do, off to jail. You have no rights."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2012 @ 5:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    usually water is paid by the gallon and internet is one price per address, if he was paying per mb of data I don't think there would be any problem. Still seems like harsh penalties for a still grey area, trying to make an example.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2011 @ 11:32pm
  
  Re:
  In the same way that a garage sale competes with a department store
  
  Even if this is actually a violation under insane Brazilian law, it should be a minor civil matter
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- WarPhalange, 6 Feb 2011 @ 2:21am
  
  Re:
  So if someone wants wifi but is too stupid to figure out how to use encrypted connections, they deserve jail time?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2011 @ 11:59am

In the old days, you could ask your neighbour for a cup of sugar when you ran out.

Nowadays, you'll serve 9 years in prison for daring to disrupt the business of the processed sugar companies.

God bless the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheStupidOne, 3 Feb 2011 @ 12:11pm

It could be a criminal offense ...
if the government is in the telco's pocket (which it probably is) and they buy the service provider argument

Now if that is not the case, then this is at worst a breach of contract dispute where the contract is the terms of service. Any fines from this dispute would likely be limited to what is stated in the TOS and if there is no clause granting fines to the telco, then their only recourse is to terminate the service or offer him new terms of service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2011 @ 12:32pm

I wonder, here in the US if I put a splitter on my cable input and ran it to my neighbor, would I be violating the law? How about if we split the cost for the service? Would that be against the law?

I know that could violate the TOS, but break the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 12:45pm
  
  Re:
  Depends on where the splitter is. if its inside your house/Apartment (note that if you live in an apartment building, you can't touch the wires unless they are in your apartment not the basement of the building) you are ok to put the splitter there. Anywhere outside of that, it is considering tampering with the Cable company's property which is against the law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2011 @ 10:38pm
  
  Re:
  It could be said that you are the source for an illegal connection, which would be theft of services. So yeah, you would be breaking the law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2011 @ 5:56pm
  
  Re:
  It's a lot harder to split cable these days, what with Digital boxes, etc. But yeah, Years ago it used to be illegal (probably still is) to have more TV's than you told the cable company upon installment, even within the same house in some cases, let alone other people. "Theft of Service" I believe. Never stopped people, but cable companies learned their lesson and now most you need a account card or some other scramble/unscramble system.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Any Mouse (profile), 4 Feb 2011 @ 8:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Never had a cable operator ask me how many TVs I had in the house. Just how many I wanted them to install to. Any further installs were then my problem.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 12:32pm

Pretty good ISP
Aside from the wacky business model

There are a lot of people in this country that would like a connection robust enough that it could be shared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Krahn, 3 Feb 2011 @ 1:35pm

It really is theft because the neighbor is getting a paid service for free. The legal details obviously depend where you live. However, jail time for sharing with one person is *severe* overkill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Big Al, 3 Feb 2011 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re:
  My God - Arrest my wife and kids. Because of the router I have installed they're getting my paid internet connection for free and that's theft!
  Actually that may not be a bad idea... :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 3:40pm
  
  Re:
  But the service IS already paid for.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2011 @ 1:39pm

My problems with it:

- It is really a crime? that seems harsh to say the least.
- Why is that punishment is the first option for something that is not that clear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul G, 3 Feb 2011 @ 2:33pm

How did they know?
What caused this issue to come to the attention of the ISP in the first place? What actions did they take to determine he was sharing outside the boundaries of his property?

I guess greed is the motivation for the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ted Burner, 4 Feb 2011 @ 6:26am

Everyone is doing the same thing because of poverty
Most people in Brazil are poor and I think that this is happening all over the country. Everyone in the Favelas must be sharing the same wireless signal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC, 4 Feb 2011 @ 11:10am

Contempt of Greed
His real crime is Contempt of Greed. He'll probably get the death penalty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bubbles, 4 Feb 2011 @ 11:25am

Hmmm
It is only unethical IMHO if he was charging them and profiting on it. If not then it is just sharing. (:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2011 @ 11:36am

actually this IS wrong
This is exactly like if he ran a cable to their house for TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AC, 4 Feb 2011 @ 11:50am
  
  Re: actually this IS wrong
  No, it actually isn't anything like that at all. You're paying for the Internet **CONNECTION**, not for the Internet. What you choose to do with your connection is your business.
  
  With Cable television, you're paying for the **CONTENT**, not the connection.
  
  Stupid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bvwt, 4 Feb 2011 @ 12:28pm

Wrong Method
Everyone knows in Brasil that you have to pay those who bring charges against you. Then you can do anything you want. This guy needs to get wit the program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
luube, 4 Feb 2011 @ 6:24pm

So it would be fair if I bought a cd then let my friends download it, and so on? Kind of the same thing here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Any Mouse (profile), 4 Feb 2011 @ 8:35pm
  
  Re:
  No... I don't buy that argument...
  
  Sharing his internet connection only impacts his connection, not others using the service. They all have their own bandwidth and performance concerns, for which they pay. If he wants to slow his own connection, that's his business.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2011 @ 8:37pm

What's next? Frito Lay suing everybody who attends a Super Bowl party that eats some Cheetos that they didn't bring?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2011 @ 5:20am

Block all access by MAC addresses. Owner's MAC address should be the only one allowed to get out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johan Lundgren, 6 Feb 2011 @ 3:29pm

"...the Brazilian telecom authority ANATEL has seized his computer, modem and router, and have fined him approximately $1,800."

Isn't this just enough? They busted a guy for sharing. SHARING! He was not selling anything but he was sharing it with someone who might not otherwise be able to afford it anyway.

When Big Corp and the spineless-turncoat-sellout-government of ANY state does someting like that, we got a sad situation on our hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daniel, 8 Feb 2011 @ 8:35am

I can see why it's frowned upon. The rules state in UK that the Wi-Fi connection is per household. But jeez, prison for 2 years?

Give me a break. Sometimes I despair about the bad weather here, but at least the judicional system isn't completely insane,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 10:06am

Just some more info:

The crime he's being accused of is described as "perform clandestine telecomunication activities" (art. 183 of the Brazilian Telecom Act). This activities are descritbed as those that "that enables the provision of telecommunication" (art. 60, same act). You may find the act here: http://goo.gl/96cRi (Google Translate).

The whole argument is around which could be considered or not a "telecomunication activity". ANATEL is claiming that this concept includes providing signal via wifi to various residences for pay (the neighbours split the cost of one connection and paid their shares to the defendant, who paid the ISP).

So ANATEL is not trying to "criminalize TOS violation", this is a consequence of ANATEL's interpretation of the law (ANATEL is a telecom authority, not an ISP - and it was in fact created to halt ISP abuses, which makes the whole case really odd).

And, yes, maybe the ISP has something to do with this. There is virtually no other way for ANATEL to discover such petite "violation" without being tipped by someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 10:08am
  
  Re:
  By the way, sorry for the typos and grammar mistakes. We don't speak English here in What, you know...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]