Man Charged for Using Cafe's Free Wi-Fi

Actually, what he did is perfectly legal under FEDERAL LAW:

18 U.S.C. § 2511 INTERCEPTION AND DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ORAL, OR, ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS

2 (g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter [18 USCS §§ 2510 et seq.] or chapter 121 of this title [18 USCS §§ 2701 et seq.] for any person--

( i ) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

( v ) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted.

---

Basically, any transmission that isn't encrypted may be legally intercepted and/or used. If the wifi wasn't encrypted, it's legal.

Unfortunately, this law probably won't even be referenced in the case, because few people know about it.

in this case if the cafe advertised their wifi as being free, then they are giving authorization to use their network unless they require you to sign up for it. At least thats my interpretation of the incident.

The interpretation of the law out to be challenged. By leaving the network "unsecure," the wireless access point is authorizing all users who know the protocol. This is just like accessing a web page open to all users. Explicitly, this means accessing the web page content is authorized to all.

Unreal...when it says FREE and unsecure that means anyone can use it. Making a spectacle out of this when a simple "I'm sorry" would've sufficed is ridiculous.

frivolous lawsuits....in reverse?? Besides, if it is advertised 'free'...then it outta be free. ?

I hope after reading these comments he files an appeal of the verdict.

I do not think this man shoould have been charged, but I can the law's point. Yes the Wi Fi is free,but only inside of the cafe, once you step out of the cafe, it is piggy backing, and that is illegal, no matter what.

the feds past a law a few years ago that pretty much states if its in the air its free in other words he broke no laws. they passed a law about television signals and if you can pick up the signal its free i am wondering if this should apply to wifi hotspots. if i dont want them jumping on my wifi i secure it with a pass word in which case it would be illegal to use mine but if its unsecured then its in the air it should be considered free just like a television sigal.

Let me apologize for this rant in advance. TANSTAAFL applies.

Businesses offer "free" services to market themselves to make money. Free food is offered to tavern customers to induce them to buy a drink. I don't think it is right for someone to take to tin of nuts from a tavern's storage shed just because the owners would have given them away for "free" in any case.

The cost of this "free" service, ISP charges, network equipment, electricity, etc., is rarely eaten by the business. Instead, it is built into the cost of the products, with everyone paying a small amount. If Mr. Peterson had gone into the cafe, allowing the owner to continue to TRY (good products, nice atmosphere, reasonable prices, etc.) to make a sale, his decision not to buy would become a marketing cost to the cafe. By remaining outside, that opportunity was lost and he passed the cost of his access, small though it was, on to the owner and customers. While this may not seem fair to those customers, who do not use the service, they are free to go elsewhere.

As for, "on the air, it is free", it's never free. Broadcast TV is supported by commercials.

If someone's playing music, it isn't theft if you listen to it without paying. A Drive-In movie can be watched from the other side of the fence without breaking the law. If you don't want your WiFi used by the general public, then encrypt it. If you only want your customers to use it, then only give them the passwords. Frankly, the business owner is more likely guilty of entrapment than the user is of theft of service.

When you have an open wi-fi internet connection there is no expectation of privacy. Not only that, the law basically says that accessing a computer system without authorization is illegal. Accessing an open wi-fi connection is not accessing a computer system unless the person is trying to access files on a computer on that system. Plus, when you have a sign that says free wi-fi. That is an invitation to access the internet, which is what Mr. Peterson was doing. Now if Mr. Peterson had accessed the cafe's computers, now a crime has been committed.

To quote a quote in Alans response: As for, "on the air, it is free", it's never free. Broadcast TV is supported by commercials.

The wifi is supported by the regular customers.

When you have an open wi-fi internet connection there is no expectation of privacy. Not only that, the law basically says that accessing a computer system without authorization is illegal. Accessing an open wi-fi connection is not accessing a computer system unless the person is trying to access files on a computer on that system without permission. Plus, when you have a sign that says free wi-fi. That is an invitation to access the internet, which is what Mr. Peterson was doing. Now if Mr. Peterson had accessed the cafe's computers, now a crime has been committed.
This is for Alan's post: As for, "on the air, it is free", it's never free. Broadcast TV is supported by commercials.

Broadcasted wi-fi is supported by the customers or the person that doesn't encrypt it.

Five years in jail for checking your E-Mail. Heck, most real criminals don't do that kind of time for violent crime.

--- CHAS

I'm glad that Sparta is so crime free that all the Piece of Chellice has to look for is wi-fi'ers. Good job, Piece.

This is quite ridiculous, I would fight this.. "The Police Chief of Sparta, Michigan, Andrew Milanowski, spotted Peterson and felt that a law was being broken, but he had no idea which one. Neither did Peterson or the owner of the Re-Union St. Cafe. Both were shocked to learn that he was committing a crime". Typical pig...

This is a very short version of what really happened. If I remember correctly, Mr Peterson repeatedly parked his care in front of the cafe to check his e-mail. He never entered nor purchased anything from the cafe. The cafe provides the free, unsecured wi-fi for their customers and not for just anybody in the public to use. Had Mr. Peterson actually gone into the cafe, then no crime would have been committed.

With their more brawn than brain very limited education, cops should not interprete the law.
I know storm troopers when I see them. I know; I saw the original bunch. They were not the smartest either.
What a waste of energy just for a fast buck.

With some cities offering free wifi, and free wifi access points abound most people dont know when they have connected without authorisation. Many people set up a access point for others to "check their e-mail" without fear of breaking any half-baked law. The simple truth is that his situation created free advertising for the cafe. And how did they come up with 400.00 and community service for an act that the principals ( the defendant and the police chief as well as the cafe owner ) didn't even know was against the law in the first place. Possibly they attemtped to use a law for a unintended purpose to discourage this type of use and to make him and example.

The DCMA and other laws brought into force after 9/11 concern many peaceful and law abiding americans. They exploit the basic freedoms that we used to take for granted.

I would love the ability to check my email freely by simply donating the service to others and hope they recipricate. I have not because I do worry about security issues not to mention the cable companies would come down on me for giving away a service that I pay for.

Why make a criminal out of your neighbor for checking his email when no one knew it was a crime in the first place? Its easy to pass judgement after the fact when you are not the one in the hot seat.

I would like to hope this gets appealed to a much higher court with some common sence. However that costs money and we all know that money makes the laws in this land of opportunity.

While some have argued that he is guilty because he was not in the establishment, who is to say he was not a customer in the past? or even a good customer of the place. I will argue further and say if he had the money to spend he would have just bought a wireless card. But we really dont know any of this. Most of these arguments are simply speculation.

I don't like lawsuits but I imagine I would like jail or 400.00 fine and 40 hours of community service for getting free email even less.

Have a great day.
Sunset1

In my humble opinion Police Chief Andrew Milanowski should be charged with harassment. Obviously he has more time on his hands than things to do. The only crime committed here is that of an out of control law enforcement officer looking for something to do.

my fiance and i have a store with free wifi...if he is not a customer he should not be allowed to use it, regardless of whether or not it is free. it is supposed to be a benefit of being a customer of the establishment....not something that is automatically free...