Followup on the ethics of wireless leeching July 9, 2005 4:18 PM Subscribe
As an update to this and other questions on the ethics and legality of using other people's wireless: Police in St. Petersburg, Florida have "arrested a man for using someone else's wireless Internet network in one of the first criminal cases involving this fairly common practice." (link, via)
Ummm, what's your point? So we've discussed the topic of wifi leeching before.
I'd discussed these issues in CSC Lectures over a year ago, and some of the profs and students had been tackling this issue since Wi-Fi was first released. I've known that it's only a matter of time before a case like this happened.
Although, remember that this guy was camping out in his car directly in front of the other guy's house specifically to leech wifi. It's not like he turned the laptop on in his home and happened to pick up an active signal from neighbors.
posted by mystyk at 6:02 PM on July 9, 2005
I'd discussed these issues in CSC Lectures over a year ago, and some of the profs and students had been tackling this issue since Wi-Fi was first released. I've known that it's only a matter of time before a case like this happened.
Although, remember that this guy was camping out in his car directly in front of the other guy's house specifically to leech wifi. It's not like he turned the laptop on in his home and happened to pick up an active signal from neighbors.
posted by mystyk at 6:02 PM on July 9, 2005
Sorry about the doublepost. Mystyk, I wasn't trying to make a point, but just alert people who've posed the question before to the changing legal landscape.
posted by ori at 6:58 PM on July 9, 2005
posted by ori at 6:58 PM on July 9, 2005
No need to say sorry to me. I probably don't deserve it.
That's really been the issue lately, though; our litigious nature is now starting to clash with issues posed by laws passed in the wake of 9/11, and stuff like this is the result. Was it wrong for the guy to leech wifi? Sure. Would it have been better for him if he wasn't camping out front of the guy's house? Probably. Should he be charged with a felony for what really is a rather victimless crime, and probably shouldn't be a crime at all? Certainly not. This is the direction our country is taking, and increasingly we are moving toward laws and judgements that say ownership of the medium is at least as important as ownership of the message, when it's simply not true. What he did was still immoral, but I have issues with it being illegal.
/soapbox
posted by mystyk at 7:58 PM on July 9, 2005
That's really been the issue lately, though; our litigious nature is now starting to clash with issues posed by laws passed in the wake of 9/11, and stuff like this is the result. Was it wrong for the guy to leech wifi? Sure. Would it have been better for him if he wasn't camping out front of the guy's house? Probably. Should he be charged with a felony for what really is a rather victimless crime, and probably shouldn't be a crime at all? Certainly not. This is the direction our country is taking, and increasingly we are moving toward laws and judgements that say ownership of the medium is at least as important as ownership of the message, when it's simply not true. What he did was still immoral, but I have issues with it being illegal.
/soapbox
posted by mystyk at 7:58 PM on July 9, 2005
He wasn't saying sorry to you. Note the period between the apology and your name.
posted by jonson at 10:05 PM on July 9, 2005
posted by jonson at 10:05 PM on July 9, 2005
Arresting someone does not equal conviction.
MetaTalk: He wasn't saying sorry to you.
posted by grouse at 2:14 AM on July 10, 2005
MetaTalk: He wasn't saying sorry to you.
posted by grouse at 2:14 AM on July 10, 2005
Ummm, what's your point? So we've discussed the topic of wifi leeching before.
I'd discussed these issues in CSC Lectures over a year ago, and some of the profs and students had been tackling this issue since Wi-Fi was first released. I've known that it's only a matter of time before a case like this happened.
Get you, mystyk. You might be an expert but I'm very glad to know about this. I missed the original question, and I think it is of interest and relevance to a significant proportion of MetaFilter members. In my opinion, this is good use of MetaTalk. There doesn't always have to be a point, so get off your horse.
posted by nthdegx at 3:32 AM on July 10, 2005
I'd discussed these issues in CSC Lectures over a year ago, and some of the profs and students had been tackling this issue since Wi-Fi was first released. I've known that it's only a matter of time before a case like this happened.
Get you, mystyk. You might be an expert but I'm very glad to know about this. I missed the original question, and I think it is of interest and relevance to a significant proportion of MetaFilter members. In my opinion, this is good use of MetaTalk. There doesn't always have to be a point, so get off your horse.
posted by nthdegx at 3:32 AM on July 10, 2005
yeah, bugger of mystyk - this is interesting. thanks, ori.
posted by andrew cooke at 5:49 AM on July 10, 2005
posted by andrew cooke at 5:49 AM on July 10, 2005
yea,yea... It just felt a bit too much like DejaVuFilter, given that it was a FPP only 2 days prior. If you missed it then, very well. That's why the first post was a link to the FPP.
Grouse, while you are technically correct, what you passed over was the fact that he's being charged with a felony for this, and that historically causes for arrest have carried almost equal weight to the judgements themselves. Even if found not guilty, the judge would have to add specifically in the judgement that the arrest was wrongful or it could be quickly used as grounds for further arrests and prosecutions. Only one of those would need to be successful in order to set a stronger, harder to reverse precedent based on an actual conviction.
posted by mystyk at 9:04 AM on July 10, 2005
Grouse, while you are technically correct, what you passed over was the fact that he's being charged with a felony for this, and that historically causes for arrest have carried almost equal weight to the judgements themselves. Even if found not guilty, the judge would have to add specifically in the judgement that the arrest was wrongful or it could be quickly used as grounds for further arrests and prosecutions. Only one of those would need to be successful in order to set a stronger, harder to reverse precedent based on an actual conviction.
posted by mystyk at 9:04 AM on July 10, 2005
This is the direction our country is taking,...
This is the direction LIFE is taking. Settle down on the whole "this country" shtick. It's not as if wi-fi networks have been around for decades... neighborhoods filled with them, etc. This is a fairly new thing, in the sense that your average Joe can afford to and easily set one up in his house. One day, every house on the block will have one. So how are we going to build laws around it? Obviously, there has to be some. It's not as if this kind of thing can just go unenforced. Technology is driving this situation, not the Patriot Act or whatever. 9-11 or not, George Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, whoever... doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
The question is... is it cool for someone to sit in his car outside your house and tap into your private wireless network? We'll find out. We'll also find out how serious a crime it's going to be.
posted by Necker at 5:30 PM on July 10, 2005
This is the direction LIFE is taking. Settle down on the whole "this country" shtick. It's not as if wi-fi networks have been around for decades... neighborhoods filled with them, etc. This is a fairly new thing, in the sense that your average Joe can afford to and easily set one up in his house. One day, every house on the block will have one. So how are we going to build laws around it? Obviously, there has to be some. It's not as if this kind of thing can just go unenforced. Technology is driving this situation, not the Patriot Act or whatever. 9-11 or not, George Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, whoever... doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
The question is... is it cool for someone to sit in his car outside your house and tap into your private wireless network? We'll find out. We'll also find out how serious a crime it's going to be.
posted by Necker at 5:30 PM on July 10, 2005
if you don't want someone to use your network, can't you just put a password on it, though? I absolutely do not understand why it would be against the law to use a network left open.
I often open my laptop wherever I am and if an open network is nearby, I assume that means it's cool to check my email. If no open network is nearby, no big deal; I can still write responses to old emails etc, and will send them when I get in to school or to a cafe with a network.
posted by mdn at 8:56 AM on July 11, 2005
I often open my laptop wherever I am and if an open network is nearby, I assume that means it's cool to check my email. If no open network is nearby, no big deal; I can still write responses to old emails etc, and will send them when I get in to school or to a cafe with a network.
posted by mdn at 8:56 AM on July 11, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by cyphill at 4:43 PM on July 9, 2005