Busted For Borrowing Library WiFi

[hity645]

How many people do you know has a laptop, a car, and a education who has to write a paper at the last minute for a research the next day?... but does not have internet nor has a clue that starbucks, mcdonnalds, tmobile, riowraps, wendys, quiznos, truckstop all offers free wifi access

Several times with an old ISP did my internet die on me during the night, and would continue to be out for days all the while I had online courses to complete. My cousin didn't have net access at all so we had to drive around for about an hour to find a free hot spot. And where I live to access any one of those places you have to drive about 20-30 miles. The local McDonalds was installing wifi last I heard.

need proof....i want to see proof that this cap exists and that they actually enforce it, because i KNOW for a fact back when i was into file sharing i and many friends exceeded this easily and never got so much as a notice

Check out the networking forum, and even genmay. There are a couple threads about these warning letters, even a google search will return results. I believe its a new thing though started sometime within the last year.

 

[drizzt81]

While the library could thwart such wardrivers by simply disabling the dang signal at closing, they continue to enforce some usage rules that Mr. Tanner may or may not have been aware of

Wow, there's a novel concept: lock the doors, close the windows and take down the "open house" sign when you are out of the home.

 

[Ockie]

Believe me, I did not take it personally, nor am I offended. And the word is "counseling," btw.

I'm quite proud your spell checker works, because mine did not last night. I congratulate you for finding spelling errors instead of arguing the point, good job.

And how many times do I have to spell it out. This discussion is about the possible charges that police are considering regarding the library. And regarding those potential charges, his guilt or innocence in past incidents is immaterial.

It is? Hmm interesting.... then there is no discussion as charges about connecting to the library won't be brought... so then what is your point? What are you exactly arguing about then? The potential charges he faces are for the other crimes the he did commit doing the same thing for the same activity and the other potential claim for a charge is the content of what he downloaded.

Why do you keep talking about guilt of past incidents? This is what he IS potentially facing charges for... can you not read?

"Remaley said the investigating officer is talking with the District Attorney's Office to determine whether criminal charges are warranted. "

SOURCE

Tanner said he does not think the case will go to court. Remaley said he's not sure either.

SOURCE

If you put a sign on it saying "Free to the first taker" then yes, it does. The library has done the same thing with their wifi. They make it free for the takers. It is not the taker's fault that they left it on when they didn't want to.

I was unare that the library said "free wifi" after business hours when it's normally out, I am also very surprised that this library's security group involved the police too.

I guess when police comes to shoo you away that whatever you are doing is legit, because after all, it's free right?

I guess a regular patron of the library should have known better after reading the rules day after day when visiting the library during open hours. I would have expected somone to at least have enough memory to remember that and to at least put two and two together after the police has asked him numerous times.

He returned the next day after the police told him not to be there.

"I went to the public library because I go there during the day," Tanner said.

SOURCE

Jeanne Novosad, the library system manager, said the wireless connection is normally shut off when the library is closed.

SOURCE


You would think a person would know by now of the usage policies.

You need to sit down and learn the difference between privately held property and property which you have invited the public to come and partake in. With the forgotten cell phone or the unlocked car, I am not inviting the public to take my property. But if I open up my wifi router, and then put a sign outside my house saying "free wifi," I then give up the right to complain when someone takes me up on the offer. If I only want them to log on during the day, and usually switch the router off at night, but forget to switch it off one night, my negligence cannot be blamed on the person who reads the sign and then accesses my router.

I guess you didn't read the article or any of the links I provided? I am a security specialist, I'm pretty sure I know the diffrence between private and public. I also know the diffrence between theft and free too!


The library had no such sign, do you care to link me to this sign? I really want to see you start backing up facts here... oh wait, it's all oppinion on your part and gross assumptions.

He was told that essentially it's a free wireless Internet service but he failed to read the terms and agreement governing its use (only available during business hours)

SOURCE

"I went to the public library because I go there during the day," Tanner said.

SOURCE

You would think somone like him should know this already right?

Sorry bud, but you're wrong here. I'm actually a journalist, have been asked many times by the cops to leave public property, and I didn't have to (and was backed up by attorneys in those cases) because it was an unlawful request. And that right to be in public property and on property which has been opened to the public does not stop at journalists - it is a right that ALL citizens of this country have.

You are a journalist? LOL!

Good one. You need a Pulitzer prize for your award winning research here as any journalist would know that you don't just assume crap when you type it up as you are.


Please let me know for which paper, group, or organization you are writing to, because if I have any subscriptions with them, I'd like to cancel it asap. I hate having to rely on one source, I'd expect real journalists to do better work and actually dig into the story instead of one article.

Trying to get breaking news and facts is NOTHING like stealing bandwidth... but nice attempt here.

And we don't know what content he was not supposed to download. If there's nothing in the free wifi TOS saying don't download certain files, then he can download whatever he wants (provided it's not actually illegal of course)

So tell me Mr. Journalist. Have you ever bothered to read up a librarys wireless usage policies? Most of them have rules in place. As this person was a daily patron, he should have known better.

This is a typical usage policy regarding wifi at a public library:

during normal library business hours.

SOURCE

Specifically, wireless access will be limited to 2 hours of access per day.

SOURCE

The network is intended to support library research and academic work at the seminary, but current faculty, students and staff may use it for personal and recreational purposes.

SOURCE

Wireless access is available all hours the respective branch is open.

SOURCE


I can tell that you haven't. If you have not read the articles, I suggest you do so ASAP as this was covered in there already that it was against the TOS:

Here, let me source you:

Police said that although Tanner was using an essentially free service, there are library rules governing its use and Tanner wasn't following them.

SOURCE

I'm pretty sure GAMBLING and DOWNLOADING wasn't allowed

I'm a regular daily user of the library in my town, but I don't know their wifi regulations. Unless they can prove he knew the rules, and that the rules forbade him from doing whatever he did, then he didn't do anything wrong.

Let me copy this again.

He was told that essentially it's a free wireless Internet service but he failed to read the terms and agreement governing its use (only available during business hours)

SOURCE

"I went to the public library because I go there during the day," Tanner said.

SOURCE

You would think somone like him should know this already right?

Police also asked him to move multiple times too... you'd think somone would grab a clue.

Huh? I never said anything about drugs.
In any case, I fail to see your point. Speeding can and has killed people. Using the wireless at a closed library is harmless.

Of course you won't see my point because you don't want to. Speeding has killed people but some will argue that they can speed without risking others and some will tell you increasing the highway speed makes the roads safer. You will also find people will try and tell you that smoking weed should be legal because it does not harm others. I consider a lot of activity "harmless", so please lets keep oppinions out of this?

I think you are confused here. Stealing is stealing, regardless if it's virtual or physical. So your harmless claim I fail to see.

need proof....i want to see proof that this cap exists and that they actually enforce it, because i KNOW for a fact back when i was into file sharing i and many friends exceeded this easily and never got so much as a notice

You asked, here I am!

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1157889
http://digg.com/tech_news/Comcast_admits_bandwidth_cap_200_GB_month_and_is_a_moving_target


You can do some of your own research before calling shens on others. I highly doubt that you and your friends exceeded 200gigs of bandwidth, it's not very easy on a cable account unless if you just open yourself up to the outside world.

I should clarify something in my last post:

Unless they can prove he knew the rules or had reasonable notice of the rules then he didn't do anything wrong.

Let me copy this again x2

He was told that essentially it's a free wireless Internet service but he failed to read the terms and agreement governing its use (only available during business hours)

SOURCE

"I went to the public library because I go there during the day," Tanner said.

SOURCE

You would think somone like him should know this already right?

 

[BinarySynapse]

where does it say he was downloading anything. It said they were looking ot see what he MAY have been downloading. What I get from that is that the police officer ASSUMED he was downloading something and confiscated his laptop to see what it was. However (and I don't know, it's just my assumption), that confiscation would be unlawful since there was no actual reason to believe he was downloading anything illegal. If they do happen to find anything illegal on his laptop then I don't think it'd be admissible in court since there was no warrant to seize it in the first place.

 

[BinarySynapse]

I also believe this is a civil matter between the library and the offender since it was the rules of the library that were broken and not any law (that I am aware of).


Was it a public network? yes

Was it secured? no

Was it during business hours? no, but he didn't break into the building to use it, he was sitting in the parking lot, so the point it more or less moot. If the lot had sercurity gates or bars, or if there were signs posted stating that no one was allowed on the lot after hours then I could see the problem. But then the charge would be trespassing not theft.

Was he warned to leave before? yeah, so. I've been asked to go home when I was out jogging before dawn. I went home of course, but the next morning I was out again as it was my routine.

 

[Seelenlos]

It's a very murkly law at best, there are some established rules however it's all open to interpretation, wifi is incredibly new right now.

But remember, just becasue it's not written in lamens terms it doesn't mean it's not right.

These articles might point you into the right direction:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/237
http://news.com.com/FAQ+Wi-Fi+mooching+and+the+law/2100-7351_3-5778822.html
http://wwwebbb.gsu.edu/lawand/papers/fa05/author1oblinger/
http://www.renderlab.net/articles/canadianwardrivinglaw.html
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/technology/personaltech/internet_piracy/index.htm?cnn=yes

Interesting links but most focused on private home networks. I can see how accessing that would be illegal even if the people providing agreed to the access, ie cable company doesn't want you to provide service to all you neighbors. Makes sense to me.

I still did not see anything that says that the accessing a network at a public place with no security is illegal. It doesn't matter if the kid says he is guilty of it, I'm guilty of driving to work this morning doesn't mean I committed a crime. That is my take on the issue however. Some seem to think that even if a network is unsecured and open to all that it would be illegal to connect to it. I disagree, the onus should be on the owner of the device to secure it, even more so when it is a device ran by a public institution. If a network is open I can only guess at the intent of the people who set it up. I choose to give them the benefit of doubt that they know what they are doing.

Until it is written down all we have is opinion on the matter. Even then it is debatable.

So if I happened to forget my cellphone ($600 phone) in my unlocked car, this gives a theif a right to take it?

Just because someone forgets or accidentally makes a mistake, doesn't give a criminal the right to take advantage of it. Next time think about this as you lock your car or your home.

Those items are commonly intended for personal/private use. I see a wifi network as a device built for widespread network access. Again if it is open I tend to believe it was the intent of whoever owns the device to provide access to people since that is the purpose of the device. The only way to really know the purpose is for the owner to secure it, signs could be post but hey it is wireless you would have to have signs all over the place for it to be known. Not to mention most people don't read signs and in some places a sign doesn't cut it. Waiting at an airport I got onto a wifi network, not secured, no signs posted anywhere nearby, I used it. I don't see how that is stealing but it sounds like you would consider it to be.

 

[Ockie]

where does it say he was downloading anything. It said they were looking ot see what he MAY have been downloading. What I get from that is that the police officer ASSUMED he was downloading something and confiscated his laptop to see what it was. However (and I don't know, it's just my assumption), that confiscation would be unlawful since there was no actual reason to believe he was downloading anything illegal. If they do happen to find anything illegal on his laptop then I don't think it'd be admissible in court since there was no warrant to seize it in the first place.

The officer confiscated Tanner's laptop to inspect what he may have been downloading, Remaley said.

SOURCE

And they are putting together a warrant:

Remaley on Friday said he hasn't looked inside the computer yet; he's putting together a search warrant application.

SOURCE

It would be a pretty bold claim if he wasn't downloading anything and would discredit the police there greatly.

I also believe this is a civil matter between the library and the offender since it was the rules of the library that were broken and not any law (that I am aware of).

Was it a public network? yes

Was it secured? no

Was it during business hours? no, but he didn't break into the building to use it, he was sitting in the parking lot, so the point it more or less moot. If the lot had sercurity gates or bars, or if there were signs posted stating that no one was allowed on the lot after hours then I could see the problem. But then the charge would be trespassing not theft.

Was he warned to leave before? yeah, so. I've been asked to go home when I was out jogging before dawn. I went home of course, but the next morning I was out again as it was my routine.

As I said earlier, he's not being charged for connecting to the library's wireless network, they are checking out other charges against him for other offenses and potentially on the data content of his download.

From what I can gather all they are doing is they are trying to determine if he broke the library rules and will kick him out if he did, nothing more, nothing less. The media took this, put a great spin on it, and made everyone think it's wow.

He was gambling on a library network while downloading... doesn't get any simpler than that. I don't know why they just can't call the library head instead of waiting for him to come back in.

Interesting links but most focused on private home networks. I can see how accessing that would be illegal even if the people providing agreed to the access, ie cable company doesn't want you to provide service to all you neighbors. Makes sense to me.

Well wireless access is still very new in the eyes of the law, and with all new things it has to be interpreted. A case such as this one has happened before but was never a big deal and didn't hit the media either.

What complicates this fact is that it's a library.... and since things like this happen once in a blue moon, not many documents are going to be out about it.

I still did not see anything that says that the accessing a network at a public place with no security is illegal. It doesn't matter if the kid says he is guilty of it, I'm guilty of driving to work this morning doesn't mean I committed a crime. That is my take on the issue however. Some seem to think that even if a network is unsecured and open to all that it would be illegal to connect to it. I disagree, the onus should be on the owner of the device to secure it, even more so when it is a device ran by a public institution. If a network is open I can only guess at the intent of the people who set it up. I choose to give them the benefit of doubt that they know what they are doing.

It had nothing to do with accessing a public network with no security. It had to do with accessing a network that is not supposed to be active. Also, there are no charges for that exact instance, the charges (if pressed) would stem from other violations.

Those items are commonly intended for personal/private use. I see a wifi network as a device built for widespread network access. Again if it is open I tend to believe it was the intent of whoever owns the device to provide access to people since that is the purpose of the device. The only way to really know the purpose is for the owner to secure it, signs could be post but hey it is wireless you would have to have signs all over the place for it to be known. Not to mention most people don't read signs and in some places a sign doesn't cut it. Waiting at an airport I got onto a wifi network, not secured, no signs posted anywhere nearby, I used it. I don't see how that is stealing but it sounds like you would consider it to be.

A lot of businesses has open networks unknowingly, either their contractors put it in place, or it's a rouge access point... it doesn't give you the right to go onto the network and make youself at home simply because it's open.

I would be careful about an airport and just accessing open networks. I wouldn't consider that stealing in the sense that if it's your first time on that network and there were no warnings or anything, you wouldn't know better, you would assume its the airport free wifi network. However, if airport security approached you and warned you, from that point forth you'd have to tread carefully as you are now on thin ice. Also, if you have visited that access point before and there has always been warnings and it's switched off after business close, then you should also put two and two together.

As for my airport comment, check this out:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9008399


I am done with this thread now forth, as it's going to be nothing but the same rehashed arguments. I will leave with this, if it was your bandwidth and your connection, I don't think many of you would feel the same with this "borrowed" approach.

 

[BinarySynapse]

SOURCE

And they are putting together a warrant:


SOURCE

To search an item that (I believe) was illegally taken to begin with. That's like going back to get a warrant to search a property after the police have already knocked down the door.

It would be a pretty bold claim if he wasn't downloading anything and would discredit the police there greatly.

It's not like police organizations haven't been arrogant (bold) and discredited before.

As I said earlier, he's not being charged for connecting to the library's wireless network, they are checking out other charges against him for other offenses and potentially on the data content of his download.

That is soley your interpretation. As I see it, there's no evidence backing up that claim. Just because it says they are looking into what charges they can file that doesn't mean that they are looking for past offenses to charge him with. They probably just don't know what to charge him with on THIS offense since, like you said, it was a library. But, if the officer didn't believe we wasn't doing something illegal, then he wouldn't have been arrested, unless of course there were existing arrest warrants.

From what I can gather all they are doing is they are trying to determine if he broke the library rules and will kick him out if he did, nothing more, nothing less. The media took this, put a great spin on it, and made everyone think it's wow.

Again, that would be a matter for the library administration to persue, not the police. And can you point to anywhere in my posts that says anything about the media or WoW? Also, if you're going to invalidate the media then you shouldn't use it as a source to back up your arguments.

He was gambling on a library network while downloading... doesn't get any simpler than that. I don't know why they just can't call the library head instead of waiting for him to come back in..

Again, no proof he was downloading. So far, that's just an assumption by the arresting officer. I have no idea what you're trying to say with that last sentence.

am done with this thread now forth, as it's going to be nothing but the same rehashed arguments. I will leave with this, if it was your bandwidth and your connection, I don't think many of you would feel the same with this "borrowed" approach.

Were it my network, I would make sure it was locked down ot turned off. Otherwise I'd have no ground to stand on when someone started using it.

 

[BinarySynapse]

But, if the officer didn't believe we wasn't doing something illegal, then he wouldn't have been arrested, unless of course there were existing arrest warrants.



.

Jesus Christ. I don't know where I got that he was arrested. I read the article three times and still thought he was. Sorry about that.

 

[G'ßöö]

If the guy was using the internet for something illegal I could understand. But as it is, what he did was pretty harmless. He didn't send spam, download copyrighted material, or watch underage porn, he just used it to play a videogame. And if the network wasn't encrypted I don't see any legal legs to stand on.

Does anyone know of anyone who was convicted in the USA of wifi theft when doing only legal activities on it?

sorry but you completely miss the point of right and wrong

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Of course you won't see my point because you don't want to. Speeding has killed people but some will argue that they can speed without risking others and some will tell you increasing the highway speed makes the roads safer. You will also find people will try and tell you that smoking weed should be legal because it does not harm others. I consider a lot of activity "harmless", so please lets keep oppinions out of this?

I think you are confused here. Stealing is stealing, regardless if it's virtual or physical. So your harmless claim I fail to see.

WTF Ockie, I'm saying that speeding can and has killed people, as in someone going faster than the set limit. No matter what the speed limit is, speeders are still dangerous. Getting online after library hours was absolutely harmless. What effect will this kids WOW game have on the library? Nada, nothing. They might as well have charged him with breathing the libraries air.

If they had a large sign up telling people not to use the WiFi, or if he wasn't supposed to use the parking lot after hours, that would be different.

 

[shadowfax]

Yeah, I can read. Can you? Let's quote the entire relevant passage instead of cherrypicking individual sentences to try and support your nonexistant argument:

"
Remaley said the investigating officer is talking with the District Attorney's Office to determine whether criminal charges are warranted.
Remaley said few of these cases that he's seen have resulted in criminal prosecution.
But, "in this particular case you know he's feeding off something that we know the city of Palmer pays for and there are requirements to use it," Remaley said.
"

Are you suggesting the city of Palmer is paying for the wifi that he pirated off of the private houses? Or can we finally agree that, if one actually reads the *entire* article, they're talking about charges related to the library incident?

I was unare that the library said "free wifi" after business hours when it's normally out,

They don't have to. They offered it up by leaving it on. Unless they posted a notice saying, in effect "Yes we know we're leaving our public network on and wide open, and we know you can access it any time you want when the doors of the building are unlocked, you can't access it now, go away" then they were inviting him to use it.

I am also very surprised that this library's security group involved the police too.

There we agree.

I guess when police comes to shoo you away that whatever you are doing is legit, because after all, it's free right?

Free has nothing to do with it. The cops can't kick you off of a public street unless they establish a crime scene. You have a right to be there, and the cops do not have the authority to make you leave. You seem to think cops can tell you to do whatever they feel like simply because they wear a badge, but unfortunately for them, cops are not above the law.

I guess a regular patron of the library should have known better after reading the rules day after day when visiting the library during open hours. I would have expected somone to at least have enough memory to remember that and to at least put two and two together after the police has asked him numerous times.

We still don't know if those rules were posted. If they're sitting in a binder behind the circulation desk then it's not reasonable to expect that he would have read them. Even if they're posted next to the computer area, he may not have read them - he has a laptop, why would he use the undoubtedly crappy computers at the library? If they posted them on the door, that's a lot better. If they really want a bulletproof case they will have to have posted them as a logon notice when you connect to their network.

The library had no such sign, do you care to link me to this sign?

How do you know that? Plus, I never said the library had such a sign. Speaking of reading. . .

Good one. You need a Pulitzer prize for your award winning research here as any journalist would know that you don't just assume crap when you type it up as you are.

They don't give out pulitzers in my line - - Murrows actually. I'm not assuming anything. I'm objecting to you assuming a ton of stuff. You read the article, and immediately decided you knew the whole story and what should happen. My point is that the article does not tell us 1) if the library had a policy against using wifi after hours in place or 2) if that policy was posted in a place where this person could reasonably have been expected to see it. Until we know those two facts we cannot really judge whether this guy is guilty or innocent. If the library had such a policy, and it was posted where he would see it (for instance, upon login), then I have no problem with throwing the (no pun intended) book at him. But as I said before we do have the concept in this country of innocent until proven guilty. In fact, that's more than a concept, it's the law. This kid hasn't been proven guilty of anything. Hell he hasn't even been CHARGED with anything, and yet you sit here on the forum professing you are certain of his guilt.

So tell me Mr. Journalist. Have you ever bothered to read up a librarys wireless usage policies? Most of them have rules in place. As this person was a daily patron, he should have known better.

Not for the library in the town I live in now, no - I have my own internet and don't need the library's. And just because most of them have rules in place does not mean the Palmer library had rules in place. In fact, so far signs point to them possibly NOT having rules in place. They're apparently a pretty sloppy operation - otherwise why would they leave the wifi on? I know they claimed they were having a timer installed (I have some difficulty with this as well, since timers can be bought from the hardware store for 7 bucks and just plugged into the outlet - why do they need to have it "installed"), but is it really so hard to unplug the router every night until the timer gets there?

I can tell that you haven't. If you have not read the articles, I suggest you do so ASAP as this was covered in there already that it was against the TOS:

Here, let me source you:

Vague references to "library rules governing its use" do not indicate what those rules were. If those rules spelled out so clearly that what he was doing was against them, why was that not mentioned by the cop?

I'm pretty sure GAMBLING and DOWNLOADING wasn't allowed

Yes, well, see, this is what separates my world from your world. In my world I don't go with "I'm pretty sure." In my world I'm either 100% sure or I don't go with it. We have an article here that gives us a tidbit of information, without giving us enough to be 100% sure of anything. There are too many questions surrounding this story to know whether the kid did anything wrong or not. And rather than take your approach, and jump to the conclusion that the kid committed a crime at the library, and convict him over the internet from my armchair, I'm going to reserve judgement on what happened until we actually find out what happened.

Of course you won't see my point because you don't want to. Speeding has killed people but some will argue that they can speed without risking others and some will tell you increasing the highway speed makes the roads safer.

You're getting into a whole nother argument here - but real quick, data shows that there are fewer deaths per vehicle mile driven on the autobahn than on the US interstate system. What does that tell us? Well for one it tells us that correlation does not equal causation, and more importantly it tells us that assuming things, even if it seems completely logical to assume them, can lead to the wrong conclusions.

Unlike you I have chosen not to assume anything in this case - and will therefore consider him innocent until he is proven guilty. If he really did break the law then it shouldn't be terribly hard to prove it. Why are you too impatient to wait for that proof?

 

[shadowfax]

It had nothing to do with accessing a public network with no security. It had to do with accessing a network that is not supposed to be active. Also, there are no charges for that exact instance, the charges (if pressed) would stem from other violations.

Just had to comment to this even though it wasn't directed at me. Accessing somethign that's not supposed to be there is not in itself a crime. If the parks department leaves the water on during the winter, and I get a drink from the water fountain, I haven't committed a crime. It's a public resource that I used. It's not my fault some dolt didn't turn the water off. Only if there were a sign above the water fountain saying "don't use it in the winter" would I have done anything wrong.

Same thing with the library. He seems to have used a public resource that some dolt didnt' turn off when it wasn't supposed to be active. It's not his fault that it was active. That's why only if there is a well-placed notice forbidding its use during certain hours would he be doing anything wrong by accessing this public resource.