Activating an iPhone - Made SIMPLE by Apple.

In article <[email protected]>,
"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> The thing is, we don't hear about the thousands of cases where charges were
> either not filed, or were quietly dropped prior to the court appearance.
> So you get a distorted sense of reality by relying on just two court cases.
Not if those are the cases that are getting to court. The others that
never saw court, aren't adjudicated and aren't precedent for later
cases. It could be argued (actually it WILL be argued by me in a second
or two) That one of the main reasons many were not filed or dropped were
done so specifically because of the lack of case law as to what the
parameters of nastiness are.
*IF* the two that went to court are convicted (the articles so far
that I read on this thread indicate that only charges have been filed so
far) then it could open the flood gates. Of course, on the other hand if
they are tossed or not convicted, then it goes away.

> If one of these cases is ever appealed, a higher court may well rule that no
> law
> was broken, and that use of unsecured Wi-Fi signals is similar to standing on
> a
> sidewalk and enjoying the shade from a shade tree that stands on someone
> else's
> property.

Of course they could also rule that the original ruling was right. It
is a toss-up at this point.

---

› See More: Activating an iPhone - Made SIMPLE by Apple.

ed <[email protected]> wrote:

> > correct John, thanks for saving people from Ed's ignorance.
>
> uh, no, i was absolutely correct in my point- that you were wrong when
> you were trying to state that no one had ever been convicted for using
> an open access point.
>
> that you tried to change your point to that no one had ever been
> convicted for hosting an open access point, or that the cases are
> relatively isolated, does not make you correct. nor does it make me
> ignorant. it just shows that you're :
> 1- wrong
> 2- that you're afraid of simply admitting you were wrong
> 3- you like to try to move the goal posts
> 4- have poor reading comprehension
> 5- a jerk for continuing to insult me even though i was right and you
> were wrong.

no ed (as usual)

i agreed, that you used a foreign soil example, so you got me on that
point, but nobody in the USA has ever been CONVICTED of a 802.11
wireless crime, that's a fact.

i'm the most honest poster, so i look into FACTS and that doesn't sit
well with you.

ed, you are one of the USNETS leading idiots, you don't understand tech,
nor much of anything, so everyone laughs at you, that's all.
-

"Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > but the root is too tight of tolerance. learn about plastics sometime.
> > heat expansion wasn't correctly factored, but it's not the PROBLEM.
>
> So it's my problem ? Anyway you look at it, It's apple problem to fix it.
> I never knew I would need to learn about plastics to own a mac. Silly me.

NO, of course not, but did it ever affect performance? nope! It's purely
cosmetic and Apple fixes it for free.

> > but was it an apple store, nope!
> Apple Which fixed it said it was due to battery swell.
> You figure it out.

Okay, that seems like a reasonable answer. Apple fixed it, so why the
complaining?

> > and that was a tough issue to fix, give apple a break on that one. they
> > fixed everyone single one that had issue for free.
>
> Give em a break on that one ? Are you kidding ? So they fix it by a fan
> speed fix. Nice. What happens down the line when this poor fan is wore out
> from being turned up to cool down the chip ? Repair time. They wanted to
> keep this so bad they even offered me a half price apple care plan. Which I
> refused.

It took awhile to find the cause, I think you have the understanding
that millions of users under 1000's of conditions all have the same
answer? Learn about electronics repair, it's 1000's of times more
complex than a "car" with a squeaky sound.

Ah, the fan wouldn't ware out for 5-10 years, so not sure why you
brought that up. Sounds AGAIN like you don't know electronics.

Yes, Apple should have offered a full 2 year extra AppleCare plan, they
failed there.

> >> What about my fan not being able to keep everything cool ? Oh, apple just
> >> speeds up the fan rpm and sooner then normal. There goes 10% of your
> >> battery.
> >
> > evidence? the fan takes up little energy, maybe 2%, but not 10% of the
> > battery.
> >
> Again, Google it. People reported a 10% loss in battery life due to the fan
> being turned on at startup and the lowering of the temp setting to come on
> sooner then normal to keep this oven cool.

Doubtful.

> Place it on your lap and see how long it stays there before the heat frys
> your legs. I should have thought something was up when the display was
> sitting on a targus usb fan cooler.
> >> >> Wi-Fi quit working. 2 times for this problem.
> >> >
> >> > doubtful.
> >> > Read the fixes on the apple site.
>
> If it's doubtful, then why point to the "Fixes on the apple site" ?
> Fix=problems.

The fix ended up being "software" which is typical for complex systems.
The general public (you) doesn't have have the concept that most EVERY
HARDWARE issue can be fixed with asoftware update.

> > no, i just have about 40 clients with these machines, and you are the
> > only one that has had ALL 4 of the issues and (then some made up ones)
>
> I must have just been lucky huh.

No, I followed the story very well, that's why I've caught you in a lie.
I did have a person with the dark palm rests, he emailed me, and apple
fixed it within 4 days, for free.

> >> > incorrect. if they tried to fix it 3 times and failed, you get a new
> >> > machine.
>
> Again, you know all about this case huh. I'm done with this big POS Apple
> product.

I know about all cases, and your story quickly calculated to false.

> >> Wrong. Only if it's the same part "Under the lemon law"
> >
> > oh my god, you are COMPLETELY wrong on this, it's 3 ISSUE of ANY TYPE
> > that Apple has taken in the machine and hasn't been able to resolve, you
> > get a new machine, that's a POLICY. It has NOTHING to do with the same
> > PART having 3 issues?
>
> The letter I got with the laptop said it was a new problem everytime.
> It was never the same problem as before. But I had them when the shutdowns
> kept on. The final straw was the MB Replacement.

Yes, but if you would have called Customer Relations, they know 3
strikes by Apple and the machine is replaced or amount refunded. Which
you got since you didn't understand the issues.

> > Did you even deal with Apple on this? or did you use your local Windows
>
> My local apple store. Which is a apple service center.

But not an Apple Store, thanks for confirming that.

> And I also forgot to tell about the DVD Drive that ate the factory disc's.
> Large rings around the media. Two sets of those in less then a month.

Untrue. Unless of course you are abusive to your equipment. The sign
that you had dirty palm rests pretty much says you are a PIG, and not
really up to Apple standards to have a modern piece of electronic
equipment. (sorry to be so blunt on that, but the dirty palm rest, told
everyone that you aren't a clean person)

> Caused by a bad dvd drive. Google has much info on this as well.

Not.

> > Apple would have responded to your complain and you would have lost.
> > There are no valid class action suits on this subject at this time since
> > Apple has resolved all customer issues for FREE.
>
> Only after they said no at first and people started the class action. Once
> apple saw that they had no choice they fixed the problems.

Apple doesn't need to respond to class action unless there is a problem
on their side, in your case it was user abuse.

> Were they fixed ? Don't know or care. I got a refund and that's that.

Yes, and in your filthy lifestyle that was best for Apple. They don't
need slobs in their customer base.

> >> No need. I got the refund and I'm done.
> >
> > yes, or a Refund from Apple... that can happen as well, but I don't
> > remember you saying that before. You said court, and that's a total lie.
>
> Apple refused to help me. It's only when The local apple store sent it in
> and came back with the same problem is when I filled out the paper work.

Incorrect. Apple helped you, but you didn't want to be helped. It's VERY
clear from your comments here.

> It was sent in for the shutdowns, Upon opening it up in the store, less then
> 30 mins later it had done it again. That was when I had enough.
> The repair said mainboard replacement.

But Apple mistakenly didn't understand that WASN'T the problem, it was a
software issue, fixed after you had issues. Sorry.

> >> I expected this from the apple people.
> >
> > You'll learn.
> >
> You are correct. I did learn something. Apple = Crap! : )

Nope, it just means you aren't civilized enough to open a modern
computing device. Someday, with some training you might join the Apple
fold, but until then, you are human trash, it's pretty clear by your
error filled postings.

-

Your so full of ****.
It is and still is a POS. Case closed. I got the refund.

Never another apple product again.

"Bill Gates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > but the root is too tight of tolerance. learn about plastics sometime.
>> > heat expansion wasn't correctly factored, but it's not the PROBLEM.
>>
>> So it's my problem ? Anyway you look at it, It's apple problem to fix it.
>> I never knew I would need to learn about plastics to own a mac. Silly me.
>
> NO, of course not, but did it ever affect performance? nope! It's purely
> cosmetic and Apple fixes it for free.
>
>> > but was it an apple store, nope!
>> Apple Which fixed it said it was due to battery swell.
>> You figure it out.
>
> Okay, that seems like a reasonable answer. Apple fixed it, so why the
> complaining?
>
>> > and that was a tough issue to fix, give apple a break on that one. they
>> > fixed everyone single one that had issue for free.
>>
>> Give em a break on that one ? Are you kidding ? So they fix it by a fan
>> speed fix. Nice. What happens down the line when this poor fan is wore
>> out
>> from being turned up to cool down the chip ? Repair time. They wanted to
>> keep this so bad they even offered me a half price apple care plan. Which
>> I
>> refused.
>
> It took awhile to find the cause, I think you have the understanding
> that millions of users under 1000's of conditions all have the same
> answer? Learn about electronics repair, it's 1000's of times more
> complex than a "car" with a squeaky sound.
>
> Ah, the fan wouldn't ware out for 5-10 years, so not sure why you
> brought that up. Sounds AGAIN like you don't know electronics.
>
> Yes, Apple should have offered a full 2 year extra AppleCare plan, they
> failed there.
>
>> >> What about my fan not being able to keep everything cool ? Oh, apple
>> >> just
>> >> speeds up the fan rpm and sooner then normal. There goes 10% of your
>> >> battery.
>> >
>> > evidence? the fan takes up little energy, maybe 2%, but not 10% of the
>> > battery.
>> >
>> Again, Google it. People reported a 10% loss in battery life due to the
>> fan
>> being turned on at startup and the lowering of the temp setting to come
>> on
>> sooner then normal to keep this oven cool.
>
> Doubtful.
>
>> Place it on your lap and see how long it stays there before the heat frys
>> your legs. I should have thought something was up when the display was
>> sitting on a targus usb fan cooler.
>> >> >> Wi-Fi quit working. 2 times for this problem.
>> >> >
>> >> > doubtful.
>> >> > Read the fixes on the apple site.
>>
>> If it's doubtful, then why point to the "Fixes on the apple site" ?
>> Fix=problems.
>
> The fix ended up being "software" which is typical for complex systems.
> The general public (you) doesn't have have the concept that most EVERY
> HARDWARE issue can be fixed with asoftware update.
>
>> > no, i just have about 40 clients with these machines, and you are the
>> > only one that has had ALL 4 of the issues and (then some made up ones)
>>
>> I must have just been lucky huh.
>
> No, I followed the story very well, that's why I've caught you in a lie.
> I did have a person with the dark palm rests, he emailed me, and apple
> fixed it within 4 days, for free.
>
>> >> > incorrect. if they tried to fix it 3 times and failed, you get a new
>> >> > machine.
>>
>> Again, you know all about this case huh. I'm done with this big POS Apple
>> product.
>
> I know about all cases, and your story quickly calculated to false.
>
>> >> Wrong. Only if it's the same part "Under the lemon law"
>> >
>> > oh my god, you are COMPLETELY wrong on this, it's 3 ISSUE of ANY TYPE
>> > that Apple has taken in the machine and hasn't been able to resolve,
>> > you
>> > get a new machine, that's a POLICY. It has NOTHING to do with the same
>> > PART having 3 issues?
>>
>> The letter I got with the laptop said it was a new problem everytime.
>> It was never the same problem as before. But I had them when the
>> shutdowns
>> kept on. The final straw was the MB Replacement.
>
> Yes, but if you would have called Customer Relations, they know 3
> strikes by Apple and the machine is replaced or amount refunded. Which
> you got since you didn't understand the issues.
>
>> > Did you even deal with Apple on this? or did you use your local Windows
>>
>> My local apple store. Which is a apple service center.
>
> But not an Apple Store, thanks for confirming that.
>
>> And I also forgot to tell about the DVD Drive that ate the factory
>> disc's.
>> Large rings around the media. Two sets of those in less then a month.
>
> Untrue. Unless of course you are abusive to your equipment. The sign
> that you had dirty palm rests pretty much says you are a PIG, and not
> really up to Apple standards to have a modern piece of electronic
> equipment. (sorry to be so blunt on that, but the dirty palm rest, told
> everyone that you aren't a clean person)
>
>> Caused by a bad dvd drive. Google has much info on this as well.
>
> Not.
>
>> > Apple would have responded to your complain and you would have lost.
>> > There are no valid class action suits on this subject at this time
>> > since
>> > Apple has resolved all customer issues for FREE.
>>
>> Only after they said no at first and people started the class action.
>> Once
>> apple saw that they had no choice they fixed the problems.
>
> Apple doesn't need to respond to class action unless there is a problem
> on their side, in your case it was user abuse.
>
>> Were they fixed ? Don't know or care. I got a refund and that's that.
>
> Yes, and in your filthy lifestyle that was best for Apple. They don't
> need slobs in their customer base.
>
>> >> No need. I got the refund and I'm done.
>> >
>> > yes, or a Refund from Apple... that can happen as well, but I don't
>> > remember you saying that before. You said court, and that's a total
>> > lie.
>>
>> Apple refused to help me. It's only when The local apple store sent it in
>> and came back with the same problem is when I filled out the paper work.
>
> Incorrect. Apple helped you, but you didn't want to be helped. It's VERY
> clear from your comments here.
>
>> It was sent in for the shutdowns, Upon opening it up in the store, less
>> then
>> 30 mins later it had done it again. That was when I had enough.
>> The repair said mainboard replacement.
>
> But Apple mistakenly didn't understand that WASN'T the problem, it was a
> software issue, fixed after you had issues. Sorry.
>
>> >> I expected this from the apple people.
>> >
>> > You'll learn.
>> >
>> You are correct. I did learn something. Apple = Crap! : )
>
> Nope, it just means you aren't civilized enough to open a modern
> computing device. Someday, with some training you might join the Apple
> fold, but until then, you are human trash, it's pretty clear by your
> error filled postings.
>
> -

"none" wrote:
>
> i agreed, that you used a foreign soil example, so you got me on that
> point, but nobody in the USA has ever been CONVICTED of a 802.11
> wireless crime, that's a fact.
>

Utterly and categorically clueless.

"A Michigan man has been fined $400 and must work 40 hours of community
service for using a local café's Wi-Fi connection from his parked car to
check his e-mail and surf the Web.

He got off easy, according to the local TV station that reported the case:
Under Michigan computer access law, using a Wi-Fi connection without
authorization is a felony, punishable by as much a $10,000 fine and five
years in prison."

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/...e-Wi-Fi_1.html


If drivel from the likes of "none" is part of the iPhone mystique I don't
want anything to do with it. (Maybe he is a MS shill after-all.)


--
Mike

"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "none" wrote:
>>
>> i agreed, that you used a foreign soil example, so you got me on that
>> point, but nobody in the USA has ever been CONVICTED of a 802.11
>> wireless crime, that's a fact.
>>
>
> Utterly and categorically clueless.
>
> "A Michigan man has been fined $400 and must work 40 hours of community
> service for using a local café's Wi-Fi connection from his parked car to
> check his e-mail and surf the Web.
>
> He got off easy, according to the local TV station that reported the case:
> Under Michigan computer access law, using a Wi-Fi connection without
> authorization is a felony, punishable by as much a $10,000 fine and five
> years in prison."
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/...e-Wi-Fi_1.html
>
>
> If drivel from the likes of "none" is part of the iPhone mystique I don't
> want anything to do with it. (Maybe he is a MS shill after-all.)

i suspect 'none' purposely changed his argument from it being 'perfectly
legal,' and 'no law' against it, to no one's been *convicted*, because many
of the articles are unclear as to whether the defendants pled out or were
convicted at trial.

"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> none wrote on [Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:58:36 -0600]:
>> Justin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> > VOIP isn't stealing, not sure where you get that idea. It's just a
>>> > more
>>> > modern way to move lots of voice traffic, putting Cell Companies OUT
>>> > OF
>>> > BUSINESS is the whole goal here, don't you understand what Apple and
>>> > their customers are trying to do?
>>>
>>> Unauthorised use of a WAP is illegal. get the point.
>>
>> And you can now point us to any LAW that says that. Bet you can't! There
>> are NO LAWS covering this area, and likely never will be. The Electronic
>> Frontier Foundation and Woz would be all over that if it ever came up in
>> a court. Please learn how the web works, thanks!
>
> Huh
>
> Man charged with wireless network trespassing - Jul. 7, 2005
> "Police have charged a Florida man with a third-degree felony charge,
> after he was arrested for accessing a St. Petersburg resident's wireless
> Internet network without permission."
> http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/07/tech...rest/index.htm
>
> State: Wi-Fi cloaks a new breed of intruder
> "Police say Benjamin Smith III, 41, used his Acer brand laptop to hack
> into Dinon's wireless Internet network. The April 20 arrest is
> considered the first of its kind in Tampa Bay and among only a few so
> far nationwide."
> http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/04/St...a_new_br.shtml
>

From the article:

"Some Wi-Fi users intentionally leave their networks open or give neighbors
passwords to share an Internet connection."

Sorry. There is no way I would know whether accessing an open network is
authorized or unauthorized. I am not guilty of a crime if I commit a
mistake of fact, at least in the USA.

There is no crime unless someone provides some notice that the access is
unauthorized.

Greg

"Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Your so full of ****.
> It is and still is a POS. Case closed. I got the refund.
>
> Never another apple product again.

well, you mean, just not a 100% new model using a 100% new chip.

the 2nd gen MacBooks were fine, you just got on the early train and got
a full refund for your efforts.

You'll get another mac, but learn that upon the RARE event that apple
completely redesigns something, don't buy the first model.

sorry you had trouble, but it seems you were the only one that had THAT
many problems, (you might want to call Guinness Book of World Records on
this one!) but even so, it still makes you a liar in the eyes of the
public.

"Edgar" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Is there a SIM card? I see no reference to one.....

yes, it's on the top of the phone:

scroll down to see it...

http://translate.google.com/translat...tteb.it%2Fcont
ent%2Fview%2F2202&langpair=it%7Cen&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flangua
ge_tools

Another apple product ? You should be a comic..

"Bill Gates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Your so full of ****.
>> It is and still is a POS. Case closed. I got the refund.
>>
>> Never another apple product again.
>
> well, you mean, just not a 100% new model using a 100% new chip.
>
> the 2nd gen MacBooks were fine, you just got on the early train and got
> a full refund for your efforts.
>
> You'll get another mac, but learn that upon the RARE event that apple
> completely redesigns something, don't buy the first model.
>
> sorry you had trouble, but it seems you were the only one that had THAT
> many problems, (you might want to call Guinness Book of World Records on
> this one!) but even so, it still makes you a liar in the eyes of the
> public.

In article <[email protected]>,
"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> "Some Wi-Fi users intentionally leave their networks open or give neighbors
> passwords to share an Internet connection."
>
> Sorry. There is no way I would know whether accessing an open network is
> authorized or unauthorized. I am not guilty of a crime if I commit a
> mistake of fact, at least in the USA.
>
Of course you are. If it ain't specifically authorized (at least
according the 35th hand accounts of the laws in the news story) then it
is unauthorized. That is the essence of the fine for outside the coffee
shop. It was authorized for customers only and customers don't sit
outside the shop.


> There is no crime unless someone provides some notice that the access is
> unauthorized.
>
There is ample precendent in other areas that suggest you are
wrong. Excuse my fixation with trespass, but it seems to fit most often.
If you enter my house (or even farm field) it is trespass whether or not
I have the signs up.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote:
> "G.T." wrote:
>> There is no crime unless someone provides some notice that the access is
>> unauthorized.
>>
> There is ample precendent in other areas that suggest you are
> wrong. Excuse my fixation with trespass, but it seems to fit most often.
> If you enter my house (or even farm field) it is trespass whether or not
> I have the signs up.

In many cases trespassing isn't trespassing without a fence/sign(s) in
place. The need for such a fence or sign is usually obvious to the property
owner. The equivalent to fences in WiFi networks are security measures, no
matter how basic or easy to bypass. Jumping a fence is easy, but in most
cases people don't do it. For whatever the reason--ignorance, laziness, lack
of knowledge, etc.--many WiFi networks are left open unwittingly or with the
hope that all will be fine.

That was the situation with the coffee shop in the Michigan case. I do
believe there was a sign up but don't know if it was facing in or out, nor
if it merely advertised the "free WiFi" or forbade non-customers from using
it. Regardless, if the coffee shop owner wanted to keep non-customers from
using it he could have implemented security, heck even an SSID of
"CafeCustomersOnly!" would at least indicate to would-be WiFi users that it
was off-limits to non-customers. But he didn't seem to care, and did he
didn't file a complaint. The police chief took it upon himself to charge the
user in the parking lot. (I don't agree with that at all.)

All of that said I think the idea of expecting WiFi coverage on privately
owned--yet open--WLANs isn't very realistic. There are risks to both the
users and to those hosting the WLANs. I wouldn't want to have to explain to
the FBI, who came knocking due to a pedophile using my WLAN for
God-knows-what, that it wasn't me. If a few cases like that get widespread
attention WLAN owners might have to seriously deal with security or
manufacturers might have to do something about balancing ease of setup
(little support on their part) with improved security. Time will tell...


--
Mike

In article <[email protected]>, "Tinman" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> In many cases trespassing isn't trespassing without a fence/sign(s) in
> place. The need for such a fence or sign is usually obvious to the property
> owner. The equivalent to fences in WiFi networks are security measures, no
> matter how basic or easy to bypass. Jumping a fence is easy, but in most
> cases people don't do it. For whatever the reason--ignorance, laziness, lack
> of knowledge, etc.--many WiFi networks are left open unwittingly or with the
> hope that all will be fine.
>

Not in the US, to my knowledge. I know for a fact it isn't in Indiana,
my home state. So even if might in the rest of the US, the local law
states otherwise. The reason that makes a differnce is because a Federal
law says different with respect to WiFi in the US, at least according to
what I have read.


> That was the situation with the coffee shop in the Michigan case. I do
> believe there was a sign up but don't know if it was facing in or out, nor
> if it merely advertised the "free WiFi" or forbade non-customers from using
> it. Regardless, if the coffee shop owner wanted to keep non-customers from
> using it he could have implemented security, heck even an SSID of
> "CafeCustomersOnly!" would at least indicate to would-be WiFi users that it
> was off-limits to non-customers. But he didn't seem to care, and did he
> didn't file a complaint. The police chief took it upon himself to charge the
> user in the parking lot. (I don't agree with that at all.)

That is also the part that is hinky from my standpoint. The other
stuff is also true, but it is also (possibly) true that the law says he
doesn't have to.
Again, however, even if my house door is unlocked, coming in
without my permission against the law and the cops can arrest someone
even without my formal complaint, so it isn't without precedence.

>
> All of that said I think the idea of expecting WiFi coverage on privately
> owned--yet open--WLANs isn't very realistic. There are risks to both the
> users and to those hosting the WLANs. I wouldn't want to have to explain to
> the FBI, who came knocking due to a pedophile using my WLAN for
> God-knows-what, that it wasn't me. If a few cases like that get widespread
> attention WLAN owners might have to seriously deal with security or
> manufacturers might have to do something about balancing ease of setup
> (little support on their part) with improved security. Time will tell...

I think California already has a law of some sort that says Linksys, et
al, must include some kind of warning (in a specific manner, with
specific wording and specific type sizes) about the possible nasty
outcomes of leavign it open. So there is some of that already.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote:
> "Tinman" wrote:
>
>> In many cases trespassing isn't trespassing without a fence/sign(s) in
>> place. The need for such a fence or sign is usually obvious to the
>> property
>> owner. The equivalent to fences in WiFi networks are security measures,
>> no
>> matter how basic or easy to bypass. Jumping a fence is easy, but in most
>> cases people don't do it. For whatever the reason--ignorance, laziness,
>> lack
>> of knowledge, etc.--many WiFi networks are left open unwittingly or with
>> the
>> hope that all will be fine.
>>
>
> Not in the US, to my knowledge.

I meant de facto, not necessarily de jure, and of course not universal.


> I know for a fact it isn't in Indiana,
> my home state.

Bet it's prefaced with "knowingly" or "intent" and is contingent upon
refusing to leave (criminal trespass, not B&E). A house on a block in a
neighborhood is obviously off limits to most reasonable people, even without
a fence or sign. But just walking up and knocking on a front door, say by a
few church people, is not trespassing. If told to leave and someone refuses
it is.

Regardless, the Michigan case is more about not even knowing it was illegal,
yes perhaps through ignorance--like straying onto private land abutting a
park or BLM land. Even the cafe owner was unaware that it was illegal (he
didn't seem to mind that it was happening either).

To me the WiFi case(s) are not being treated as trespassing per se, more
like breaking and entering. I'd rather leave those kinds of prosecutions for
the really bad guys (bypassing a company's WLAN to gain CC info, for
instance), not someone parked in front of a coffee shop.


> Again, however, even if my house door is unlocked, coming in
> without my permission against the law and the cops can arrest someone
> even without my formal complaint, so it isn't without precedence.
>

Yes, but I would assume the arrest would be for something like breaking and
entering, not trespassing. Moreover, entering your house without your
knowledge would probably happen for a reason, such as burglary or perhaps
worse. I don't think the average Joe jumping onto a wide-open WLAN is in the
same category, but perhaps I am wrong.


>
> I think California already has a law of some sort that says Linksys, et
> al, must include some kind of warning (in a specific manner, with
> specific wording and specific type sizes) about the possible nasty
> outcomes of leavign it open. So there is some of that already.

Yep, I imagine there will be more of it too.


--
Mike

In article
<kurtullman-08F399.07084929062007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx
>,
Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "Some Wi-Fi users intentionally leave their networks open or give neighbors
> > passwords to share an Internet connection."
> >
> > Sorry. There is no way I would know whether accessing an open network is
> > authorized or unauthorized. I am not guilty of a crime if I commit a
> > mistake of fact, at least in the USA.
> >
> Of course you are. If it ain't specifically authorized (at least
> according the 35th hand accounts of the laws in the news story) then it
> is unauthorized. That is the essence of the fine for outside the coffee
> shop. It was authorized for customers only and customers don't sit
> outside the shop.

Is this a reference to the Florida case? That particular case appears to
be slightly bizarre, in that it seems the owner didn't even mind, yet
somehow the guy ended up in trouble anyway.

The results are probably not generalizable. Certainly not to other
states.

> > There is no crime unless someone provides some notice that the access is
> > unauthorized.
> >
> There is ample precendent in other areas that suggest you are
> wrong. Excuse my fixation with trespass, but it seems to fit most often.
> If you enter my house (or even farm field) it is trespass whether or not
> I have the signs up.

But a open wireless network with an SSID broadcast isn't really the
equivalent of private property with no signs. It's more like the
equivalent of someone putting up signs on their property, visible from
public land, that say "Free Food!". With arrows pointing to their door,
which is unlocked.

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006