Activating an iPhone - Made SIMPLE by Apple.

ZnU wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Not when the SSID incorporates the word "Private", it doesn't.

---

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

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


> 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.
>
No, although that is more speech and religion. It is however,
illegal to go into someone's woods for instance, period. It is also
illegal to hunt (which is a pretty fair analogy in this case since you
are essentially poaching on a wild thing either way) another's property
without permission.
Also, if someone goes up to the door and knocks, that is different
from entering. Just wandering around passively looking for open sites,
for instance, isn't illegal even under this law, apparently. But the
second you hook up with my WiFi, then have more than knocked on the
door.
If the same religious group came to the door, knocked on it, found
it unlocked, and invited themselves in, even Pope himself would be
guilty of criminal trespass.


> 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).
You can be arrested for being in many areas of even BLM land, but
that is another thread altogether(g). You would probably in the straying
arena, be told to leave. But, depending upon the zealousness (or is it
zelosity) of the local constabulary the COULD arrest you for trespass.


>
> 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.

But that is a personal decision not based on the law. Of course,
most of the time it is a decision on the locals based on what is
important to the locals, the recources available in cops and prosecutors
and other things.


>
>
> > 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.

Tomaytoe, Tomauto. Either way it is against the law. What you call
it depends on the wording of the statute and case law. And entering my
WLAN is a random occurence? Average Joe jumping on a wide open WLAN is
at the very least stealing my bandwidth.

In article <[email protected]>,
ZnU <[email protected]> wrote:


> 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.
>
Depends. My understanding from earlier in the thread, that he was
arrested under Federal Law and not FL's. Of course, since it did not
make it Court, there is technically nothin' there to generalize from.
One of the reasons for the width of the thread (g).


> 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.
Not hardly. Since there is no sign there. No overt action on
the part of the network owner to let you in. If their SSID is there and
says allwelcome or some such, then I would say yeah . Otherwise, those
with a little expertise have every right to giggle and make fun of the
goofus who isn't bright enough to lock the door (which we often in less
technically oriented arenas). But still doesn't allow them (legally) to
come in and rummage around.

In article <[email protected]>, News <[email protected]> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Not when the SSID incorporates the word "Private", it doesn't.

My reading of law (such as it is not being a lawyer, nor playing one
on TV, and not having stayed at a Holiday Inn Express since
Mid-December), is that the default in the law is that it is not public
without specifically saying otherwise. (Which may have made the case
where the guy was outside in his car a lot shakier had he decided to
push it.

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.
>
>
> > 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.

That is incorrect at least as far as farm fields go. If you haven't
fenced your land, then it isn't trespass, AFAICT.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article
<kurtullman-1129DF.12205329062007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx
>,
Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > 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.
> >
> Depends. My understanding from earlier in the thread, that he was
> arrested under Federal Law and not FL's. Of course, since it did not
> make it Court, there is technically nothin' there to generalize from.
> One of the reasons for the width of the thread (g).
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Not hardly. Since there is no sign there. No overt action on the
> part of the network owner to let you in. If their SSID is there and
> says allwelcome or some such, then I would say yeah . Otherwise,
> those with a little expertise have every right to giggle and make fun
> of the goofus who isn't bright enough to lock the door (which we
> often in less technically oriented arenas). But still doesn't allow
> them (legally) to come in and rummage around.

Once again, you're using a screwy analogy. Leaving a door unlocked isn't
by itself the equivalent of having an open wireless network and
literally broadcasting that information.

The fact that some people might only be doing such a thing because
they're clueless doesn't make taking advantage of it a crime. One
doesn't, as far as I know, have a legal responsibility to interpret
other people's actions under the assumption that others are clueless.

--
"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

"Kurt Ullman" wrote:
> "Tinman" wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
> No, although that is more speech and religion.

Try calling the police because someone used your driveway to make a u-turn.
Don't hold your breath.


> It is however,
> illegal to go into someone's woods for instance, period.

And what statute would that be? I seriously doubt it remotely resembles
using a cafe's wide open WiFi. Heck at least one OS used to automatically
lock onto open WLANs.

Here's one:

Indiana IC 35-43-2-2
Criminal trespass
35-43-2-2 Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or
intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been
denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or
intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after
having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;
(3) accompanies another person in a vehicle, with knowledge that the
other person knowingly or intentionally is exerting unauthorized control
over the vehicle;
(4) knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use
of the property of another person without the person's consent;
(5) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or
intentionally enters the dwelling of another person without the person's
consent;



> Also, if someone goes up to the door and knocks, that is different
> from entering. Just wandering around passively looking for open sites,
> for instance, isn't illegal even under this law, apparently. But the
> second you hook up with my WiFi, then have more than knocked on the
> door.

I don't agree with your equating this to criminal trespass, and now
apparently breaking and entering.


> If the same religious group came to the door, knocked on it, found
> it unlocked, and invited themselves in, even Pope himself would be
> guilty of criminal trespass.

I guess you really do believe that attaching to a wide open WLAN, of which
many *are* shared deliberately, is akin to criminal trespass.


>
>> 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).
> You can be arrested for being in many areas of even BLM land, but
> that is another thread altogether(g).

I'm surrounded by BLM land, and quite familiar with what I can and cannot do
on it. BLM here use fences and signs to indicate off-limit areas. What a
concept, eh?


>
> Tomaytoe, Tomauto. Either way it is against the law. What you call
> it depends on the wording of the statute and case law. And entering my
> WLAN is a random occurence? Average Joe jumping on a wide open WLAN is
> at the very least stealing my bandwidth.

If you feel that way, why would you broadcast it to your neighbors without
securing it? Don't forget that the mechanism that you are using to deliver
those photons to your neighbors with is public spectrum. Again, I do not
agree this is like criminal trespass on real property.

OK, if you're allowed that analogy I'll call your open WLAN an "attractive
nuisance" kinda like my swimming pool. The same pool that by law I have to
keep fenced in.


--
Mike

In article <[email protected]>,
ZnU <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Once again, you're using a screwy analogy. Leaving a door unlocked isn't
> by itself the equivalent of having an open wireless network and
> literally broadcasting that information.

Of course it is, although to a certain extent I guess that might
depend on where you are. In some of the Inner Cities, it certainly would
be. Maybe not out in East Hicksville.

>
> The fact that some people might only be doing such a thing because
> they're clueless doesn't make taking advantage of it a crime. One
> doesn't, as far as I know, have a legal responsibility to interpret
> other people's actions under the assumption that others are clueless.

No, but again my reading of the law at issue, is that the door is
considered closed unless there is some affirmative action on the part of
the person to open it. Generally inertia is not viewed as an affirmative
action.

Of course all of this in the final analysis boils down to an
interesting jaw fest since none of us here are lawyers and even if we
were, we still don't have a really good idea on how the courts will rule
on all this stuff.
Meet me back here at 1:00 pm EDT on 6-29-2012 and we might be able
to see was right.

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

>
> > If the same religious group came to the door, knocked on it, found
> > it unlocked, and invited themselves in, even Pope himself would be
> > guilty of criminal trespass.
>
> I guess you really do believe that attaching to a wide open WLAN, of which
> many *are* shared deliberately, is akin to criminal trespass.
You would guess wrong. I have stated from the getgo that those who
are deliberately shared (key word being deliberately, which is an
affirmative action on the part of the OWNER of the system) are a whole
different animal. It is the theory that just because I am too dumb to
put up the security means that you (the editorial you, not necessarily
you personally) then have a right to grab hold of my network and use it
as your own.

> >
> >> 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).
> > You can be arrested for being in many areas of even BLM land, but
> > that is another thread altogether(g).
>
> I'm surrounded by BLM land, and quite familiar with what I can and cannot do
> on it. BLM here use fences and signs to indicate off-limit areas. What a
> concept, eh?
But is that policy or law? Also how is the law written? We are
using the trespass and criminal trespass laws as analogies, sure, but
the only real thing of abiding interest is what the actual language of
the law is.
The others are illustrations of things that might or might not be
similar, but can be sorta kinda if you squint just right suggestions for
how the courts MIGHT rule. ANd these are based upon one's own biases
toward what they view as important.
I, for one, never meant to suggest that any of these were ruling,
just indicative of a way the courts might go.

> If you feel that way, why would you broadcast it to your neighbors without
> securing it? Don't forget that the mechanism that you are using to deliver
> those photons to your neighbors with is public spectrum. Again, I do not
> agree this is like criminal trespass on real property.
>
Stupidity, laziness, any number of other reasons that don't make
it less of a crime the way the law seems to be written.
BTW: Cell phones also use the public spectrum and it is not legal
to own equipment (admittedly manufactured after a certain date) that
picks it up even if in the clear.

> OK, if you're allowed that analogy I'll call your open WLAN an "attractive
> nuisance" kinda like my swimming pool. The same pool that by law I have to
> keep fenced in.
Gee I did not know that people could drown or be seriously injured by
diving into a open WLAN. Now whose forcing an analogy from left field?
(g)

In article
<kurtullman-1E2F60.13351729062007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx
>,
Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, "Tinman" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > > If the same religious group came to the door, knocked on it, found
> > > it unlocked, and invited themselves in, even Pope himself would be
> > > guilty of criminal trespass.
> >
> > I guess you really do believe that attaching to a wide open WLAN, of which
> > many *are* shared deliberately, is akin to criminal trespass.
> You would guess wrong. I have stated from the getgo that those who
> are deliberately shared (key word being deliberately, which is an
> affirmative action on the part of the OWNER of the system) are a whole
> different animal. It is the theory that just because I am too dumb to
> put up the security means that you (the editorial you, not necessarily
> you personally) then have a right to grab hold of my network and use it
> as your own.

How is a reasonable person to discern the difference?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article <[email protected]>,
Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:

> shared deliberately, is akin to criminal trespass.
> > You would guess wrong. I have stated from the getgo that those who
> > are deliberately shared (key word being deliberately, which is an
> > affirmative action on the part of the OWNER of the system) are a whole
> > different animal. It is the theory that just because I am too dumb to
> > put up the security means that you (the editorial you, not necessarily
> > you personally) then have a right to grab hold of my network and use it
> > as your own.
>
> How is a reasonable person to discern the difference?

You assume that the door is shut unless there is something there
that tells you different. To continue to beat the trespass analogy like
a rented mule, if there is no sign on the front door saying you are able
to enter, then you don't. Going to a noted hotspot like a library or a
municipal WiFI, would be the equivalent of a homeowner inviting you in,
I suppose.
Again, what you are supposed to do is largely based on what the
language of the law says and any additional interpretations the courts
toss in no top of that.

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article
> <kurtullman-1E2F60.13351729062007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx
>> ,
> Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Tinman" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> If the same religious group came to the door, knocked on it, found
>>>> it unlocked, and invited themselves in, even Pope himself would be
>>>> guilty of criminal trespass.
>>> I guess you really do believe that attaching to a wide open WLAN, of which
>>> many *are* shared deliberately, is akin to criminal trespass.
>> You would guess wrong. I have stated from the getgo that those who
>> are deliberately shared (key word being deliberately, which is an
>> affirmative action on the part of the OWNER of the system) are a whole
>> different animal. It is the theory that just because I am too dumb to
>> put up the security means that you (the editorial you, not necessarily
>> you personally) then have a right to grab hold of my network and use it
>> as your own.
>
> How is a reasonable person to discern the difference?
>

Precisely. In the USA I can defend myself successfully if I make a
mistake of fact (mistaking whether an open access point is deliberately
shared or not) but I can't defend myself if I make a mistake of law
(misunderstanding electronic trespassing laws). If someone uses
something as minimal as WEP or only allowing certain MAC addresses to
secure their network then that makes it obvious that they are trying to
keep out unauthorized access.

Greg
--
http://ticketmastersucks.org

In article
<kurtullman-76323A.14123429062007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx
>,
Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > shared deliberately, is akin to criminal trespass.
> > > You would guess wrong. I have stated from the getgo that those who
> > > are deliberately shared (key word being deliberately, which is an
> > > affirmative action on the part of the OWNER of the system) are a whole
> > > different animal. It is the theory that just because I am too dumb to
> > > put up the security means that you (the editorial you, not necessarily
> > > you personally) then have a right to grab hold of my network and use it
> > > as your own.
> >
> > How is a reasonable person to discern the difference?
>
> You assume that the door is shut unless there is something there
> that tells you different. To continue to beat the trespass analogy like
> a rented mule, if there is no sign on the front door saying you are able
> to enter, then you don't. Going to a noted hotspot like a library or a
> municipal WiFI, would be the equivalent of a homeowner inviting you in,
> I suppose.

But that's just the point: the "door" *isn't* shut. The "door" is wide
open. Or more accurately (because it is well understood that entering
buildings is treated differently than entering property) there is no
"fence" or "no trespassing sign".

There is nothing to differentiate Wi-Fi access points that are left open
deliberately from ones where the owner doesn't want you to use them.

And since the owner can easily provide such an indication, the onus
should be on him or her to do so.

> Again, what you are supposed to do is largely based on what the
> language of the law says and any additional interpretations the courts
> toss in no top of that.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan Baker wrote:
> There is nothing to differentiate Wi-Fi access points that are left open
> deliberately from ones where the owner doesn't want you to use them.
>
> And since the owner can easily provide such an indication, the onus
> should be on him or her to do so.


Which is why the word "PRIVATE" appears in SSIDs.

In article <[email protected]>, News <[email protected]> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > There is nothing to differentiate Wi-Fi access points that are left open
> > deliberately from ones where the owner doesn't want you to use them.
> >
> > And since the owner can easily provide such an indication, the onus
> > should be on him or her to do so.
>
>
> Which is why the word "PRIVATE" appears in SSIDs.

Sorry, but SSIDs aren't read by humans most of the time.

Put a no trespassing sign at the front of your property but leave the
back unsigned and unfenced and you can't expect people to know your
wishes.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."