Michigan man dodges prison in theft of Wi-Fi

A Michigan man who used a coffee shop's unsecured Wi-Fi to check his e-mail from his car could have faced up to five years in prison, according to local TV station WOOD. But it seems few in the village of Sparta, Mich., were aware that using an unsecured Wi-Fi connection without the owner's permission--a practice known as piggybacking--was a felony.

Each day around lunch time, Sam Peterson would drive to the Union Street Cafe, park his car and--without actually entering the coffee shop--check his e-mail and surf the Net. His ritual raised the suspicions of Police Chief Andrew Milanowski, who approached him and asked what he was doing. Peterson, probably not realizing that his actions constituted a crime, freely admitted what he was doing.

"I knew that the Union Street had Wi-Fi. I just went down and checked my e-mail and didn't see a problem with that," Peterson told a WOOD reporter.

Milanowski didn't immediately cite or arrest Peterson, mostly because he wasn't certain a crime had been committed. "I had a feeling a law was being broken," the chief said. Milanowski did some research and found Michigan's "Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks" law, a felony punishable by five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Milanowski, who eventually swore out a warrant for Peterson, doesn't believe Milanowski knew he was breaking the law. "In my opinion, probably not. Most people probably don't."

Indeed, neither did Donna May, the owner of the Union Street Cafe. "I didn't know it was really illegal, either," she told the TV station. "If he would have come in (to the coffee shop), it would have been fine."

But apparently prosecutors were more than aware of the 1979 law, which was revised in 2000 to include protections for Wi-Fi networks.

"This is the first time that we've actually charged it," Kent County Assistant Prosecutor Lynn Hopkins said, adding that "we'd been hoping to dodge this bullet for a while."

However, Peterson won't be going to prison for piggybacking. Because he has no prior record, Peterson will have to pay a $400 fine, do 40 hours of community service and enroll in the county's diversion program.

[bobmarksdale]

wow...

First of all... cummon cnet, you can do better than this: "His ritual raise the suspicions of Police Chief Andrew Milanowski..."

And second/last: This is possibly one of the dumbest laws ever for including coffee shops and other hotspots. It is understandable for private networks, but public ones are just that: public, and it should not be against the law for using them.

[nothingavailable]

Wow!!! Must be a Crime Free City

If Andrew Milanowski has time to be investigating such trivial matters as wireless piggy backing we can only believe that the crime rate in his city must be at absolutely zero.
If this were not the case then one would ask the question why is such an obviously incompetent moron not being charged with dereliction of duty and fired. Perhaps a large victim compensation lawsuit would get his or the cities misguided attention.

Common Sense.. A national shortage it seems???

[woodrobin]

Absurdity and attractive nuisance

As absurd as this law seems, here is a perhaps more absurd extension: just as a person with a swimming pool in their yard can be required to build a fence or be liable for injuries to trespassers for having an "attractive nuisance" in their yard, could persons running free wifi (or "unsecured" wifi) be held liable for creating an attractive nuisance and be charged along with the piggybackers?

Although the common courtesy of springing for a cup of coffee in thanks for the free service might have avoided the whole issue, so would this: people operating under the reasonable assumption that people who don't want to share their wireless are capable of exercising the simple diligence to secure it, and if they do not, the fault and loss is their own. The State is not, and should not become, a substitute for simple common sense.

[Sbell42]

Luckily, no

I see what you're getting at, but luckily the "attractive nuisance" doctrine doesn't work that way. First, the doctrine's applied when a child is injured in a foreseeable way by something hazardous that attracts children. It doesn't apply in any way to adults who should appreciate the hazard and it doesn't apply where there isn't a injury. Second, it's a tort doctrine, it doesn't apply to criminal statutes like this.

[markw94404]

The law applies to swimming pools

Because people may be lured into using the pool and getting
injured or killed when using the pool. While I agree that the law for
wifi theft is assinine, I don't think your example applies as the use
of the wifi doesn't hurt them, its getting pinched for it that does.

[TREKDEN]

Commenter you are correct.

I offer Wi-Fi without protecting it FREELY. I do not care if someone
is using my wireless network. If I ran into a problem then I would
secure it. I believe I am responsible for others jumping on my
network, and I believe it is that simple. Especially considering my
Mac, and soon, my iPhone, will be jumping on wifi networks as I
drive through town! Am I then responsible for DODGING the
networks so that I do not connect to them? Taking routes in which
my always on internet phone does not connect to these networks?

[adwiseman]

You have permission to connect to all unsecure Wi-Fi's

As I posted elsware, no. Your Wi-Fi device asked for permission to connect to the wi-Fi network, and was granted permission by the network. I.E., your not stealing it if you have permission.

[Vonmaxx]

So I turn my laptop on and have a signal

That is crazy, If I am traveling and turn My Mac powerbook on and
It has a signal I am braking the law.
I can see only braking the law if I would need to enter a password.
So go in a hot spot and get a glass of water and everything is cool.
I leave my wireless on when I am not home If someone has a signal
I let them use it.

[Vonmaxx]

Public WiFi

I saw a product a couple of months ago, It is a key chain and it tell
you when you have a hot spot. So this key chain is breaking the
law.
Open up the internet, Let radio stations stream music, Reduce
restrictions on intelectual property.
Let us the US turn into a 3rd world country. Let the US lead the
World in Open source and Freedom.

[michaeljmac]

Idotic Really

So, the owner is OK with the user utlizing the WIFI, but the
prosecuters charged and prosecuted him anyway?

This makes no sense and a waste of taxpayers' money. If I lived in
that city, I would make a big deal out of wasting my tax dollars on
such an idiotic offense. I would hope that it would take the owner
of the WIFI agreeing to prosecution before they would proceed.
This is an example of a stupid police officer and an even dumber
DAs office.

[Xenu7-214951314497503184010868]

The airwaves are FREE!

Next, they'll be arresting people for listening to the radio! There's a big difference between using an open unprotected radio connection the the Internet, and hacking through a similar connection that is encrypted or has a firewall.

[Maccess]

absurdity.

Even the owner of the cafe didn't think there was a problem.

I've set up several free Wi-Fi hotspot areas BECAUSE the owners wanted them free for the neighborhood.

With this kind of threat, how will people know if a Wi-Fi spot in intentionally free for some legal purpose (e.g. to attract people to a mall, or provide access to the underprivileged, etc.), or illegally free because the owner didn't know how to enable security.

[zanely]

There was no fraud

As far as I can tell, the Michigan man did not break any laws and no "Fraudulent access to computers..." occurred. There was no requirement that you make a purchase, or even enter the coffee shop, in order to gain access. The wireless signal was deliberately left unencrypted, free and clear for all to use. I have no problem with the language of the law. People should not use deception to obtain access to computers systems, but there was no deception here. The law was misapplied and the case should be dismissed. I would advise the Michigan man not to pay the fine.

[jcdecker]

Missing Facts...

I saw this report on WOOD (I live in the area). The owner of the coffee shop did indeed say that she didn't know that what was done was illegal. The report didn't have her mentioning if she thought he should be arrested. The Coffee Shop does have a sign on the door that states that their hotspot is for customers only.

I agree that there shouldn't be a problem if the access has no password. What I'm wondering is, how can a coffee shop set up a secured hotspot for it's customers only? It seems to me that a customer would need to be provided with the password. I would be REALLY surprised if that password didn't end up on the Internet somewhere.

[dlowe402]

No intent to harm!

if you read through the actual law
(check it out here: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/
2005-2006/billanalysis/House/htm/2005-HLA-0053-5.htm)
there has to be some kind of bad intention on the part o the
actor. I could find no mention of simply surfing the web or
checking e-mail. If he was attempting to gain access to the
owners (or any other users computer) to install spyware or in
any way hack something, then it applies...as it should, but as the
story reads, no wrongdoing occured. Also, with any crime, You
have to have a willing victim. If the owner was cool with it, there
was no crime.

[fastolfe00]

Wrong law

You're looking at the wrong law (bill, actually). Try here instead: http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-act-53-of-1979

"A person shall not intentionally and without authorization" access a computer network.

He intended to access their Wi-Fi, and he did not have authorization to do so. (Whether he believed he had authorization doesn't mean anything.)

If the coffee shop said it was OK for him to use it, then that would have been "authorization", and the wording of the law would mean he did not commit a crime.

You may be thinking of mens rea here, where to be guilty of a crime, you had to have intent to commit the crime. This doesn't mean you had to intend to commit *A* crime, just that you intended to perform *the* act that we consider criminal. Just because you didn't know it was a crime doesn't mean you didn't intend to do it. This is the legal expression of the colloquial "ignorance is no excuse."

But either way, the wording of the law is key here and it appears proper (to me at least) that he be found guilty of it.

(That doesn't mean this isn't a stupid law, though. If a wireless access point is advertising itself as a public, open access point, that ought to be considered authorization. Write to your legislature.)

[TucsonAlexAZ]

he had intent

he knew there was a hotspot for customers but he deliberatly stayed in his car in the parking lot. He may have claimed he didn't think he was doing anything wrong but he sure acted like it by not patronizing the coffee shop.

[mkdriscoll]

Such jeopardy for such stupidity

The mere fact that a public servent would go out of his way to place a man who obviously, even by the officers admission did not have the proper intent to break this man made rule is unreasonable. That's like arresting someone for saying let's "just do it" on the idea that he was interferring on Nike trademark. This officer should be fired such an excess use of force and authority and then placing the man in the bowels of a criminal justice system to face real loss of liberty is beyond stupidity. I see a major Civil Rights lawsuit waiting to happen here.

[ubnyan]

What next?

In my opinion Sam Peterson did not break any laws. First of all because he had no intentions to cause any harm to the Cafe or wasn't using this to do anything illegal online. The Wi-Fi was there free for anyone to use in or outside the Cafe. Even the owner didn't mind him using it in his car. There are probably a million coffee shops out there with unsecured connections and in many cases on purpose...
So what is next to this story?
Is the police going to start surveillance on any cars parked near by and knock on neighbors doors to check if they are using someone else's service for free?
I think Sam shouldn't pay any fines for such a ridicules case. Probably Chief Andrew now checks his email in that area for free like many other people, but of course he is probably ok to do it...

[gschuell]

What next?

Again this proves that you don't talk to cops.

[FellowConspirator]

Fraudulent?

Um, the law says that the access had to be fraudulent. At no time
was it alleged that he presented false credentials in order to obtain
access to the network. It was no less fraudulent than if he had gone
in the shop and done the same thing.

[fastolfe00]

According to what law?

You must be reading the wrong law. See http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-act-53-of-1979. The access must be intentional, and it must be done without authorization. There's no requirement that it be fraudulent.

If there was such a requirement, don't you think the guy's attorney would have noticed?

"Man acquitted based on clever lawyering from some Internet guy. Actual lawyer dumbstruck: "I guess I just didn't read!""

[urdaddyhatesu]

retarded

1. Police Chief Andrew Milanowski was not sure if Sam Peterson was engaging in any allegedly illegal activities.

2. The owner of the coffee shop didn't even know it was allegedly an illegal activity, nor did the owner even seem to care.

3. The prosecutor's statement shows that they knew this law is implemented poorly, and was not looking forward to ever having to prosecute someone for breaking it.

So, why would you prosecute him? What is wrong with law enforcement these days? The point is no longer to stop people from damaging other people's property, rights, etc. It is now justifiable to potentially put someone in jail for 5 years for something so trivial? I'm sorry, but Mr. Milanowski has no life, and poor morals if this article is in any way accurate. What kind of person could expend so much effort to potentially destroy a man's life for checking his e-mail? Felony convictions are no joke! Sam Peterson would have a nice life with that on his record.

Wake up America!

P.S. It scares me how many unintelligent people wield power over our personal freedom daily.

[gschuell]

retarded

As I stated in an earlier reply, don't EVER talk to the cops or volunteer any information. Martha Stewart would have saved herself a lot of misery if she had abided by that advice.

[kompressor1]

I agree with you!

People like the Police Chief, and the Prosecutor, do not care about the impact a FELONY conviction will have on the defendant's life.
The failure to apply logic and reason fitting the situation is appalling to me. What is even more troubling, is the fact that the Chief of Police, and the Prosecution are not able to understand the injustice served by their negligent prosecution in of this case. The Judge officiating the case is negligent for not throwing the case out also.
All this could have been avoided, the Chief of Police, acting only on a complaint from the coffee shop, should have issued a warning to the defendant, directing him to obtain permission from the coffee shop owner, to use the WiFi from the street. That is the limit of the Chiefs responsibility here. Even though the law cited, does not criminalize the acts of the defendant, based on the facts of the case, and is a misapplication of the intent of the law in question

[MrFuNKy76]

This is ridiculous...

This is ridiculous, none of the parties involved knew a crime was really being committed.
The user had no malicious intent.
Why waste the time and money?

[Hardrada]

Wait A Minute

How about this? The shop owner is guilty of fradulently accessing the person's laptop. Who is to say by observation, which way the connection is flowing???????? Ha.

[stopher2475]

Sounds like this cop has a lot of free time on his hands.

Sounds like this cop has a lot of free time on his hands. That's just obnoxious.

[jkurz42]

Idiotic law

Imagine that you know of a cafe which plays your favorite music. You walk by every day and stand outside for a few minutes to listen, but you do not go inside to eat. Or how about an art shop which charges admission, but you can clearly see many of the works for free by looking through the window. If this is you, then watch your back, you'll probably end up doing community service next to wi-fi guy.

[polka dot ewe]

Only in Sparta, MI

Only someone who has had the misfortune of living there can understand how this stupidty happened. This is a village that tried to enforce a one pet per household rule. A high school student killed, decapitated and dissected victims head while taping it. Then took the tape to school to share with fellow students. Wonder what the Chief was busy doing then?? This place is very small but not crime free. They did ticket a guy for riding his horse up to the drive up window at McDonalds for take out.

[adwiseman]

This man should have hired a better lawer

here is the law
752.794 Prohibited access to computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

Sec. 4.

A person shall not intentionally access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to devise or execute a scheme or artifice with the intent to defraud or to obtain money, property, or a service by a false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise.
-----------------------------------
First he didn't use the it to defraud anyone. But that would not be my argument.

My argument would be that my computer asked for a IP address from the networked, and the networked gave permission to use the internet by granting me an IP address, and access to the internet. Therefore, permission was given by the store to use the Wi-Fi.

[kidkrud]

It should not have even gone to court!

I agree, and in reality it should not have even gone to court, he should have fought this one, but now you have a Wi-Fi ***** on the run(he`s done it once, he will strike again), I hope Milanowski was including himself when he was quoted as saying "Milanowski believed that Peterson was guilty of something, because most people are".

[adwiseman]

He did have permission

By having a password, posted in the store, stating that it is to be used by paying customers only, would have made it illegal to use it otherwise. Also, you can have a signin page, that you have to agree to terms off use, one of which should be you are a customer, inthe store. Again, making it illegal to use, but not realy stopping anyone.
With nothing though, the Wi-Fi will give permission to anyone to use the network. I think that should make it legal.

[callumh]

Microsoft make you break laws by default.

I'd like to arise the issue of Wireless networking in Windows XP - by default Windows will automatically connect to unsecured wireless networks. If my Access Point is inaccessible,my laptop automatically used to connect to my next door neighbours. I don't think that this man should have to pay or do community service.