Wardriver arrested for snagging coffee shop signal
By Evan Blass 
posted June 23rd 2006 6:05PM
posted June 23rd 2006 6:05PM
In yet another blow to [Via The Wireless Report]
posted June 23rd 2006 6:05PM
In yet another blow to 
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Dougpy, I'd hardly call that comparable. None of your examples actually mimic the experience being sold (who wants to listen to a concert outside?!) It also doesn't cost them anything if you watch from your apartment, and you're not actually 'consuming' a product, data, etc.
The law is poor at the best of times, let alone legal gray areas like technology (and where various fields collide e.g. property rights, broadcasting laws, pollution laws); moralistic analogies are no better - Is wifi like an open car, an unlocked door, a shop window, a leaky tap etc.
Without a clear convention, it's hard to made judgments. Personally, I think giving the businesses too much slack might set dangerous precedents as to how the law can be used, whereas requiring that APs be property encrypted before the law can be invoked isn't bad at all.
A food service has to meet hygiene requirements, A business offering wifi should meet certain requirements also, not knowing how has never been an excuse to the law. In my opinion the ~2.4GHz freq. has too few regulations as it is (e.g. wireless phone interference).
Quote
borderline creepy
Unquote
Wait a minute this was the exact same quote last week for another guy who was pickedup for a similar offense. It's "borderline creepy" that both coffee shops employees say the same thing!
The other day I couldn't park at my local dunkin donuts to get their coffee. So I now have to admit that I parked at the car park next door (another shop selling coffee) and crossed over to buy the dunkin donuts coffee.
I am now scared I am a criminal for missuse of a carpark!
Call me mad - but shouldn't the Cafe be using WPA or WEP to protect their service, rather than prosecuting someone for using their initiative (even if they are opportunist gits!).
Afterall, how much WiFi gear out there lacks WEP or WPA?
What's your take on this guys?
KultiVator
KultiVator-
Isn't that like saying someone shouldn't be prosecuted for stealing your car if you left the door unlocked?
WEP is a bitch to try to teach random coffeehouse people. I've seen coffeeshops try. Once you get the key once, then you can keep leeching anyway.
Best chance is a captive portal, and weed out the abusers.
You can't leave your network open and then selectively decide when it's alright to use it and when it's not without informing people. I say if there's an open network, it's presumed to be part of the open Wi-Fi movement. If it's not, there has to be a redirect to terms of use or it should be WEP'd up. Otherwise it's not theft of services.
A business busting people for using the free WiFi they provide is like installing a water fountain next to a sidewalk and arresting people for drinking.
(Wardriving does not imply that you connect to the network.)
The police asked him to leave and not come back.He came back and was arrested. If you guys watched the video, you would see these things. Oh, and by the way, he was sitting in his car the whole time. You (Ian Jardine) were not.
What you didn't note was that the police actually warned him, told him not to do it anymore, then he came back and did it again.
His own fault.
I find this offensive. If you don't secure your network or have a default splash page informing potential leeches that your bandwidth is for current customers of such-and-such as defined by sst-of-rules, then there is no crime.
I think eventually one of these cases will make it to the supreme court and they will inevitably declare that you must protect your bandwidth or least announce it's terms of use. thereby making a direct violation a known offense.
Man, never thought i'd see my town on engadget.
I just don't understand these leechers. Is Internet access so expensive that they would rather have to get in their cars and drive somewhere to check their email than actually pay for the ability to access everything from the comfort of their own homes?
I don't understand how any of you think that the company is in the wrong.
a: They're providing wireless to customers as a service
b: He wasn't, and NEVER HAS BEEN a customer
c: They warned him before police were brought in.
So they didn't explicitly state that it's not for public use, and therefore, they should realize that anyone can use it?
It's like me coming in if your door is unlocked, sitting on your couch, eating your cheetohs, and watching your TV because there wasn't a sign on your door that said "for private use only".
Get a clue, people. There are issues to fight, and things to let go of. This is /so far/ in the latter.
Unfortunately it's not like coming into someones house and watching their tv. I would equate it to leaving your TV in view of a window and only letting your friends (customers) inside to watch. People can still look through the window and watch TV (which would explain the creepy part). I think it's fair that he was warned and regardless, I think MOST people (average person for arguments sake) would assume that the bandwidth is for customers.
The moral of the story is to buy some fabulous curtains next time you are at Bed Bath and Beyond.
But it's also not like "leaving your TV in view of a window and only letting your friends inside to watch". If somebody watches your TV from outside your house, other than the creepiness it doesn't hurt the ability of the people inside the house to watch TV. This guy sitting outside the coffeeshop was using up bandwidth, which is finite, and therefore detracting from the amount of bandwidth available to the actual customers.
This is preposterous!
1)
Its like saying:
A stupid person - A; decides to share his information and puts it on public domain. And then has the nerve to selectively punish X for reading or even utilizing to benefit, what was put on public domain.
Well, A should NOT have put that info on public domain at the first place.
2)
It’s even more preposterous!
Example
A Florist decides to open his gardens to public for free. People come and sit in there and enjoy their time.
And then all of a sudden, the florist develops a disliking for a kid K, who likes to enjoy smelling all the flowers.
Boom, the florist sues the kid K.
Well, Florist should have at least put a ‘Usage Agreement’ warning people to
1)Use service / smell flowers for a limited time
2)Use service / smell flowers only if you were to buy a cola on the garden.
I think leaving it open is a nice gesture by the cafe, it seems like they don't have a problem with people using the net occasionaly without a purchase, but doing it for 3 months and even after being told not to by the cops, definately moves this guy into the creepy/idiotic category.
Unlike watching someones TV, this has actual bandwidth costs involved, as well as possibly using bandwidth wanted by paying customers.
Stop making analogies! Its confusing me!
Listen, he was warned not to use their bandwidth. Therefore they have a right to detain him.
arrest for this crime is sad, cops have better things todo like there new hobby of toy airplane flying
3 months of free servive & never a customer, he could have atleast bought a cup of coffee or something.
here's hoping for google nationwide wifi...:)
http://www.sawifi.tk myfree wifi san antonio
I think Aaron's analogy is somewhat of a good one. Electronics retailers routinely put TV or video displays where the public can see them. There are always people who would pause to watch them as they walk past. But those same stores have a reasonable expectation that someone won't set up his LaZBoy outside the window to get his tube fix. And people have been warned / cited / arrested for pretty much doing that.
You're delusional if you think it's okay to drive to a coffee shop, hang out in your car, and surf on their WI-FI access point. The purpose of an open access point that originates at a cafe is pretty clear, and it's not to provide a public service. No one will care if you leach their service occasionally, but it's not cool to do it every day. The moral of the story is you're a 'regular' if you buy a cup of coffee and surf the net every day, but your 'creepy' if you just hang out in your car and surf (presumably with coffee brought from home).
This kind of thing DOES bring out the creativity in people, analogy wise, doesn't it ? :P
I can see where most of them ar commin' from as pertains to the overall issue, but I think most of them are irrelevant in this particular situation. Or at least they became that way once the police got involved.
Many people seem to think that an unsecured wireless access point can/should be viewed as an open invitation to use said AP, because no appropriate action was taken to prevent your use. Well, if that's true then you could also say that by returning to a place the police had warned him to stay away from, this guy was openly inviting them to arrest him, as he did not take the appropriate action to avoid being arrested (ie not coming back).
Reap what you sow, eh ?
And at that, I would say that it's kinda creepy to come there for so long and NEVER have enough decency to at least patronize the place once in a while. I mean, I personally LIKE having a snack or a beverage when web surfing (particularly is sitting in a parked car where the temp is like to be less than ideal).
In my experience, nice guys may finish last, but they get a lot of free stuff along the way. Back in college I used to occasionally camp out at a couple different hot-spots of various kinds to study for a couple hours at a time. I always just tried to be friendly and personable with the staff. True, I did buy stuff, but after a while I was getting free refills on my beverages and the occasional free pastry, just for not being a jerk-a$$. People/businesses are much more likely to treat YOU with respect if you treat THEM with respect.
I know, networking skill on layers 1 - 3 is not a usual line item on a Barista's resume, but had I been managing this place and got tired of this guys, I would have simply identified his MAC address and then waited until he was actively connected, blocked him, and then gone out and TOLD him what I did and why I did it, and invite him to become a paying customer wherein I'd unblock his system. True, you can MAC spoof or buy another $10 - $15 wifi card, but jeez, an iced coffee is what $1.50 ? To say nothing of the price of self respect...
There is a precident for this. In the USA, it is illegal to listen to 800Mhz radio broadcasts. These used to be cell phone frequencies. It doesn't matter that the signal on these frequencies is unencrypted. So, these cell phones transmitted a signal in the air, but it was illegal to listen to them with a scanner.
I live in Vancouver, this isn't good news. It's quite dumb IMO. Open network = open to the public. Don't want the public? WEP/WPA it.
You missed the whole story, when he was nabbed and taken into custody there was a hot Starbucks cup o' java on his dashboard.
question is, can they make it stick in court? because if they can't... we'll it's just a question of wasting taxpayer money... of course, it's Canadian taxpayers, so I don't particularly care, but even so.
as for "creepy"... I don't know. I think it's creepy for anyone to sit in the parking lot and surf the net for more then a few minutes (check e-mail or look for directions)...
plus... and this is just me... why would you drive to a stupid coffee shop? would it not be easier to upgrade your wireless card with a big antenna and leech off your "too dumb to WEP" neighbors?
oops... where was my head... Washington taxpayers... ouch! oh well... off to get some coffee. ;)
why is he creepy again? he just uses someone's else bandwidth. not like he stalks the cafe's employees.
hey is the same thing i do here in México, and there are a lot of hot spots u can hack and others are free, like the italian coffe lol, ist fun maybe u have to put an a powerful antenna on your car and connect to your laptop pc and thats all....
John Doe, according to the engadget crowd, Phillip Torrone is a "hacker" so that pretty much answers your question.
I use free wifi spots without buying stuff all the time.
Usually when someone comes up to me and tells me to stop using it "unless I've bought something" I can just act dumb and say I'm not using it, most employees don't even know what I'm doing, and leave.
Or I'll sit near the building but not actually on the property, that way they can't do anything.
Whenever I go to a restaurant I act like I'm meeting someone, so they get lost while I snag the free interweb.
When they have a chance to do something to you, always have a story and never make a habit of it, add in some variety.
Most places don't care, which is how I think most of them should be, if you're going to just have open web you better expect people to use it.
If you want them to buy something put up a sign or have a frontpage for it.
But don't put "FREE WIFI" if you're going to make us BUY something.
Simple solution:
Use an intercept page with a password feature.
Require a password to use the WIFI, but no WEP/WPA.
Change the password daily and post it on the cash register.
This will eventually make it through the courts. No matter what analogy you want to use, this is theft. Period. As Jay mentioned, there is already a precident for this. Lawyers already have a good starting point.
The real issue is that businesses want to provide free WIFI for customers and not have it be a hassle to maintain. Us users would like them to keep on doing that. So instead of having to call the cops to keep non-paying customers from leeching, they need a simple way of protecting their service. I think I have proposed a reasonable way of doing so.
Maybe I should turn this into a product/business. It wouldn't be hard to do...
To me, it is stunning...how freakin' simple is it to lock up your wifi signal? Coffee shops in my town, Madison, WI, lock them up on a regular basis. Most well trained chimps can be trained to enter a God damn password. If this signal is out there for the public to connect to, then there is no case. If there is a SINGLE Engadget reader out there who HASN'T piggybacked off of somebody's wifi signal, I'd be surprised...actually, I'd freakin' fall off of my chair and die. We've ALL done it, yet this guy is about to go to jail. C'mon folks, use your head...an open signal like this one is in the public domain, without question. One can claim to be a part of the open wifi "movement", but those who do should all know that many risks are associated with such promiscuous behavior...the fundamenal problem here is the lack of understanding of how wifi works, and how it can be secured. It really all boils down to those simple facts. To send somebody to jail for something that 99.99% of the tech savvy crowd has done is ludicrous. This is really nothing more than the Sheeple being afraid of technology, and I'm incredibly taken aback at how most folks here are responding to the issue.
@ brian
quote: Man, never thought i'd see my town on engadget.
lol, you and me both man...
we have unsecure wifi EVERYWHERE!
Add another Vancouver WA resident to the list.
This would be a good case to take to the high courts as the precedent has NOT been set. People do not subscribe to the wireless service that they're broadcasting as is the case with the old 800mhz telephones. They subscribe to a wired service and voluntarily open a wireless portal which in all likelyhood extends beyond their physical property limits. Additionally, by providing the service in this manner and not taking reasonable precautions to identify or secure it, they have no case. It's highly unlikely that they will spend the money to prosecute.
On balance, the guy did not use common sense. When people stop doing that, somebody asks for a legal ruling and turns the rest of us into criminals.
@Ed
You should be more carefull with your words ;), I never piggybacked you somebody else him wifi signal. I don't have a laptop or any other device that uses wifi.
The only reason I have a wifi switch is so that my 60 year old neighor can internet can uses the internet and email. And her bandwidth useage is low enough for me to not notice it.
Maybe he didnt like their coffee and bought food, drinks etc.. nearby.
I can't see how this would be illegal, maybe a pain if he's using up a parking space but jees.
The correct analogy for this is;
You have a house opposite a park, you play your music so loud (for your friends who are in the house) that anyone in the park can hear it. Somebody likes your music and comes back and sits in the park everyday to listen, yet *GASP, he isn't one of your friends.
Sorry but if you are not tech savvy enough to secure your wireless network then you shouldn't be setting one up, or alternatively should find a way to stop your signal POLLUTING public space.
No, bad analogy, because the 'authorized users' don't lose anything in your analogy. In the wi-fi situation, users in the cafe, who have 'paid' for their bandwith, are losing a little. If there was one cafe with open wireless, there was another. He was asked to move along, and he didn't. Is it stupid that it's a crime? Yes. Is it still illegal? Yes.
Shame on him for a lack of creativity in choosing surfing locations, and even more of shame on him for admitting he was connected. He could have easily been working on his thesis in a word processing program, not connected to anything. Perhaps he was writing a book called "Stuff I See From The Window Of My Car"? But no, he said he was using the wi-fi.
jcg - I suspect you may be in contravention of the acceptable use policy from your ISP there... Be careful what you say...
As for the coffee shop - presumably thier car park is for the use of thier customers, so there should be a sign to that effect and this guy shouldn't have been there in the first place. If he was outside the area and picking up the signal I don't see how he can be touched - free to air, free to pick up. Maybe they should check out the neighbours of the shop and see how many folks there are using thier wifi.
Ben Hobbs: Any of the weaker arguments that are being made in favor of what this guy was going fall over when confronted with the fact that he was warned not to do it, and came back and did it any way.
I think the cofeeshop had a reasonable expectation that ppl who didn't buy anything were going to make occasional use of their service, but anyone who provides a free service is free to make whatever terms they please -- *not* the ppl using the service, who have no material influence. They can't even say "do X or I won't patronize you establishment anymore."
Having free access points like the one described in this article is what we want, right? We want more establishments to open up their networks so that we can have somewhere to 'crash land' on the odd occasion that we are there. The next time any of you start bitching about the fact that there's not an unsecured AP where you happen to be, reflect on where you stand on the events of this article.
Disclaimer: I'm on dialup at the moment, so I'm not going to spend the FOREVER it would take to verify this story:
A co-worker informed me that the police checked into this guy because he was hanging around, and picked him up because he was some sort of sex offender on the lam. Maybe what he told me about was a different story, but if this is true, he wasn't really arrested for bandwidth usage; that's just how they found him.
Also, couldn't one argue that his behavior constitutes loitering in a sense? Regardless of his bandwidth consumption, he's still taking up space in their parking lot, and never even attempting to be a customer.
Maybe if he lived in an apartment above the coffee shop and use their bandwidth without loitering, I could sympathize. However, this sounds to me a lot like overreaction from the "Data/IP/The Internets just wants to be free!" crowd. Just because he was engaging in the free exchange of information doesn't make him a saint.
Oxala:
"but anyone who provides a free service is free to make whatever terms they please"
That simply doesn't make any sense, if its free its free! What if your ISP suddenly decided to only allow you to send "free" emails to others on the same ISP? and charged you for sending to other email addresses (or made you buy a doughnut, whatever!) Hey its a free service, they get to make the decisions, right?
How do they discriminate? does he have to buy coffee there every time he wants to use the internet? once a day? once a week? once a month? once?
Again, if the signal is out on the public street and free to use then why shouldn't he be allowed to use it.
If he's using their car park space on private land, then they have a point.
What if I accidentally log onto their network whilst in their area (its easily done with wifi), will the police come for me?
If they want to give away the internet service as part of their service, then they need to implement a system whereby you get an access number or internet card when you buy a coffee, not just expect everyone to understand their rules, even if they've never been in their establishment.
"... What if your ISP suddenly decided to only allow you to send "free" emails to others on the same ISP? and charged you for sending to other email addresses (or made you buy a doughnut, whatever!)..."
Yeah, what if, huh? Except for the fact that cell phone providers do this ALL THE TIME, and nobody says anything. It *is* their service, it's NOT free unless you're a customer, and that IS the way it is.
Stop defending the criminal. God.
I am Ms Michella Smith the MD of the( Global Finance and Securities Services,London).
I seek your assistance in clearing a Treasure Box containing a sum of
Nine Million Five Hundred United States Dollars($9.5million) which has been dormant in our vaults in the last four years! ,
The said box was deposited by an Arabic customer who has lost touch
with us. Going by the usual statutory rules governing our operation,the box shall be handed over to the relevant government authorities as an unclaimed deposit within the next three months Details shall be made available to you as soon as I hear from you.Please call me on my private number:
+447031843358, as soon as you receive this mail dont fail to respond to this email address michella_smith011@yahoo.com
Waiting for your reply of interest.
Thanks & God Bless!
Regards,
Ms Michella Smith
+447031843358
ok i live Maine and in a 50 mile drive around where i live i got a little over 770 networks only 258 of them used any form of protection. after asking some people and 30 or so places like Renys and Mickey D's i found out most people dont know how to set up passwords useing WEP or WPA without hiring someone to do it for them so the coffee shop is possibly getting him in to a hassle for their our stupidity but its his fault also to go to the same place even after the cops told him not to thats just stupid.
This is simle, no analogies are needed.
The coffee shop owner should be billed for wasting public services by calling the police on this man.
If they don't want people to use their wifi without paying, they should secure it.
As an owner of a Coffeehouse that offers free Wifi, I can tell that those of you who think it is okay to steal bandwidth need to understand a few things:
1. THE TERM "FREE". When you go into Best Buy and you see a sign that says "free printer with the purchase of any computer" do you grab the printer and walk out with it? When the police pick you up for taking the printer do you say "hey, Best Buy said it was free!"?
It is simply idiotic to assert that a free product or service offered by any business should come with no strings attached. IT IS AN INCENTIVE TO PURCHASE SOMETHING ELSE!! The "free wifi" offer at a coffeehouse is for customers who have purchased our goods. We also offer free pastries once in awhile with the purchase of a latte. I have yet to see a customer have the gall to ask for a pastry alone at no charge simply because we said it was "free".
THE ENCRYPTION ISSUE: If all of our customers were Mac users we would have no problem using WPA encryption since OS X has no problem with any form of encryption but unfortunately, the public is littered with Windows users. Half the PCs that come into our coffeehouse are incapable of using WPA. I tell them that they probably need to update their card's firmware in order to access our hotspot whereupon they look at me like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. Most PC users don't even know what version of the OS they are even running much less how to update their WiFi card. Not to say that Mac users are any more savvy but at least their computer's always connect flawlessly to our hotspot. Now, of the remaining PC users who can use WPA, we still find that the customer typically doesn't understand enough about their own computer to reconfigure the wireless capability of their machines if they are having problems with access (which can happen if we change our password).
Now, of course I could solve this issue by using simple password protection (i.e. non-encrypted) but the new Netopia routers being provided by Bell South do not allow for anything but encrypted password protection so I have to choose either WEP, WPA or nothing. I've elected to go with WPA given that it is the direction all new machines are going (and interestingly enough, I do find some of the new PCs fail to connect if I am running WEP).
Bottom line, WiFi access provided by a coffeehouse is obviously intended to bring customers into the establishment. It costs the owners money to run a hotspot, costs that they hope to defray through the sale of product. To think otherwise is to live in a reality inhabited largely by freeloaders and squishy thinkers.
But of course...
I was 8 years old when I did exactly what you described. I saw a "free gift" sign along some product and took the "gift". I learnt the hard way when "free" doesn't mean "free" when my mum found out and I had to bring back the toy and apologize to the shop owner. Today, they probably would call the cops.
The fact that almost every commercial venue these days try to capture clientele by offering "free" gifts doesn't make the habit more legit or morally sound. Giving away "free" stuff, while hoping that it will bring you customers doesn't change the fact that you are "offering" this "free" service and that it is what you advertise. It costs you money ? That's entirely your problem.
We live in a world where deceiving consumers is okay and we have to live with it. I personally never buy stuff that come with a freebie, as I know I will end up paying for the "free" stuff anyway.
I'll make my own coffee and use my own Internet connection, thank you.
No no, it's not like breaking into someone's house, and it's not like watching someone's TV through a window, and it's not like smelling flowers in a garden.
You know what it's like?
It's like if you put mayonnaise on a roast beef sandwich... ok follow me here... but then you microwave the sandwich with a nice delicious piece of cheese on it too. Now, granted you can make a hot melted cheese roast beef sandwich... OR you can have a cold roast beef sandwich with mayonnaise, and probably some lettuce, but if you put the mayonnaise on to the sandwich, which you then melt the mayo gets all warm and nasty. Cooked mayo isn't very appetizing. It essentially ruins the sandwich. But mayo on a cold sandwich IS good... of course you could use the lettuce to find some sort of middle ground. You could steam the lettuce and put the cheese between it at the beef, and then the beef would go between the lettuce-cheese and the mayonnaise... which I think would create enough of a buffer zone between the mayonnaise and the steamed lettuce (really the only hot part of the sandwich at this point) to not ruin the mayo flavor. It's not an ideal solution, as many people don't care much for steamed lettuce (myself included), but... I guess what I'm trying to say is you can't have it both ways. But geez all this talk about mayonnaise and flowers and TV and roast beef and wardriving and lettuce and breaking and entering... well, it's like comparing apples to oranges, which brings me to my next point...
The warning by the cops does change things somewhat. But without the warning, is some other random member of the public in the wrong for tapping into their unprotected WiFi signal, if they happen to stumble on it from accross the road on their Palm TX, for example?
Please consider that the above person is unlikely to know WHERE the WiFi signal originates from!
Interested in your opinions on this, as here in the UK, protected WiFi access is the norm at Cafes, Motorway Service Stations, etc, where vendors are keen to use subscriptions as an additional revenue stream.
KultiVator
p.s. The typical rate here for adhoc WiFi-based net access at a service-station or McDonald's "restaurant" is £6 (approx $10) per hour.
Perhaps you can understand why we refer to our nation as Rip-Off Britain!!!
KultiVator