It is about the fact that the guy was a fucking creep.
Seriously- if he REALLY thought what he was doing was OK, why did he act all cagy and close the laptop/drive away every time the homeowner saw him?
WiFi or not, this guy was acting strange in front of someone's home in such a way that I think it would probably freak most people out. The cops used the WiFi excuse just to bust the guy and I say jolly good show on them. I would feel very diferently if the guy simply said to the homeowner who he was and the fact that he was surfing on his net connection, but he didn't.
Seriously- if he REALLY thought what he was doing was OK, why did he act all cagy and close the laptop/drive away every time the homeowner saw him?
And not only was he a creep, but also a stupid creep. If he was sufficiently bothered by the homeowner's presence that he closed his laptop, then why didn't he drive away for good and scout out a different neighborhood. If he had done that, the homeowner would still be thinking that it was just a census worker who happened to finish his survey at the exact mome
The "creep" was lucky as hell that the homeowner didn't start a tcpdump right then when he first saw him, and presented the cops with a nice and detailed log...
Lucky? Log of what? Surely you aren't assuming he's guilty of something before he's been allowed to present his side of the story?
Good point about leaving. Everyone blames the homeowner for not encrypting but at what point can we say nature is just weeding out a dumbass for pushing his luck way too far and not moving on to greener pastures. The article seems to state that it is unsecured wifi a-go-go in the area. How many times does this "warparker" have to be hit on the damn head with a hammer before he realizes it hurts. Just drive away. Don't leech for hours as the homeowner is pressed up against your car window...
That may be true, but if he's convicted, it sets an uncomfortable precedent. It's one thing to use the law in an innovative way to put a creep behind bars, quite another when it sets a precedent that can be used all too easily under other circumstances.
The fact that he was creepy is precisely what brought him to the attention of local law enforcement. Rights, precedent and slippery slopes aside if you act like a creep while you are in clear violation of a law, you are gonna get hooked up with a set of handcuffs pretty rapidly. The local beat cop who arrested this guy probably doesn't know his WEP from his WAP, and he doesn't need to- that is exactly why we have courts and lawyers. The cop's job is to find, stop, detain and document what he reasonably assumes to be illegal activity and I think what he came across in this situation is pretty open and shut.
I say he was stupid because acting a bit more openly would have, I am 99% sure, prevented the whole thing from happening. He could have politely engaged the homeowner in conversation. He could have fessed up to using the homeowner's network. He could have simply driven away without ever returning. In the end, he decided to continue to act like a fucking stalker sicko and, need I remind you, a good portion of this country is in the midst of a manhunt for a little boy who's family was killed, who was kidnapped and raped along with his sister and who was probably executed himself all by a creepy, stalking sex offender. Yea, I want the local police to be a little bit jumpy about people stalking my home from the street- the constitution is not a suicide pact.
The fact that he was creepy is precisely what brought him to the attention of local law enforcement. Rights, precedent and slippery slopes aside if you act like a creep while you are in clear violation of a law, you are gonna get hooked up with a set of handcuffs pretty rapidly.
The very fact that we're debating this illustrates that he isn't in "clear violation of the law". It's debatable whether he was in violation of any law at all. If the computer trespass charge sticks, it will only be after both side
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but in my opinion, he didn't break any law at all. The huge number of beautiful, fenceless, privately owned front lawns around the world demonstrate that this is a common practice and that upon finding one and a suitable blanket, it's reasonable to assume you are allowed to use it to take a nap. If the owner of the lawn didn't want the lawn to be public, the burden is on him to secure it by installing a 'No Trespassing' sign.
Seriously, where in any case law does it state that the BAS
I could make a case that the AP a) broadcasting its location and being unsecured constitutes an invitation and b) responding to my DHCP request with an IP address constitutes explicit permission.
Poor analogies involving physical property are just that: poor. Can we please discuss the issue without inventing these kinds of comparisons?
What benchmark do you suggest we use in order to form a basis for discussing how new technologies are to be regulated? Need I remind you that it was only when computing technology began to draw analogies to physical property (trash cans, file folders, airbrushes) that computing became a meaningful tool for the overwhelming majority of the population? Why should the formulation of laws around computing be exempt from 'physical world' laws and precedent?
Technology only gains real meaning in society only when
The huge number of beautiful, fenceless, privately owned front lawns around the world demonstrate that this is a common practice and that upon finding one and a suitable blanket, it's reasonable to assume you are allowed to use it to take a nap.
The problem with your analogy is that in the case of lawns the owners leave them unfenced because it makes the lawns more attractive, and its widely understood that the owners probably don't want you to sleep on them.
So what you are saying is that if someone lookes creepy, they should be arrested by any means possible.
At a minimum, I want said creep to be stopped and questioned. I'll trust the beat cop's instincts any day over your anything goes attitude.
Since when is it frbidden to park outside somebodies house? (I am afraid somebody has an answer to that)
You park outside my house and act creepy, I can guarantee you there will be a cop paying a visit to you very quickly. Suspicious behavior is going to bring yo
This Story Isn't About WiFi... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously- if he REALLY thought what he was doing was OK, why did he act all cagy and close the laptop/drive away every time the homeowner saw him?
WiFi or not, this guy was acting strange in front of someone's home in such a way that I think it would probably freak most people out. The cops used the WiFi excuse just to bust the guy and I say jolly good show on them. I would feel very diferently if the guy simply said to the homeowner who he was and the fact that he was surfing on his net connection, but he didn't.
Re:This Story Isn't About WiFi... (Score:1)
And not only was he a creep, but also a stupid creep. If he was sufficiently bothered by the homeowner's presence that he closed his laptop, then why didn't he drive away for good and scout out a different neighborhood. If he had done that, the homeowner would still be thinking that it was just a census worker who happened to finish his survey at the exact mome
Re:This Story Isn't About WiFi... (Score:2)
Lucky? Log of what? Surely you aren't assuming he's guilty of something before he's been allowed to present his side of the story?
Re:This Story Isn't About WiFi... (Score:1)
Re:This Story Isn't About WiFi... (Score:1)
It's one thing to use the law in an innovative way to put a creep behind bars, quite another when it sets a precedent that can be used all too easily under other circumstances.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This Story Isn't About WiFi... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that he was creepy is precisely what brought him to the attention of local law enforcement. Rights, precedent and slippery slopes aside if you act like a creep while you are in clear violation of a law, you are gonna get hooked up with a set of handcuffs pretty rapidly. The local beat cop who arrested this guy probably doesn't know his WEP from his WAP, and he doesn't need to- that is exactly why we have courts and lawyers. The cop's job is to find, stop, detain and document what he reasonably assumes to be illegal activity and I think what he came across in this situation is pretty open and shut.
I say he was stupid because acting a bit more openly would have, I am 99% sure, prevented the whole thing from happening. He could have politely engaged the homeowner in conversation. He could have fessed up to using the homeowner's network. He could have simply driven away without ever returning. In the end, he decided to continue to act like a fucking stalker sicko and, need I remind you, a good portion of this country is in the midst of a manhunt for a little boy who's family was killed, who was kidnapped and raped along with his sister and who was probably executed himself all by a creepy, stalking sex offender. Yea, I want the local police to be a little bit jumpy about people stalking my home from the street- the constitution is not a suicide pact.
Re:This Story Isn't About WiFi... (Score:3, Insightful)
The very fact that we're debating this illustrates that he isn't in "clear violation of the law". It's debatable whether he was in violation of any law at all. If the computer trespass charge sticks, it will only be after both side
Re:This Story Isn't About WiFi... (Score:2)
Seriously, where in any case law does it state that the BAS
Re:This Story Isn't About WiFi... (Score:2)
Poor analogies involving physical property are just that: poor. Can we please discuss the issue without inventing these kinds of comparisons?
Re:This Story Isn't About WiFi... (Score:2)
Technology only gains real meaning in society only when
Re:This Story Isn't About WiFi... (Score:1)
The problem with your analogy is that in the case of lawns the owners leave them unfenced because it makes the lawns more attractive, and its widely understood that the owners probably don't want you to sleep on them.
In the case of WAPs, the WAP owners are leaving
Re:This Story Isn't About WiFi... (Score:2)
Re:This Story Isn't About WiFi... (Score:2)
"Move along please sir" works just fine.
Its the same thing you say to the kids with skateboards hanging out on the sidewalk in front of the pizza place.