Michigan Wi-fi laws?

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: Michigan Wi-fi laws?

The point here is that it is illegal to use a network that you do not have expressed permission to access.

Why are people so willing to back a guy that broke the law?

where i feel the contrary opinions have originated in this matter is the fact that it's unclear to some of us whether or not any laws were broken. As Thorn points out, accessing a network without expressed permission is frowned upon by the state... but how expressed does the permission ever tend to be with public hotspots? Aside from the occasional tiny sticker that one sometimes (but not always) sees on the front door of an establishment, very little explicit notice is given. i've never had the 18 year-old who is slicing my bagel in half hand me a xeroxed 10-page Acceptable Use Policy and Network Access Permission document at these kinds of places.

As far as i can tell, the man had all the permission that he needed... it seems as if he was familiar enough with the coffee shop to know that the WiFi was free and to know the correct Access Point to which he was supposed to connect. it's a pity he didn't push this matter to trial, i would have really liked to see the case law debated and to see some precedents set.

[Shinobi]

Re: Michigan Wi-fi laws?

I know it's no excuse but I wish people would start to secure there access points. They have only theirself to blame if someone uses there network if it's set to allow 'open' access.

[jur1st]

Re: Michigan Wi-fi laws?

Apparently my post of a couple days ago got lost in the shuffle. Damn shame too considering how eloquent I was at an early hour.

Michigan Laws SUCK, Our legal system sucks and I've lost all respect for it. They set their eyes on someone and it doesn't matter if that person is guilty or not, they make sure they make that person's life a living hell.

Unfortunately whether you think the laws in your state stuck or not, they are the laws which you are subject to. Before attacking the legal system itself, I suggest you learn a bit more about how it works before making such a blanket statement. The common law system has persisted for hundreds of years, has dealt with much greater societal developments than the high adoption rate of technology, and shows no sign of failure at this point.

it's a pity he didn't push this matter to trial, i would have really liked to see the case law debated and to see some precedents set.

I most certainly agree with the idea that more case law is needed on issues such as this. Unfortunately the risk that we run, is that the attorneys involved may not be able to effectively argue both sides at the trial level especially. The local prosecutor expresses in the article that they had been "hoping to dodge this bullet for a while." Certainly I mean no disrespect to my learned colleagues, however the Amero trial clearly shows what can happen when the attorneys don't grasp the concepts fully.

[Thorn]

Re: Michigan Wi-fi laws?

but how expressed does the permission ever tend to be with public hotspots?

Agreed. The particulars of this case are ambiguous. However, it would appear that there is now a precedent -at least under Michigan law- that if you are not a patron of the establishment at the time of the access, you are in violation of the law.

I know it's no excuse but I wish people would start to secure there access points. They have only theirself to blame if someone uses there network if it's set to allow 'open' access.

While I personally think that people who do not secure their access points are foolish bordering on incredibly stupid, there is only one person to blame if an AP is used other than by those with permission: The criminal. The criminal is the one who commits the act, and is solely responsible.

Saying that "they have only theirself <sic> to blame" is blaming the victim. If the same logic applied, you would say that home owners are to blame for a burglary if they leave their door unlocked or a rapist is to blame because the victim didn't wear an iron chastity belt.

Secondly, define "secure." WEP is literally useless, as the crypto is so poor that it can be broken with 10-30 seconds. WPA and WPA2 can both be defeated if weak passphrases are used. RADIUS can be compromised if the database known. Where do you draw the line as to what is "secure" enough? Or do you just keep blaming the victim? After all, "He only has himself to blame because he:

• Used WEP."
• Used a weak passphrase."
• Didn't prevent his database from being downloaded by a trusted admin."

Do you blame the victim homeowner if the house is locked, but it's a cheap lock? Or he didn't have an alarm system? Or bars on the doors and windows? Or perhaps steal shutters? A rabid watchdog? Armed guards?

[theprez98]

Re: Michigan Wi-fi laws?

Unless the "hotspot" is explicitly listed as being free to the community at large, it should be assumed otherwise. In other words, the hotspot is free to customers of said establishment and no one else.

The opposite argument would seem to set an interesting precedent: anything not specifically prohibited to you is 'community property' available for your use.

[fell]

Re: Michigan Wi-fi laws?

To me, it's more an issue of computer/technology laws always being a step or two behind the current implementations. Most states (that I'm aware of) in the US do NOT have any laws regarding wireless internet/networks specifically. As such, it seems, most states/courts make the laws up as they go or rely on the laws of wired/standard network implementations.

I recall reading over a scenario (I believe it was an actual case) where someone accessed a family's network from his car parked just outside. From here, he had been engaging in all sorts of illegal activities online (one of which was distributing images of naked children). When the IP was traced, it (naturally) came back to this family. The Feds show up and all hell breaks loose.

In the end, the 'owner' was held responsible.


So in this sense, you have a fine line between a user and technology...and who is responsible for what. If a person isn't learned enough to properly secure their network and someone is able to connect and use it illegally, 1. How do you prove that? (which is the easier part, really) and 2. What do you do about it?

All of that on top of outdated or 'missing' laws all together. I try not to be the chicken little type, but I do go out of my way to educate all friends and family members on the potential dangers of running a wireless network and how to provide SOME amount of security to hopefully dissuade the casual war drive/leech from latching on.

[converge]

Re: Michigan Wi-fi laws?

I honestly don't believe this is that big of an issue. There is a very clear line (no pun).. and it has been for no less than 5 years now .. trumpeted by those warning others of the implications for using the technology.

The question of the article has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with the situation. Did he have implied consent from the business .. or does a consumer now need a written permission slip to prove they haven't committed a crime. I could walk in and buy a latte, drink it up while surfing their wireless, then be charged a $400 fine with community time ... the receipt is just proof that I was a customer, not that I obtained permission to use the network, since the business could claim that customers only get free wifi with a meal purchase. Based on precedent set in the article, I would seriously consider how desperately you need to use the public node .. even if it seems public.

But the law itself is really clear.. if its not your network and you haven't obtained permission to use it, regardless of medium, don't use it. Ethically, legally .. just don't. The other person may not care .. but they may *really* care and you have placed yourself in a bad position. People like to dance on the line of 'not secured implies' .. it implies nothing. Thorn covered that pretty well. Existing computer crime law already defines the issue .. the fact that the connection is established wirelessly does not provide exception or some new hip reason to revamp the law. No need to rethink, nothing unfair about the law, no need to overcomplicate what is going on at all.

On the flipside, by running an access point you *are* knowingly broadcasting on an unlicensed public frequency. This is also the reason why wardriving in its purest, defined sense.. is not and cannot be illegal. However, it should be noted that other violations can be cited in relation to wiretapping, trespassing, motor vehicle, or other laws implemented creatively to the situation.

Receiving the data, computing the information; clean. Responding to the beacon, reviewing the packets; arguable depending on locale. Anything further? Illegal.

wardrivingisnotacrime.

[fell]

Re: Michigan Wi-fi laws?

^ True enough and very good points (as expected).

The convenience of wireless networking isn't very, at times.

[theprez98]

Re: Michigan Wi-fi laws?

From an article at FoxNews:

Under the statute, individuals who log on to a Wi-Fi network with the owner's permission, or who see a pop-up screen that says it's a public network, can assume they're authorized to use the network, Hopkins said.

If they don't, they could be subject to prosecution.

I haven't seen the actual statute, but according to the article, it was amended as such in 2000 to include wireless access (see above). Whether or not the offender was aware of the law (he obviously wasn't), this is a little clearer to me at least.

[TheCotMan]

Re: Michigan Wi-fi laws?


Section 750.145d: Use of networks (including wireless) to communicate about committing crimes.

Section 750.219a: About theft of telecommunication services

(1) A person shall not knowingly obtain or attempt to obtain telecommunications service with intent to avoid, attempt to avoid, or cause another person to avoid or attempt to avoid any lawful charge for that telecommunications service by using any of the following:

Knowingly, is with understanding of what is being done.
So, if your computer automagically associates with an access point without your specification of the accesspoint, then you are not necessarily, "knowingly," stealing Internet access.
Of course, if you are a techie of any sort, you might have a hard time explaining how you could not know the Internet access your laptop/notebook is using is not yours when you are "X" miles away from your home Internet access.
Such a thing could be explained by people with roaming high speed wireless cards (Like 3G, or Sprint's high-speed service, and a computer OS that automagically chooses a network, since they may not know their Internet access is really from local WiFi or not.

Notice the word, "attempt," in the law. This means that the act of cracking a key to a wireless network that you do not have permission to use could be stretched to be included here.

Simple WarDriving (discovering access points) would not. No Internet access is attempted. This law is about theft of service.

(a) A telecommunications access device.

Any modern notebook, or older notebook with a WiFi card. Check.

(b) An unlawful telecommunications access device.

Would depend on the state or federal laws, and how they change to include or exclude devices from this list which are 'unlawful telecommunications access devices.'

(c) A fraudulent or deceptive scheme, pretense, method, or conspiracy, or any device or other means, including, but not limited to, any of the following:

(i) Using a false, altered, or stolen identification.

Social engineering.

(ii) The use of a telecommunications access device to violate this section by a person other than the subscriber or lawful holder of the telecommunications access device under an exchange of anything of value to the subscriber or lawful holder to allow that unlawful use of the telecommunications access device.

If the owner values something taken, then you've been bad.

Details of penalties, associated with dollar value in damages or costs are outlined further in this law's text.

Unrelated to this thread:
Looks like we are not allowed to flame Fucktards from Michigan:Section 750.411s.

Physical DoS of customer's internet is illegal in Michigan too. Section 750.540

If you cause the state government problems on their network, you are in trouble too: Section 750.543p
Obviously, I am not a lawyer, so none of this should be considered legal advice.

[falconred]

Re: Michigan Wi-fi laws?

I think the statute he was actually charged under was 752.795

I think it is that one because the article mentions the statute passed in 1979 and was updated to include wireless networks in 2000, and the dates match this statute (why the media can't just cite the damn statute, I dunno).

Anyway:

A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:

(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

As you can see, the statute is very broad. It covers "causing access to be made", which arguably could be putting your laptop into auto-magic connection mode and taking whatever you can get.

It's difficult to fully apply the law to the facts of this case based on the media reports.

The big issue is what level of intent is supposed to be applied to the "without authorization" element of the statute. The default is to imply an intentional state of mind, meaning the defendant would probably have to be aware of the fact that his access was unauthorized.

/not-quite-a-lawyer, definitely-not-legal-advice

[theprez98]

Re: Michigan Wi-fi laws?

According to the same statute:

(1) “Access” means to instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve or intercept data from, or otherwise use the resources of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

Not that I would necessarily agree with it, but one could argue that wardriving is to "retrieve or intercept data from..."

[converge]

Re: Michigan Wi-fi laws?

Interesting ... I don't think that is a very enforceable angle .. but noted just the same. Maybe wardriving really is a crime in some places.

[doogman23]

Re: Michigan Wi-fi laws?

Something stands out to me is the time of imprisonment possible. Think about what you have done (or some cases, should have done.haha.) in the last 5 years. Now all of that you didn't do because you connected to a publicly available wireless connection. Just doesn't seem fitting. A lot of Michigan's stalking and harassment laws meet the same punishment, which seems fitting.

Coincidently, 750.338 Gross indecency; between male persons, female persons, etc is the same fate in Michigan! haha!

Seriously though, it seems like a LOT of laws have been written or amended to punish crackers a little overboard. And I am talking about your basic discovery cracking, not deleting hospital records, or something that affects the targets life, that would be a whole different circumstance based on damage, grief caused, etc.

We could debate this forever....

doogman

[renderman]

Re: Michigan Wi-fi laws?

According to the same statute:

Not that I would necessarily agree with it, but one could argue that wardriving is to "retrieve or intercept data from..."

One could argue though that the "retrieve or intercept data from" is superseded by the FCC ISM band rules which basically state that within power restrictions, sending and receiving is fair game. If that were not true, WZC detecting a network in the area alone would constitute "retrieve or intercept data from".

At least that's how it seems to play in Canada.

(my non legal writeup about Canadian law is here: http://www.renderlab.net/articles/ca...rivinglaw.html)