Dublin

Not condoning or condeming, I just like analogies on stealing. A bee keepers bees leave the hive go to neighboring propertys aquire pollen from plants that don't belong to the bee keeper. The beeker profits from the honey. A property owner has a dusk to dawn light and pays the electric bill, but the light is bright enough that the nieghbor does not have to turn on his outside light to do a few things in his yard thus saving electricy. The people across the way light off fireworks that they payed for and the neighborhood watches. These are just a few things we are all aware of, is it theft? Possibly, possibly not.

CynicX

before we get back into this whole stealing thing...remember the news editors of that article gave it the "stealing" title...he was arrested for a 3rd degree felony....which can include theft but by defination is a severe crime....

so before we go back into this...he is NOT being arrested for stealing...he is charged with the a 3rd degree felony....The person that wrote the article made the title...

I can gaurentee he wont get charged with "theft". More likely a generic computer crime.

BT17R

I believe he should be held accountable too. But for a felony? Pretty harsh potential penalty of up to 5 years and/or $5,000 fine. I don't think it rises to the level of the better known Florida felonies like:

a. Treason;
b. Murder;
c. Manslaughter;
d. Sexual battery;
e. Carjacking;
f. Home-invasion robbery;
g. Robbery;
h. Arson;
i. Kidnapping;
j. Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon;
k. Aggravated battery;
l. Aggravated stalking;
m. Aircraft piracy;
n. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb;
o. Any felony that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual;
p. Armed burglary;
q. Burglary of an occupied structure or dwelling

If the judge has discretion, I don't think he should do time, but this is Florida so an elected prosecutor may be campaigning on a law and order platform. Maybe the perp can make a large campaign contribution and walk.

4RocRunner92

I remember someone had a thread on this...on whether to do it or not. Haha, forgot the user but I guess you got some cold hard facts to think about now.

Intrepid

I beleive the general consensus was that it was wrong, but we may do it anyway.

2ToyGuy

Yeah, "It's wrong, but not really all that wrong, so it's ok to do it".
I do NOT understand, nor agree, with that logic in any way. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Yes, murder is worse than, say, petty theft, and punishment should be meted out accordingly. But just because it's not as wrong as murder or rape, or whatever, doesn't mean it's permissable!
Wrong is wrong, stealing is stealing. Period, end of discussion, as far as I'm concerned. Any "justifications" people come up with for doing wrong are merely to salve a guilty conscience, self serving platitudes to make themselves feel less guilty about doing something they know is wrong. They're trying to drown out that little voice in their heads that's trying to scream "STOP!" And given teh state of crime and punishment in this country at this time, I would say not only are they doing a good job on themselves, they're doing a pretty good job on a lot of people.

I'm going to go paly EQ and leave this world for a while...

CynicX

I wont disagree with your logic because you are correct, it is wrong. The thing is, its just not that big of a deal. If you arent messing with the persons files on their computer its just another stupid crime that alot of people will do...to goto jail for along time over this, seems a bit harsh to me.

We all do things that are much worse then that. For example in Forest Hill, MD for the longest time there was a sign on the side of a road that said "Someone doing 35 mph killed my son" quite touching actually. The speed limit on this road was 25 mph. Essentually this child was killed by a speeder, how many people died why this guy was browsing the internet? Because according to the newspaper the speeder spent 2 months in jail. Although I'm sure the childs death was accidental the only thing that caused it was someone commiting what most people do on a daily basis and most of us would consider a minor crime.

Being charged with a felony for this blows my mind. Of course our justicial system doesnt stop amazing me....

2ToyGuy

Nobody died while the guy was browsing the net. No dies when stores are robbed, usually. No one dies while homes are burglarized, usually. No one dies in a bank robbery, usually. No one dies from speeding, usually. But that neither excuses nor grants permissability (is that a word?) to the man's actions in stealing service. You "borrow" power form the power company, or "borrow" your neighbor's cable, you get charged with theft. This man was doing the same thing. Just because no wires nor lives were involved is absolutely irrelevant. It's still theft, and it IS a big deal. Someone tries to steal from you, say walks right into your living room while you're sitting there and grabs your tv, will you sit by and say, "Well, it's not that big a deal. No lives were lost, after all". I don't know about you, but I won't. He'll sure as heck be there when the cops arrive, horizontal or vertical is entirely up to him. And maybe a life will be at stake, but it won't be mine. It IS a big deal. A big fat hairy deal. I worked hard for what I have, every single thing I own. Whether it's a box of Q-tips or a box of priceless antique coins is irrelevant. It's MINE, and not for some jerk-off who's too darn lazy or stupid to go get his own to come and take just because "It's not that big a deal." It's that big a deal to ME. Same thing with my wi-fi equipment and service. i worked hard to be able to afford this stuff, and I refuse to say it's no big deal. It's a BIG deal to me when someone trys to use anything of mine without my permission. My car, my gun, my wi-fi, it's all the SAME.
Once again, platitudes and meaningless, self-serving justifications. Theft is theft and should be treated accordingly. I don't know that the charge for stealing power, or cable, or money, or food, or guns, or whatever is, but they still prosecute it, and they should this guy too. To the fullest extent of all aplicable laws. And was the child's death only due to speeding? Possibly, but I'll wager there was alcohol involved too, and there's a whole nother can of worms. Condoned murder, is what the dui laws permit. You take a gun, get drunk and go out and kill a little kid, it's murder one. You do the exact same thing in a car, it's an"accident", and "we're so sorry, but he's just drunk, after all" and all the other crap they produce at times like that. Drunk driving is attempted murder on every other person encountered on the road by the drunk driver, and should be charged accordingly, instead of a "Well, too bad. But he's drunk, so it's no big deal". They turn these drunks loose on the population at large, even after numerous repeat offenses, even after they manage to finally suceed in killing somebody. Heck, these drunks walk out of the court room after loosing their liscence, get in their car and drive to the nearest bar to celebrate, then on home, drunk as heck. Gosh, looks like the punishment was really effective. Take their car away. Take their money away (not 1 and 2 hundred, thousands!). Hurt them. Punish tehm so they won't do it again, and others won't do it a first time. The laws are all passed by drunks, though, so it's kind of winked at as "just one of those things. No big deal"
Bah

jc1kz

WXPnews™ E-Zine
Tue, Jul 19, 2005 (Vol. 5, 29 - Issue 185)


Followup: Should You Go to Jail for Connecting to Someone Else's Wireless Network?

Last week, we wrote about the Florida man who was arrested for unauthorized access when he connected to someone's home wireless network. Several of you wrote to comment on the case, and responses were close to evenly divided over whether it should be illegal to use a wireless network that's available and doesn't have any security mechanisms in place. Many said that by not enabling encryption or other security features that are built into every modern wireless access point, the network owner is knowingly making the network available to the public and it should not be illegal to connect to it.

Others said it doesn't matter - that the man who was arrested knew the network wasn't his and he didn't have permission to use it. Some pointed out that the defendant's actions (closing the laptop when confronted) indicated he was probably doing more than just "borrowing" an Internet connection - that he may have been trying to access the files on the other computers on the wireless network, or downloading illegal material from the Internet.

A few of you said it's the fault of the WAP vendors for not making wireless transmissions encrypted by default, because many home users are not networking experts and don't know how to make their wireless networks secure.

To follow up a little more on the case, the Florida law under which the arrest was made carries a penalty that can range from probation to five years imprisonment. The prosecutors say they have confiscated the laptop and will base the sentence they seek on whether the man was just using the connection to surf the Internet for personal use, or connecting to the network to commit identity theft or some other illegal activity. We'll keep you posted when the case goes to trial.

Intrepid

So you mean it is ok to steal wifi as long as you are sober?
Like I had said before, it is an almost victimless crime, if someone steals your tv, you can no longer watch it, if they just sit at the end of your driveway with binoculars watching your cable television, I suppose it is still stealing, but noone loses anything. Sure, sure, the internet provider loses some bandwidth, whoopdiedo...Of course it is wrong, there is no justification for it, no matter what, it is illegal. But if I can't afford it and I can receive it from my house, I will probably do it, if you don't want me to, then come stop me. I discovered after living at my apartment for a year that there is cable television running into my apartment, all I had to do was get a long enough cable to reach from my tv to the jack, I should call the cable company and tell them to shut it off or at least not use it, but I don't actually know anyone that would. If I was driving through the woods and there was a pair of rock sliders sitting there rusting in the dirt, I would pick them up and take them home, would I pull them off of someones truck? No, of course not, but either way, they aren't mine and I am taking them. Jay-walking is illegal, maybe we should bust people for that!
People do much worse wrong things everyday, if you get caught for something minor, don't cry about it, you were doing something wrong and you got caught, that is what you get. I am not sure why people still argue about this, yes it is wrong, how wrong you feel it is and whether or not you would do it depends on your moral values. At this point noone is convincing anyone of anything anyway.

sswearin1

It seems that sometimes people in our country feel that the intent of the law is to legislate behavior. There are plenty of people on both sides of the political fence that are in favor of more controls over peoples actions (and if you agree philosophically the ability to make those actions and choices are part of a person's civil rights, at least as some members of our judicial branch interpret the constitution). If you extend the argument--not to say that some laws are not specifically intended to curtail and/or restrain some behavior--to state that we should legislate and punish all behavior equally without looking at the context of the situation (i.e. theft=theft) smacks of taking away the rights of others.
Now I know many would say that people that drive drunk, for example, should have a good deal of their rights removed and there are plenty of examples of people who claim they had no control over their behavior (like that teacher who is again in the press for having sex with her 14 year old student) that reek of BS. I would even "web judge" (like web wheeling, he he…) some of these people to be locked away on an island somewhere. However, I think the dialectics, duality, walking contradiction, whatever, that makes this county beautiful is that we attempt to protect the rights of our citizens, even the stupid ones who probably don't deserve them in the first place. Because that leaves room for change, room for forgiveness, the opportunity to make something different of yourself even after making poor/ignorant/purposeful choices to hurt or steal from others.

4RUNR

Your reasoning is certainly, let's say, out there. Just answer one thing...

Do you think any law under which most populace of the civilized world can be found guilty is a good law? Or does it need revision? Or maybe addressing the problem itself instead of jailing people?