June 23, 2006

Hmm.

Wireless Freeloader Charged Because He Never Bought Coffee

By Gregg Keizer
TechWeb.com
Thu Jun 22, 6:32 PM ET

A Vancouver, Wash. coffee shop tired of seeing a 20-year-old man mooch off their free wireless Internet access called the police, who charged him with "theft of services."

Brewed Awakenings employees dialed 911 after Alexander Eric Smith of Battle Ground, Wash. piggybacked off the shop's wireless Internet service for more than three months.

"He doesn't buy anything," Emily Pranger, the shop's manager, told KATU, a Portland, Ore. television station. "It's not right for him to come and use it." [...]

County deputies charged Smith with theft of services after returning to the parking lot after they told him to stop. The crime, which covers such crimes as bypassing a utility meter, stealing cable, and leaving a restaurant without paying, has been used in the past to prosecute hackers who have accessed a computer or network without paying for it. "It's something that is borderline creepy," Pranger said to KATU. [...]

By "not right for him," do they mean, "it upsets me" or "we have a store policy whereby we intend to provide wireless service only for those who purchase, at minimum, a cup of coffee, and no other users are authorized to use this connection"?

Because it seems that unless they have a policy like the latter, merely plucking a signal out of the air, as with broadcast radio, is a bit less than theft of services. If they're so concerned about it, why don't they offer a subscription wi-fi, where you have to provide proof of purchase to log on? Maybe a password generated at the register like they do when you buy a carwash at the gas pump. And if it's not really free access, should they get to advertise it as free wi-fi? I mean, 'that's just not right' for them to do that, is it?

Yes, the guy's mooching, but it might be hard to call it theft of services when anyone can pick up the signal and use it anytime they want.

And are you gonna tell me that in a place of progressive thought such as Vancouver, Washington that borderline creepiness has now been criminalized!? I dare say there are probably several jail's worth of folks who fit the bill around there.

Posted by Terry Oglesby at June 23, 2006 03:08 PM
Comments

It might be because I’m trapped here at home and the prednisone is running wild in my system but I think they should have force fed him his laptop. Then he might have wanted a cup of coffee. To wash it down.
Could just be that I hurt and am cranky. Maybe.

Posted by: jim at June 23, 2006 03:13 PM

Maybe so, but it's one of those things--when you're throwing money out the window, it's hard to complain when someone scoops up some loose change. Seems like they could just block his access and be done with it, but I guess I'm just too stupid about tech matters to know any better.

Posted by: Terry Oglesby at June 23, 2006 03:17 PM

You’re right but he is a mooch—and I am cranky. Wish they had video of him wearing his computer.

Posted by: jim at June 23, 2006 03:29 PM

You liberals are so mean and insensitive.

Posted by: Terry Oglesby at June 23, 2006 03:48 PM

I can understand you being creeped out, Terry. But not everything needs to be legislated to death. Ms. Pranger was content to let people use her WiFi, on the honor system, until someone abused the privilege long-term. But then she chose to deal with the problem, without cancelling the honor system.

You wouldn't really want her to do that, would you? It's kinda nice to pop into a coffee shop, buy a cup of coffee or a croissant, and just have the Internet available, without needing to punch a ticket or show a receipt or anything.

Okay, fine, if she was technically savvy enough to find his IP address, she could have blocked him -- and then, if he came to the counter to complain, she could have sweetly suggested that he buy something. Why didn't she do that? Perhaps it never occurred to her... or perhaps she didn't know how.

Oh, well. If you visit that particular shop, be sure to buy a doughnut first.

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline

Posted by: Daniel in Brookline at July 4, 2006 07:50 AM

Well, I'd rather it not be legislated, or her to have to do away with her honor system, but I'd also rather her not use the power of the state to enforce her store's private policy. Especially when it doesn't seem--at least from the way the story is written--that the policy was clear, or that there was a way to ensure it was fairly and consistently applied to all customers, or that it could be adequately controlled by the owner to insure it was not abused.

It's sad, but if you're going to have an honor policy, maybe it's best to remember not everyone is honorable. She is doing something nice, but sometimes certain people just won't let you be nice. However, using the cops to deal with it seems not the best solution.

Posted by: Terry Oglesby at July 5, 2006 09:20 AM