I don't think it's remotely reasonable to prosecute people for taking advantage of something like an open wireless hotspot. WiFi operates in the public radio spectrum, so if folks don't secure their communications, it sucks to be them. I don't know that any tangible property analogies work here due to the nature of the medium, but I would fight a fine like that tooth and nail and try to get help from whatever groups would help (maybe EFF?).
What it boils down to is that if you're not competent enough to regulate access to your access point, you probably shouldn't be operating it, and you sure as hell shouldn't complain when someone helps themselves. Why? Because a lot of people *do* want to share their excess bandwidth in that manner. It's a bad precedent, in light of that, to force hotspot users to assume that they're trespassing and risking prosecution by using what many folks set out for the public good. So an analogy I'd put forth would be a landowner whose property borders public land like open space or a national forest. It is the landowner's responsibility to mark the boundary and post signs, and if people disregard the signs, climb any fences, and trespass, then that's solid prosecution. But I don't see a landowner as having any reasonable grounds for prosecuting someone for trespassing if the border is unmarked and most reasonable people wouldn't have reason to believe that there is a boundary, or that somehow public use stops at a specific place. I think that case goes to show how out-of-touch the authorities are on technology issues, because they can't even apply their own technology laws sensibly.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2007-01-08 06:09 am (UTC)What it boils down to is that if you're not competent enough to regulate access to your access point, you probably shouldn't be operating it, and you sure as hell shouldn't complain when someone helps themselves. Why? Because a lot of people *do* want to share their excess bandwidth in that manner. It's a bad precedent, in light of that, to force hotspot users to assume that they're trespassing and risking prosecution by using what many folks set out for the public good. So an analogy I'd put forth would be a landowner whose property borders public land like open space or a national forest. It is the landowner's responsibility to mark the boundary and post signs, and if people disregard the signs, climb any fences, and trespass, then that's solid prosecution. But I don't see a landowner as having any reasonable grounds for prosecuting someone for trespassing if the border is unmarked and most reasonable people wouldn't have reason to believe that there is a boundary, or that somehow public use stops at a specific place. I think that case goes to show how out-of-touch the authorities are on technology issues, because they can't even apply their own technology laws sensibly.