Here's an idea - if you don't want people using your wireless network, put a freakin' PASSWORD on it! If you're too lazy or stupid to do that then you deserve to have God-and-country sucking up your bandwidth. By no stretch of the imagination should using an open network be considered a crime.

it's absurd! haven't they heard about encryption? or MAC filtering? if you don't want to have other people access your network you could use these...
most computers automatically choose a wifi network, without asking the users. moreover, the average user doesn't even know that he is connected to a network.

Then he needs to give up his privilege of using a computer. :)

Stupidity or ignorance does not excuse irresponsibility. Ever.

I disagree, especially since some places name their wireless networks like idiots. This bill doesn't surprise me. Especially for those WIFI AP's that are set up by the owner's 12-yo grandchildren.

I know many people that connect to their NEIGHBOR'S WIFI w/out their knowledge, which, IMHO, is much worse than accidentally connecting to another network.

As for the idiot in MI that was using the network w/out getting a cup of joe SHOULD be arrested and SHOULD be fined. Those networks are for paying patrons only, NOT for people looking for a free few hours. In that instance I believe it is nearly tantamount to theft, although I'm sure his usage didn't completely null the rest of the network.

Especially for those WIFI AP's that are set up by the owner's 12-yo grandchildren.

If you are implying the 12-yr old didn't know what he was doing, then perhaps grandpa should have gotten someone more qualified to do it.

I know many people that connect to their NEIGHBOR'S WIFI w/out their knowledge, which, IMHO, is much worse than accidentally connecting to another network.

I agree. Intent makes it worse. But I still do not believe ignorance is an excuse. If they cannot take the time to recognize what network they are using, they should not be on a computer with Wi-Fi capabilities.

Sorry. Too much rests on their ability to use their PCs intelligently.

As for the idiot in MI that was using the network w/out getting a cup of joe SHOULD be arrested and SHOULD be fined.

Yay. We agree. The store should be fined as well for not securing their network properly. :)

I disagree... especially with how seamlessly the latest mobile processors, together with the latest Wndows and perhaps additional provided reseller software-- handle networking and wireless particularly:

the latest portables from the major providers sporting Vista require practically no user involvement.

You are confusing what is required to get it working, vs. what is required to be responsible for your actions.

Difficult as it may be to comprehend, there *is* a difference.

Yay. We agree. The store should be fined as well for not securing their network properly. :)

Agreed.

Set up some open Wi-Fi networks nearby the State House of Delegates and the cafe's nearby and start suing the crap out of the politicians. That will teach them a lesson.

Hmmmmm... Wonder whats gonna happen now if the law passes ? Does that mean I can file charges aganst the cops who sit outside my coffee shop after hours surfing the net? Also Maryland passed a law agenst talking on a cell phone wile driving and Today I seen a cap talking on the phone wile driving.... Just more BS laws for the books

Exactly... don't get me started on that hypocritical double-standard BS some cops get away with.

Our shop is across the street from our town's police department, and occasionally I'll see one of them getting off his s***, driving home in his personal vehicle with one broken tail light, talking on his cell phone, and not wearing his seat belt. Any one of those 3 infractions I would be cited for in a heartbeat, let alone all 3.

That "doesn't apply to me" attitude pisses me off to no end...

I don't have the facts of the wifi coffeeshop case, however I wouldn't be surprised if that Defendant did not purchase coffee from the shop. When shops offer wifi access, it's a limited license. When a person acts outside the scope of a license, it becomes a trespass. But I digress ...

The elements of the crime of Unlawful Access to Wireless Service (e.g. Criminal Computer Trespass) as they exist are sufficient to warrant against "accidental" or "unintentional" connection a wireless network.

Delegate Meyers asks that the State not only have to prove knowledge that there was access, but also knowledge that the access was unlawful. What does this mean for wifi router owners and business wishing to prosecute wardrivers and net thieves? It would require them to put the equivalent of virtual no-trespassing signs. The State would still have to show that someone saw the no-trespassing signs.

Delegate Meyers seems to be of the contention it's OK for someone to trespass on your yard, or "borrow" your electricity as long as you don't put a big NO sign, and that it's easily seen.

Is the proposed amendment a good idea? That's for the people of Maryland to decide. I am sure that Maryland is not the first state to wrestle with the issue, and it won't be the last.

Ignorance has never been a plea option and never should be.

The case that got him thinking wasn't accidental, either.

The additional language requires that the person knows that the access is "prohibited by law". That would be almost impossible to prove. Simply requiring that a person knows that the access is unauthorized should fix the problem of inadvertently accessing another office from a coffee shop, while still allowing prosecution of intentional offenders.

About adding that any company or person knowingly not putting on Encription to Wifi to limit Access are also libel for fines. This will put the ownus back to where it belongs.

I intentionally leave my wifi unencrypted so that anyone in the neighborhood can use it. Should that be illegal??

Is that just a scenerio, or do you really? So what happens if they download movies and the ip is traced back to you? Do you have miles of logs to 'prove' that it wasn't you? Or just say "my Wifi is open, someone else did it"?...neither would prove as defense in court.

I think the solution is easy. When a 'unique' mac address is connecting to an open access router for the first time, the router should post a 'warning' page to that connection...kind of like commercial wireless hotspots do. Users who DO NOT want to see this from their own wifi or who are supplying their net to their tivo or wifi appliance should be allowed to input their mac address for exclusion to the rule, this would allow that mac address to completely bypass the page and connect normally.

What if you let people use your swimming pool on a hot summer day and someone drowns? Do you have miles of videotapes to prove it wasn't you who drowned that person?

I believe you have a thing called "innocent until proven guilty" there in the USA or was it removed so you can torture innocent people at Guantanamo bay?

"I think the solution is easy. When a 'unique' mac address is connecting to an open access router for the first time, the router should post a 'warning' page to that connection"

Great, that's easy...now go tell every person that has a wireless router to set that up.[

Oh wait they don't know how? Oh holdon a sec...they might know how, if their router supported it? Great, that's easy, go tell all manufacturers to make all new routers to include that feature, and then tell everybody who wants wireless or currently has wireless to go buy the new device...easy!

yes and no.

On the yes side , It gives you some protection so you don't have ID Thieft,credit card thieft etc.
On the No side, It's great that you helping your neighborhood out at your own expence, but, And it's pretty big But here, Are You going to take the reponsibility for all the data that comes and goes from your system? If you work from home or take home work from the office are you going to be make sure that none of their data is compromized ie. credit card numbers, personal data etc. Now about things you don't know that have been put on your Computer. There is a whole gambit of things that could happen. Have you ticked someone off at work or socialy lately? If they know where you live, they could put spam bots,stolen Credit card numbers, Stolen personal data, false IM Logs,Child porn the list is endless. Then turn around an call the Cops on you. How are you going to explain to them that you have no knowledge of it. They have physical proof (Your Computer). Could lose your job, home, wife, social standing who knowns maybe more, maybe your life. For what? For not encrypting your wifi signal. A risk I would not want to take.

I believe you have a thing called "innocent until proven guilty" there in the USA or was it removed so you can torture innocent people at Guantanamo bay?

Nice political slip in there. Beside the fact that you clearly have little understanding of US law surrounding that argument (just as the media is willfully ignorant of it), you imply that your opinion about it represents a large majority. After all, some major political figureheads use the argument and politicians are always truthful on such matters.

lmao..

Bad analogy, dude.

Under most laws in the US regarding swimming pools, you have to have fencing, locked gates, etc. Access to your pool *must* be regulated.

See how nicely that fits in with Wi-Fi? Access should be regulated. You should provide reasonable measures to ensure only those you explicitly allow are able to use your connection.

Nice try though.

I don't know about your ISP, but WiFi security is required by the AUP for Cox. I seem to remember something simular when I was a Comcast subscriber

(from the AUP)
9. Security. You are solely responsible for the security of any device connected to the Service, including any data stored on that device. Cox recommends that you take appropriate security precautions for any systems connected to the Service. You are responsible for securing any wireless (WiFi) networks connected to your Cox service. Any wireless network installed by the customer or a Cox representative, that is unsecured or "open" and connected to the Cox network, will be deemed to be operating as an ISP and subject to the prohibition on Commercial Use set forth in Section 5 herein. You authorize Cox to use measures to detect unsecured wireless networks associated with your Service.

"Great, that's easy...now go tell every person that has a wireless router to set that up"

What's to set up? When you access your routers IP address, a web portal comes up to allow configuration, right?. Well, with the type of router add-in I'm proposing...once an 'alien' mac address comes into a router, it pushes that page.

"Great, that's easy, go tell all manufacturers to make all new routers to include that feature, and then tell everybody who wants wireless or currently has wireless to go buy the new device...easy!"

Well, I was thinking more of a firmware update - but, Ok. You're making a mountain out of a molehill really. It's as simple as updating your router software. Most people who intentionally offer open access to their wifi know how to play with their router....those who don't are generally secured by their ISP by default.

All I'm saying is that there has to be some sort of accountability in place so that people/businesses can't do stuff like this. As it is, I could easily lure in people by opening my wifi and then causing some humdrum about it. I don't think it would be as difficult as you make it sound to simply update current and past router firmware to include a page that lets people who host open wifi inform people that may happen to jump on to one (accidentally or not), that the router is open so and so, etc.
In this case, it's odd because generally all commercial places have said page and this cafe did not, or it wasn't specified that it did or didn't...either way, I'd say both parties are 'wrong' and that the whole thing should just have been dropped.