The Speculist

In Saint Petersberg, Florida, police have arrested Benjamin Smith III for accessing an unsecured WiFi network. He's being charged with "unauthorized access to a computer network."

Smith pulled his SUV up in front of the "victim's" house and logged onto the Internet. Smith admits this much. The homeowner, Dinon, noticed this guy on his laptop in front of his house and called the police.

Having a bandwidth-stealing freeloader might have bothered Dinon some, but I bet it was the creepy factor - a stranger parked in front of the house - that motivated Dinon to call. Had Smith been his next door neighbor freeloading from the backyard, the over-the-fence conversation would have probably been:

"Ben, dang-it, get your own WiFi so I can bum off you next month!"

It's a competition of interests. On one hand, we have the interests of those who install WiFi in their homes to not be leeched on. On the other hand, we have the interests of the public to have use of WiFi wherever it can be found. There's a lot of overlap between the two crowds. I had no interest in using WiFi anywhere until I installed it in my home and got a laptop with WiFi capability.

Of course I prefer to keep the bandwidth at home to myself. "Shoo, nerds! Shoo!" But recently, while my family finished their cheeseburgers at the local Sonic, I turned on the laptop and found that I had good WiFi. So, I checked my email. Thinking about it now, its probably much more likely that I was enjoying service from the apartment complex next door than from the Sonic. Did I commit a crime? I didn't intend to.

What if I accessed WiFi from a coffee shop parking lot rather than going in (because I don't want to buy a $8 cup of coffee)? Would that be a crime? It's a network intended for the public, but its intended to bring the public in for coffee. The owner probably wouldn't appreciate that sort of leeching any more than I would like SUVs full of guys like Smith parked in front of my house.

Here's the bright line that our society should draw - any unsecured WiFi is fair game. If you use that WiFi to cruise for child pr0n, spam, or steal credit card information; well, that's criminal already. If you are physically trespassing on private property to get close enough to log on, that's also criminal already. Reading Instapundit in a public place (or on property you own) should not be a crime - even if you're doing it on your neighbor's unsecured WiFi. It's rude, maybe even creepy, but it shouldn't be illegal.

Those who are concerned about bandwidth leeches can easily protect their WiFi networks with a password.

UPDATE: I found another article that had more information:

Dinon also stated that he later observed foreign icons on his home computer screen, and suspected that Smith, 41, may have been using his network.

A foreign icon? Was Smith installing a backdoor?

I think it's a safe bet that the prosecutor will try to prove something more than bandwidth leeching. I doubt he or she would bother otherwise. If Smith was installing a back door or accessing Dinon's computer in some way, more power to the prosecutor.

But public policy should favor Internet surfers who are doing otherwise legal activities. Internet connectivity is a good thing. And losing a little bandwidth is a small thing. And if that bothers you, secure your WiFi.

I'm willing, as the owner of a WiFi network, to either accept the loss of a little bandwidth from time-to-time, OR accept the slight inconvenience of a password. Either is a small price to pay for not having to worry about accidentally breaking the law when I'm away from home.

UPDATE 2: Triticale points to this WiFi post at FuzzMartin.com. Check out both the post and the comments.