With Wi-Fi networks and hotspots popping up all over the place, computer
users may be unaware that they are logged into someone else’s Wi-Fi network.
Because Wi-Fis operate on radio frequencies and these frequencies are
susceptible to interference, Wi-Fi users may unwittingly lose the connection to
their home networks. In such instances, their wireless connection software could
scan the area for other Wi-Fi networks and automatically connect them to any
other unsecured network. Thus, Wi-Fi owners may—without their knowledge—become Wi-Fi pirates.
This could be true, but it's not likely. When my computer loses its wireless connection, it tells me. Before I connect to an unprotected wireless network, it warns me. For the uninitiated, "hotspots" are those places, usually a Starbucks or a Panera, where they maintain a wireless network that is open for anyone to use. Sometimes you need an access code, sometimes their networks are "wide open" and you do not need a password. The Jaded JD has this analogy, which works fairly well but also has its problems:
There is a colorable argument that the unauthorized use is my fault,
because I could have locked down my wireless network and I failed to do
so. That's like saying because I leased a car and left the doors unlocked
with the keys in the ignition (say, warming my engine on a cold winter day),
it's my fault the car was stolen and guy who stole my car from my driveway isn't
criminally liable for the theft. Nonsense.
The question remains: if you try to log on to an open network at the local Panera that you have every right to be on, what happens if you log onto Not Larry Sabato's private unsecured network down the street by mistake? The Jaded JD points to "intent," which I hope would govern in this hypothetical:
Mr. Rodokanakis conveniently omits the mens rea element of the
statute: "Any person who uses a computer or computer network without
authorityand with the intent to: (1) obtain property or services by false
pretenses; (2) embezzle or commit larceny; or (3) convert the property of
another is guilty of computer fraud." Unwitting and innocent computer
users lack the specific intent to be charged under Va. Code Ann. Sec.
18.2-152.3. In fact, all the computer trespass, theft, invasion,
harassment and fraud provisions (Va. Code Ann. Secs. 18.2-152.4, -152.5, -152.6,
-152.7, and -152.7:1) require intent. And in which chapter are these
provisions codified? Yes, you guessed it, Chapter 5 (Crimes Against
Property).
Rodokanakis, a former federal employee who specialized in detecting fraud, ought to know that the guy who was just arrested in Florida on the first-ever charge of wireless pirating had intent - whether a court rules that way or not. He was sitting in a van in front of some poor schmoe's house hunched over a laptop. Is that the way someone acts if he thinks he has permission to use a wireless network? If we start arresting people at the local Starbucks because they unwittingly pirated Not Larry Sabato's wireless network, then we can panic. But that hasn't happened yet and I doubt it will.
The real question issue here is this: why is Phil Rodokanakis writing about this instead of ruminating about the Virginia Club for Growth's stunning victory on June 14?
Why am I writing about it? Good question. I'm bored. I'm waiting for Tim Kaine to yell at his staff again, or for Jerry Kilgore to refuse to debate John Kerry, or for Russ Potts to announce that he is opposed to motherhood and apple pie. Even better, I'm waiting for the Greg Werkheiser release announcing that he's against drunk driving and Dave Albo is for it.
