Illegal activity off of neighbor's wifi - Who should get charged?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clearly, someone has to take the fall. But.. who?

Normally it the account holder for the internet connection is responible for the what ever goes through his internet connection.

So if you happen to live next door to this guy, then I suggest that you put some security on your wireless network.
 
I lol'd.

Honestly, the guy doing the illegal stuff should get charged with something, but if the family is too ignorant to learn about network security at it's most basic level, then that's their problem.

Trotter, while what you said about a lot of places cracking down on leeching WiFi, there are an equal number of places where it is still free reign if it is not secured; where I have been living is one of those places. And personally, I like it, because it forces people to actually look up how to secure a network, or ask their ISP...unless they really don't care.

Then we just have some free internet for a while. ;)
 
The only thing that can be traced is the IP. From there they would get a warrent for the ISP to surrender the information about that IP.

Then it would go to court.

The family would be charged cause we are the end users are responsible for what happens to our internet.

ISP's have done a great deal with their modems and built in routers now, but people still look to get around that. It is then that they take it into their own hands and risk getting caught.

It doesnt matter if the family has the stuff on the hard drive. As that can be easily gotten around.

Replace the hard drive. There evidence gone. Use Boot and nuke or one of the other various tools out there to low level format the drive or jsut straight up take a sledge hammer to it.

The case would not revolve around who has the data on the hard drive. It will revolve around the IP address that was traced and the paper trail that they can produce to prove that.

It doesnt matter if they took measures to secure the network or not. They are still to blame. Unless they can prove that the person went out and hacked the hardwire connection outside, it will be blamed on them.

there are various WiFi protection. If people are that worried, dont use WiFi and wire it all. No way to get your Internet hacked and stolen if it is not transmitted over the air.

Plain and simple it doesnt matter. The paper trail will be traced back to the owners of the IP. That is what can be proven and that is what will be used in court.

I had a case similar to this brought up against me a few years back. I had my IP Spoofed and i had my internet terminated cause of illegal activity. I went there and talked directly to the owner of the company and showed him how easily it was done. I didnt get my net back, i also didnt get charges filed against me. I went a full year before i could get internet back.

So yes it is the owner of the IP's problem. Plain and simple cant hack a connection if you dont broadcast it. People wonder why i waited till 2008 to even think about WiFi. At least i knew that unless they dug 20 feet into my back yard, they would not get access to my IP.

So if someone goes to a public place with free public wifi and does something illegal, the provider of said wifi is liable? Not.
 
Unless someone from the ISP sets up the router, hardly anyone secures it. To secure it would require effort and some know-how... both of which is lacking with most people. I mean, they only want the wireless so they don't have to get up off the couch to surf.
 
So if someone goes to a public place with free public wifi and does something illegal, the provider of said wifi is liable? Not.

Actually yes. Check your local state and the federal laws. You can not account for another person's activities on a network like that.

How do you get the name of the person who did it? How do you prove it was them?

If it is free and public then most definately they are liable. Which is why you see Libraries with some very strict controls on PC's as well as Internet Cafes. Because they know that if anything gets traced it gets traced back to THEM not the person sitting at terminal 45 from 2:45 PM EST - 3:15 PM EST. Cause how do you prove it was them? How can you prove that they did it? How can you even get a name and address of this person to question them?

I mean seriously you dont think that these places are not held accountable for the actions taken by people using them do you? If you can show me a single way to be able to trace someone from a free wifi access point to their specific PC and to be able to say with 100% assurance that your proof would hold up in a court of law, then yes my statement is true. cause it does and will happen.
 
Per Tennessee Code Annotated:
39-14-149. Communication theft — Sale of illegal devices — Penalties — Mitigating factors — Aggravating factors — Multipurpose devices.
(a) A person commits communication theft who, with the intent to defraud a communication service provider of any lawful compensation for providing a communication service, knowingly:

(1) Acquires, transmits, or retransmits a communication service;

(2) Makes, distributes, possesses with the intent to distribute or uses a communication device or modifies, programs or reprograms a communication device in such a manner that it is designed, adapted for use or used for the commission of communication theft in violation of subdivision (a)(1);

(3) Makes or maintains any modification or alteration to any communication device installed with the express authorization of a communication service provider for the purpose of intercepting any program or other service carried by the provider that the person is not authorized by the provider to receive;

(4) Makes or maintains connections, whether physical, electrical, acoustical or by any other means, with cables, wires, components or other devices used for the distribution of communication services without the authority of the communication services provider;

(5) Sells, possesses, or otherwise delivers to another or offers for sale any:

(A) Communication device or unlawful access device, or plans or instructions for making the same, under circumstances evincing an intent to use the communication device or unlawful access device, or to allow the same to be used, for a purpose prohibited by this section; or

(B) Material, including hardware, cables, tools, data, computer software or other information or equipment, knowing that the purchaser or a third person intends to use the material in the manufacture or development of a communication device or unlawful access device in violation of this section;

(6) Publishes the number or code of an existing, cancelled, revoked or nonexistent telephone number, credit number or other credit device, or method of numbering or coding which is employed in the issuance of telephone numbers, credit numbers or other credit devices knowing that it may be used to avoid the payment of any lawful telephone or telegraph toll charge under circumstances evincing an intent to have the telephone number, credit number, credit device or method of numbering or coding so used; or

(7) Assists another in committing an act prohibited by this section in a manner that would make such person criminally responsible for the act under § 39-11-402.

(b) Any communication device or unlawful access device and other related items and equipment pertaining to a violation of this section may be seized under warrant or incident to a lawful arrest. Upon conviction for such a violation, the court may order the sheriff of the county in which the person was convicted to destroy as contraband or to otherwise lawfully dispose of any devices or other related items used in violation of this section.

(c) If conduct that violates this section:

(1) Also constitutes a violation of § 39-14-104 relative to theft of services, that conduct may be prosecuted under either, but not both, statutes as provided in § 39-11-109; and


(2) Is either commenced or consummated in this state, that conduct may be prosecuted in this state as provided in § 39-11-103.


(d) (1) A violation of this section shall be punished as theft and graded in accordance with § 39-14-105.

(2) A person's first violation of this section shall be punished by fine only if the value of the services obtained is less than one thousand dollars ($1,000). However, the trier of fact may impose a fine of double the amount otherwise authorized by § 40-35-111 for the appropriate offense class.

(3) (A) Except as provided in subdivision (d)(3)(B), each communication device or unlawful access device involved in a violation of this section shall constitute a separate offense and each activity prohibited by this section found to have occurred shall constitute a separate offense regardless of whether the activity involves one (1) or more than one (1) communication device or unlawful access device.
(B) If a defendant commits multiple violations of this section but such violations represent a single, continuous course of conduct by the defendant, such multiple violations, shall, for purposes of this section, be considered one (1) violation and shall be punished as such.

(4) In addition to any other sentence authorized by this section, the court may order a person convicted of violating this section to make restitution for the offense in accordance with the procedure set out in § 40-35-304.

(e) (1) (A) A communication service provider aggrieved by a violation of this section may institute a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction to obtain appropriate relief. Whether the conduct giving rise to a violation of this section occurs wholly in this state, is commenced outside the state but consummated in this state, or is commenced in this state but consummated outside this state, venue for the action shall be in any county in which conduct constituting a violation of this section occurs.

(B) An action shall be filed within two (2) years of the aggrieved communication service provider's actual knowledge of the violation, but in no event shall the action be filed more than five (5) years from the date of the violation.

(2) The court, in its discretion:

(A) May award declaratory relief and other equitable remedies, including preliminary and final injunctions to prevent or restrain violations of this section;

(B) At any time while an action is pending, on the terms it deems reasonable, may order the impounding of any communication device or unlawful access device that is in the custody or control of the violator and that the court has reasonable cause to believe was involved in the alleged violation of this section;
(C) Award actual or statutory damages as authorized in subdivision (e)(3); and
(D) As part of a final judgment or decree finding a violation of this section, order the remedial modification or destruction of any communication device or unlawful access device, or any other devices or equipment involved in the violation, that is in the custody or control of the violator, or that has been impounded under subdivision (e)(2)(B).

(3) At any time before final judgment is entered, the aggrieved party may elect to have any damages that may be awarded to that party computed according to either of the following methods:
(A) The actual damages suffered by the party as a result of violations of this section and all profits of the violator that are attributable to all violations of this section against the aggrieved party;

(B) (i) Except as provided in (e)(3)(B)(ii), in lieu of actual damages and the violator's profits as provided in (e)(3)(A), statutory damages in an amount of not less than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) may be awarded for each communication device or unlawful access device involved in the action or each violation of this section found to have occurred. The trier of fact shall determine the appropriate amount of statutory damages from within the range available in this subdivision (e)(3)(B)(i) as it deems equitable and just;

(ii) If a person commits multiple violations of this section but the violations represent a single, continuous course of conduct by that person, those multiple violations, shall, for purposes of this section, be considered one (1) violation and statutory damages awarded as such;

(C) Notwithstanding subdivision (e)(3)(B), if the trier of fact finds that there are mitigating factors present as to a particular defendant's involvement in a violation of this section, it may reduce the amount of statutory damages awarded below the minimum amount established in subdivision (e)(3)(B). Mitigating factors may include, but shall not be limited to:

(i) The defendant's role in the violation was minor;

(ii) The defendant assisted the aggrieved party in uncovering violations of this section committed by other persons or in detecting other persons who had committed violations of this section;
(iii) The defendant assisted the aggrieved party in locating other communication devices, unlawful access devices or equipment used to violate this section;
(iv) The defendant's violation of this section was committed solely for personal or household use;
(v) The defendant acted under a good faith belief that the defendant's violations of this section were lawful and ceased the violations upon learning that they were not; and

(vi) Any other factor consistent with this subdivision (e)(3)(C) that would cause the trier of fact to believe that the interests of justice require the amount of damages awarded to be below the statutory minimum set out in subdivision (e)(3)(B);
(D) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (e)(3)(B), if the trier of fact finds that there are aggravating factors present as to a particular defendant's involvement in a violation of this section, it may increase the amount of damages awarded up to an amount not to exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). Aggravating factors may include, but shall not be limited to:
(i) The defendant committed the offense willfully and for the purpose of commercial advantage or financial gain;

(ii) The defendant has a previous history of committing communication theft whether in this state, another state or under federal jurisdiction;
(iii) The defendant was the leader in the commission of a violation of this section involving two (2) or more other parties;
(iv) Violations of this section were also committed against other communication service providers on or about the same time as the violations against the aggrieved party;
(v) The value of the services taken from or damage done to the aggrieved party was particularly great; and
(vi) Any other factor consistent with this subdivision (e)(3)(D) that would cause the trier of fact to believe that the interests of justice require the amount of damages awarded be in excess of the statutory maximum set out in subdivision (e)(3)(B) or that the amount should be added to any actual damages proven;

(E) If the defendant prevails in a civil action brought pursuant to this section, the court may tax all costs of the action against the plaintiff and award the defendant reasonable attorney fees and the reasonable costs of defending the action if the court finds that the plaintiff brought the action:

(i) In bad faith; and
(ii) For the purpose of impeding or stifling lawful competition; or
(iii) For the purpose of harassing or intimidating lawful competition.

(f) The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit:
(1) The manufacture, use, advertisement or sale of a multipurpose device, or the possession of a multipurpose device for any of the purposes mentioned in this section, unless the person acts with the intent required to violate this section and the person knows that:

(A) The primary use or purpose for which the device was designed, manufactured, sold or licensed is for a violation of this section
(B) The device has only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than as an unlawful access device or for the commission of a violation of this section; or
(C) The device is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person and with that person's knowledge, for use as an unlawful access device or for the purpose of committing a violation of this section;

(2) The use of a communication device to connect one (1) or more multipurpose devices at the person's residence or business premises, unless the device causes substantial electronic or physical harm to the communication service provider's network, system or facility; and
(3) The use of a communication device that is not selected by a communication service provider, unless the device causes substantial electronic or physical harm to the communication service provider's network, system or facility.

(g) Breach of a service contract between a person and a communication service provider that establishes terms and conditions for the attachment of a communication device to a communication service provider's network, system, or facility shall not, in and of itself, be sufficient proof that the person acted with the intent required to commit a violation of this section. However, conduct that constitutes a breach of a service contract may also constitute a violation of this section if the person knowingly commits an act prohibited by this section with the intent to defraud a communication service provider of any lawful compensation for providing a communication service.

(h) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section or language contained in this section to the contrary, a person does not commit either a civil or criminal violation of this section unless the person acts with the intent to defraud, as defined in subdivision (i)(4), a communication service provider of any lawful compensation for providing a communication service in conjunction with some other conduct prohibited by this section.

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section to the contrary, any entity that has a collectively bargained contract that provides for residual payments to performers, or any entity that licenses the public performing rights with a communications service provider and who is engaged in the distribution of royalty or residual payments, operating in the ordinary course of business to monitor residual payments or the performing right in musical works, sound recordings or audiovisual works provided by a communication service provider, may engage in those monitoring activities under this section where the activities are intended and carried out for the sole purpose of distributing royalties or residuals to songwriters, music publishers, artists or performers or monitoring unauthorized performances.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a nonprofit library, archive, or educational institution from engaging in circulation, course reserves, and inter-library and other lending services; classroom and instructional uses; or archiving and preservation to the extent those activities are permitted under the federal copyright law as codified in title 17 of the United States Code.

(i) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) “Communication device” means any:

(A) Machine, equipment, technology or software that is capable of intercepting, transmitting, retransmitting, decrypting or receiving a communication service, or any part thereof; or

(B) Computer circuit or chip, electronic mechanism or other component that is capable of facilitating the interception, transmission, retransmission, decryption, or reception of any communication service;
(2) “Communication service” means any service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation to facilitate the lawful origination, transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, data, writings, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by telephone of any type, wire, wireless, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical systems, networks or facilities; and any service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation by any radio, photo-optical, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, electric power, fiber optic, cable television, satellite, microwave, data transmission, wireless or Internet-based distribution system, network or facility, including, but not limited to, any and all electronic, data, video, audio, Internet access, telephonic, microwave and radio communications, transmissions, signals and services, and any such communications, transmissions, signals and services lawfully provided directly or indirectly by or through any of the systems mentioned in this subdivision (i)(2), networks or facilities;
(3) “Communication service provider” means any person or entity:

(A) Providing a communication service, whether directly or indirectly as a reseller, that, for a fee, supplies the facility, cell site, mobile telephone switching office or other equipment or communication service;

(B) Owning or operating any fiber optic, photo-optical, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, cable television, satellite, Internet-based, telephone, wireless, microwave, data transmission or radio distribution system, network or facility; or

(C) Providing any communication service directly or indirectly by or through any such distribution systems, networks or facilities;

(4) “Intent to defraud” means a person uses, in whole or in part, deceit, trickery, misrepresentation or subterfuge for the purpose of depriving a communication service provider of the lawful compensation to which it is entitled for providing a communication service;

5) “Multipurpose device” means a communication device that is capable of more than one (1) function, at least one (1) of which is lawful, and includes any component thereof, and any plans or instructions for developing or making the device or any component thereof;

(6) “Unlawful access device” means any type of machine, equipment, technology or software that is primarily designed, manufactured, sold, possessed, used or advertised, for the purpose of defeating or circumventing any effective technology, device or software, or any component or part thereof, used by the provider, owner or licensee of any communication service or of any data, audio or video programs or transmissions, to protect any communication, data, audio or video services, programs or transmissions from unauthorized receipt, decryption, communication, transmission or re-transmission.


[Acts 1996, ch. 800, § 1; 2004, ch. 770, § 1.]
 
39-14-602. Violations — Penalties. —


(a) Whoever knowingly, directly or indirectly, accesses, causes to be accessed, or attempts to access any telephone system, telecommunications facility, computer software, computer program, data, computer, computer system, computer network, or any part thereof, for the purpose of:

(1) Obtaining money, property, or services for oneself or another by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises violates this subsection (a) and is subject to the penalties of § 39-14-105;

(2) Causing computer output to purposely be false for, but not limited to, the purpose of obtaining money, property, or services for oneself or another by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises violates this subsection (a) and is subject to the penalties of § 39-14-105; or

(3) Effecting the creation or alteration of a financial instrument or of an electronic transfer of funds with the intent to disrupt, alter, misappropriate, or commit fraud violates this subsection (a) and is subject to the penalties of § 39-14-105.

(b) Whoever intentionally and without authorization, directly or indirectly:

(1) Accesses any computer, computer system, or computer network commits a Class C misdemeanor. Operating a computer network in such a way as to allow anonymous access to that network shall constitute implicit consent to access under this part;

(2) Alters, damages, destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, or causes the disruption to the proper operation of any computer, or who performs an act which is responsible for the disruption of any computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, program, or data which resides or exists internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network is punishable as in § 39-14-105;

(3) Introduces or is responsible for the malicious input of any computer contaminant into any computer, computer system, or computer network commits a Class B misdemeanor;

(4) Accesses, causes to be accessed, or attempts to access any computer software, computer network, or any part thereof, for the purpose of maliciously gaining access to computer material or to tamper maliciously with computer security devices including, but not limited to, system hackers, commits a Class A misdemeanor; or

(5) Makes or causes to be made an unauthorized copy, in any form, including, but not limited to, any printed or electronic form of computer data, computer programs, or computer software residing in, communicated by, or produced by a computer or computer network commits an offense punishable as provided in § 39-14-105.

(c) Whoever receives, conceals, uses, or aids another in receiving, concealing, or using any proceeds resulting from a violation of either subsection (a) or subdivision (b)(2), knowing the proceeds to be the result of such violation, or whoever receives, conceals, uses, or aids another in receiving, concealing, or using any books, records, documents, property, financial instrument, computer software, program, or other material, property, or objects, knowing that the item has been used in violating either subsection (a) or subdivision (b)(2) is subject to the penalties of § 39-14-105.

(d) Any person who violates this section in connection with an act of terrorism commits a Class A felony.


[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1993, ch. 445, § 1; 2002, ch. 849, § 4; 2003, ch. 317, § 3; 2006, ch. 809, § 1.]
 
Looks to me like if the person who got their wireless leached made a reasonable effort to prevent the illegal activity, they are in the clear. Reasonable effort is not defined in the statute however and I am guessing that would be at the discretion of the judge.I seriously doubt that public wifi providers can be held liable for anything like this or there would be no public wifi.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom