RSS
Brazilian Telecom Authority Claims Sharing WiFi Is A Criminal Offense
from the can't-have-the-competition dept
Marcos points us to a story coming out of Brazil, where a guy who had an internet connection with WiFi, and agreed to share that connection with two neighbors is now facing two to four years in jail (Google translation of the original). Not only that but the Brazilian telecom authority ANATEL has seized his computer, modem and router, and have fined him approximately $1,800. They're claiming that sharing his WiFi was "providing an internet service without authorization." The guy is obviously fighting this in court, saying that it's ridiculous to claim that a guy sharing his WiFi should be classified as a regulated service provider...
I have a business...
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
The Future Of Commerce Will Combine Your Social Network And Mobile Device
I have an idea...
Securing Venture Capital for that Next App Development
App Developer Conversations: Successful Fundraising Techniques
I’m looking for research...
Why Data Is The New Oil, With Dan Foreman Of Lumi Mobile
Innovate More. Code Less: Optimizing Open-Source Utilization
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Can I file charges against a provider for putting their 'property' on my property? I don't ask for it, don't want it, yet it's there all the same. Damn sloppy of them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The most egregious, aspect would our currently free wireless routes now have to be "licensed" for which we would pay a fee?
Taken to a logical extreme, should the radio spectrum be privatized, those who "own" it should be forced to pay a rental/fine for allowing their radio signal to trespass on my property.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can we have an account option to filter out replies from anonymous trolls?
Thanks.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Eating before going to a movie theater is cheating the theater out of money you might have otherwise spent on popcorn.
Giving food to the homeless is depriving food vendors of the money they might have gotten from the homeless.
Letting a friend crash on your couch is depriving a motel of the money they would have made renting out a room.
The service they are paying for is the same whether it's 3 neighbors using the access or 10 people who live in the same house using the access.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
not paying your due to a large multi-national corporation is a form of piracy.
Eating before going to a movie theater is cheating the theater out of money you might have otherwise spent on popcorn.
yes, it's food piracy.
Giving food to the homeless is depriving food vendors of the money they might have gotten from the homeless.
more food piracy.
Letting a friend crash on your couch is depriving a motel of the money they would have made renting out a room.
bed piracy.
The service they are paying for is the same whether it's 3 neighbors using the access or 10 people who live in the same house using the access.
but the difference is 3 vs. 10 counts of wifi piracy.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's like if I ran a hose between my house and my neighbors, I'd still have to pay for the water service.
This is probably a TOS violation, but that justifies a loss of service, not jail time, large fine, and loss of computer equipment.
But hay, I don't know Brazil, maybe this does make sense. Like how it makes sense to some people to kill women for showing their faces (I don't want to live in that world ether).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unless we can write specifics into the law, of course. The Nat'l Rosie O'Donnell Burkha Act of 2011 would certainly get MY vote....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even if this is actually a violation under insane Brazilian law, it should be a minor civil matter
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Nowadays, you'll serve 9 years in prison for daring to disrupt the business of the processed sugar companies.
God bless the world.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
It could be a criminal offense ...
Now if that is not the case, then this is at worst a breach of contract dispute where the contract is the terms of service. Any fines from this dispute would likely be limited to what is stated in the TOS and if there is no clause granting fines to the telco, then their only recourse is to terminate the service or offer him new terms of service.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I know that could violate the TOS, but break the law?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Pretty good ISP
There are a lot of people in this country that would like a connection robust enough that it could be shared.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually that may not be a bad idea... :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
- It is really a crime? that seems harsh to say the least.
- Why is that punishment is the first option for something that is not that clear?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
How did they know?
I guess greed is the motivation for the case.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone is doing the same thing because of poverty
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Contempt of Greed
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
actually this IS wrong
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: actually this IS wrong
With Cable television, you're paying for the **CONTENT**, not the connection.
Stupid.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong Method
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sharing his internet connection only impacts his connection, not others using the service. They all have their own bandwidth and performance concerns, for which they pay. If he wants to slow his own connection, that's his business.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't this just enough? They busted a guy for sharing. SHARING! He was not selling anything but he was sharing it with someone who might not otherwise be able to afford it anyway.
When Big Corp and the spineless-turncoat-sellout-government of ANY state does someting like that, we got a sad situation on our hands.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Give me a break. Sometimes I despair about the bad weather here, but at least the judicional system isn't completely insane,
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The crime he's being accused of is described as "perform clandestine telecomunication activities" (art. 183 of the Brazilian Telecom Act). This activities are descritbed as those that "that enables the provision of telecommunication" (art. 60, same act). You may find the act here: http://goo.gl/96cRi (Google Translate).
The whole argument is around which could be considered or not a "telecomunication activity". ANATEL is claiming that this concept includes providing signal via wifi to various residences for pay (the neighbours split the cost of one connection and paid their shares to the defendant, who paid the ISP).
So ANATEL is not trying to "criminalize TOS violation", this is a consequence of ANATEL's interpretation of the law (ANATEL is a telecom authority, not an ISP - and it was in fact created to halt ISP abuses, which makes the whole case really odd).
And, yes, maybe the ISP has something to do with this. There is virtually no other way for ANATEL to discover such petite "violation" without being tipped by someone.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment