Open WiFi Owners Off the Hook In Germany 215
ulash writes "Ars Technica reports that a court in Germany ruled in favor of an open WiFi network owner stating that if other users use your open WiFi network without your consent and download copyrighted material, you cannot be automatically held responsible for their actions. This does not carry much (if any) weight in the US but here is to hoping that it will at least have a positive impact in the EU as starters."
Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Law nightmare (Score:2, Interesting)
If so, then people are free to do whatever cybercrime they feel, claiming it was the neighbour.
I don't think this will stand.
Precedent (Score:4, Interesting)
What sort of precedent does this set with regards to other forms of illegal activity that take place over an open wifi connection? Does anybody have more experience with German case law? Fritz-sixpack might be off the line for copyright infringement, but what about some "think of the children" crime?
But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill (Score:3, Interesting)
All well and good for prosecution immunity, but why would anyone keep an open access point these days?
I live on a main street with many business people walking past with their WiFi enabled devices. If I didn't have my access point locked down hard they'd blow my bandwidth limit inside a few days.
Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill (Score:2, Interesting)
I go to Germany about three times a year and all commercials for Internet connections boast about "flatrate", one could assume this is the norm there.
Data laundering (Score:3, Interesting)
What's to stop hackers from setting up open wifi networks with poor security, hacking their own networks to perform criminal acts, then claiming that someone else did the hack and they aren't liable for what others do over their open wifi?
Mobs have been laundering money thanks to ignorant loopholes like this for over a century!
Re:You forgot to add (Score:2, Interesting)
I use a FON-router that has two networks, one private and one open. I have a bandwith cap on the public one, couldn't this somehow be seen as thwarting illegal downloads (or all downloads for that matter) by other users?
Weak defense maybe, but theoreticaly... ?
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem here is that you need someone else to admit using your connection to download illegal files - just like if someone else is driving your car and gets caught in a speed trap. If he doesn't admit, you will have to pay the ticket.
Having an open WiFi won't be a freeride to download illegal files as it is impossible to proof that it was open to begin with.
So just like getting a speeding ticket (by mail), where you can check a box that someone else was using your car (in Germany anyway + you have to provide name and adress), future letters regarding copyright violation might have the same check box.
Re:Negligence is not a defense (Score:5, Interesting)
Negligence?! You're kidding right?
If you look at it this way you'll kill WiFi. Imagine I own a coffee shop (hell this is the Internet - for all you know I do) and I want to provide WiFi to get laptop toting punters in (access could be paid for or free - it matters not). How do I do this without opening myself up to some lawsuit? Don't be silly, if some patron downloads a song while sipping an expresso in my coffee emporium, the he (or she) is responsible for that, not me, just trying to scrap a living selling caffeinated hot beverages.
(Right I'm off to put the kettle on - there's punters here!)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:1, Interesting)
In an attempt to stop child pornography, I agree that the government (at least in the U.S.) will try to make the last mile ISP's responsible for blocking it. Since so many consider it the worst evil in the world, we in the U.S. may find ourselves looking at another situation where, in an attempt to stop one instance of something bad, we give up freedom over a wide range of situations. I also agree that the 'studios' will lobby to pass any legislation they can sponsor through, in order to twist it to their purposes.
In the vein of Big Money and Big Oil, welcome to the age of Big Multinational Conglomerate.
1 sentence (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
It doesn't make it clear in the article whether there was actual evidence that someone else had used the guy's network, or whether that was just a possibility. That makes quite a difference, I think. It makes sense to me that people should not be required to secure their networks, any more than they're required to lock their homes. But I'd also think that you'd have to have at least a smidgin of evidence that someone was using your unsecured network for their nefarious deeds if you were to get off.
On a slightly different track, whilst one is not generally required to lock one's front door, (although don't count on getting insurance if you don't), I think I'm correct in saying that in some places there are things you ARE required to secure. I'm thinking in particular of firearms: don't some states require gun owners to keep them secured? Certainly some places outside the USA do. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to extend that principle to other resources with which people could commit crimes, or inadvertently come to harm.
Of course, you'd then have to define how much security is required. Just a token effort? Or something which could actually withstand a concerted effort to gain access? One key difference between a house and a WiFi network is that it's difficult to enter someone else's house inadvertently, whereas many computers will connect to an open network automatically, or needing no more than a slip of the finger when choosing which network to use.
Could we see a requirement to log access to a wireless network, like an ISP? If you're deliberately running an open network then you are effectively acting as an ISP for all and sundry. Should you be subject to the same regulation?
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, what you are saying is, if your car is stolen, you get charged with not knowing who was driving it? I hope you were being sarcastic.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
The packets are coming from my house with my return address yet I'm not the one sending them.
(equivilent to someone hacking your network)
If I lock my door but there's a lose window people can get in should I be a criminal for not securing it properly? (kinda like using WEP)
If I'm just a hippy who doesn't believe in locking my door because "it's like.... a barrier to people man." should I be subject to the same regulation as hotels,hostels and landlords?
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill (Score:3, Interesting)
2) Big fucking deal
I think a society that lets people share open access WiFi with others with minimal problems is far better than a society that lets the MPAA/RIAA equivalent go about suing thousands of people they _think_ have copied music illegally.
I don't mind sharing my bandwidth with my neighbours or strangers - I can control the bandwidth usage. What I can't control is whether the cops come in and confiscate my stuff and throw me in jail.
I fear the cops more than the terrorists, and I most certainly don't fear the child porn fans[1]
So what if it was some "potential terrorist" or "child porn fan". How many of them are there?
There are far more crazy cops, add the corrupt politicians and judges, and I think the "copyright infringers" are way down on my list of "Considered Harmful to Society".
Lastly I've heard some people say "Sharing is Caring"
[1] Just because some strange people like watching Desperate Housewives doesn't mean they'll seduce your wife/husband. If it ever becomes illegal to make something like Desperate Housewives, then they should focus on shutting down the producers and distributors, not the consumers.
Re:Nice loophole (Score:3, Interesting)
Better yet, anyone with 1/4 a brain will get a directional antenna and nail a open router blocks down the road so if the cops nail the connection they will have a tough time figuring out that the person was not in the immediate vicinity, but farther away. Hell a buddy of mine in chigago lives in a condo about 30 floors off the street and with a biquad and dish we can nab open wifi from miles away.
you think local police have the ability to track that down?
Re:Hmmm... (Score:1, Interesting)
I would like to propose something. I realize no one cares what I propose or don't, but that isn't going to stop me.
In order to protect our precious supply of analogies I propose we create an Analogy/Metaphor Strategic Reserve. Alongside this we must also have a set of strict regulations, that most important of whcih will be that no one is permitted to use an analogy or metaphor in a story that is directly related to computer technology.
The reason for this should be self evident, but since this is Slashdot I'll explain it using an analogy: When two doctors construe over a patient they don't say to one another "See, the heart is like a bicycle pump.". They both know what the hell a heart is and what it does. Similarly, we are all nerds here. Or at least most of us are and the rest are karma driven to never reveal that they should have taken a reroll for NRD. When we have the all too rare computer technology story we need to just attack it head on. If you don't know what a packet is then run over to Wikipedia first, don't expect someone who does know will lay out a car analogy for you. GTFO and what not. It's fucking computer networking, for fucks fucking sake, direct hit at nerd central. No need to resort to an analogy for us to understand the topic.
This doesn't mean we can't use analogies anywhere on the site, we just need to regulate in some minimum Analogies Per Day. Mind the SAPD. Maybe someone will code up a Firefox extension. And ones for NCSA Mosaic and Lynx too. If you see one of the stories that go up every day that are in no way related to computers, or technology, or any sort of nerdiness, feel free to analogize away.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know. And I'm not advocating that these sorts of controls should be put in place, merely suggesting that some people might like them to be.
If I own some woodland, then I think that in the UK I have a responsibility to ensure that if it's accessible to the public - even if they're not actually invited - that there's nothing too dangerous lying around. No bear traps, for example. If I make an effort to keep people out then my responsibility is reduced.
IF one accepts that the Internet can be dangerous, then someone (not me) could try to make a case that people providing access to it have some sort of duty of care.