Open WiFi Owners Off the Hook In Germany

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."

Comments

Hmmm...

[darklich14]

Do taxpayers get reprimanded for drug trafficking done on roads their tax dollars pay for? So why should someone providing network access be reprimanded for illegal action done by someone else on their connection? Who knows.

Re:Hmmm...

[amdpox]

Yes, this is certainly a sensible decision... let's hope similar precedents are set everywhere, or we're not going to have much free wi-fi around.

Re:Hmmm...

[davester666]

Sure it makes sense, otherwise all the ISP's become responsible for the child pornography flowing over their pipes. Unless there are different rules for corporations than for individual citizens. There aren't, right?

Anyway, rulings like this is why the MPAA and RIAA are busy trying to get governments around the world to remove any kind of 'safe harbour/transport' provisions from their laws, both under the guise of saving the children as well as saving that small band/filmmaker at home, whose work is being mercilessly pirated by every Tom, Dick and Harriet around the world.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Hmmm...

[xalorous]

Horrible analogy.

Re:Hmmm...

[xalorous]

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.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is likely that I know the person in the photo who was driving my car.

It is not likely I know who connected to my wireless router.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless there are different rules for corporations than for individual citizens. There aren't, right?

I see you're new here!

Re:Hmmm...

[LordVader717]

Why should the opertor of the network be forced to enforce the law? They should cooperate with law enforcement officers, help them when possible and implement guidelines, but policing the network is not something I would like to trust a private company wit.

We have public officials in charge of airport security and police on private roads, why should Internet traffic be different?

Re:Hmmm...

[Tim C]

That's not a good analogy - your tax dollars may pay for the roads, but you have no direct say in who uses them or how. With a wi-fi router you at least have the means available to you to (try to) prevent other people from using it, assuming you have the requisite knowledge.

Not that I disagree with the decision at all, just with your analogy :)

Re:Hmmm...

[LordVader717]

By law you are required to know who is in control of your car, their name, adress etc. This was ruled not to be the case for open wireless.

It would help to show that a different computer was using the network in such a situation. With a WiFi network, it's as simple as having the router send a record via email.

Re:Hmmm...

[VdG]

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...

[Stooshie]

... By law you are required to know who is in control of your car, their name, adress etc ...

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...

[richlv]

With a wi-fi router you at least have the means available to you to (try to) prevent other people from using it, assuming you have the requisite knowledge.

but why should i ?
that's a sharing. sharing some resource, some knowledge or whatever.
i'd compare this to hitchhiking. if you take a hitchhiker who happens to be in the posession of something illegal, should you be held responsible ?

Re:Hmmm...

[HungryHobo]

If I have a second home which get's broken into while I'm away and is used by the squatters for a mail scam am I liable for what they do?
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...

[Zemran]

I have also heard that paedophiles take children to hotels so we should ban children from hotels and often they take them to restaurants first, so we should ban children from restaurants as well. I am sure that with a bit of lobbying I could get a quiet life out of this...

Re:Hmmm...

[HungryHobo]

I think strict regulation requiring cameras in every room and a special inspector in every hotel who checks everyone entering for pedophilic tendencies is the only answer.
Hotel owners and landlords should be charged with rape if they allow someone to rent a room who later has sex with a minor in there.
it's for the children after all.

Re:Hmmm...

[phoenix321]

The usual analogy collision between cars and the digital world.

Your car is a costly, potentially lethal piece of machinery. That's why you lock the doors and have a anti-theft device installed. If it gets stolen it is gone and you probably know that it's missing within a few days.

Your Internet connection is a cheap commodity and you may never knew if someone used your connection without your consent. Sure it may "kill music!!!11eleven" and you gotta "think of the children" but it's not terribly dangerous to leave the router open. That's why many people do.

Most cheap routers have a fixed log size or don't keep the logs when powered off. You have no chance at all to prove it was someone else using your connection just as the court has no chance at all to prove it was you. As long as the courts honor "In dubio pro reo", you're pretty much safe unless of course you have plenty of knowledge of networks or a PhD in computer science. Then you're hosed because you surely knew what you were doing...

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you already chained down all the cobblestones in your frontyard? Those dangerous things can be used to kill somebody, you know!

Re:Hmmm...

[jacquesm]

absolutely excellent observation, thanks!

Re:Hmmm...

[VdG]

I was suggesting possibilities, not advocating them.

Still, despite your fatuous comment, if the postman tripped over the cobbles on his way to my door I could be held liable - in this country, anyway. Household insurance usually covers such things.

Re:Hmmm...

[HungryHobo]

Yes but that's not someone using your property for something malicious, that's someone getting hurt because you haven't maintained your path properly and you have your mailbox located such that the postman has to walk over it to give you your letter.
Tripping over a cobblestone would be more like if my wifi was set to some weird frequency which knocked out the pacemakers of passers by. sure then I'd probably be liable. and rightly so.

Re:Hmmm...

[TheRaven64]

That's the wrong analogy. A better one is owning a driveway without a gate at the end, and having someone do something illegal on the drive. Since you didn't put fences and gates at the end of the drive, you are liable for whatever they did. Or, worse, an organisation like a church which explicitly allows people to use their grounds - they would be liable for anything illegal that happens in the churchyard. Obviously they are not, but some lawmakers think it should be different when it comes to the Internet.

Re:Hmmm...

[IBBoard]

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

That's a bit of a stretch! Firearms are, by definition, dangerous weapons. Their purpose is to be dangerous - they have no other sensible use. The reasons why anyone should ever need a firearm of their own or why it is considered sensible for a common civilian to have one is another matter, though.

A more sensible comparison is either an external mail box, a cordless phone left in the garden, or similar communication measures. Someone can start using your mail box and picking things up before you do just because it's easily accessible, but does that make you responsible for what they might get delivered to your house? Or someone sees you've left your cordless phone for your landline in the garden. If they call some terrorist friends (since they're the "hot group" of the last seven years to scare people with) and organise some terrorist event then how responsible are you, legally, that they saw an opportunity and took it?

As for logging stuff, try getting your standard Netgear router to log a sufficient level of detail. Yes, it might log connections and attempts on blocked ports, but no-where near what the police would require to be useful to meet the regulations.

Re:Hmmm...

[VdG]

I recognise that difference. However, it's not always clear-cut.

What if I kept a crate of Molotov cocktails and a Zippo on my front lawn? If someone else chooses to do something unpleasant with them it's not my fault...

As more and more efforts are made by governments (and others) to make ISPs responsible for policing their customers' activities on the Internet, wouldn't you expect open wireless networks to come under similar pressure?

I should emphasise that's not what I want, nor is it necessarily what I expect to happen. I'm just airing some ideas.

Re:Hmmm...

[VdG]

Sure it's a stretch; legislators are always stretching the facts to get some wizzy new powers for themselves or their agents.

Just because it's not directly physically harmful doesn't mean that the Internet isn't dangerous, or at least can be used to cause harm.

Re:Hmmm...

[HungryHobo]

The mailbox is almost a perfect example if you throw in something to make the point of how it's easier to spot someone walking up to your mailbox without technical knowledge than to spot some wardriver dropping illegal material through your pipe.
From my bedroom I can see no less than 5 wep networks, all of which I could quite easily break into.

Re:Hmmm...

[WK2]

Yes, this is certainly a sensible decision... let's hope similar precedents are set everywhere, or we're not going to have much free wi-fi around.

This might not increase the free wi-fi. According to the summary, "if other users use your open WiFi network without your consent and download copyrighted material ...". This ruling seems to only apply to people who have left their routers in a default state, and don't even know what an open access point is.

On the other hand, anyone providing wi-fi can just claim that they weren't actually giving consent, as long as they don't name their access point something like, "FreeWiFi", and don't give people a welcome page with rules and such.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

So the Government provides the roads that the speeding was done on they must be held accountable?

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think one could argue that by leaving your wireless network open, you are consenting to anyone permission to connect to it.

Re:Hmmm...

[Lumpy]

Why? because it's a tool to make the law enforcements' lives easier. a crime was committed, and if they can make you pay for it then they can move on to more serious crimes like speeding, parking and donut napping.

Re:Hmmm...

[zotz]

"If you're deliberately running an open network then you are effectively acting as an ISP for all and sundry."

Hmmm. What if you own some wooded acreage that is unfenced and unposted? Are you acting as a landlord or host for all and sundry? What should be your obligations and liabilities? (And what are they in your neck of the woods so to speak?)

all the best,

drew

Re:Hmmm...

[masonc]

ISPs are exempt provided they do not filter content. This is why no ISP wants to implement any form of control over the type of traffic the users are exchanging, as it then makes them liable for what they do NOT filter. I believe it is called Common Carrier status.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

"- 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."

In the U.S. we have the right to be 'confronted by the accuser...' Cameras do not appear in court - the precedent was established in the 1960's - get an attorney.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

[VdG]

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.

Re:Hmmm...

[kellyb9]

Actually - not an entirely correct analogy. A better one would be if you rent out an apartment, and they are using it to do drug trafficking - you might not be liable for the trafficking itself, but your property can be seized rather easily if there is a drug bust.

NOT that I agree - nor do I think any legal precendent exists to govern this instance of wifi theft, just playing devils' advocate.

Re:Hmmm...

[daveime]

And here was me thinking that the USA considered the "war on terror" as the solution to the "worst evil in the world". Still I suppose the acronym WOT works just as well for the "war on titties".

Re:Hmmm...

[zotz]

"some people might like them to be"

Oh, no doubt some people ant this...

There is a difference surely between someone getting hurt by something dangerous on my property and someone on my property without my knowledge doing something to harm another (who is probably not on my property.)

all the best,

drew

Re:Hmmm...

[daveime]

Just like if I leave my door open, I'm consenting to let anyone wander into my house ? Erm, nope.

Re:Hmmm...

[Ihmhi]

We have public officials in charge of airport security

Yes, just what we need - a 4 1/2 hour wait to connect to the Internet.

Re:Hmmm...

[Wisconsingod]

mercilessly pirated by every Tom, Dick and Harriet around the world.

Are you implying that two out of three pirates are male?????

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why restrict it to "in there". Why not "anywhere"?

Re:Hmmm...

[arminw]

...But I'd also think that you'd have to have at least a smidgin of evidence that someone was using your unsecured network......

I'd think that the accusers who have nothing more than an IP address would need to have at least a smidgin of evidence that the computer(s) of the owner of the unsecured WAP had evidence of the illegal content. A search through the computers regularly on that network should come up with evidence that it was not some random outsider. The possession of the IP address only, by the **AAs apparently is no longer enough to prove copyright law violations. They have to have more evidence than that to prove their accusations. It has been and still is up to the accusers to prove their case, rather than the accused having to prove their innocence.

Re:Hmmm...

[CrazedSanity]

Right! And remember, the government has to give them immunity for posting all their tapes of sexual activities that occur in those rooms on the internet. After all, they're just providing evidence that all sexual activities are consensual and always between adults...

Re:Hmmm...

[Endo13]

The problem with that as I understand it is for [insert agency] to obtain permission to search said computers. It's not a criminal case, so they can't simply get a warrant. Or at least that's what I was told, and the logic seems sound.

Re:Hmmm...

[IBBoard]

Except that it can (depending on the garden) be easier to spot the wireless intruder, or at least have a record of it. Most routers I've seen will keep a log of connections, so even if you're not watching then it is. If you're not watching your mail box then you never know who has been in it.

Hell, I live in a terraced house, my front garden is about 10ft at the most, our mail box is right by the door, and I still don't notice when the postman delivers the mail 90%+ of the time! Move it down a long garden of a larger house with the possibility of foliage in the way and what chance do you stand?

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say that it's not a bit of a stretch.

I would consider laws keeping guns locked up analogous to building code requiring outdoor pools to be behind a fence. It keeps children out, for their safety and also for insurance purposes.

Re:Hmmm...

[russotto]

What if I kept a crate of Molotov cocktails and a Zippo on my front lawn? If someone else chooses to do something unpleasant with them it's not my fault...

You're quite correct. If the person who takes them and misuses them is an adult, anyway. If it's a child, attractive nuisance doctrine applies.

Re:Hmmm...

[VdG]

If I did it I think I'd get into a bit of trouble. If nothing else, we've got rules here in the UK on the safe storage of petrol: I don't think "in glass bottles with wicks" would be well received. :-)

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, "should" and "are" are...often different. At least in the U.S, it's quite common for all occupants of a car to be charged with possession if a police search turns up any drugs whatsoever in the vehicle that aren't on a specific individual. So-called "zero tolerance"--if we can't charge one person, we'll charge them all.

So, in terms of your hitchhiker example--if he happens to have half an ounce of some narcotic and tosses it under the seat--you'll both be charged, regardless of whether you "should"

Re:Hmmm...

[Lodragandraoidh]

And it should be noted that this already happens (at least from my vantage point here in the US). All the buzz is about the warrant-less wiretapping. But there is and has always been legal warrants for gathering network data on private individuals that are subject to a police investigation - and ISPs are legally obligated to comply. That is as it should be, and why ISPs want to remain out of the business of policing their networks because the costs involved would drive them out of business (licensing 'investigators', liability from said investigations/miscarriage of justice, storage costs of large amounts of data, etc).

Re:Hmmm...

[Lodragandraoidh]

If I leave it at the airport parking garage for 2 weeks, I won't know that it's missing within a few days...

Re:Hmmm...

[jabelli]

No, it's more like you left your door open with you or a designated alternate standing there answering "yes" when someone asks if they may enter.

Re:Hmmm...

[Lodragandraoidh]

I think that falls under 'Aiding and Abetting'...it would be just like leaving a loaded gun unattended in your front yard; if a child comes along and kills himself or someone else, you are responsible because you were being irresponsible. That being said, if I left a box of bubble gum on the law, I wouldn't expect to be held responsible for their cavities.

Your box of Molotov cocktails and zippo lighter constitute a clear and present danger - whereas my box of bubble gum does not.

Now, mapping this to our Wifi model - an open wifi connection is like having a lawn without a fence. Bad things can be brought through my lawn - but they did not originate there, and thus I am not aiding and abetting anything, unless you subscribe to the idea that I should not share my wifi connection at all - or using our lawn example: that everyone is required to have a fence around their lawn or be liable if a criminal goes through their lawn in the commission of a crime.

In a test of reasonableness, I don't think the would fly - for lawns, or for wifi.

Re:Hmmm...

[dontmakemethink]

Roads are civil infrastructure, for the benefit of society as a whole. WiFi access points are the responsibility of individuals for their own personal benefit.

If you reprimand taxpayers every time a criminal drives on a road, you would also have to reward them every time an upstanding citizen's life is saved by being driven to a hospital, for example. In essence this is what happens naturally, since society suffers for every illegal act and flourishes with every benevolent act, and it is reflected in our tax base.

Operating a WiFi access point is strictly for personal gain, and any substantially negative impact it has on society due to negligence must be prevented in law.

Re:Hmmm...

[Lodragandraoidh]

Where law is concerned, an analogy is required because there is little, if any, precedence surrounding the intertubes...

This is necessary to convince a judge and/or jury what is reasonable and what is not.

Re:Hmmm...

[IBBoard]

I would consider laws keeping guns locked up analogous to building code requiring outdoor pools to be behind a fence. It keeps children out, for their safety and also for insurance purposes.

Locking away guns: Legislation to stop people getting hurt/killed.
Building regs to keep pools behind fences: Legislation to stop people getting hurt/killed.
Making some law so you can prosecute someone when they perform an illegal action while trespassing on someone's network: Legislation to do the police's work for them (tracking the criminal) that has nothing to do with people getting hurt.

So yes, locking guns away is analogous to your example, but not the topic of the conversation.

Re:Hmmm...

[LordVader717]

Well no, that's obviously a different situation as you are no longer in the posession of the vehicle. When a car's stolen you have to report it as so, so that they can pull back the vehicle registration.

Re:Hmmm...

[el americano]

Well, that's a Slashdot summary for ye. The word "consent" appears nowhere in TFA. The ruling was based on the fact that it might have been someone else who downloaded the copyrighted material, and that he is not required to encrypt his network, even though it might be abused.

I'd say it's enough to not consent to the illegal activity, while you could still consent to people using the connection.

Re:Hmmm...

[JAlexoi]

Better yet: Most hotels give you free envelopes, paper and pens with their logo on top of it. Is the hotel liable for ransom or threats sent to you in that envelope? They are the provider of the medium, and are knowingly allowing you to use it free of charge.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I like a previous poster's comments about a stolen car being used in a crime and I think it's relevent here:

"Your car is a costly, potentially lethal piece of machinery. That's why you lock the doors and have a anti-theft device installed. If it gets stolen it is gone and you probably know that it's missing within a few days.

"Your Internet connection is a cheap commodity and you may never knew if someone used your connection without your consent. Sure it may "kill music!!!11eleven" and you gotta "think of the children" but it's not terribly dangerous to leave the router open. That's why many people do."

We would definetly need to draw a line somewher, and I would hope that it falls between guns and routers. Guns and cars are immediately lethal, are traceable, and are much more expensive than a packet of data. I think a better analogy is water. Someone could pretty easliy take water from just about any house, even if it has an alarm. That water could then be used for many different crimes (or not). If we are held liable for what somebody does with our loose data connection, should we not also be liable for what somebody else does with our unsecured water supply.

Now I know that the data crime can lead officers to the wireless router's IP, whereas a water crime would appear to be untracable. But I submit that the latest chemical analysis would allow a detective to track down a water sample's exit bib. So be careful! You might want to lock down all of your hose bibs, or you might one day get a knock on the door only to be dragged off to jail and have all of your balloons confiscated, just because some stupid kid thought people needed a little cooling down on a hot day.

Re:Hmmm...

[turbidostato]

"policing the network is not something I would like to trust a private company wit."

The problem here is that there are companies with quite a lot more money than you that are licking at the idea.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

The telecoms have more money than the entertainment industry.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you reprimand taxpayers every time a criminal drives on a road, you would also have to reward them every time an upstanding citizen's life is saved by being driven to a hospital, for example.

"If you reprimand operators of wireless access points every time a criminal uses one, you would also have to reward them every time an upstanding citizen's life is saved by doctors collaborating over the wireless, for example."

But how does either of those make any sense?

Operating a WiFi access point is strictly for personal gain, and any substantially negative impact it has on society due to negligence must be prevented in law.

If someone is intentionally offering wireless internet to the public, how is that for personal gain?

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Greetings, friend from Russia! Nice to see you online. I wanted to point out that your concept of justice seems unusual to me. I happen to be from a country that recognizes a doctrine wherein human beings are considered innocent until proven otherwise with facts. Strange, huh?

Re:Hmmm...

[turbidostato]

"The telecoms have more money than the entertainment industry."

Yes, but that's not the only point: entertainment and telecoms have too much common ground (telecoms benefit from control and they can pass a good part of these legislations' burden directly to the end user).

Nice loophole

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1:get wifi router and leave it open
step 2:use other people's wifi
step 3:instant immunity for all

Re:Nice loophole

[Jezza]

So if I borrow your ladder, use it to get into someone's house, you should be held partly accountable. Don't be silly.

This might make it easier to do "bad things" and not get caught,but that fact alone cannot make the owner of the open router liable. That's just silly!

Re:Nice loophole

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that you are still liable for downloading.

The step 3 would be: free wifi for all??? and step 4: profit!!!

Re:Nice loophole

[project-nova]

Using other people's wifi doesn't get you instant immunity, you're still liable for your own actions. This ruling simply states that you can't be held responsible for *other people* downloading copyrighted material over your connection.

Re:Nice loophole

[Anonymous Coward]

or:

step 1: get wifi router and leave it open
step 2: download movies, games, CP - you name it
step 3: there really is no step 3. you`re immune by this point - remember step 1?

Re:Nice loophole

[Hurricane78]

Except that you are NEVER liable for *downloading*.
It's the uploading that's disallowed.

Same should go for drugs. As far as I know this is already the case for some weaker drugs here in germany.

I'm shocked at how much disinformation even got to the eraders of slashdot, who read the articles every day...

If someone could translate the text of www.bootsektorblog.de... he has very nice overviews about the matter.

Re:Nice loophole

[RoboJ1M]

Profit?

Re:Nice loophole

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't there some paragraph in ISP's AGBs regarding the sharing of the connection. I don't think mine does allow me to share the connection with infinite numbers of random people. It's more like someone borrows your company ID card with your knowledge to get access to your work facility to make copies of some documents, in which case you are partly responsible because your work contract states that you are not allowed to give someone else your ID.

Re:Nice loophole

[Jezza]

Yeah, many ISPs do this. In this case you're right, you'd be in "breach of contract". Again, your liability would be tied to "reasonable" expectation. If the court found you should have taken "reasonable steps" to protect the connection and "adding security" to your WiFi is a "reasonable step" then not doing so could be viewed as "breach of contract".

Personally I tend to agree with you. But I do think that WiFi makers don't make security very easy for consumers.

Personally I don't think a WiFi basestation should function "out of the box" with no security. I think it should walk you through the setup, and to "open" it should be a choice the user should have to make, not the default.

It's easy for us readers of /. to pontificate about users not closing their WiFi, but these things are sold in stores to non-computer savvy consumers, why would they know?

Re:Nice loophole

[EvilAlphonso]

So if I borrow your ladder, use it to get into someone's house, you should be held partly accountable. Don't be silly.

Actually yeah, if you borrow something from me and use it to break the law I do share responsability in the eye of the law in most countries. If you take something from me without my approval, on the other hand...

Re:Nice loophole

[Jezza]

Only if I tell you what I'm doing with the ladder.

Re:Nice loophole

[Slorv]

>Except that you are NEVER liable for *downloading*.

That depends entierly which country your in.

>Same should go for drugs

Eh, no.

Re:Nice loophole

[Lumpy]

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:Nice loophole

[zotz]

Only if I heard you and understood what you were saying.

I mean, if you told me in russian and I don't understand that language...

all the best,

drew

Re:Nice loophole

[bill_mcgonigle]

So if I borrow your ladder, use it to get into someone's house, you should be held partly accountable. Don't be silly.

I don't think the prosecute Burger King for the kids selling pot in their parking lot.

Re:Nice loophole

[canajin56]

Except that you are NEVER liable for *downloading*. It's the uploading that's disallowed.

Depends on the jurisdiction. In some countries, it is the person providing the files, the uploader, who is considered to be making the copy. In some countries, like Canada, (at least in a lower court decision I believe, could have been overturned) it is held that the downloader requests the copy, and so they are the one at fault for the creation of the unauthorized copy. The analogy was made that if somebody requests a photocopier copy a book, it's the fault of the person who made the request of the device , not of the owner of said device. I think in the USA its held that both parties colluded to create the copy, and so both are guilty (and probably also then guilty of collusion and conspiracy!)

Creative location would then permit file sharing in which neither party committed a crime in their own country? Interesting ;)

Re:Nice loophole

[jspenguin1]

I run my wifi open (with a captive portal) and use a VPN for my own use. I rarely get any connections where I live, but the logs would be easy to fabricate. So, I can offer "proof" that it was someone else. When I show them the MAC address, and they ask who it is, I just shrug.

Re:Nice loophole

[Lodragandraoidh]

Yes - there must be a reasonable expectation that you were going to use the ladder for nefarious purposes. If you told me "Can I borrow your ladder - I need to clean my gutters", and then break into the neighbor's house, then I am not culpable for that action. The prosecution would have to convince the jury that I had a reasonable expectation that you would use that ladder to commit the crime.

IANAL - so take that with a grain of salt.

Re:Nice loophole

[Anonymous Coward]

don't worry, i'm sure they will make biquads illegal soon enough...

Re:Nice loophole

[Jezza]

Perhaps even more than this, if you borrow my ladder, I might not even ask why you want it (probably ask when you'll be finished with it - but that's different). Would it be reasonable for me to just expect you not to break the law with it.

Might be different with a gun ;-)

Law nightmare

[Anonymous Coward]

If so, then people are free to do whatever cybercrime they feel, claiming it was the neighbour.

I don't think this will stand.

Re:Law nightmare

[Jezza]

I've got two words for you:

"Computer Forensics"

(I would remind you that you need to use a computer to access the WiFi, and that your misdeeds will leave evidence there)

Re:Law nightmare

[Elldallan]

Actually no it won't be that easy to get away with. All this verdict says is that you are not automatically responsible for content that passes through their unprotected wifi connection. It does not say say that you are never responsible for content that passes over your wireless connection.
There will still be a trial and the judge and the jury will be presented with the evidence that they will have to take into consideration and determine wether it is relevant or not and wether it casts guilt on the defendant or not.

To use a car analogy, you are not responsible for what somebody who steal your car does with it just because you didn't lock the doors(your insurance company might refuse to pay you for the stolen car but you would not be criminally liable).

Re:Law nightmare

[Hurricane78]

> There will still be a trial and the judge and the jury will be presented with the evidence that they will have to take into consideration and determine wether it is relevant or not and wether it casts guilt on the defendant or not.

Thankfully here in Germany we don't let those people that are too stupid to get around a jury appointment and have no idea of right and wrong decide over the lives of others.
Okay, maybe the only quick solution to judges that are out of their mind is, to have a jury.

Unfortunately there is a stupidity virus out there and it affects Germany too. :(

Re:Law nightmare

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got two words for you:

"Live CD"

Re:Law nightmare

[Jezza]

So where do the files get stored?

(I'm guessing your answer is "googlemail" - and that's not a bad answer) Still I think there are still "digital footprints".

Actually technology often makes law enforcement harder. (Consider what the gun did when it was first introduced)

Re:Law nightmare

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair enough, they did say "and download copyrighted material", not "and hack into banks" or "and send bomb threats".

While there are plenty of online file storage sites, what I'd do is have another hidden PC with a wireless card and a large flash drive. Say, up in the attic. Bonus points for having it wired to the attic lights (with CF bulbs) so you turn the lights on at the bottom of the stairs to use your virtual stash and turn the lights off to have it "disappear" from your network.

Re:Law nightmare

[RAMMS EIN]

``If so, then people are free to do whatever cybercrime they feel, claiming it was the neighbour.''

Yes, and? Is this a Bad Thing?

It's nothing really new. Just because the packets come from your network doesn't mean you had anything to do with them. Wireless doesn't change that. It may add additional vectors for people to use your network, possibly without you knowing, but those possibilities have always been there. Even if the packets can somehow be traced to your computer, that still doesn't mean it was you. It could be someone else using your computer. It could be a piece of malware that somehow got into your computer.

The real failing here, I feel, is not on the part of the people whose network is used, but on the services that fall victim to the criminals. At the very least, they have insufficient authentication. _They_ cannot establish who entered their service and commited the crimes. This means they trusted someone to perform these actions, without actually knowing who that someone was. This is their failing. If you completely locked down your network, kept track of exactly who was using your network to do what at what time, then you could help them find out who abused their trust and commited crimes, and that would be very nice of you, but I don't see why you should do their authentication for them, much less bear the blame for their failing.

To get back to your statement, you don't need to claim it was the neighbor. They claim it was you - let them come up with the proof. If all they have is an IP address which could as well be used by the neighbor or by a total stranger, they can't prove it was you. Perhaps they can use it to obtain a warrant to further investigate you, but that's about it. At least, that's how I see things.

Negligence is not a defense

[Scr3wFace]

Even judge Wapner knows that!
It won't take long before this ruling is put to the test.

Re:Negligence is not a defense

[Jezza]

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!)

Re:Negligence is not a defense

[LordVader717]

You miss the point completely. They called it an "abstract risk of abuse" and that it didn't require him by law to lock down the network.
So the pretty much said it wasn't negligence (which is pretty much common sense, if you look up the definition)

Re:Negligence is not a defense

[fluffman86]

I doubt you own a coffee shop. If you did, you'd know the difference between regular expression software (expresso) and a drink (espresso). It's hard to sip a regular expression software.

Re:Negligence is not a defense

[Jezza]

Damn! That's why my beverage isn't matched...

Re:Negligence is not a defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice post.

Precedent

[Misanthrope]

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?

Re:Precedent

[Jezza]

Same argument. The nature of the crime doesn't affect the legal argument.

Re:Precedent

[Jezza]

Thinking about this more deeply, if the law want to see using an open WiFi (without express permission) as "trespass" you cannot then hold the owner of the WiFi responsible for any subsequent crime committed.

If someone trespasses on my land and does something illegal (say dog fighting as an example) then I'm not responsible for that. Essentially I didn't do it, I didn't know it was happening, I cannot have reasonably have known it would happen.

Re:Precedent

[Lonewolf666]

A moderately important one.

The court in question, a "Oberlandesgericht" is the second highest instance for non-constitutional cases in Germany, and the highest for its federal state (Hessen).
As far as I can tell from the layman's perspective, verdicts at that level tend to be taken into account by other courts, and while case law does not have the same importance as in the US, this precedent will have some influence.

Re:Precedent

[Renegade Lisp]

German law is not based on precedent as much as US law is. The judges try to interpret the law and give their rationale why they came to a particular conclusion. Other judges can then follow that interpretation in subsequent cases. If they don't, they have to explain why they think the previous interpretation was wrong, or does not apply to the new case.

In the rationale for this particular case, they say that a WLAN owner would only be required to take action if he had concrete evidence of something unlawful happening on his connection. So it's really not restricted to copyright infringement.

Re:Precedent

[Stooshie]

... The nature of the crime doesn't affect the legal argument. ...

Unless it's terrorism ;-)

Re:Precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no such thing as "German case law". Germany is a civil law country, not common law. As to your question what sort of precedent this sets - it doesn't. No such thing as precedent in civil law.

This decision means, that German laws currently in effect say, that you cannot be automatically held responsible for your open wifi - at least, the way this particular judge sees it. If another judge disagrees, he's free to rule so, because this case has no legal consequences for any unrelated cases whatsoever. Other judges will probably follow this decision, but in no way do they have to.

Re:Precedent

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Or drugs...

Re:Precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

"think of the children"

?

Have you ever spent time in Germany? The typical teen magazine bought buy 12 year olds contains nudity. In each magazine, kids pose naked and even describe themselves. The pill is availible to teens at the age of 12. I know a few that started taking it at 12, thought they waited until thier later teens to start being sexually active. Drinking is availible at a much earlier age (16). So basically, the dream of the typical american teen. Heck your college education is even paid for.

Re:Precedent

[rootooftheworld]

TO MODS: that was even more insightfull.

Malicious Intent

[Divebus]

Something big has to happen before everyone realizes an open WiFi connection is the electronic equivalent of standing on the street corner bent over with your shorts down to your ankles. No thanks.

Re:Malicious Intent

[Architect_sasyr]

Does that make WEP like standing there with clear pants on? Technically your ass is covered...

Re:Malicious Intent

[Sobieski]

Open WiFi = indecent exposure?

Re:Malicious Intent

[xalorous]

No, Open WiFi is like standing there waiting for someone to shove something up your arse. Yer gonna get screwed.

Re:Malicious Intent

[Hurricane78]

Hey, I like something to be shoved up my ass, you insensitive clod!

Sincerely yours,

    Goatse

Re:Malicious Intent

[LordVader717]

I'd say it's more like renting out cars, selling guns or knives. You cannot assume malicious intent in everyone just because there's a few idiots out there.

Re:Malicious Intent

[Divebus]

The users certainly aren't malicious - they're either clueless or don't see the harm. When [malicious] people start pulling into their parking lot to download kiddie porn or get all their TPB work done, guess who's gonna get dragged out into the street in the middle of the night by the Authorities? Some day, they're going to do that to the wrong person and all legal hell will break loose.

Re:Malicious Intent

[LordVader717]

I was referring to the people using the WiFi. Maybe the owner might want to make it easy for visitors to his home to access the net, or allow neighbours to use it should they have problems with their connection. Just because there is a chance someone out there might abuse the opportunity, doesn't mean to say that he can assume they will.

Re:Malicious Intent

[Divebus]

Absolutely. There's a trust factor in keeping your WiFi open, rationalizing "oh, what could possibly go wrong" and you'd be largely accurate. It'll do the job for all the intended parties and another "visitor" in the next house or sitting in his car won't hurt a thing. That's true for practically all instances of open WiFi.

In this litigious society with prying law enforcement, recent laws written to nearly resemble entrapment and enormously stiff penalties, I've locked all my WAPs down against the casual driveby surfer. I don't want someone file sharing or surfing the rude corners of the Internet through my WAPs and have the RIAA SWAT team or FBI show up to arrest ME.

If I wanted to do those things, you can bet I'll park in front of someone else's house.

Good news everyone!

[frictionless man]

Good news about computing freedoms?

Who are you and what have you done with the slashdot we've come to know and love?

Re:Good news everyone!

[xalorous]

I thought best practice was to lock that thing down til it squeeks when you use it.

Re:Good news everyone!

[Elldallan]

If you don't want anyone to get access to it yes but if you want it for plausible deniability or resonable doubt(or if you're just another ignorant computer user) it will be as it was shipped, usually wide open that is.

Re:Good news everyone!

[xalorous]

Interesting. You've made me think of a drawback attached IT certification. I guess when you have a couple of IT certs, you probably lose the ability to claim "moron in a hurry" when in court.

You forgot to add

[koinu]

one interesting fact. You are only off-hook if you didn't know that your wifi can be used by someone else (this was the case here). If you are offering wireless LAN access to people for free, you still can and WILL be hold responsible when anyone of your users commits a crime. You don't have rights like ISPs have.

Re:You forgot to add

[whyloginwhysubscribe]

well, for starters it is probably against the T&C of your ISP account anyway - regardless of what people are downloading...
But you are right - it is only if you are unaware of the insecurity, since it is perfectly easy to get a wireless router and connect it to your ISP and not know that it is insecure.
It is just as easy to accidentally connect to such a router from your pc without realising!
See all the other comments for different analogies of this...

Re:You forgot to add

[Sobieski]

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:You forgot to add

[ulash]

Actually I can't seem to find anything in the original article that supports the "fact" you have pointed out. It clearly says:

The defendant argued that he wasn't guilty of copyright infringement, but that he had operated an open wireless network and that someone else may have connected to it in order to use P2P. The prosecution responded by saying that open WiFi networks are easily abused, and that it's the owner's responsibility to ensure that the network is locked down and encrypted.

The defendant never claims that he didn't know his wifi could be used by someone else. In fact he was found innocent because there was nothing showing that he himself broke the law:

The court said that the "abstract risk of abuse" of the defendant's connection is not enough to require him by law to lock it down. There was also no concrete evidence of copyright infringement on the defendant's part, therefore he should not be held liable for damages, the judge said.

Now of course by offering people LAN access for free you would probably breaching your contract with your ISP but this is a seperate issue. I think you are mixing up the two.

Re:You forgot to add

[Elldallan]

No it would probably mean that you are considered more responsible than if you had no bandwidth limits.

If you had no limits and no protection you could resonably claim you had no idea your router was open to the public but with the limit and still no protection a prosecutor could claim you willingly helped somone to gain access to whatever the content was and then you'd be an accessory to that crime.

Re:You forgot to add

[koinu]

No. I have read the news in German about a week ago. Internet sharing is allowed. We do this all the time. I just considered to share access with everybody. This is a new decision they have made here for a special case that a customer is a crime victim himself, because someone got access to his accesspoint. The default case is that everyone is guilty as so-called "Mitstörer" (can be perhaps translated like "an allied person in crime").

Re:You forgot to add

[slash.duncan]

FON network router: It depends on what you are calling the "public" and "private" networks in this case, AFAIK.

FWIR (from what I read), the FON network is semi-public, public to you as you don't know who's using it, private to the FON network, as only participants get to use it, with FON effectively standing in the role of ISP, taking responsibility for what travels over their network, banning abusive users, etc.

Thus, if you're calling the FON side "public", you /should/ be able to simply point to FON and have them deal with it (altho I'm unaware how much responsibility they actually take in practice, or of any actual legal decisions ruling one way or the other, thus the italicized /should/). If you have a fully unrestricted public access network, then the previous reply, that bandwidth capping is evidence that you knew it was there and that makes you /more/ liable, is most likely (IANAL, etc) correct.

Of course, with a FON network router, the entire purpose of the network being to share, if it /does/ come down to your responsibility, it's going to be pretty hard to argue you didn't know it was happening.

But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill

[dynchaw]

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

[Sobieski]

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.

Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill

[cliffski]

its very common if you have the misfortune to read 'digg' to hear kids who routinely leave their wifi open so that they think they claim that the 200GB of movies and music they got from thepiratebay were all downloaded by someone else using their wireless.

In other words, people knowingly and willingly compromise the security of the home network they sue to do on-line banking, so that they can get away with stealing music.
Sad isn't it?

Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill

[Hurricane78]

STOP confusing copying with stealing!

Stealing is, when the original owner does not have it anymore.

Officially - as absurd as it sounds - you loan or buy a *copy*, depending on how the Mafiaa has to argue. So nobody has lost anything, and additionally it is very likely that you did not get it from the "owner" (the Mafiaa) (except for the cases where they have put up a p2p-server themselves).

Same thing with "pirating". Comparing killing, raping and stealing from people and then sinking the boat to... copying something with no loss for anybody...
that's what i call grand slander.*

* I'm no native English speaker, so please forgive my strange terms. I hope they are at least funny. ;)

Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill

[Creepy Crawler]

And real piracy is also coming to a rise around the Nigeria area. Turns out, we in the USA a long ago solved much of the iracy issues by taking our Navy near the shore of pirate dens and shelled them with cannons.

And they're back at it again.

Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill

[VdG]

I quite agree! All the anti-copying adverts referring to it as theft and piracy really tick me off.

Copyright is a privilege granted by us to the copyright holders. They seem all too willing to abuse that privilege.

Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill

[teh kurisu]

Is it:

Flatrate

Or is it:

Flatrate*

* Fair usage policy applies.

? I don't know of a single ISP that offers truly unlimited access. They all introduce throttling once you've downloaded a certain (often unspecified) amount in a month. Although to be fair, the metering only usually applies during peak hours.

Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill

[Anonymous Coward]

I logged out because I won't admit this -- I'm open because I can't figure out how to keep my wireless secure; if I secure it (and I had friends walk me thru it) then even my own laptops can't get on it. I'd like all of my computers online, so there it is. Open.

Make securing stuff EASIER and people will do it. (Cue a million geeks telling me how EASY it is. I'm in medicine, btw.)

Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill

[linhux]

I haven't used a single ISP that hasn't offered unlimited access. The norm varies a lot between countries, it seems - I have only lived in Sweden and Finland, but here nobody seems to throttle.

Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill

[TheLink]

1) Copying is not stealing
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:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill

[dunkelfalke]

it is easy. the problem is that different hardware implements different security protocols. older hardware only supports wep, newer supports wpa, newest supports wpa2 also.

you have to chose the security protocol all of your hardware understands. if it is wep then you might as well leave your network open.

Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill

[cliffski]

do have any idea how childish you sound when you type 'Mafiaaa'?

Stop trying to justify taking other peoples work for free, its pathetic

Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill

[nem75]

All well and good for prosecution immunity, but why would anyone keep an open access point these days?

Bruce Schneier seems to have a number of reasons for doing just that.

Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill

[Just Some Guy]

In other words, people knowingly and willingly compromise the security of the home network they sue to do on-line banking, so that they can get away with stealing music. Sad isn't it?

How is that compromising it? My WiFi is wide open and completely unable to access my LAN. Hop on and check your email if you want, but don't expect to access my file shares. Additionally, I use SSL when checking my bank accounts, and I'm more confident in HTTPS than I am with wireless "security".

I'm being neighborly when I let the people around me surf for free, but that doesn't mean they have wide open access to my whole network.

Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . because I have no bandwidth cap on my internet. If someone is making it slow I'll usually just kick them out, but other than that I don't really care.

Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill

[cdrguru]

No, stealing is when the original owner is prevented from ever getting another dime from the sale of their product, whatever it is.

Today, music is free. If anyone is able to sell music in a store, it is because of fraud and ignorance. The original has been stolen and WalMart, Sam Goode and all others no longer have the ability to charge for it. Therefore, it has been stolen.

Of course, this doesn't change the fact that nobody is deprived of it any longer.

The same thing will happen with movies fairly soon. It is just a bandwidth problem. Why would anyone pay when it is free? Fraud (the store getting you to think you have to pay) and ignorance (not knowing it is available for free.)

Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill

[Lodragandraoidh]

I use WPA to secure the wireless part of my network (and I use the largest encryption key available - 64 or 128? its been awhile since I set it up). I also limit connections to the specific mac addresses, and limit the number of consecutive links to the total number of wireless machines on my network (2 at the moment). I also turned off broadcasting - it won't announce that its there to the world.

As a minimum that is what you should do to secure your wireless network.

In addition I plan on adding a VPN server and firewall, and moving the wireless connection into a DMZ that is external, and unroutable to my internal wired network - except when connected via VPN. VPN adds an extra layer of encryption too that makes your wireless transmissions doubly secure (and you can add a third layer of encryption via SSH tunneling if you are really paranoid). The VPN also allows me to securely connect to my network from any external network on the wired side without fear of compromise of personal data from that leg of the connection (the service providers, on the other hand...)

That is wireless network security in a nutshell.

Now, if I can just get my wife to remember her password... :(

A rape in my house

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally some common sense from the courts. If I leave my doors unlocked, as I often do, and someone comes into my house and commits a rape there, why should I be held responsbile?

In the US the lobby's are so powerful that common snese goes out the window. If something could be used as an excuse, it doesn't matter if the excuse is valid or not, the excuse itself must be removed.

At least Germnay is showing some sense here.

Re:A rape in my house

[Anonymous Coward]

If I leave my doors unlocked, as I often do, and someone comes into my house and commits a rape there, why should I be held responsbile?

Because with the way you dress, you were just asking someone to come in and rape you.

Re:A rape in my house

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally some common sense from the courts. If I leave my doors unlocked, as I often do, and someone comes into my house and commits a rape there, why should I be held responsbile?

Don't laugh, you might be!

If say, a babysitter, in your house has a reasonable expectation of safety (because it is common practice in your neighborhood to keep the doors locked, for example) and you intentionally don't actually deliver that safety (by always keeping doors and windows unlocked), you as the property owner might well be liable!

Data laundering

[dontmakemethink]

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:Data laundering

[Anonymous Coward]

The same thing thats stopping them from using all the open access points that are practically everywhere. Either Like mine where I just leave it open or like Cafe's etc that provide it free.

Hackers are not going to use the account with there name on it. Well not the good ones anyway....

Re:Data laundering

[Just Some Guy]

Mobs have been laundering money thanks to ignorant loopholes like this for over a century!

Ignorant loopholes? In America, that "loophole" would be that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to force me to lock my doors.

Re:Data laundering

[dontmakemethink]

The FCC has authority over your wireless communications. When it comes to WiFi, they can certainly compel you lock your access point, and I don't see the ACLU having an issue with it.

An American defending a German's philosophy of civil liberty... that's fresh!

Re:Data laundering

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC has authority over your wireless communications. When it comes to WiFi, they can certainly compel you lock your access point, and I don't see the ACLU having an issue with it.

That's debatable. It could be construed as a first amendment issue -- facilitating anonymous speech has repeatedly been ruled as protected.

Spoof the MAC adress

[houghi]

I can now just spoof a MAC adress, download as crazy and tell them it wasn't me.

With truecrypt they can't even see what I have downloaded and saved.

Re:Spoof the MAC adress

[Anonymous Coward]

I have "open" WiFi in my appartment in Denmark, by open I mean there isn't any encryption just MAC-filtering.

Is that considered open too?

Re:Spoof the MAC adress

[Anonymous Coward]

"With truecrypt they can't even see what I have downloaded and saved."

Loopholes:

- hidden cameras
- telescopes with cameras
- acoustic keyboard monitoring
- TEMPEST attacks
- known (and unknown to general public?) attacks targeting encryption keys
- social engineering attacks
- your smug ego (big tits new friend blink blink coy smile)
- more

Re:Spoof the MAC adress

[TheLink]

Well if they investigate you and find your truecrypt container(s), they could ask for the keys.

In some countries (UK and my country) you can be forced to give up the keys.

If you only give the decoy keys, they could decide to create a huge file and fill up the decoy container and thus overwrite the data in the hidden partition.

The courts may regard that acceptable in "certain cases" (like it's so frigging obvious - you have dubious stuff in your "Recent Documents", and a 400GB truecrypt container, and the ISP says yeah his bandwidth usage is "rather high") - so the cops come by to your place once in a random while to create a big "rest of the space" file.

If you have no hidden partition, it just costs you the time it takes to write that big file.

If you do, well it means you're going to have to download more often, and thus your chances of getting caught go up (if they care that much).

Personally I'd rather the cops and courts do other stuff - like fight "real crime", you know the ones where people get killed, maimed, or actually lose property, or accept/give bribes.

Re:Spoof the MAC adress

[Loibisch]

Well if they investigate you and find your truecrypt container(s), they could ask for the keys.

In some countries (UK and my country) you can be forced to give up the keys.

Not so in Germany...for now at least.

If you only give the decoy keys, they could decide to create a huge file and fill up the decoy container and thus overwrite the data in the hidden partition.

And do what? Destroy the data they're so desperately searching for? Well, not even that actually because every forensics expert in the universe should always do a backup and never (if possible) tamper with the original.

Always remember: If law enforcement is looking at your hard drive them destroying the evidence is actually what you should be hoping for...it's not really a deterrent.

Re:Spoof the MAC adress

[TheLink]

"Always remember: If law enforcement is looking at your hard drive them destroying the evidence is actually what you should be hoping for...it's not really a deterrent."

This is more for the copyright infringers. As I said - not what I consider "real crime". It'll work fine against the P2P people. If the cops show up and wipe out your 200GB stash, it'll take you a while to build it back, for one I'd be worried they were still watching me later - so might be careful even if I had backups somewhere.

If you are a suspected terrorist, law enforcement should be doing something a lot better - like secretly sneaking in and making copies of your drives, installing a keylogger into your keyboard, or just install a camera and mike in your room.

Logic is futile...

[KreAture]

* Neither the company owning the billboard at work now the janitor responsible for it is held responsible for sale of stolen goods performed via stickers on it.
* Neither tv-networks nor radio-stations are held responsible for false advertizing done by advertizers buying airtime.

Common sense people!

1 sentence

[aepervius]

Your own Wifi laptop connected to your open wifi network, and hidden in a good place. Cop come and will confiscate your OPEN wifi with no evidence whatsoever that you did anything. Who will be searching for a second laptop which use your open wifi ?

Re:1 sentence

[totally bogus dude]

Uh, everyone? Or do you really believe that you're the only person in the world that would think of doing bad things using a "hidden" computer?

Next you'll be telling me that people who commit fraud use fake names and addresses and the police have no idea and absolutely no way of tracking them down.

Re:1 sentence

[Jezza]

Right, so the cops DON'T conduct a search - and they expect to catch you...

Does this sound likely? (clearly if the cops are dribbling morons...)

And also you keep your laptop hidden in a good place (I'm assuming under the floor boards - that kind of thing). How exactly am I supposed to "enjoy" my stolen Britney Spears collection?

Not really very practical is it? I might as well buy the damn CDs, rather than go to all the expense of a 2nd laptop, trick floor boards and still being afraid to listen to "Oops I did it again" for fear the cops will catch me.

Let's be realistic here, I download something I want reasonable access to the files I downloaded, and as soon as I do that - well the cops will find it (and I'm not so sure about your idea of hiding the laptop).

Re:1 sentence

[VdG]

It's not totally impractical. If I wanted to do something like this, (which I certainly don't!) I'd use a spare network card. (I've got several PCMCIA cards kicking around the house already.) Rebuild the PC each time, or run from a DVD, any data involved kept on external storage. That way all you need to conceal is a network adapter and a flash drive; maybe the DVD.

Re:1 sentence

[TheLink]

Practical or not, I doubt many people are willing to do all that, or do all that consistently in a way which they can't get caught. How many customers are the MPAA people going to lose from that? Why not convince some Gov to shutdown an illegal DVD factory or fifty instead.

To me open wifi is overblown. What scares me more is not some P2P kid/illegal porn fan using my open WiFi, but the cops coming over and taking my stuff and arresting me "just because".

If the computer manufacturers and O/S people have no will to fix the wifi security problem _properly_[1] I don't think it's reasonable for the law to make things bad for people with open wifi.

[1] The current state of WiFi security is crap, I won't bother going into the details, but basically the average Joe going to say Starbucks's public access point can't easily get a secure _validated_ connection to Starbucks's AP. The options are typically:
a) open
b) shared key (which means everyone else knowing the key can decrypt each other's traffic)
c) "too difficult for most people".

Re:1 sentence

[Lumpy]

Hmm. so it's impossible to have a usb hard drive hidden inside a power UPS. or to hide that usb drive whenever you are not using the contraband.

Ok. you live in your fantasy world where computer forensics works like CSI:Miami. In reality, if you use a nice tiny drive with only 250gig of storage you can easily hide it where they will never find it and you have easy access.

Re:1 sentence

[Rigrig]

And also you keep your laptop hidden in a good place (I'm assuming under the floor boards - that kind of thing). How exactly am I supposed to "enjoy" my stolen Britney Spears collection?

By nailing those floorboards in place very thoroughly?

Re:1 sentence

[totally bogus dude]

Except there will be evidence of this -- presumably you need to attach it to your computer to use it, and therefore there will be information about it being connected to your computer. There'll be information so the OS can recognise it and mount it where you like to have put (drive letter, mount point, whatever), logs indicating it was connected and disconnected, and so on. These are likely to be present even if you don't specifically ask for it to be mounted at a particular location. Also, you'll leave traces in various places if you're not very careful, e.g. recently opened documents.

Even a very high level inspection of the machine will reveal that you do regularly connect an external drive to it, and that'll give them cause to perform a thorough search of anywhere it's likely you're hiding it. Or more likely, to demand you provide them with the drive, and it had better match the info in the OS about the drive that's connected.

You might be able to get around this by having another "identical" drive (and hope that it's identical enough) with non-incriminating but private/embarrassing things on it (porn stash perhaps, or naked pics of your ex; or even just financial data) so you can reasonably explain why you have it hidden away. However in doing so you're making it perfectly clear that you are savvy enough to keep data you don't want people finding in a hidden place, so if they actually suspect you of something you'll probably find yourself under surveillance.

And all of this is assuming that you don't make mistakes or get lazy after the 1,000th time of carefully tucking it away. After all, if you actually expected to be raided by the police you wouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Re:1 sentence

[Lumpy]

REally? how?

If I boost from that usb drive and use it it will NOT leave any evidence.

please detail how the bios or ram or the processor will hold this evidence...

No ram CANT hold evidence of past doing when I have booted to the clean drive.

Re:1 sentence

[totally bogus dude]

That's true, but it brings us back to Jezza's point -- anything that's too inconvenient is pretty much worthless. Maybe if you're doing something really illegal like child porn you might consistently go to the effort to hide it, but are you seriously going to reboot your machine off of a USB drive every single time you want to listen to a downloaded mp3 or watch a downloaded movie, etc? And then immediately reboot back to your "legitimate" drive the moment you're done? Every single time?

No way. Either you're going to end up getting lazy and leaving the device attached to your PC (after all, what are the odds of you being raided tonight?) so it's not such a hassle, or you're going to end up never using your PC for anything because there's nothing useful on it. So even in the unlikely event that your secret drive is hidden away when the cops come a knockin', it's gonna look pretty suspicious when they take a look at your drive and see that you never actually use it for anything. Especially if they do some further investigation and determine that your computer is actually on pretty regularly, yet the evidence on the HDD suggests you barely use the computer at all.

But yes, there are ways and means of making sure that you don't get caught, but for them to be effective you have to be very diligent about covering your tracks and never leaving your secret drive (or whatever) out of its hiding place for any longer than is strictly necessary. This goes completely counter to the reason most people download things they're not meant to in the first place -- convenience. Also remember that you don't have the luxury of knowing when the police are going to turn up at your door, or even IF they're going to turn up -- so you have to have a procedure that you follow 100% of the time.

As Jezza said, it's way easier just to buy everything you want.

Re:1 sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

Inconvenient?

Hooking up a usb drive and holding f10 on boot is inconvenient?

ok you are just being silly.

Re:1 sentence

[Enoxice]

Digging out the drive, rebooting, hooking up the drive, booting into the usb drive or livecd, playing the media (movie, music, whatever), unplugging the drive, rebooting again, hiding the drive again.

Every time you want to listen to a song.

Inconvenient.

Because paying tax dollars is not a threat...

[getuid()]

...to your government, since it doesn't directly promote free speech. Offering anonymous internet access to random persons passing by your house *does* promote free speech, and *is* thus a possible threat to your government.

Obviously.

Re:Because paying tax dollars is not a threat...

[ultranova]

Offering anonymous internet access to random persons passing by your house *does* promote free speech, and *is* thus a possible threat to your corporate overlords.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Because paying tax dollars is not a threat...

[getuid()]

Corporate overlords... government... where's the difference?

Re:Because paying tax dollars is not a threat...

[JesseMcDonald]

Offering anonymous internet access to random persons passing by your house *does* promote free speech, and *is* thus a possible threat to your government.

Fixed that for you. If they're "corporate overlords" then they are the government. Incorporation, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. The attempt to govern the actions of others is the problem, regardless of who's responsible.

Civil law

[Anonymous Coward]

You must remember that Germany has a different law system and that this case does not set a precedent. The germans are "off the hook" not because of this case, but because there's no written law to incriminate them (the written law incriminates only the person who actually does the download; in case of open wifi network that person is unknown).

Not a precedence in germany either

[Anonymous Coward]

The current law in germany is quite unstable from court to court regarding internet crimes and i donÂt think it can be a precedent for any case where an open wifi was used in a crime. At least i appreciate the fact that a court realizes that an IP is only a help in identifying the network, not the person.

In this case (iÂve read the original german text : http://www.olg-frankfurt.justiz.hessen.de/irj/OLG_Frankfurt_am_Main_Internet?rid=HMdJ_15/OLG_Frankfurt_am_Main_Internet/sub/dbd/dbd30488-fac8-ea11-f3ef-ef97ccf4e69f,,,11111111-2222-3333-4444-100000005003%26overview=true.htm ) the network owner was on vacation during the upload and he could exclude that his PC was used by others. So it could only be a user of the open WiFi. Interjection of the plaintiff that media coverage of abused WiFis would lead to the duty to secure the defendants WiFi was first accepted (he is be responsible what others are doing with his network, although it can not proved he did the crime) but rejected in the appeal.

The appeal court denied because he can not be responsible for every other persons illegal actions, although he would have the duty to e.g. prevent his (minor?) children from buying stuff over the net using his computer.

the downward spiral of /.

[stormguard2099]

What the hell? The editing here has just gone down hill. I mean this is ridiculous!

Everyone knows it's spelled "gefÃllt mir"

p.s. yay german girlfriend!

p.p.s. /. doesn't like foreign characters so my correction won't be exactly right but at least no one can correct me!

Re:the downward spiral of /.

[V!NCENT]

p.s. yay german girlfriend!

And this 'yay' of yours is an actual English word? And how is this style of commenting not a downwards spiral by going YouTube-style?

Re:the downward spiral of /.

[Corporate Troll]

You're part of the downward spiral. Any self respecting geek knows about html entities and knows those that he needs commonly by heart. (Especially because they are logically structured) So that would be "gefällt mir" with ä for a-umlaut.

Re:the downward spiral of /.

[stormguard2099]

you're right. there goes my geek cred. I didn't know that AND i have a girlfriend.

Re:the downward spiral of /.

[Corporate Troll]

Well, if you're trying to impress me with that girlfriend.... I'm married to my girlfriend since over 3 years... Of course, that does mean less sex :-(

Re:the downward spiral of /.

[stormguard2099]

The point I was trying to make is that I don't really think there are any essential knowledge that the /. audience needs to have in common. I think /. has a large enough variety of articles that appeal to geeks of most kinds so that you really can't classify someone as the typical /. user. I could see someone who doesn't even know what open source (but learning quickly around here :)) coming to /. TFAs about YRO or green tech.

Of course, that does mean less sex :-(

I guess the consolation prize is more time for /. yeah, that's a mighty thin silver lining but it's the best i got :)

From all those I know made copyright infrigement ?

[aepervius]

OK 1 is not a big sample (/sarcasm), but it is enough for me to tell you that they don't always check inside the kitchen or some of the place where you don't wait for a computer. From what I could tell they don't dismantle cupboard or anything. So yes, there is plenty of place which are not searched in case of a civil delict. Now when this is not a civil delict, but a criminal one, I don't know, but I would assume that you and the other poster would be right, they do an extremly torough search for every stuff in your flat/house. The key here, is that copyright infringement is a civil delict, and the ability to search your whole living place is then limited.

Suddenoutbreakofcommonsensee?

[V!NCENT]

I think there has always been common sense and good intent. The problem is that the people who 'are the law' don't know what they are really agreeing with/setting up and what the consequences are by doing so. They will always turn to other people for understanding the subject, which can make them extremely vulnerable to pass evil practices.

We can either inform them ourselves, or exploit their vulnerabilities to get them to do what we want instead. But every time we don't try, others will get there first.

not so sure about that

[westlake]

step 3:instant immunity for all
.

How do you prove that the downloads went any farther than your own system?

You aren't looking at immunity, you are looking at the geek's fair-weather friend, "plausible deniability."

Two words that can make your lawyer cringe - even after calling his wife to tell her that the new kitchen "is a go."

The story that sells to a jury isn't always the story that can be sold your neighbors or your pastor. What your wife will be thinking when she sees the search warrant can't be printed here.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being hackers, it's easier to use your computer to get their stuff and install a quiet FTP daemon.

On their own computers, it's easier to use TrueCrypt to have a partition that looks random unused data.

Re:From all those I know made copyright infrigemen

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your understanding. That's why you and others like you should write to your local congressman and ask that copyright violation be treated as a criminal delict!

YFRR (Your Friendly RIAA Representative)

Help with a wi fi questionaire

[SCY Unlimited]

Hey dudes and dudettes, Sorry to bother you during our long (and very wet!) summer holidays. As some of you know I am participating in the EDGE Programme 2008 and as part of the EDGE programme (http://www.scottish-enterprise.com/edge) at Glasgow University, I am researching an innovative business idea. For this, I am conducting a quick and easy 4-question survey of people's air travel habits for an exciting new service. The link for the survey is: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=3DllA5v3ecD6FQRpkhgeh_2fpg_3d_3d It takes literally 90 seconds, and would help us enormously. If you can find the time, your feedback would be great. From Sumeet University of Glasgow

Impossible situation?

[Anonymous Coward]

other users use your open WiFi network without your consent and download copyrighted material

Erm, isn't that an impossible situation?
Since every user on your open wifi is clearly there with your consent..

Free for all

[jimbob666]

It baffles me why people would want to have open networks in the first place. If you can't control who accesses your network what chance do you stand of any type of network/pc/laptop administration?

And who would want to use their own equipment on an unsecured 'unknown' wireless network?

Free for all wireless networks send shivers down my spine.

Re:Free for all

[Anonymous Coward]

It baffles me why people would want to have open networks in the first place.

Some people like the idea of sharing. And it's a two way deal. Every time another open network is set up, that's one more place to get internet access for one self too.

If you can't control who accesses your network what chance do you stand of any type of network/pc/laptop administration?

What administration? You administrate your own systems, and let other people take care of their own devices. It's not like you suddenly are a network administrator in charge of running Windows Update on every system connected.

And who would want to use their own equipment on an unsecured 'unknown' wireless network?

The same people who would want to use their own equipment on an unsecured internet... The threats of connecting to a wireless network is no worse than the threats of connecting to the internet.

Free for all wireless networks send shivers down my spine.

That's YOUR problem. Not ours.

Re:Free for all

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between connecting directly to the net and connecting to an open network is that in one case someone would have to abuse their position at a major ISP or hack into one to gain access to your data.

On an open network anyone in your neighborhood could potentially read anything and in fact everything that you send with little technical know how.

Re:Free for all

[jimbob666]

I get your point now.

I had my 'corporate network' hat on.

Re:Free for all

[Lodragandraoidh]

VPN and SSH tunneling provides a solution to using your own equipment on an unsecured wireless network. Its just serves as a gateway to your own network in that case - very secure.

even more illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

If other users use your open WiFi network without your consent and download copyrighted material, you cannot be automatically held responsible for their actions

Here in the The Netherlands it's downright illegal for others to download from your wifi network without your consent, no matter what material. But if can be proven that you had copyrighted material (or other illegal material) on your network anayways, your fried as well.

Another wifi

[aepervius]

How exactly am I supposed to "enjoy" my stolen Britney Spears collection? Streaming from the laptop from which you connect to the open wifi to.

TAANSTAFL

[Anonymous Coward]

TAANSTAFL should be TANSTAAFL ;)

Re:TAANSTAFL

[xalorous]

Thanks. You're the second person who replied about my sig, but the first who pointed out my error. I've fixed it. BTW, in my defense, I had sigs turned off in my preferences, so I haven't seen my sig in 4 or 5 years.

Car analogy

[jroysdon]

So if I leave my keys in my car and someone uses it for joyrides or hold-ups, I'm not responsible either?

Home users aren't common carriers, are they? With that analogy everyone can just open up all their APs and so long as their PC/userid/etc is anonymous (randomized) you can download all the copyright content you want illegally, so long as you store it in something like TrueCrypt, and no one can prosecute as you can just claim it was your neighbor, right?

some countries much more free

[harvey the nerd]

The benefits of more freely available WiFi from cooperative individuals should benefit the society more and sooner, by far. e.g. mobile persons who prefer their notebooks for some inexpensive communication on trips to $99/mo "unlimited" cell phones or mobile internet accounts. Only rent seeking RIAA-SCO-telecom-corporatists and Nazi-Soviet-statist types are pushing WiFi restrictions and the fear campaign. Also, a society where every ISP connection is registered is one where free speech and privacy is on a very short leash. Having been to work in such countries before, it will be best to be leaving if you are not one of the elite class (top 1-2% incomes) running the show.

Actually...

[rantingkitten]

We have a toll highway in Atlanta where you can either wait in line to throw your fifty cents into the thing for the privilege of driving on this oh-so-well-maintained road, or you can get a little card with some sort of RFID and just cruise through, letting the card debit your account. Naturally, those lanes are watched by cameras to look for evildoers who aren't paying.

The fun part is, if you get caught, the state mails you and demands that you pay. Their "evidence" of your crime is a blurry, black and white photograph of the back of your car, which doesn't show who is driving it. As far as they're concerned, I guess, if it's your car you're responsibile for anything anyone does with it, even if the real perp was a friend to whom you loaned the car.

So yes, there is legal precedent for the owner of something being liable for whatever anyone does with it, regardless of whether the owner had knowledge about it. I'm not saying it makes any bloody sense, but what did you expect from the government?

Re:Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

The fun part is, if you get caught, the state mails you and demands that you pay.

Sure, but that doesn't mean they're right. Get a lawyer and if they can't prove their case you don't have to pay. It's just that the state knows it's easier to pay than to hire a lawyer.

SOCKS5

[Anonymous Coward]

so what if I run an open SOCKS5 proxy on port 1080?
does that make me 'immune' to consequences?
didn't think so

In case you haven't noticed...

[xalorous]

things rarely end up as they should.