Slashdot Mirror
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."
Step 1:get wifi router and leave it open
step 2:use other people's wifi
step 3:instant immunity for all
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.
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.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
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)
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.
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?
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 ?
Rich
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.