Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open WiFi Owners Off the Hook In Germany

Posted by timothy on from the gefehlt-mir dept.

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."

11 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmm... by darklich14 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem here is that you need someone else to admit using your connection to download illegal files - just like if someone else is driving your car and gets caught in a speed trap. If he doesn't admit, you will have to pay the ticket.

      Having an open WiFi won't be a freeride to download illegal files as it is impossible to proof that it was open to begin with.

      So just like getting a speeding ticket (by mail), where you can check a box that someone else was using your car (in Germany anyway + you have to provide name and adress), future letters regarding copyright violation might have the same check box.

    2. Re:Hmmm... by VdG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It doesn't make it clear in the article whether there was actual evidence that someone else had used the guy's network, or whether that was just a possibility. That makes quite a difference, I think. It makes sense to me that people should not be required to secure their networks, any more than they're required to lock their homes. But I'd also think that you'd have to have at least a smidgin of evidence that someone was using your unsecured network for their nefarious deeds if you were to get off.

      On a slightly different track, whilst one is not generally required to lock one's front door, (although don't count on getting insurance if you don't), I think I'm correct in saying that in some places there are things you ARE required to secure. I'm thinking in particular of firearms: don't some states require gun owners to keep them secured? Certainly some places outside the USA do. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to extend that principle to other resources with which people could commit crimes, or inadvertently come to harm.

      Of course, you'd then have to define how much security is required. Just a token effort? Or something which could actually withstand a concerted effort to gain access? One key difference between a house and a WiFi network is that it's difficult to enter someone else's house inadvertently, whereas many computers will connect to an open network automatically, or needing no more than a slip of the finger when choosing which network to use.

      Could we see a requirement to log access to a wireless network, like an ISP? If you're deliberately running an open network then you are effectively acting as an ISP for all and sundry. Should you be subject to the same regulation?

    3. Re:Hmmm... by Stooshie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ... 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.

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    4. Re:Hmmm... by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

    5. Re:Hmmm... by VdG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't know. And I'm not advocating that these sorts of controls should be put in place, merely suggesting that some people might like them to be.

      If I own some woodland, then I think that in the UK I have a responsibility to ensure that if it's accessible to the public - even if they're not actually invited - that there's nothing too dangerous lying around. No bear traps, for example. If I make an effort to keep people out then my responsibility is reduced.

      IF one accepts that the Internet can be dangerous, then someone (not me) could try to make a case that people providing access to it have some sort of duty of care.

  2. Precedent by Misanthrope · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What sort of precedent does this set with regards to other forms of illegal activity that take place over an open wifi connection? Does anybody have more experience with German case law? Fritz-sixpack might be off the line for copyright infringement, but what about some "think of the children" crime?

  3. But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill by dynchaw · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    I live on a main street with many business people walking past with their WiFi enabled devices. If I didn't have my access point locked down hard they'd blow my bandwidth limit inside a few days.

  4. Data laundering by dontmakemethink · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's to stop hackers from setting up open wifi networks with poor security, hacking their own networks to perform criminal acts, then claiming that someone else did the hack and they aren't liable for what others do over their open wifi?

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

    --

    War as we knew it was obsolete
    Nothing could beat complete denial
    - Emily Haines
  5. Re:Negligence is not a defense by Jezza · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Negligence?! You're kidding right?

    If you look at it this way you'll kill WiFi. Imagine I own a coffee shop (hell this is the Internet - for all you know I do) and I want to provide WiFi to get laptop toting punters in (access could be paid for or free - it matters not). How do I do this without opening myself up to some lawsuit? Don't be silly, if some patron downloads a song while sipping an expresso in my coffee emporium, the he (or she) is responsible for that, not me, just trying to scrap a living selling caffeinated hot beverages.

    (Right I'm off to put the kettle on - there's punters here!)

  6. Spoof the MAC adress by houghi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.