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."

55 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 amdpox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Hmmm... by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!
    3. 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.

    4. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Hmmm... by LordVader717 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    6. 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?

    7. 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.
    8. Re:Hmmm... by richlv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 ?

      --
      Rich
    9. 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?

    10. Re:Hmmm... by Zemran · · Score: 4, Funny

      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...

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    11. Re:Hmmm... by HungryHobo · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

    12. Re:Hmmm... by phoenix321 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

    13. Re:Hmmm... by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    14. Re:Hmmm... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:Hmmm... by IBBoard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:Hmmm... by WK2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    17. 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.

    18. Re:Hmmm... by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  2. Nice loophole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Nice loophole by Jezza · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!

    2. Re:Nice loophole by EvilAlphonso · · Score: 2, Informative

      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...

    3. Re:Nice loophole by Jezza · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    4. Re:Nice loophole by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Better yet, anyone with 1/4 a brain will get a directional antenna and nail a open router blocks down the road so if the cops nail the connection they will have a tough time figuring out that the person was not in the immediate vicinity, but farther away. Hell a buddy of mine in chigago lives in a condo about 30 floors off the street and with a biquad and dish we can nab open wifi from miles away.

      you think local police have the ability to track that down?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  3. Law nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    I don't think this will stand.

    1. Re:Law nightmare by Jezza · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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)

  4. 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?

    1. Re:Precedent by Jezza · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Precedent by Jezza · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Precedent by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    4. Re:Precedent by Stooshie · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      Unless it's terrorism ;-)

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
  5. Re:Malicious Intent by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Me failed English...
    FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
  6. You forgot to add by koinu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:You forgot to add by Sobieski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I use a FON-router that has two networks, one private and one open. I have a bandwith cap on the public one, couldn't this somehow be seen as thwarting illegal downloads (or all downloads for that matter) by other users?

      Weak defense maybe, but theoreticaly... ?

      --
      Particles, stuff that matters.
    2. Re:You forgot to add by ulash · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:You forgot to add by slash.duncan · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Duncan
      "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master,
      and if you use the program, he is your master."
      R Stallman
  7. 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.

    1. Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill by Sobieski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I go to Germany about three times a year and all commercials for Internet connections boast about "flatrate", one could assume this is the norm there.

      --
      Particles, stuff that matters.
    2. Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill by VdG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:But they still have to foot the bandwidth bill by TheLink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
  8. A rape in my house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. 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
    1. Re:Data laundering by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  10. 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!)

  11. 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.
    1. Re:Spoof the MAC adress by Loibisch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  12. 1 sentence by aepervius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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 ?

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:1 sentence by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:1 sentence by Jezza · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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).

    3. Re:1 sentence by VdG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:1 sentence by Rigrig · · Score: 2, Funny

      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?

      --
      **TODO** [X] Steal someone elses sig.
    5. Re:1 sentence by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  13. Re:Negligence is not a defense by LordVader717 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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)

  14. Re:Because paying tax dollars is not a threat... by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  15. some countries much more free by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.