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."

14 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 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!
    2. 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.

    3. 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?

    4. 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
    5. 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?

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

  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!

  3. 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...
  4. 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.

  5. 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)

  6. 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!)