German User Fined For Having an Open Wi-Fi

Kilrah_il writes "A German citizen was sued for copyright infringement because copyrighted material was downloaded through his network while he was on vacation. Although the court did not find him guilty of copyright infringement, he was fined for not having password-protected his network: 'Private users are obligated to check whether their wireless connection is adequately secured to the danger of unauthorized third parties abusing it to commit copyright violation,' the court said."

Comments

I see.

[Pojut]

So does this mean if I accidentally leave our apartment unlocked one morning, someone breaks in, steals one of our daggers or guns, and commits a crime...that we could be charged for aiding a criminal?

Re:I see.

[conares]

Only if they make copies of your CD's and/or DVD's

Re:I see.

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

But at what point do we draw the line? I love reading and posting on /. and my current job is IT, but my Master's is in Anthropology. If a hairy-knuckled liberal arts person like myself can crack WEP in a matter of minutes are we going to require that people use WPA? And once that becomes easier to crack are we going to require the use of the next iteration? Heck there are times when I leave my truck unlocked, I sure hope that if somebody hot-wired it and took it on a 4 state killing spree I wouldn't be held even partially culpable.

Re:I see.

[squiggleslash]

It's safe to say he didn't. If he had configured his router to not broadcast the SSID, then he would, legally (in most jurisdictions, I assume Germany is no different), have taken proactive steps to secure his network (even if they were token efforts) and we wouldn't have a story.

Virtually every security device can be circumvented, and as a result the question usually comes down to "Did you make an effort or not?" For much the same reason, DVD's CSS system was still considered an access control mechanism whose circumvention was illegal long after it was cracked and details posted throughout the Internet. (I say was not to make people relax and think it isn't now, but because the DVD CCA has pretty much given up on enforcing it.)

Re:I see.

[Shakrai]

There have been many cases of people not their securing firearms being successfully sued when someone dies as a result.

Yes, if you don't secure a firearm and one of your kids uses it to blow his friend's brains out then you are liable. But the GP talked about someone breaking in -- why should you be liable in that instance? It's your fault that a someone decided to break the law and steal your property?

I wish that everyone was held to the same standards as gun owners. As a random example, we just had a guy in our town charged with reckless endangerment (a misdemeanor) for putting a bullet through his neighbors apartment while cleaning his pistol. Just property damage, thankfully nobody got hurt, yet he was criminally charged. Contrast that with automobiles. Automobiles can and do kill -- but when was the last time you saw someone receive a criminal charge for an automobile accident that resulted in property damage and no personal injury?

Maybe we should hold drivers to the same standard as gun owners? I bet the roadways would be a lot safer....

Re:I see.

[gzipped_tar]

Comparing copyright infringement to murder is sickening. This is the pattern in which Big Media wants us to think.

Re:I see.

[sunderland56]

No, the homeowner is being charged with leaving the door unlocked, not murder. And, since he did leave the door unlocked, that is entirely fair.

Re:I see.

[somersault]

Not really, it's simple use of "reductio ad absurdum" type logic to make a point.

Re:I see.

[Shakrai]

As a matter of fact, in most countries (and US states, I believe) you are required to adequately secure your guns.

I live in one of the most anti-gun states in the union and there's no laws pertaining to gun storage on the books here. You could be charged with other crimes if you do something stupid (i.e: reckless endangerment if leave a gun lying around when you have kids in the house) but it's not a crime in of itself to leave a gun lying out in the open.

Such laws are one-size-fits-all solutions anyway. What's "adequately" secure? If you have kids or a mentally ill housemate then the guns need to be under your direct control (i.e: a holstered pistol) or under lock and key. If you live alone then the simple act of locking your door and not leaving them in plain view from the outside would be enough to secure them in my mind.

I sleep with a loaded pistol on my nightstand because I live in a second floor apartment with no means of escape. Such behavior would be unthinkable if I had kids but is perfectly acceptable for an adult living by himself.

Re:I see.

[modecx]

Actually, most US states have very little to say about gun storage, mostly because proposed laws have been successfully recognized and opposed for what they are: incremental steps to paramount to prohibition.

Re:I see.

[Low Ranked Craig]

And, since he did leave the door unlocked, that is entirely fair.

We must have skipped over the part where it became reasonable for a government to tell you that you must lock your door.

Re:I see.

[squiggleslash]

OK. Let me give you an example.

The guy decides to really secure his network. He disables broadcasting the SSID, and implements WPA2 encryption. This, however, provides access only to a small non-Internet connected mini-network with no DHCP and one machine, identified by IP address only, which only responds (ie no pinging) to a specific IP address using the ports needed for an IPsec VPN. The VPN, in turn, uses 1024 bit blowfish encryption and requires a SecureID password to initiate the connection. The VPN provides access to the outside world, but requires you already know the IP addresses of the DNS server and default router, none of which are in an easily guessable netblock.

The system is also set up so any unauthorized activity results in the outside connection being dropped (ie any attempts to guess the passwords result in the wireless router shutting itself down. And, just to add that extra special extra layer of security, the owner switches off the entire system when he leaves to go on vacation.

So an elite hacker comes along and has access to the network within thirty seconds. How does he do it? How does he circumvent all these security measures?

Answer: he throws a brick through the window, enters the house, and HOOKS HIS LAPTOP UP TO THE DSL MODEM.

Virtually every security device can be circumvented.

Re:I see.

[Runaway1956]

I have no idea where to look for a key for my house. If I suddenly decided that the doors need to be locked, I would have to go to the hardware store, and buy some locks. There is almost always SOMEONE home, and no one even thinks of locking the doors when anyone leaves.

I guess that if someone wanted in, they could GET IN, lock or no lock. Which is worse - to find all our stuff gone, or to find all of our stuff gone, AND broken windows on a dark and stormy night?

Re:I see.

[Low Ranked Craig]

They tell us we have to wear seatbelts

Completely different. Arguably during an accident a seatbelt can potentially keep the driver in his seat, and can keep the driver or passenger from becoming a missile and injuring someone else, as well as reducing stress on an already stressed public emergency system. THis is a far cry from requiring me to lock my door because someone might steal some cutlery and stab someone with a fork, or requiring me to lock down my router because someone might part in fron of my house and torrent Avatar

Would you be comfortable with a person storing their guns on their front porch?

Depends on the neighborhood, the neighbor and the gun. Leaving a loaded handgun on the front porch in a neighborhood full of kids? No. In my neighborhood a significant percentage of my neighbors have rifles and shotguns, and a number of people keep them in the garage, unloaded, and people leave there garage doors open all the time. No problem. They also have assorted power tools, and other implements that pose a significant risk, like gasoline in cans, butane torches, nail guns, baseball bats, etc. I guess where I live it must be less common for people to screw with other people's stuff.

Re:I see.

[Smauler]

The law may or may not protect you, so why not just protect yourself and end the debate?

Because some people think that leaving wi-fi open is an expression of goodwill... sharing. I do not mind if others use my wifi, I quite like people doing so. If someone starts using lots of it, I'll block them, at least temporarily. That hasn't happened yet. There are people living close to me who are on low incomes (and bad credit ratings), and will find it tough to fork out for (or get) stable internet access. I do not mind sharing mine.

In the UK, the Conservatives recently campaigned hugely about "big society". Laws that hold those responsible for sharing liable go directly against that theme. Alienation from local issues destroys communities, lack of cooperation locally destroys communities.

Re:I see.

[Your.Master]

Almost every other example you gave are local ordinances designed to keep your neighbours' property values from plummeting, (and maybe reduce crime via "broken window theory"). Locking your door addresses none of them.

I do agree with much of everything else you say here, but I disagree that there's any relevant, reasonable precedent for the government legislating that you lock your home door (a behaviour that only appears common, in my experience, in cities and some large suburbs -- but then, I'm Canadian :)).

Re:I see.

[dotgain]

To be honest, I believe the the case you're discussing is far more serious.

I don't really know why there are so many accidents with loaded guns, but I know I'm not missing something here: It is so easy to disable a gun from firing by removing the ammunition, rendering it no more harmful than a brick, with no chance of accidentally re-enabling it. We can't reasonably operate cars in this manner, however if you don't know how to safety and unload your own firearm, it's unquestionably in the wrong hands.

Maybe I haven't got your story straight, maybe he accidentally fired while unloading and checking before cleaning - sorry if this is the case. And I do hear you clearly on the disparity in people's thoughts on the dangers of guns versus cars, there's been a lot of hype and BS. And while I don't consider either of them to be "killing machines", there's one thing for sure about a gun, they do nothing but harm to what they're used on (unlike cars) whether or not that is desirable, and are designed to be easily safetied in light of that fact.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Up next, people paying fines for having their identities stolen. I

So now we all work for the benefit of the RIAA?

[betterunixthanunix]

So, I guess now the German people are being expected to work for the benefit of the copyright lobby. This sounds like the tail wagging the dog -- first the government works for the industry's benefit, and then it starts to require the people it is supposed to represent to do the same.

Re:actual judgement

[Anonymous Coward]

And why can't I run an open hotspot if I want to?

Soo

[future assassin]

if I left my car doors unlocked (there is no law that says I have to do that) and someone used it to steal bunch of music cd from a retail store I be charged with copyright theft?

Re:actual judgement

[icebraining]

(e.g. if you don't put the brakes on in your car and it starts to roll and crashes into something).

Wrong analogy. Unlike the car, the router by itself wouldn't cause any damage. *Someone* committed a crime, they should prosecute that guy.

Unless you're an idiot, you already have these things for your home network.

Then I guess I'm an idiot for being a nice guy and providing free access for people passing by. Why am I an idiot? My traffic is secure (I have two networks, one encrypted with WPA2-Enterprise with a RADIUS server, another open) and I have no traffic limits. Why shouldn't I share?

The problem with negligence

[MikeRT]

is that it often comes down to a failure to do right and a need to blame someone. If someone steals a gun and commits a crime with it, they should be 100% civilly responsible. Allowing the victim of the theft to be sued is nothing more than indulging the blood lust of the victim and their family who want anyone connected with it to pay dearly.

Re:The problem with negligence

[Itninja]

SO there is no such thing as negligence? As an example, if I am babysitting a neighbors 13 y/o daughter and allow her to go, alone, to a frat party and she get drunk and then raped, am I not at least partially responsible?

Re:actual judgement

[zarzu]

how is that more level-headed? you're just defining the adequate security part from the summary with "turn on encryption and change the default password". your car analogy doesn't work either, if i have an open wifi spot it doesn't just go on a frenzy and download stuff, which is what you are suggesting.

the judgment here clearly means to say that an internet connections main purpose is to help you infringe on copyright. you won't get fined for sharing a fork with someone if that someone then goes to kill his wife with it. a city also won't get fined just because they provided a thief with a street to walk on to reach his target. the judgment is utterly absurd.

This is disgusting

[selven]

Free public Wi-Fi is one of the most important public services of the 21st century. It gives anyone who can come up with the $200 for a netbook the ability to access the sum of human knowledge. It allows people to communicate over long distances in many more ways that a simple voice conversation. Anyone who comes up with the money for an unlimited internet connection and jeopardizes some of his privacy (or some convenience, if he uses some kind of proxy/encryption) to let anyone access the internet without paying high fees to greedy monopolistic corporations is doing good for society. Saying that he's doing evil since he's also allowing copyright infringement is like saying cars are evil since you can use one to get away from a robbery. All technology can be used for good and evil, but the internet being freely available to the public does hundreds of times more good than it does evil.

Piracy is armed robbery of ships

[tepples]

Comparing copyright infringement to murder is sickening.

Perhaps, but the comparison between prohibited copying and armed robbery of ships, which often involves murder, has been around so long enough that nobody outside the FSF bats an eye at calling it "piracy". The ship has sailed; the slope has slipped.

Re:Piracy is armed robbery of ships

[blair1q]

I thought it was because of the parrots and saying "arr" all the time.

Re:So if I understand this correctly...

[Sockatume]

No, the media industry's out of control. Maniacal copyright infringement suits are their current approach to profit maximisation, but saying that copyright law is the problem makes it seem like the media industry is innocently obeying an unjust law. They're not. If we fix copyright tort, they'll do something else. Maybe demonise indie music as some sex-and-drugs scene to discourage parents from letting their kids buy off-label music, or convince the press that homebrew games destroy the mainstream games industry. They've taken an unscrupulous approach to maximizing their ROI, and so fixing the laws they exploit is not enough. We've got to stop supporting them.

Re:Locked doors? Bah.

[Anonymous Coward]

But I really enjoy living in a place where someone can leave their car running with the door open while they run into the post office, start chatting with old friends, and come out 20 minutes later with their car still there.

Geez man, if you don't care about the cost of gas, at least think about the damage you are doing to the environment.

Browser authentication?

[delire]

The vast proportion of airports and hotels (increasingly cafe chains) in Europe have 'open' wireless networks that require browser authentication. You pump for an IP, are granted one, yet must authenticate in the browser (usually with a bite of your credit card) to get you through the gateway. Up until you authenticate you're a member of the LAN only. These APs usually have a EULA that prohibits such uses as the downloading of copyrighted material.

So, what specifically constitutes a Protected Network in the context of this new law?

Re:actual judgement

[Zatar]

why would you open yourself up to potential legal trouble

Unfortunately this line of thinking leads to life in general being a lot less pleasant that it should be in countries with this sort of attitude towards liability.

We end up with people making lots of regrettable decisions like "I shouldn't let anyone walk across my property", "I shouldn't let anyone use anything of mine", "I shouldn't help that kid crying in the middle of the road" just because there's a real chance that the government will ruin your life over it if someone gets offended.

Most people are nice and want to help others but we force them to close up and stop interacting with people out of fear of liability. It's sad.