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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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?

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.

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: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.