Slashdot Mirror
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."
"'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." What exactly do they mean by adequately secured? Can they fine us for using WEP or WPA instead of the latest and greatest?
He was fined 100 euro because a single user downloaded a single song illegally. One song. A hundred twenty-five times its retail value. And he didn't even download it. Copyright is out of control.
So all those German citizens daft enough to allow thier machines to become part of a botnet are, technically, at risk of prosecution?
I hope there is slightly more to this story than the summary suggests. It seems absurd unless they have a law against sharing your internet connection. I personally have an open guest network with no protection, but then so do every major company, all libraries, schools, the trains and even the busses here in copenhagen.
Well, WiFi is not designed to be used for copyright infringement, even if open, and such things are commonplace/readily available.
It's more like someone walked in through an unlocked door in your house, stole a fork from your silverware drawer, and stabbed someone to death with it.
And now you the homeowner are being charged with the murder, because you leaving your door unlocked allowed the fork to be used.
So, if this is how things are to be, I think that this guy should pass the buck to the manufacturer for not complying with local law. Such devices should be regulated in such a way that they cannot be sold to customers without ALREADY being secure out-of-the-box. Otherwise, I think that this should have no merit.
As a matter of fact, in most countries (and US states, I believe) you are required to adequately secure your guns. So if it's just lying around on the table in your unlocked home, you may well be liable. If the thieves have to break open your gun locker, you're not.
And that's pretty much what the court said. Turn on encryption and change the default password and you're fine.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Maybe if this was extended to enforce a more responsible attitude for people leaving their PCs infected and sending out spam for months, I'd be all for it. Stupidity is no defence, so if you're irresponsible behaviour is causing misery for others, and potentially allowing a criminal offence to take place then you deserve to face charges.
Driving a car with no license, or instruction is an offence and whilst spamming thousands of people isn't actually dangerous, it affects more individuals.
Saying this, maybe wireless routers/modems shouldn't even have an option to operate in an open mode. Likewise, maybe ISPs shouldn't allow customers to send mail out on port 25 to random machines - just route it all through their own mail server. If a machine is sending a huge amount of mail, it's simple to block it until the user fixes their system. Surely it's not that fucking hard!
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Now there's an idea.
The people in Germany (and elsewhere?) are expected to secure their facilities to protect the RIAA's clients. So the RIAA should pay them for their efforts.
Have gnu, will travel.
A cousin of mine served in the US Army and was stationed in Germany. He once received a citation because his car was unlocked. Yes, in Germany, there is a law stating you must lock your car, though I don't know if it applies while the care is secured in a garage.
Welcome to my world. My passport was stolen. I was "lucky this time", according to the officer, because they could have charged me with false identity terrorism aiding or somthing. I live in a democratic, western country and not in America and this almost happened to me. 'luckily the police officer was being nice'... jeez...
Here be signatures
Germany is a civil law system, not a common law. Precedent doesn't work the same way over there.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
As far as I know, you cannot be fined unless you do something illegal. In other words, there _must_ be at least one law you have broken with your actions or lack of actions. The obvious question then: _is_ there a law in Germany demanding that you secure your WiFi? Or is some law being extended to cover this situation?
In my country laws are usually interpreted very strictly: if they mention (just for example) print media, the law is not usually assumed to include digital media as well. This is normally a good thing: actions/things that are not explicitly illegal are automatically legal.
I'll add that the homeowner's liability for injuries to criminals who are trespassing and/or breaking in are quite different from one state to another. We don't all live in La-La-Land - errrr - I meant California. I read one story where a burglar hurt himself after falling through a roof, or a skylight, or some such. He successfully sued the homeowner, in California. In a more reasonable state, like Texas, the homeowner could have SHOT the SOB, and claimed that he was startled, and feared for his life. In fact, in Texas, you don't even have to fear for your life - you can shoot a burglar dead, even before he gets into the house. One woman in Houston used a shotgun to kill some guy OUTSIDE her house who was breaking into her car, and some old guy shot through the door and killed one of two burglars who were trying to break in. Now, THAT is reasonable!!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Pretty much, yeah. Besides which, why would you open yourself up to potential legal trouble from someone downloading kiddie porn or something through your link?
So by your logic, telecom companies should be liable if someone uses a payphone to harass someone?
Interesting.
During our firearm safety course the instructor talked of a friend with a collection rivaling his (huge) that had the equivalent of a bank safe full of guns in his basement. He went on vacation, and while he was gone thieves broke into his house and apparently spent *days* breaking into the vault with a jackhammer and other tools. They finally cleaned him out.
When he returned home and reported the theft he was charged with improper storage of firearms. Their reasoning? Because he left the collection without someone to check on it while he was gone he wasn't taking adequate responsibility to ensure the guns didn't fall into the wrong hands.
Heavy fines and a firearms ownership ban were applied. This took place in Canada.
If you have an open WIFI, a prosecutor may be able to prove to a jury
that you are an ISP. If ACTA goes through, and ISP's held accountable,
then *you*, Mr Open WIFI, are liable.
I've always had a complete disregard for security. Admittedly, most of the stuff I've ever owned hasn't been worth all that much... I've had expensive bikes, a few decent cars, expensive computers, moniters & TV's etc. I've never owned my own home. I leave just about everything unlocked, all the time. Currently I live in a "good" area, but I lived in Leytonstone and worked in Hackney for a few years when I was younger, and kept the same principle throughout. My complete disregard for security has served me _very_ well. I could very easily replace everything I own (and more) on the savings I have made by not buying insurance throughout. Two high quality £50 locks would cost me £100... if I had ever bought them, I'd be £100 down.