German User Fined For Having an Open Wi-Fi 563
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."
Re:I see. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I see. (Score:4, Informative)
Though I agree with the sentiment, at least your gun doesn't broadcast it's presence in the house to the potential criminal. That is a significant difference between the two scenarios.
Re:I see. (Score:4, Informative)
Not sure about the dagger, and IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that in most places in the US you could be, successfully, sued for not properly securing your firearms. It strikes me that leaving an apartment//home unlocked when you know you have a gun in it could be construed as reckless behavior. Owning a gun is a right, but you have an obligation to practice that right in a responsible manner.
actual judgement (Score:4, Informative)
The actual judgement is a bit more level-headed than the /. summary makes it to be.
The judge essentially said you ought to have some minimum level of security, elst you're liable for damages, much like everything else (e.g. if you don't put the brakes on in your car and it starts to roll and crashes into something).
The standard requested is pretty much "turn on encryption and change the default password".
Most commentators agree that for home users, not much will change. Unless you're an idiot, you already have these things for your home network. The challenge will mostly be to hotels, Starbucks, etc. with their open hotspots.
Re:I see. (Score:2, Informative)
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?
Actually, yes. At least in Canada, anyways. If you own a firearm in Canada, there are so many regulations surrounding proper storage and securing of that firearm that while you may not be charged with accessory with murder, you would find yourself in plenty of other hot water.
Re:I see. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually in some countries failure to secure your guns is a crime.
Re:actual judgement (Score:3, Informative)
Then you get fined if someone breaks the law using your connection. Do it enough and you'll probably get charged with aiding and abetting. Though IANAL, it seems obvious enough. If you want to be an ISP, then you have to keep records indicating who your customers are (even if they aren't paying anything) so that the criminal can be found. I'm not saying I agree with any of this, but it seems easy enough to understand, given our typical current legal structure (I'm assuming Germany isn't too terribly different from the US in some regards, so maybe I'm way off base).
Re:I see. (Score:3, Informative)
Murder? Wow. Way off.
This is more akin to having a car that everybody in the neighborhood shares. Therefore it's always open. Some creep takes the car, gets charged with speeding, and the owner gets jailtime for negligence. This law is basically discouraging charity & sharing. It's stupid and typical of a judge who should not be a judge.
Stop, belay that headline... (Score:4, Informative)
Serious case of misleading headline.... The court said: "If you have an open WIFI and someone uses it to fileshare copyright protected material, the owner of the rights may send you a cease and desist letter (effectively insisting that you secure your WIFI) and extract 100,- Euro from you for covering the fees of the legal process."
The user was not fined, he was not punished, he was not ordered to pay for the damages.
CU, Martin
P.S. Who wonders, that lawyers don't get the technical aspects right when the techies confuse the most elemental judical terms....
Re:I see. (Score:4, Informative)
Um... Every book ever written on security? Name a security instrument. I'll show you how to circumvent it. It may not be easy, it may not be practical, it may not even be more than theoretical, but there's probably a way. The question is merely a matter of whether the data you're protecting is worth the effort required to get through your security. For instance there's a trivial way to break full disk encryption [xkcd.com], but most people won't use it due to it's violating a number of very serious laws. (Your porn collection may be excellent, but it isn't worth 25 to life)
A few more facts: (Score:5, Informative)
1. The network was in fact not open. It was secured with WPA1 and a default password (source, German [ferner-alsdorf.de])
"Somit ist auch noch einmal zu Betonen: Es ging in der Entscheidung nicht um ein vollständig ungesichertes WLAN! Der BGH hat also nicht über ein offenes WLAN verhandelt, wie lange fälschlicherweise berichtet wurde. Vielmehr ging es ganz allgemein um die bedeutsame Frage, welche Sicherungspflichten die Betreiber von WLAN allgemein trifft."
2. The 100 euro is not for copyright infringement, but rather it seems that in Germany the reciever of a DMCA-like notice is liable for up to 100 euro unless they can either a) Point the blame to someone else or b) Pass some standard of having done everything reasonable to avoid damage. That's at least how I read the law [dejure.org]:
" 97a Abmahnung
(1) Der Verletzte soll den Verletzer vor Einleitung eines gerichtlichen Verfahrens auf Unterlassung abmahnen und ihm Gelegenheit geben, den Streit durch Abgabe einer mit einer angemessenen Vertragsstrafe bewehrten Unterlassungsverpflichtung beizulegen. Soweit die Abmahnung berechtigt ist, kann der Ersatz der erforderlichen Aufwendungen verlangt werden.
(2) Der Ersatz der erforderlichen Aufwendungen für die Inanspruchnahme anwaltlicher Dienstleistungen für die erstmalige Abmahnung beschränkt sich in einfach gelagerten Fällen mit einer nur unerheblichen Rechtsverletzung außerhalb des geschäftlichen Verkehrs auf 100 Euro."
The key sentence here is "Soweit die Abmahnung berechtigt ist, kann der Ersatz der erforderlichen Aufwendungen verlangt werden." which translates to something like "When the warning is justified, compensation for the relevant expenses can be demanded." The second caps it to 100 euro for simple cases.
Re:I see. (Score:2, Informative)
I live in the People's Republic of New York, so there you go. Not a very gun friendly state at all.
Even without criminal charges, he will certainly lose his pistol license, which in this state means he can't legally possess a handgun at all. Note that I didn't say "own", or even "carry", I said "possess". In New York State it's a crime to so much as touch a handgun if you aren't licensed. I can't legally show my live-in girlfriend how to clear my handguns, nor can I take her to the pistol range and let her shoot them. If she touches one of them and it's unloaded she has committed a misdemeanor. If it's loaded she has committed a felony. How asinine is that?
Re:Off topic, but (Score:3, Informative)
Best thing for all concerned is, if you don't respect other's property, don't go to Texas. You'll get into serious trouble real quick. On the other hand, if you DO respect other's property, you should get along just fine. It isn't like people are being blown away without good reason, by law abiding citizens. Criminals, on the other hand, whether they be citizens or illegal aliens, have no problem blowing people away without good reason - and the gun laws that Texas DID have were relaxed to deal with that little problem.