Now A German Court Says Open WiFi Owner Is Responsible For What Others Do On WiFi
from the courts-disagree dept
Remember just over a week ago the good news coming out of Germany concerning an appeals court ruling that noted (properly) that the owner of an open WiFi access point was not liable for actions done by others on that WiFi? Well, apparently there's a bit of a "split" in the German courts. An anonymous reader sends us notice of a news report out of Germany with a lower level court apparently ruling in the exact opposite way (link in German, translations welcome; here's Google's translation). From what the submitter and the translation suggest, the court claims that it's the responsibility of the access point owner to secure the WiFi, and if they do not, they have to take on some liability for what happens on that system. There's no question, apparently, that the owners of the WiFi system did not actually share the file in question. They showed they were not at home at the time of the alleged infringement, and they had no file sharing software on their computer. While the case isn't yet over, the owners of the WiFi access point have to pay court costs, lawyers fees and the amount they were sued for... and they may face criminal prosecution as well.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
German Idiocy!
Just because you are not computer savy enough to secure your wireless doesn’t make you liable for infractions from it. The German courts need to get someone in with a good knowledge of computers to bitch slap the judges for even thinking so! The Judges in this matter are dumber then a man proposing to his wife at a baseball game and spelling her name wrong!
~ The Traveler
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: German Idiocy!
Translation, please. I know you probably meant Department of Defense, but was curious what you meant exactly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: German Idiocy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you are the gay one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyhoo, I guess if someone steals my car, I'm responsible for all the traffic infractions and property damage as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You might be if you left the door unlocked and the key in the ignition. At least your insurance company might not want to compensate you.
If you own a swimming pool and don't fence it in, you will indeed be liable if someone falls in and drowns.
You can well be liable for your omissions of safe procedures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now A German Court Says Open WiFi Owner Is Responsible For What Others Do On WiFi
German court should quit smoking whatever and breathe in fresh air. Their brains are getting holes in them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now A German Court Says Open WiFi Owner Is Responsible For What Others Do On WiFi
I love it when foreign laypeople discuss a matter they have no idea about. German law is different from it's neighbours, just like theirs is from others. Unless you actually know the legisative wording of the law you might want to keep your nose out of it.
Both courts that decided on these cases were on the same level - both local courts, with local magistrates sitting the case. There hasn't been a testcase in Germany or anywhere else considering this so why write an article without substance in the first place? Even the author of the article admits not to have a clue and takes his information from an electronic translation program, which, as any computer savvy person knows, is bad at the best of times.
It is nice to see however how quickly the race card is played here as well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Broken Logic...
So really, you see, the State should have to pay the fines and be the one sued.
Stuff like this makes me want to go find the Judge's home, find out if his connection is unsecured and download copyrighted material.
If I have a traditional unlocked mailbox, I guess I'm responsible for anything that gets stolen out of there as well?
If you give ISPs safe harbors, then they should extend to end-node whether compromised or not.
And for all those that think it is stupid to leave your wireless open, depending on the age of your gear, there are plenty of times where the only way you can get a good connection is to disable encryption. I've had plenty of wireless access points/routers/firewalls that for a connection on the far part of the house wouldn't work or work well until we disabled encryption. Never really understood it frankly, but it was a common trend especially with older gear.
What's next, if someone breaks into my protected wireless, I'm responsible? What if someone steals my PC, am I still responsible? What if someone is visiting and they download copyrighted material, am I still responsible?
This stuff isn't like putting a lock on your front door - it isn't something that we've grown up, been taught and 'naturally' just understand. If you ask folks with wireless in their homes if it's secured and how they know, you won't like the answers because most just don't know or understand. They just want Internet to work and everything else is usually off the radar.
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the provider is liable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If the provider is liable
At fault might be the manufacturer of the WiFi equipment because it does come with all the ports open and if, then with very complicated instructions on how to close them and make them save.
Ignorance is no excuse in any courtroom in the world, you know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminals have more rights than Homeowners.
The above has already been proved to be true in the US, at least according to our court system. There have been cases where homeowners have shot and wounded people who broke into their house (stranger in their house), the homeowners have then been sued by the criminals they shot and the courts have sided with the criminals and awarded outrageous damages....
Which just goes to show that if you are going to shoot someone on your property, make sure you kill them... and if they get off the edge of the property before they die, make sure you drag them back before the police show up. Apparently it's perfectly legal to kill someone who trespasses on your property if you fear for your safety or if you believe you or your family may be in immediate danger from the individual (and if they are dead they aren't going to say that they 'walked into the wrong house by mistake and they were just admiring the valuables when the homeowner shot them for no reason (If I remember correctly the 'burglar' was awarded somewhere between $200,000 and $400,000 for being shot in the leg/butt while trying to climb back out the window with a bag of the owners property)... Only in America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminals have more rights than Homeowners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eh?
germany, liability, open wife, wifi"
Oh, is THAT what they call it these days? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your Property, Your Responsibility
I think it's fair that the owner of the access point should bear some responsibility for securing it, and for any consequent liability if it's left insecure. With property rights come corresponding responsibilities, after all.
By the same token, owners of PCs should bear some responsibility for ensuring that they don't become part of botnets. And if they do, they should have some liability for the damage those botnets cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Safety of EMFs and WiFi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]