California Governor Vetoes Bill Barring Gov't From Turning Off Mobile Phone Service

from the seems-like-it-should-already-be-illegal dept

You may recall how law enforcement in California tried to shut down a protest last year by turning off mobile phone service at a BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) station to prevent potential protestors (none of whom actually showed up) from communicating. This raised significant questions about whether or not such actions were even legal. Either way, a bill was introduced and passed in the state legislature that would have barred such a shut down in the future... but California Governor Jerry Brown has vetoed the bill, because apparently allowing law enforcement to cut off communications to prevent free speech is perfectly reasonable in his book. I still think the original action probably violated existing law, but it's a shame that Governor Brown couldn't stand up for basic freedom of speech issues, especially when it comes to having law enforcement shut down cell service to prevent public assembly and protest.

Filed Under: bart, california, free speech, jerry brown, mobile service, shutdown

Copyright Trolls Still Arguing That Open WiFi Is 'Negligent'

from the no,-it's-not dept

We've written a few times now about the argument used by some copyright trolls that leaving WiFi open is negligence. This has become a common claim in cases where an accused defendant claims they did not do any unauthorized file sharing of the work(s) in question, but that since their WiFi is open, it could have been just about anyone who accessed the network. The trolls are trying to wipe out this defense by arguing anyone who leaves their WiFi open is "negligent." So far, however, the courts have completely and thoroughly rejected this argument multiple times. It's basically dead.

But, apparently, that doesn't stop some from still trotting it out. The CopyrightClerk site has the news of a recently filed lawsuit by Daniel Ruggiero, which has a number of claims -- with the final one being the same old negligence theory.

Defendant had a duty to secure his Internet connection. Defendant breached that duty by failing to secure his Internet connection.

Reasonable Internet users take steps to secure their Internet access accounts preventing the use of such accounts for an illegal purpose. Defendant’s failure to secure his Internet access account, thereby allowing for its illegal use, constitutes a breach of the ordinary care that a reasonable Internet account holder would do under like circumstances.

Of course, there is absolutely nothing that supports those two statements, and the previous courts looking at such claims have already made that clear. Those rulings may not be precedential on this court (eastern district, Pennsylvania), but judges often are interested in how others have ruled on similar issues. One hopes that the defendant in this case, Andrew Burdziak, will make sure whoever represents him makes the judge aware of those other rulings.

Filed Under: copyright, negligence, trolls, wifi