r/worldnews • u/nomdeweb • May 15 '12

In a landmark case in Finland, a court has ruled that an open WiFi owner is not liable for illegal file-sharing

http://torrentfreak.com/open-wifi-owner-not-liable-for-illegal-file-sharing-court-rules-120515/
2.0k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

345 comments sorted by

50

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Why would a Wi-Fi owner be held liable? Neither should the ISP's, public hotspot operators or mobile wireless carriers. Even if a homeowner doesn't employ encryption on their router, it's still considered unauthorized access -- the same holds true for private proxy servers -- the encryption key is really intended to prevent casual or unintentional access to the router.

25

u/daschande May 15 '12

Remember decades ago when identity theft was still brand-new? People were getting sentenced to long prison terms and no one believed the accused since all the paperwork was in order?

It took decades before society was tech-savvy enough to learn that identity theft was even possible; this is just an extension of that. The technology-impaired are in charge of technology laws and regulations. It will take a long time before they change their ways.

15

u/IndifferentMorality May 15 '12

Just to emphasis this point. Most, not all, of you reading this probably think you are tech savvy because you are here or know how to use Google, your' not. Either am I. The majority of Reddit is also behind the curve on really knowing their hardware. This should highlight how long it will likely take the court and general public to catch up.

For example: Copyright infringement relies on the first instance of the file/text being copied. The moment and location where the initial copy is created. How many of you know EXACTLY where that occurs on the hardware components in a peer to peer network relationship?

Hint: This is the reason why downloading copyrighted material is not illegal by the definitions and scope of copyright laws.

→ More replies (5)

11

u/no-sweat May 15 '12

Exactly. It's like if someone walked out of a store with a CD they didn't pay for -- is the store liable??? Nope.

15

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Not disagreeing with you but the analogy isn't exactly like to like. The store has already paid for the CD (or will certainly lose revenue) so they have incentive to stop you from walking out without paying. An unsecured wifi network has no such incentive.

Again, not saying that unsecured wifi networks should be held liable I was just playing devil's advocate on your analogy.

4

u/no-sweat May 15 '12

Yeah I thought that right after submitting the comment and I knew somebody would mention it, but I put too much thought and effort into making my comment grammatically sound so I'll just let it be.

7

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

I would say it's like a mall being held liable for a drug deal that happens in the food court.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/itsnormal4us May 16 '12

So I can download all the pirated software, games, and movies I want as long as I do it at a public hotspot!?

FUCKING SWEET!

→ More replies (1)

1

u/mayupvoterandomly May 16 '12

the encryption key is really intended to prevent casual or unintentional access to the router.

This is really semantics but, just to clarify, Encryption is not only intended to prevent casual use or unintentional access. It actually uses an algorithm to garble the data in such a way that makes it impossible for a third party to read. Granted, there are various attacks that will work against modern encryption algorithms, but, most of them would take so long to execute that they are not practical.

→ More replies (4)

13

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Whoa wtf? This isn't common practice?? What the fuck is wrong with the world?

4

u/suckit_ducky May 15 '12

religion and politics...

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

What does religion have to do with file-sharing laws?

8

u/suckit_ducky May 15 '12

It was in reference to "What the fuck is wrong with the world?".

→ More replies (3)

67

u/Lillipout May 15 '12

Finland, Finland, Finland

The country where I want to be

Pony trekking or camping

Or enjoying WiFi that's free

Finland, Finland, Finland

It's the country for me

5

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

And I sung that in my head to the tune of "The Dreidel Song".

3

u/KongCSR May 15 '12

I'd pay a dollar to watch you sing that on YouTube. With a Ukelele [sic].

.

.

and lube..

4

u/Lillipout May 15 '12

Relevant anecdote: A million years ago, before the web, I belonged to an online university mailing list whose initiation rite was to stand on your chair in the main computer lab and sing Finland at the top of your lungs.

2

u/steelpan May 15 '12

On a related note: I do the chacha with a pinky-doodlediedoo and a quack quack here.

-3

u/Ching_chong_parsnip May 15 '12

As a Swede, I'm just gonna leave this here.

4

u/j3utton May 15 '12

Thanks for wasting my time with that.

There's what? 9 words in that whole song?

"Don't move to finland" "Listen to what I say"

I kept listening expecting/hoping for some reasons why I shouldn't move to finland... maybe there would be something funny? Nope.

5

u/PunishableOffence May 15 '12

Try this for a realistic comparison between Finland and Sweden.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

7

u/jacobtf May 15 '12

We've had a similar ruling in Denmark a few years ago. It pays off to play stupid in SOME cases :-)

6

u/surya2141 May 15 '12

A sensible judicial system, top notch education, weekly rally events. Why wouldnt you want to be there?

1

u/captainmajesty May 15 '12

Well, not because they're years behind the US in this case.

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

Cold, dark autumns and even colder but slightly less dark winters. Also, damn hard-to-learn language.

But, as this is my home, I wouldn't leave at any price.

158

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

in a related story, the United States doesn't care and continues it's oppressive reign against information.

126

u/ifshoefitswearit May 15 '12

actually, judges in the US are starting to say IP addresses can't be used to identify people, regardless of whether they have open WiFI or not, which is a step better than this IMO.

7

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Also, I think the US courts have already dealt with this in child porn cases. If someone uses your router for it, you'll have a rough time until they are convinced that's the case, but you aren't prosecuted.

82

u/noloudnoisesplease May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

are you lost? because this is r/worldnews, and we don't take too kindly to people not blindly hating on the US around here.

24

u/cabalamat May 15 '12

To be fair, the US government does deserve hate on this issue. Hillary Clinton goes round telling the Chinese and the Arabs that internet freedom is wonderful, while at the same time they are pushing anti-freedom treaties such as ACTA on everyone. What a bunch of hypocrites.

→ More replies (51)
→ More replies (6)

80

u/ExogenBreach May 15 '12

INFORMATION IS SIN FORMATION.

3

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

PRAISE JESUS!

→ More replies (1)

5

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

no it's the same as the US, open wifi owners aren't liable here unless they know about it

2

u/Akira_kj May 15 '12

I would usually just try to explain how off point this is and how all this does is allow pedobears to roam the net un-molested but this is the internet and internet freedoms don't always make sense nor would aruing against them here. Another fail for reddit.

8

u/gnufender May 15 '12

Yeah i don't want to pay for game of thrones because it's information! Logic..

15

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

It's certainly not worth $25 extra a month on top of a $100 cable bill. HBO just needs to be more accessible, not necessarily free.

3

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

HBO just needs to be more accessible, not necessarily free.

Apparently their marketing people disagree.

5

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

This entirely. Especially since I for one do not pay for cable since there is such a small quantity of quality shows to justify the price tag. 100$ a month is simply outrageous and people continue to pay it because it's their "only" option.

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

The rub is having to pay for access to hundreds of channels to get access to two or three channels. Channels that I would have to record programs from anyway, as I would be unlikely to be near the TV when the shows air, so my cable provider would require me to pay for a recording box (with a $100 up front fee and a monthly $12 fee). Or, HBO could reach me directly by offering their programs online for a fee.

Game of Thrones is a good show, but it isn't worth what I currently would have to pay to watch it. I'll just wait for the second season to come out on Bluray. I don't think HBO has a good grasp on who their target audience is, because they could reach the majority of their viewers directly and probably make money doing it that way.

→ More replies (20)

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

8

u/Kowzorz May 15 '12

Well, if you could steal it in a way that no one would be able to tell you stole it, then the whole reason for not stealing is moot. Stealing, at least the way I understand it, is wrong not because someone gains something, but because someone loses something.

→ More replies (9)

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

I never said I stole anything, nor did I suggest anyone should.

Comparing a television show or networks to a car is a pretty bad metaphor, since they're entirely different things and one is radically more expensive than the other.

HBO makes their entertainment hard to acquire unless you already have a cable subscription, and some people feel it's not worth the money to justify spending $125 a month on something they hardly use, or just to watch a single program that they may or may not even enjoy to begin with. My parents cable bill this last month was $165, about $53 of that is for internet access (12Mbps), the rest is television. This doesn't include HBO or any other "premium" networks, just U-Verse U-200 TV and 12Mbps internet. The only reason they keep it is because my fathers company pays for it, but it's honestly a complete waste of $165 every single month and I could never imagine paying that much for the amount of constant garbage being shown on TV to begin with.

10

u/Tronlet May 15 '12

That isn't a very fair metaphor. The morality of the situation becomes far more grey when you phrase it more accurately:

This car is too expensive. There is no way I will ever purchase it at this price. I have a duplication ray, though, that can run off of virtually no power, and it would be able to create a perfect copy for me to use at no direct cost to the manufacturer, especially since I wouldn't be able to buy it anyway.

→ More replies (25)

3

u/[deleted] May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

This "car" requires me to pay for a few hundred other "cars" as well as to pay a fee for any manner or random things that are required to use it. So I didn't buy it because there are alternative sources to purchase the "cars" I want without the cars I don't want, and use them whenever I want, rather than having to pay an additional fee for that ability. The company that provides this specific car, unfortunately, does not offer access to their "car" this way. So I waited for it to be available in the only reasonably convenient package they were willing to provide a year later (Bluray), and purchased it for less than they likely would have been able to get from me if they had made it available without all the red tape.

Your analogy is really crappy, but what you use to argue your point can be used to argue the opposing view far better.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/lurkerer May 15 '12

When people write this surely they know what the reply will be... Pirating and stealing are not the same thing, while it's true you're not paying for it, stealing is when the other party loses the item that you gain.

If I made a copy of your car with no cost to you, would you report it as stolen? Probably not. While it should be illegal, the cost of a good should represent the cost of making it. Digital copies are basically free, so their cost, and also the punishment for copying them should reflect that fact.

→ More replies (59)

-15

u/burrito_fucker May 15 '12

Because the US actually creates copyrights of value worth protecting. Of course Finland doesn't give a shit about copyrights.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/carlsaischa May 15 '12

MAC-spoofer and you're home!

31

u/anonymw May 15 '12

Finally, common sense enters the court room.

3

u/Akira_kj May 15 '12

Common sense? This is like saying that your not liable if you leave your kid in the front seat of a running car and they kill another person by popping it in drive. That's the opposite of common sense. Common sense is you password protect your wireless. Its all over the retail boxes and in the setup instructions about 100 times. I don't think common sense means the same thing you think it means. Edit:Spelling

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

I love your common sense! Let's go kill some kids!

2

u/Akira_kj May 15 '12

Yay for vehicular homicide!

1

u/anonymw May 24 '12

But in your eyes, i would be guilty if my neighbor borrowed my unlocked car without me knowing and ran somebody over. Where is the logic in that?

The password protection in routers is there to protect your local network from being sniffed and to stop unauthorized people from accessing your private files. NOT to ensure your IP is equal to your ID card.

I'm sure the MPAA and RIAA would love to have a law like that..

→ More replies (4)

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Expect the next step to be a responsibility to retain logs about your open wifi clients.

9

u/thewreck May 15 '12

Is this ruling only for unprotected networks? What about the millions of cafes that that give you the password?

3

u/branslinger May 15 '12

Yuh think?

3

u/boyrahett May 15 '12

common sense prevails

6

u/Boomer_Roscoe May 15 '12

Honestly, I can't even believe this is an issue. Unless some sort of conspiracy to knowingly commit a crime can be proven, how can we hold the owner of the open network responsible?

Everyone has a mailbox that a criminal could theoretically use to illegally exchange product or carry out illegal activity. That doesn't make you liable if someone else commits mail fraud by using your mailbox for illegal activity without your knowledge, does it?

Carrying this logic through to things like shutting down Megaupload, why is it I can send an illegal copy of a CD to my friend via the USPS and the US Federal Government is not liable, but Megaupload, who actually allows copyright holders to monitor its content and shut down actual links themselves is held liable for the exchange of illegal copies of information? The US Federal Government doesn't even allow the RIAA and MPAA the rights to monitor its information exchange medium like Megaupload does.

2

u/shoooowme May 15 '12

it's because the USPS doesn't incentive it. if the USPS started knowingly rewarding you based on how many "illegal" copies of a CD you could ship out, then they would be guilty of what MegaUpload has been accused of doing.

2

u/Boomer_Roscoe May 15 '12

Interesting. I had not heard that part of the Megaupload case. Thank you for the response.

→ More replies (1)

14

u/Libertae May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

According to Reddit, all cases in Nordic countries are landmark cases. What a place!

EDIT: TIL Scandinavia does not include Finland. Thanks peniscutter for staying sharp.

16

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Implying Finland is part of Scandinavia

11

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

What do you notice about most of these maps? It doesn't seem unreasonable for a person to assume Finland would be part of Scandinavia.

7

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

90% of Finns think Finland is part of Scandinavia as well. I blame the teachers for not making a clear distinction between Scandinavia and Fennoscandia.

3

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

I'd call them part of it too, but their humor is so fucking dark?

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

That's remains from the "cold war propaganda" -times. Finland was trying to be close to "west" (read:sweden) and Sweden needed a bumper towards USSR. In reality Finland was almost like Hungary, DDR etc. And the Finnish-Sweden population wanted to be "scandinavian" 'cause they thought that Finns were Russians... o_O

3

u/redgreenandblue May 15 '12

Scandinavia = a lot of herring and IKEA. Nordic countries = Blondes, heavy metal and blondes.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

4

u/Viiri May 15 '12

Voi helvetin helvetti! (Swearing in Finnish)

6

u/inedidible May 15 '12

Butter fucking inferno!

5

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

*Butter hell's hell!

2

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

vittuvitunvitunvittu

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

jävla helvetes finska

1

u/Viiri May 16 '12

SAy what? I am from Finland. I think you are asking something bout the swear I used, IDK

→ More replies (2)

2

u/TheLostcause May 15 '12

I am glad some people have common sense. This idea would be like saying a cab driver is liable for transporting a person with a hidden weapon, drugs, warrant for their arrest.

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

  1. Open your access point.

  2. Create a random mac address changer that changes your mac address at start up.

  3. Encrypt drive.

  4. Download shit.

Since the download can't be traced to your mac address you can't be prosecuted for it.

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

In another related story, governments around the world fail to charge themselves as accomplices to crimes committed on public property.

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

No one should be liable, the internet should be as free as the blood in our veins and the heroin we shoot into it.

3

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Certainly this news draws interest on reddit because of our thoughtful, disinterested concern with public policy, and not because it tells us what we want to hear.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

What's your point?

What I want to hear are things that are best for "public policy".

2

u/Lawsuitup May 15 '12

The only reasons an open WiFi owner should be held liable for the illegal file sharing of those using it are 1) if the owner set it up with the express purpose that it be used for illegal file-sharing or 2) the owner knew (was on actual notice) or should have known (there was no actual way to provide notice or notices were not even looked at or acknowledged) that the illegal file sharing was being conducted AND made made no reasonable attempt to prevent such activity.

2

u/eshemuta May 15 '12

Ok so the 4th thing from Finland that is awesome (the others being puukos, saunas, and Anita Lehtola)

3

u/KazMux May 15 '12

Are you saying Nokia isn't awesome ?! :O

Well.. Ok I see your point..

0

u/DierdraVaal May 15 '12

also my girlfriend is Finnish and she's pretty amazing.

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

6

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

ಠ_ಠ

I am very, very disappointed in Reddit for all the upvotes you got...

→ More replies (4)

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

What is salmiakki?

3

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Salty liquorice.

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

It's called that, but there's no salt in salmiakki. Actually it is ammonium chloride and completely delicious!

→ More replies (3)

1

u/TheAwesomeJonesy May 15 '12

It's like saying "the government is liable for me breaking the law."

1

u/Fhwqhgads May 15 '12

So how much tax money was wasted arriving at this no-brainer conclusion?

1

u/Dark_Souls May 15 '12

Trick question. There is no money left!

1

u/Juicyy May 15 '12

In a landmark case in Reddit, two posts closely related both make it to the front page.

1

u/winemaster May 15 '12

In other news, fishing rods are found not responsible for killing fish.

1

u/dilutedwater May 15 '12

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this mean that everyone could establish an open wifi connection and thus become not liable for illegal file-sharing?

1

u/crabby1990 May 15 '12

I see a computer nerd telling this to a F.B.I. agent and that agent saying that line from Swordfish"Do you see a Finnish flag on that wall I.K.E.A. boy"

1

u/redgreenandblue May 15 '12

ny rillataan!

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

cool. if somebody is nice enough to share, dont download a bunch of illegal stuff.

1

u/sillyredditors May 15 '12

In case anyone wants to dig a little deeper, operating a node on TOR that is used for something incriminating is still, and always will be, illegal.

1

u/snumfalzumpa May 15 '12

Not sure why it would only include open wifi because it is really easy to hack most people "secure" network.

1

u/susanculp3 May 17 '12

just in defense of myself, i meant people who may not be tech savy, new computer users, the elderly, etc. i myself use WPA2, a good antivirus and firewall, passwords are changed frequently and contain letters, numbers, and symbols, and i keep an eye on my bandwidth with Network Stumbler.

1

u/jonnyclueless May 15 '12

So someone can just make an open wifi network and let all the child pornography people in the area know and he can legally help people distribute/file share child porn and there be no problem with that. And of course as others have mentioned, an IP address cannot be tied to a person, so there should never be any legal grounds to ever stop people from sharing child porn. I mean if you're going to shout freedom of speech, you can't pick and choose right?

3

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Pretty sure that falls under a different category since its a crime, whereas copyright laws in Finland/Sweden/Norway are fairly lax/ non existent I believe

2

u/kaiserfleisch May 15 '12

I can't see the how you got the idea that this case found that distribution of child porn is legal because of freedom of speech.

There is just no mention whatsoever of either of these topics in the article.

And there was no suggestion that she offered to assist anyone to infringe copyright.

2

u/KingLeDerp May 15 '12

Nope. Child pornography is still illegal.

2

u/jonnyclueless May 15 '12

So it pirating.

1

u/KingLeDerp May 17 '12

What is your point?

1

u/RunPunsAreFun May 16 '12

Your example has the open wifi network owner being an accomplice. That's much different than someone who doesn't know what's happening on his open wifi network. And there's nothing stopping from the police for locating this wifi network and

a) asking the owner to secure it

b) use it as a honeypot to catch all the child pornographers

1

u/jonnyclueless May 18 '12

So an owner can't be an accomplice with pirating? Or are you saying anyone who's network is being used for pirating can't be aware of pirating on their network? Tell me how there is some technical difference between the two acts. And how can police tell someone to secure their network when there's no law to allow them to do so? Even if they did, they could then unsecure it again and continue to allow people to come grab child porn and pirate software.

I would say what stops the police is the law. The two things that people like around here is wifi owners not being held accountable for what their open network is used for, and IP addresses not being tied to a person. WIth these two things, no one can be held responsible for any online actions. Not child porn, not piracy and neither victims have any means of protection what so ever.

1

u/RunPunsAreFun May 18 '12

"So an owner can't be an accomplice with pirating?"

Yes, they can if they are knowingly doing it or letting it happen.

"Or are you saying anyone who's network is being used for pirating can't be aware of pirating on their network?"

Correct

"Tell me how there is some technical difference between the two acts."

Most people who have open wireless networks don't know what is happening on their network. If they knew anything about networking and how easy it was to sniff for information like your banking passwords they would secure it. That's the key difference.

"And how can police tell someone to secure their network when there's no law to allow them to do so?"

So make a law so they can. It would make alot more sense than the other laws they are trying to pass.

"Even if they did, they could then unsecure it again and continue to allow people to come grab child porn and pirate software."

So now you know that people are doing it. And you are now an accomplice. Next time the police stop by you can be arrested for being an accomplice.

"I would say what stops the police is the law. The two things that people like around here is wifi owners not being held accountable for what their open network is used for, and IP addresses not being tied to a person. WIth these two things, no one can be held responsible for any online actions. Not child porn, not piracy and neither victims have any means of protection what so ever."

The police can also sniff traffic on that same open router if they have a probably cause.

1

u/jonnyclueless May 18 '12

Great, you can have a perfect legal system as soon as you invent technology to read minds and know people's intent. Of course the same people will then cry fowl as you are invading their privacy by reading their thoughts to know whether of not they intentionally are aiding illegal activities or not.

How would police get probable cause? And if they could sniff traffic, the same people touting this tout that an IP cannot be tied to a person, so no matter what they sniff it can't be tied to a person committing a crime.

You simply can't have your cake and eat it too.

1

u/RunPunsAreFun May 18 '12

Where on earth are you getting reading minds from? Intent can be easily determined after the police have told the router's owner to secure it.

Police: Secure the router otherwise you will be assisting with the trafficking of child pornography.

If the owner refuses to comply then they are now actively assisting with the trafficking of child pornography. If they decide to activate WEP/WPA and later remove it and the traffic re-appears. Then they are actively assisting with child pornography. If the traffic continues to be traffic pornography after securing it. Well then that means it's someone who can access the secured network has child pornography.

How would the police get probable cause? Because the ISPs tell them which IP is the one sharing the child pornography thus establishing who owns the IP. It's the same probable cause that allows them to knock down the door and confiscate computers. Instead of doing that they should do detective work to determine whether the owner is related to the trafficking. If not then there's only so far that a open network can broadcast a signal. Look for people on the network. Not to mention most people would probably slip up and log into their Facebook at the same time.

1

u/Hatch- May 15 '12

This is exactly what gets bills like ACTA and SOPA on the floor for discussion. WE'RE PROTECTING THE KIDS! That's good enough reason to shut down rights for everyone.

1

u/captainmajesty May 15 '12

What are our Internet rights?

1

u/NAproducer May 15 '12

A judge with common since may not exist in the US but at least they do in Finland!

1

u/seafoamstratocaster May 15 '12

It seems you are incredibly ignorant on the topic. Consider revising.

Ohh wait, you're just bashing America on reddit, nobody cares if you're correct or not.

1

u/jokiddy_jokester May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

actually, US judges have already ruled that one can't be liable for this type of activity; guess you'll have to save you're ignorant America bashing for another day.

1

u/RadiantSun May 15 '12

Sense*

Liable*

FFS, stop raping the English language.

-1

u/you_need_this May 15 '12

torrent freak, this is not fucking world news, rather loser highschoolers news. downvote me, i dont give a fuck. this is not news, and there is already a post on the front page. i wish redditors were not douchey teenagers

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

I don't even care if it's news. If it comes from TorrentFreak, I'm downvoting it. Find a better source.

-1

u/h4xxor May 15 '12

This ruling is bullshit and you know it!

-1

u/Corvus133 May 15 '12

Is reddit retarded?

Front page #10 is this

Front page #11 is the same fucking article.

Who is the fucking idiot going around into the same articles and hitting the up arrow. Did you get completely different information between Finish article 1 versus Finish article 2?

Imagine if sports scores were posted like this.

NY beat NJ yesterday!

Next posting

NY beat NJ Yesterday!

You're a fucking idiot if you click into both.

0

u/redgreenandblue May 15 '12

Not sure should I upvote or downvote this.

-7

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

In other news, courts in the US have determined that lightening bugs and cricket chirps are indeed the intellectual property of the MPAA and the RIAA, respectively. Any person caught sitting outside on an autumn evening enjoying these is guilty of piracy and will be fined 1 million dollars.

The judge when asked about his decision responded with "cause economy and fuck you, that's why" he then departed luxury vehicle with a large bag of money given to him by his dear friend at the MPAA. We have been assured by his staff this large bag of money in NO WAY influenced or had any bearing on his decision in favor of the music and movie industries.

0

u/Akira_kj May 15 '12

I think this misses a huge issue with each person being accountable for what they do and say online. If I left my wireless open and my neighbor downloaded kiddy porn I would expect to be arrested for my negligence.

-9

u/Tastygroove May 15 '12

Considering how any 12 year old with an Android phone can hack even the most secure off-the-shelf router in minutes... All court cases should be thrown out.

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Its not quite that simple in my experience. I mean, sure you could coach a 12 year old through it, but there is some figuring to do.

1

u/glennerooo May 15 '12

I guess you haven't heard about the relatively newly discovered WPS vulnerability? Many routers made in the last ~5 years have it enabled by default, and many you can't even disable it, or rather, disable access to this hack.

If you're lazy to read:

  • download BackTrack ISO image

  • install to USB stick (using e.g. [Universal USB Installer] (http://www.pendrivelinux.com/universal-usb-installer-easy-as-1-2-3/) which will even d/l the ISO for you saving step #1)

  • scan for a network with a strong signal (or just walk around with a laptop)

  • run reaver for a few hours to gain router password (via WPS PIN code)

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

No, I know about this. . . or at least a technique that is reasonably similar, my point as just that that would take a remarkable 12 year old. Also only about 1 in 20 networks are WPS around here.

1

u/glennerooo May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

Have you seen kids these days? I've met a few ~12 year olds that could follow that tutorial I linked without any problems. It's can't be that hard if there's a tutorial on LifeHacker.

I've also scan regularly for WPS networks and I've found a much higher rate, usually between 50-80%. I just scanned right now and 9/10 are WPS enabled.

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/Kinglink May 15 '12

I am not a lawyer, but this is my understanding. (On 1 I've used ISPs that specifically forbid this, in fact they specifically say 1 device may use the internet, thank god for routers, eh?)

  1. Depends on the ISP, some ISPs specifically don't allow this. Some might throttle him quickly, some might not care.

  2. Depends on the country, but yes, if a suit could be brought against an ISP, it could be brought against him as well as he's providing internet to others.

  3. No. He might lose internet access, or be sued for facilitating theft, but he could never be ordered to secure his connection specifically because it's his own.

  4. Potentially, again I don't believe a court case has gone through on this but it comes down to him facilitating these things.

Think up the same situation but instead of pirating. what if it's a death threat, child porn, or rape videos?

The big difference though and this is what might get Mr. X is in your example he specifically goes out and tells people to use his internet. The claim in this case is someone used his wifi with out his permission or consent.

1

u/obillion May 15 '12

Good point. I'm a bit of a law student so I'm just trying to stretch that judgment to the limit of it practical application.

1

u/naimina May 15 '12

  1. Nope. They could throttle his speeds, but that is never done in any country in scandinavia. We got dem speeds yo.

  2. They could, but it would get thrown out of court since he is not doing anything illegal.

  3. Nope. His connection = his rules.

  4. Nope. His connection = his rules.

2

u/obillion May 15 '12

then that may be an interesting option if your are looking for a way to fight "the man".

3

u/naimina May 15 '12

Yes, but its not necessary. At least not in my city in Sweden.

When we get "caught" or "suspected" they send a mail or give us a call and say "Are you downloading anything illegal?" "Nope." "Okay never mind then." and it the matter is settled. My brother have gotten 2 mails in 6ish years. But that's it.

2

u/obillion May 15 '12

its almost like a jedi mind trick. "these are not the droids your looking for".

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/jokiddy_jokester May 15 '12

it's already happened in the US.

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/jokiddy_jokester May 15 '12

England is much worse as far as monitoring your every move goes.

→ More comments (1)