Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Germany plans to remove owner liability for piracy on open Wi-Fi hotspots–report

arstechnica.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 85 posts

Re: Germany plans to remove owner liability for piracy on open Wi-Fi hotspots–report

#31

Post by DasIch »

denzil_correa wrote: post #22
DasIch wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just politically it doesn't make any sense to me to believe the change will have that effect. Why would after such a long time the CDU suddenly drop the pro-Störerhaftung position? It seems much more likely that SPD and CDU have reached a compromise that eliminates the Störerhaftung only partially. I expect the outcome will just create legal uncertainty. So that there won't be any positive effect.

> Why would after such a long time the CDU suddenly drop the pro-Störerhaftung position? That's because the Advocate General (AG) to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has decided it to be so [0]. According to the AG, there has to be balance between "freedom to conduct business" and "protection of IP". So, the requirement to make WiFi networks secure via passwords is an unfair balance. The AG's counsel…

That's a very good reason. I don't think it truly explains the shift, considering the larger context. They suffered similar and larger legal setbacks on data retention and they didn't change their position on that, they pursued it further.

Why are they willing to drop this so much more quickly? Is the legal argument stronger here? Are the law and order people just that much more powerful than the intellectual property people? Is there a larger compromise at play, where the CDU compromises on this issue and the SPD on another?

Re: Germany plans to remove owner liability for piracy on open Wi-Fi hotspots–report

#32

Post by jackvalentine »

mseebach wrote: post #15
jackvalentine wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he might be referring to "public" but not public wifi, like coffee shops etc. I've long thought that if your business is using public unlicensed spectrum then you should be required to let the public in. A very large national phone carrier in my country is blanketing the cities with wifi reserved for their customers - using a public resource and clogging up the unlicensed spectrum for private gain. They've al…

Large scale public wifi generally doesn't have passwords, that clearly doesn't scale, they have fancy enterprise auth things or captive portals. Shared password only works for small places like coffee shops. Anecdotes: 1: on London Underground, my phone authenticates using the SIM somehow (it still shows a captive portal screen, just with an ad, yay). 2: in the Turkish lounge in Istanbul airport, the shared password…

> But to take your idea just one step further, once you've opened up all wifi for the general publics consumption (what a renaissance for wired networking!)

I think this requires clarification - I don't mean no business should ever use wifi. I mean businesses like telephone companies shouldn't be using to augment their networks. Obviously offices and the like need secure wireless networking that normal hardware can connect to.

> Why is it wrong to use unlicensed spectrum for private gain

Maybe with my above correction this isn't needed, but in cities the 2.4ghz channel is loaded to death and in a few years the 5ghz channel will be the same. All I'm objecting to are these closed commercial networks from people who should be paying for the spectrum bunging up the open one the rest of us use. My city is soaked with a wifi network that is closed to everyone except the customers of a telco. If your primary business is providing network connectivity, perhaps you should pay for the finite resource you use.

Re: Germany plans to remove owner liability for piracy on open Wi-Fi hotspots–report

#33

Post by jjawssd »

codecamper wrote: post #9
jackvalentine wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he might be referring to "public" but not public wifi, like coffee shops etc. I've long thought that if your business is using public unlicensed spectrum then you should be required to let the public in. A very large national phone carrier in my country is blanketing the cities with wifi reserved for their customers - using a public resource and clogging up the unlicensed spectrum for private gain. They've al…

Ugh.. and it is so hard to actually get on those wifi networks -- at least as a traveller. They'll give it free to mobile customers, who never bother to use it. Yes, I was referring to cafe / resto wifi. If one opens it, then people take advantage, but if everyone opens theirs, then nobody bothers. Only some really cheapskate neighbors who most probably don't consume all that much of it anyways. everybody has a smart…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Re: Germany plans to remove owner liability for piracy on open Wi-Fi hotspots–report

#36

Post by Spivak »

mseebach wrote: post #11
pjc50 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's got a password, it's not really public wifi. Isn't it usually complementary wifi for patrons of a particular business?

Public doesn't mean free to everybody, it means available to everybody. A public house (as opposed to a private club), aka a pub, is not a place you can hang out whenever, they have hours (they are not "public" at night) and you're supposed to buy stuff when you're in there. There's nothing about password protected wifi that makes it inherently non-public.

I think he means when certain Telcoms blanket entire cities with Wi-Fi in the unlicensed spectrum which at scale makes everyone else's connection worse. I have no problem with blanketing cities with internet access but I think commercial wireless should have their own frequency -- which would actually be good for them since they would be mostly alone in the space and could get a frequency which is better suited to large scale coverage.

Re: Germany plans to remove owner liability for piracy on open Wi-Fi hotspots–report

#37

Post by denzil_correa »

DasIch wrote: post #31
denzil_correa wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would after such a long time the CDU suddenly drop the pro-Störerhaftung position? That's because the Advocate General (AG) to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has decided it to be so [0]. According to the AG, there has to be balance between "freedom to conduct business" and "protection of IP". So, the requirement to make WiFi networks secure via passwords is an unfair balance. The AG's counsel…

That's a very good reason. I don't think it truly explains the shift, considering the larger context. They suffered similar and larger legal setbacks on data retention and they didn't change their position on that, they pursued it further. Why are they willing to drop this so much more quickly? Is the legal argument stronger here? Are the law and order people just that much more powerful than the intellectual propert…

> Is the legal argument stronger here?

EU court directives are applicable for EU member countries. CDU or SPD can't do much. There's also a ruling from the Danish SC on EU directives that applies in Germany on open WiFi. I doubt SPD or CDU could do much. It would potentially just delay the homecoming of such a law.

Re: Germany plans to remove owner liability for piracy on open Wi-Fi hotspots–report

#38

Post by chokma »

blubb-fish wrote: post #35

The infamous CP card is usually played by backwards-minded conservatives but it was, is and keeps being a potential big problem when you open your Wifi to the public. Also other criminal online activities.

This is still a problem even if the Störerhaftung (WIFI-owner being liable for misuse) is removed: When the police comes looking for someone distributing CP, they go by the IP address and take everything that remotely looks like a computer for forensic examination.

So, having an open WIFI is like painting a huge target on your back, albeit a somewhat smaller one when media companies are removed from the list of potential trouble makers.

(See also: http://www.lawblog.de/index.php/archives/2016/05/12/dein-wla... (in German), for a defense lawyer's perspective)

Re: Germany plans to remove owner liability for piracy on open Wi-Fi hotspots–report

#39

Post by realityking »

george20 wrote: post #28
denzil_correa wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How about open Wifi in hotels or restaurants? This the primary reason why Germany has very few open WiFi spots.

Well, I am glad they are moving over. Technically, it would be very hard to find people responsible for open Wifi in, for example, a hotel. Who would be responsible if Osama Bin Laden browsed something that is illegal? The hotel owner, the staff, the internet provider? And how about if the hotel is owned by a public company? The shareholders? Just bullshit.

That's why the wifi isn't open in German hotels, instead you get a login specific to your room.

Re: Germany plans to remove owner liability for piracy on open Wi-Fi hotspots–report

#40

Post by Tomte »

denzil_correa wrote: post #37
DasIch wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very good reason. I don't think it truly explains the shift, considering the larger context. They suffered similar and larger legal setbacks on data retention and they didn't change their position on that, they pursued it further. Why are they willing to drop this so much more quickly? Is the legal argument stronger here? Are the law and order people just that much more powerful than the intellectual propert…

> Is the legal argument stronger here? EU court directives are applicable for EU member countries. CDU or SPD can't do much. There's also a ruling from the Danish SC on EU directives that applies in Germany on open WiFi. I doubt SPD or CDU could do much. It would potentially just delay the homecoming of such a law.

Danish court rulings binding on Germany? You're either joking or misinformed.
Post reply on HN