Security → France convicts first person not having secured WiFi network

ArsTechnica | Sept 13 2012

quote:

---

A 40-year-old Frenchman living in rural eastern France has become the first person ordered to pay a fine under France’s controversial anti-piracy three-strikes law known as Hadopi.

On Thursday, a judge ruled that Alain Prevost must pay €150 ($194) for failing to secure his Internet (presumably WiFi) connection and for ignoring the three warnings sent by the Hadopi agency. He has become the first person to be convicted under Hadopi; his is the first of 14 cases brought against French Internet users who reach the third strike.

Jérémie Zimmerman, of the French digital rights group La Quadrature du Net condemned this verdict, in an e-mail sent to Ars.

"This is pure harassment and intimidation of this poor chap who doesn't even know what happened to him, and shows the absurdity of the whole scheme," he wrote. "Actually, Hadopi cases are completely empty of any evidence, with only IP addresses collected by private companies that no judge could ever accept as valid."

However, in a strange twist of facts, Prevost was not even guilty of downloading. Instead, it was his soon-to-be ex-wife, who was in attendance in court. She even admitted under oath that she downloaded the two Rihanna songs in question.

According to French media reports, the man, described as a local artisan, told the court he was "totally incapable of downloading anything." However, because he was the owner of the DSL account, Prevost was considered responsible under the law.

But because Prevost attempted to provide a legitimate explanation of what had happened—without a lawyer—he consequently admitted his own guilt of not having secured his WiFi network. By saying that it was his wife who had downloaded the songs, Prevost handed over the prosecution all the evidence it needed, as otherwise it would have needed to prove that he had not done so.

"In the meantime people have nothing to fear: The best remedy against Hadopi is to say, ‘I didn't do it!’" Zimmerman added. "If this guy hadn't self-incriminated, he would have never been fined."

Or, as the French tech site Numérama summed it up: "We can applaud the honesty, but regret the naïveté."

In an interview with a French tech news site, PCInpact, Prevost explained his situation was complicated by the fact that because he was going through a divorce, and after he received the first two warnings, he apparently took the pre-emptive step of taking his own household offline.

"I had a first warning and then a second," he said. "But I sent a letter to [the Hadopi agency] via my wife’s lawyer, who had to follow-up! Nothing else happened, except Hadopi sent me e-mails, but I wasn’t able to receive them as I had no Internet."

Prevost added that the Hadopi agency summoned him to Paris to explain himself, but because he would have had to bear the cost of traveling to the capital (likely over €100 in travel costs alone), he said, "I’m not going to Paris for that sort of thing!"

When Prevost ignored the Hadopi agency, he was summoned to his local police station, where he explained everything.

"I gave a statement saying that I had not, did not install this download site, nor download these two songs," he told PCInpact. "They’re two Rihanna tracks. I can’t tell you the titles—I don’t know anything. It was my wife who did it, and I’m going through a divorce."

The local police then apparently invited him to have his computer "cleaned" by a local IT firm at a cost of €50 ($64).

"After that, I didn’t hear from anyone until July when I received a summons to court for these songs," he explained. "But I sent the proof [of the cleaning] to the police. The police told me to bring the paper saying your computer was cleaned. I was summoned on Saturday morning, and by the afternoon it was done."

The police claimed Prevost had used "U-Torrent or Torrent, that must be it," he recalled.

"[Again] I gave a statement saying that I had not installed or downloaded anything," he told PCInpact. "After those steps, I thought to myself: ‘I’m all set, I’m OK.’ Even the policeman told me, ‘This is just music files, there’s nothing really serious. This should be OK.’ What followed was nonsense. I thought I was OK. [But then] I found myself in court."

Prevost added that he defended himself without a lawyer because he thought that his cooperation and explanation of the details would absolve him.

---

»arstechnica.com/tech-pol ··· t-do-it/
--
»bit.ly/gUqYaH - C. Brian Smith: Think of the exclamation point as a car horn: a little goes a long way. Lay on it too hard and everyone’s going to think you’re a moron.

Article seems unclear. Was he convicted of not securing his WiFi? Or charged because he admitted his wife downloaded Rhianna songs on his ISP account with permission.

Off with his head! That's the French thing to do
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!

As far I understand it was because he admitted his wife had downloaded songs on his ISP account which was possible for reason of lack of a not-secured WiFi.

Wasn't clear to me whether it covered a period of time when she was authorized to use that net connection or not. If not, charge the woman with theft of service as well.

At least in Canada, our ISPs have such hideous overage charges and low caps, you'd have to be insane to maintain a wide-open connection. Think I'll open up a business in France "cleaning" computers and charging 50 Euros or so to put in a WPA2 password though.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong

From BBC News:

French man fined over wife's illegal song downloads: