dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7
share rss forum feed
« ummmWhere do we stop? »
This is a sub-selection from Courts

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to ArrayList

Re: Courts

If you use the common def. anyone that provides Internet Access. It does not state that you have to charge for the service or not. Juno was called an ISP and they gave the service away for free.

And that is my point. An ISP can NOT be sued for $$$ over a customer downloading content illegally. But a consumer can be. So why is the courts having double standards? If I go to your house and download something, that is copyrighted, yes you can get sued for it. But if your neighbor does it on an open router why should you not get sued? It's still works the same way. And this goes back to if you are in the car with someone and they go into the 7-11 kill the clerk, you and the shooter/your friend both get charged with murder. This is do different. knowing or not should not get you off the hook.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
It's actually not clear at all that party A can be held liable for letting party B use their internet connection if party B uses it for something illegal. There has been some recent case law that it's not the case. In general, to be liable for something you have to have knowledge that it was happening (or at least, a reasonable person in your situation should have had knowledge of it).

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
Actually no you do not have to know. Such as what I started with the 7-11 story. If the driver has no clue a murder is being done while waiting on friend, said driver can be charged and normally is for murder even though he was in the car. Courts have been doing that for YEARS and it works for the courts. That is my basis on this subject. Regardless if the HSI account holder knows or not, under US Law, they should charged/sued. it doesn't make sense for it to happen in one case and not another.

Trencher

join:2007-02-12
Etobicoke, ON
So if were at a shooting range and I loan you my gun to shoot at the range and you accidentally shoot someone, will I get charged for letting you use that gun? Most likely not.... So it kinda goes against your original analogy.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
Not the same as the others.


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
reply to hottboiinnc
If I let someone else use my internet connection, I am by your definition, an ISP.


delusion ftl

@comcast.net
reply to hottboiinnc
What a terrible analogy. Seriously, one of the worst I've ever seen. I hope you are not involved with the legal system.

A closer analogy would be that you leave your keys in the car. Your neighbor takes it without asking and proceeds to commit a crime. And your assertion is that you should be sued for someone using your car because you left the keys in it.


JackKane

@covad.net
reply to Trencher
Actually, yes. In a case where you lend your car to someone, even if they have appropriate insurance (as does your vehicle), an accident victim could go after the vehicle owner and his assets. It's not criminal, but they could claim negligence and given good lawyering, they would win.

At a gun range people sign waivers, but basically an owner of an item could be found negligent even if he did not commit the crime. With HSI, there is a contract between the user and the ISP that you will not hold them liable for any of your actions (there may be Safe Harbor laws and so forth, I don't know the details). There are no contracts between your open hotspot and anonymous users, and it's likely to be a violation of your contract to willfully allow others to use your connection. Best defense would be ignorance, I would think.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc:

Actually no you do not have to know. Such as what I started with the 7-11 story. If the driver has no clue a murder is being done while waiting on friend, said driver can be charged and normally is for murder even though he was in the car.

Can you cite case law?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06
reply to hottboiinnc
Yeah, charging someone for a crime they didn't commit is never right. The courts can do something for years like enforce slavery and still be dead wrong.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
reply to hottboiinnc
I'd be very curious to see a reference for this case. The principle of mens rea requires that one have knowledge of the act (though not necessarily the law) to be criminally charged. It's a bit more lax with civil law, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts there was more to the 7-11 case than you think.


dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus

join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to hottboiinnc
Of course you can charge them. But that is based on the courts accepting that you can actually prove that they knew about the activity. You can not be convicted of murder when it is proven that you had no idea what was going on.

No different that the courts allowing this case to be brought. Based on the supposition that they can prove the WiFi owner had some knowledge or otherwise responsibility. Which they seem to be failing to prove.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16


michieru
Premium
join:2009-07-25
Miami, FL
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
reply to hottboiinnc
If a user finds an open wireless router and was able with or without the users knowledge use his or her internet access that consumer has now become an ISP towards that guest user who is currently using their network.

So in short the consumer who pays for his or her internet access cannot be sued for a user downloading illegal content over their connection. So the crime pertains towards the user who downloaded the illegal content not the provider of internet access which is the consumer and his provider who is Company A.

So using an IP as a means of identification is not only a very weak method it would also not hold up in court because at a certain point in time nobody unless your a network administrator and are looking at your router 24/7 will you be able to identify a breach with or without security nor will there be a way to trace it back.

Having a completely open network can be seen a negligence but for users who are still using WEP. The network is secured, and therefore not negligence on the users end. Regardless of how you feel about WEP or WPA as a means of security.