3 ms·

This bill is actually heavily criticized in germany, for example by the Freifunk initiative: http://freifunkstattangst.de/2015/06/16/neuer-tmg-entwurf-zur-notif

This bill is actually heavily criticized in germany, for example by the Freifunk initiative: http://freifunkstattangst.de/2015/06/16/neuer-tmg-entwurf-zur-notifizierung-an-die-eu-noch-immer-keine-rechtssicherheit-wlan-stoererhaftung-bleibt/ http://freifunkstattangst.de/2015/06/16/neuer-tmg-entwurf-zu... (german) The bill requires network operators to make "reasonable effort to secure the network against unauthorized access" and to "allow access only to users that have agreed not to violate the law during their use" of the network. The bill also takes service providers into liability if they offer "gefahrgeeignete Dienste" (I have no idea how that accurately translates to english). Heise has more information in german: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Bundesregierung-beschliesst-umstrittenen-WLAN-Gesetzentwurf-2818747.html http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Bundesregierung-besch...

neuronic 11y ago
I think "gefahrgeeignete Dienste" could be translated as "services with potential for dangerous misuse", no?
- scotty79 11y ago
  Like serving a knife and a fork?
  - lotu 11y ago
    Or a room containing flammable gasses like Oxygen.
pavel_lishin 11y ago
> The bill requires network operators to make "reasonable effort to secure the network against unauthorized access" and to "allow access only to users that have agreed not to violate the law during their use" of the network. Can you elaborate on why this is bad?
- briandear 11y ago
  Would a bad person actually refuse to agree with not breaking the law? A 'bad' person already has a willingness to not follow the rules, so how would an agreement matter?
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    I think the point is to clearly shift the moral hazard away from the provider to the user. The user may not uphold the agreement, but then they are clearly the morally wrong party.
    - TheCoelacanth 11y ago
      Why not simply give the moral hazard to the user by default? If I give someone a pen and paper and they use it to write a letter ordering a terrorist attack, am I morally responsible for the attack simply because I didn't get them to agree to use it lawfully?
      - jdmichal 11y ago
        > Why not simply give the moral hazard to the user by default? I agree, but in this case the German law has very clearly decided that this is not the default. And so this new law is seeking to address that.
    - scotty79 11y ago
      Isn't there some meta rule about the first world countries law systems (us excluded) that the only crimes you are responsible for are the ones you personally commited?
      - germanier 11y ago
        Few things: Firstly, this is about civil cases, not crimes. Secondly, the wrongdoing here is allowing someone else to use your internet connection to perform illegal actions, not those actions themselves. Thirdly, in any law system I can think of there are crimes you can commit by literally doing nothing (neglect). For example, in Germany it's a crime to know about a planned murder and not do anything about it.

neuronic 11y ago

I think "gefahrgeeignete Dienste" could be translated as "services with potential for dangerous misuse", no?

scotty79 11y ago
Like serving a knife and a fork?
- lotu 11y ago
  Or a room containing flammable gasses like Oxygen.

pavel_lishin 11y ago

> The bill requires network operators to make "reasonable effort to secure the network against unauthorized access" and to "allow access only to users that have agreed not to violate the law during their use" of the network. Can you elaborate on why this is bad?

briandear 11y ago
Would a bad person actually refuse to agree with not breaking the law? A 'bad' person already has a willingness to not follow the rules, so how would an agreement matter?
- jdmichal 11y ago
  I think the point is to clearly shift the moral hazard away from the provider to the user. The user may not uphold the agreement, but then they are clearly the morally wrong party.
  - TheCoelacanth 11y ago
    Why not simply give the moral hazard to the user by default? If I give someone a pen and paper and they use it to write a letter ordering a terrorist attack, am I morally responsible for the attack simply because I didn't get them to agree to use it lawfully?
    - jdmichal 11y ago
      > Why not simply give the moral hazard to the user by default? I agree, but in this case the German law has very clearly decided that this is not the default. And so this new law is seeking to address that.
  - scotty79 11y ago
    Isn't there some meta rule about the first world countries law systems (us excluded) that the only crimes you are responsible for are the ones you personally commited?
    - germanier 11y ago
      Few things: Firstly, this is about civil cases, not crimes. Secondly, the wrongdoing here is allowing someone else to use your internet connection to perform illegal actions, not those actions themselves. Thirdly, in any law system I can think of there are crimes you can commit by literally doing nothing (neglect). For example, in Germany it's a crime to know about a planned murder and not do anything about it.