4 ms·

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-St

by DasIch 10y ago

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.

denzil_correa 10y ago
> 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 is not binding on the CJEU but it gives you fair direction on which side the CJEU would rule. [0] http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2016-03/cp160028en.pdf http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2016...
- DasIch 10y ago
  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?
  - denzil_correa 10y ago
    > 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.
    - Tomte 10y ago
      Danish court rulings binding on Germany? You're either joking or misinformed.
      - germanier 10y ago
        No court rulings are ever binding apart from the specific case discussed. However, judges often (especially in higher courts) state criteria they would use to judge similar cases and make general remarks in this area of law. Other judges then later directly refer to those lines of argumentation. If a Danish judge issued a ruling based solely on EU law with convincing arguments, then a German judge can use that later just as if another German court ruled on that matter. I don't read verdicts often enough to say how common this is (and certainly often arguments are copied without mentioning the source). However, in literature you regularly see that authors refer to cases from different EU member states. And why should arguments made by Danish judges by worth less in Germany than arguments made by German judges? The whole point of the EU is harmonization of law. If one legal source is consistently interpreted in two different ways in two different countries something definitely went wrong.
      - denzil_correa 10y ago
        I have explicitly mentioned that is a Danish Supreme Court ruling on EU directives and hence, has bearing (not binding) in Germany. I'd love to prove wrong but here's a link that pretty much mentions the same > It’s noteworthy, though Germany’s legislators probably don’t realize this yet, that the elimination of the Störerhaftung enables use of the open wireless defense in Germany, according to a ruling from the Danish Supreme Court (which does have bearing in Germany, as that court ruled on EU directives). https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2016/05/finally-germany-abolishes-open-wi-fi-liability-users-behavior/ https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2016/05/finally-g...
  - nickbauman 10y ago
    The black helecopter conspiracy theorist in me whispers: As a mass surveillance strategy it makes much more sense to have a national tap on all the free wifi than to require passwords/id, which would send potential terrorists underground with something harder to tap. The threat of an effective security culture of "undesirable" cells around, say, one-time pads, is the end-game that any state security apparatus is trying to avoid.
    - kuschku 10y ago
      Especially with the Freifunk community threatening to provide a free, secure, public WiFi system anyway.
cJ0th 10y ago
> Why would after such a long time the CDU suddenly drop the pro-Störerhaftung position? Most of them own tablets and smartphones by now and they don't feel like maxing out their data plan which they have to pay for themselves. On a serious note, I'd agree that this just creates legal uncertainty. Netzpolitik.org (in German langauge) goes a bit into details [0] [0] https://netzpolitik.org/2016/abschaffung-der-wlan-stoererhaftung-fuer-jubel-ist-es-zu-frueh/ https://netzpolitik.org/2016/abschaffung-der-wlan-stoererhaf...

by DasIch 10y ago

denzil_correa 10y ago

> 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 is not binding on the CJEU but it gives you fair direction on which side the CJEU would rule. [0] http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2016-03/cp160028en.pdf http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2016...

DasIch 10y ago
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?
- denzil_correa 10y ago
  > 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.
  - Tomte 10y ago
    Danish court rulings binding on Germany? You're either joking or misinformed.
    - germanier 10y ago
      No court rulings are ever binding apart from the specific case discussed. However, judges often (especially in higher courts) state criteria they would use to judge similar cases and make general remarks in this area of law. Other judges then later directly refer to those lines of argumentation. If a Danish judge issued a ruling based solely on EU law with convincing arguments, then a German judge can use that later just as if another German court ruled on that matter. I don't read verdicts often enough to say how common this is (and certainly often arguments are copied without mentioning the source). However, in literature you regularly see that authors refer to cases from different EU member states. And why should arguments made by Danish judges by worth less in Germany than arguments made by German judges? The whole point of the EU is harmonization of law. If one legal source is consistently interpreted in two different ways in two different countries something definitely went wrong.
    - denzil_correa 10y ago
      I have explicitly mentioned that is a Danish Supreme Court ruling on EU directives and hence, has bearing (not binding) in Germany. I'd love to prove wrong but here's a link that pretty much mentions the same > It’s noteworthy, though Germany’s legislators probably don’t realize this yet, that the elimination of the Störerhaftung enables use of the open wireless defense in Germany, according to a ruling from the Danish Supreme Court (which does have bearing in Germany, as that court ruled on EU directives). https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2016/05/finally-germany-abolishes-open-wi-fi-liability-users-behavior/ https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2016/05/finally-g...
- nickbauman 10y ago
  The black helecopter conspiracy theorist in me whispers: As a mass surveillance strategy it makes much more sense to have a national tap on all the free wifi than to require passwords/id, which would send potential terrorists underground with something harder to tap. The threat of an effective security culture of "undesirable" cells around, say, one-time pads, is the end-game that any state security apparatus is trying to avoid.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    Especially with the Freifunk community threatening to provide a free, secure, public WiFi system anyway.

cJ0th 10y ago

> Why would after such a long time the CDU suddenly drop the pro-Störerhaftung position? Most of them own tablets and smartphones by now and they don't feel like maxing out their data plan which they have to pay for themselves. On a serious note, I'd agree that this just creates legal uncertainty. Netzpolitik.org (in German langauge) goes a bit into details [0] [0] https://netzpolitik.org/2016/abschaffung-der-wlan-stoererhaftung-fuer-jubel-ist-es-zu-frueh/ https://netzpolitik.org/2016/abschaffung-der-wlan-stoererhaf...