6 ms·

Of course, as it should be. When one speeds in a car, the owner of the car is liable for the ticket, no matter who the driver. When a dog bites somebody, the ow

by roel_v 16y ago

Of course, as it should be. When one speeds in a car, the owner of the car is liable for the ticket, no matter who the driver. When a dog bites somebody, the owner is liable, even when the owner could do nothing to prevent it. When a tile falls off a roof one somebodies head, the owner of the building is liable, even if he didn't know, had no reasons to suspect of even had no way to know that a tile could come off. All these situations are so-called risk-liabilities. How else would we solve situations like this?

mustpax 16y ago
No, the owner of the car is not always liable for the ticket. Car rental companies will not pay fines you accrue just because they are the legal owners of the car. The dog ownership analogy has even less merit. A dog is not a sane person in the eyes of the law so as a guardian you are responsible for keeping your dog in line. On the other hand, a person who is using your WiFi for whatever illicit purposes is responsible for their own actions.
- roel_v 16y ago
  ...because when you sign the car rental agreement, you agree to pay back any fines. Whoever cashes these fines will get their money from the rental agency, and they will then get it from you (or sue you for breach of contract if you don't pay them). I was not saying that the dog did anything consciously. The point is that there is a class of liabilities that do no depend on being 'factually responsible' for something. You can have no power whatsoever to prevent something, and still be liable for it. That makes the case for this wireless network even stronger - there is something you can do as an owner. You can take reasonable measures to stop others from using it. It makes perfect sense to hold people responsible for enabling the improper use by others. (note also that I'm not claiming that somebody who has an open access point will be jailed for child pornography; what I'm saying is that there is a very reasonable case to be made for holding people accountable for not taking proper care of their property (wifi network) that will enable others to use it illicitly).
pieter 16y ago
I don't think it's that obvious. Two counter-examples: If you use someones paper, pen, envelope and stamp to threaten someone, you're still liable. If you tap someones electricity, you're liable.
Dylan16807 16y ago
It seems pretty simple to me. The AP owner is acting as a small ISP and should have all relevant protections.
- roel_v 16y ago
  ? Right, that would put on the owner of the AP, for example, the obligation to take "expeditious" action when a notice of copyright infringement is received. So you'd have to, as a consumer, respond within a day, or maybe a few days, to such notices. Being an ISP does not put one above the law. Besides, it's not a 'customer' (so there's no ISP<->user relation) if the owner of the AP doesn't even know the user, or even that the user exists.
  - Dylan16807 16y ago
    Right. They have to take action upon receipt of a notice. And they're not liable for what happens before being notified.
zcid 16y ago
I'm not sure where you are from, but I've never heard of a driver being held responsible for somebody else speeding in their vehicle. Even with cameras, the court is required to prove it was you in the vehicle if you contest it. Edit: USA, btw
- roel_v 16y ago
  Netherlands, but (with some caveats) it also holds for at least some US states. Note that I'm talking about traffic camera tickets, that's quite important. If you get a ticket, the burden of proof is on the owner to prove it wasn't him. I can't easily find references to specific US state law, since most I get are scam sites about how to get out of speeding fines - but for the rest, there are people reporting online on having the same system, and others where you can fill in a report saying it wasn't you and then you're off the hook (one official reference I did find was from Portland, http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?a=33798&c=30591 http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?a=33798&c..., where apparently you can get away with it).
Confusion 16y ago
When you lend a person your gun and he goes on to shoot someone, you're not liable (in general; there are some notable exceptions). The question is whether the thing you own was instrumental in the perpetration of the crime or whether it could have easily been replaced by another instance of the same thing. In case of the dog and the tile, it was the things themselves that caused the damage, unguided by a human. In case of the car, the law is there for convenience purposes: they can only trace it to you and to be able to fine speeding, it cannot be otherwise. Those seem like the usual cases, but they are actually special cases. The usual case is you lending a book, a glass of water, a gun. If someone uses the knowledge, the water or the gun to cause harm, they are liable. With ubiquitous free wifi, your AP is not instrumental in the perpetration of a crime. The criminal could easily have gone elsewhere; that makes you a non-accessory. Of course, IANAL. But see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term). I do not see how providing internet access could possibly make you an accessory to a crime.

by roel_v 16y ago

mustpax 16y ago

No, the owner of the car is not always liable for the ticket. Car rental companies will not pay fines you accrue just because they are the legal owners of the car. The dog ownership analogy has even less merit. A dog is not a sane person in the eyes of the law so as a guardian you are responsible for keeping your dog in line. On the other hand, a person who is using your WiFi for whatever illicit purposes is responsible for their own actions.

roel_v 16y ago
...because when you sign the car rental agreement, you agree to pay back any fines. Whoever cashes these fines will get their money from the rental agency, and they will then get it from you (or sue you for breach of contract if you don't pay them). I was not saying that the dog did anything consciously. The point is that there is a class of liabilities that do no depend on being 'factually responsible' for something. You can have no power whatsoever to prevent something, and still be liable for it. That makes the case for this wireless network even stronger - there is something you can do as an owner. You can take reasonable measures to stop others from using it. It makes perfect sense to hold people responsible for enabling the improper use by others. (note also that I'm not claiming that somebody who has an open access point will be jailed for child pornography; what I'm saying is that there is a very reasonable case to be made for holding people accountable for not taking proper care of their property (wifi network) that will enable others to use it illicitly).

pieter 16y ago

I don't think it's that obvious. Two counter-examples: If you use someones paper, pen, envelope and stamp to threaten someone, you're still liable. If you tap someones electricity, you're liable.

Dylan16807 16y ago

It seems pretty simple to me. The AP owner is acting as a small ISP and should have all relevant protections.

roel_v 16y ago
? Right, that would put on the owner of the AP, for example, the obligation to take "expeditious" action when a notice of copyright infringement is received. So you'd have to, as a consumer, respond within a day, or maybe a few days, to such notices. Being an ISP does not put one above the law. Besides, it's not a 'customer' (so there's no ISP<->user relation) if the owner of the AP doesn't even know the user, or even that the user exists.
- Dylan16807 16y ago
  Right. They have to take action upon receipt of a notice. And they're not liable for what happens before being notified.

zcid 16y ago

I'm not sure where you are from, but I've never heard of a driver being held responsible for somebody else speeding in their vehicle. Even with cameras, the court is required to prove it was you in the vehicle if you contest it. Edit: USA, btw

roel_v 16y ago
Netherlands, but (with some caveats) it also holds for at least some US states. Note that I'm talking about traffic camera tickets, that's quite important. If you get a ticket, the burden of proof is on the owner to prove it wasn't him. I can't easily find references to specific US state law, since most I get are scam sites about how to get out of speeding fines - but for the rest, there are people reporting online on having the same system, and others where you can fill in a report saying it wasn't you and then you're off the hook (one official reference I did find was from Portland, http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?a=33798&c=30591 http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?a=33798&c..., where apparently you can get away with it).

Confusion 16y ago

When you lend a person your gun and he goes on to shoot someone, you're not liable (in general; there are some notable exceptions). The question is whether the thing you own was instrumental in the perpetration of the crime or whether it could have easily been replaced by another instance of the same thing. In case of the dog and the tile, it was the things themselves that caused the damage, unguided by a human. In case of the car, the law is there for convenience purposes: they can only trace it to you and to be able to fine speeding, it cannot be otherwise. Those seem like the usual cases, but they are actually special cases. The usual case is you lending a book, a glass of water, a gun. If someone uses the knowledge, the water or the gun to cause harm, they are liable. With ubiquitous free wifi, your AP is not instrumental in the perpetration of a crime. The criminal could easily have gone elsewhere; that makes you a non-accessory. Of course, IANAL. But see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term). I do not see how providing internet access could possibly make you an accessory to a crime.