Various governments have tried to claim that it's no big deal to get your location data from mobile phone providers -- with US law enforcement suggesting such information shouldn't even require a warrant at times. But it's interesting to see just how much that kind of data can reveal about someone. Shane Richmond points us to an absolutely fascinating visualization put together by the German newspaper Die Zeit. Apparently German politician Malte Spitz sued Deutsche Telekom to get access to his own location and phone data (the kind of thing that governments request all the time) and then handed it over to Zeit, who put together a stunning visualization of six months of Spitz's life. You can see where he is at all times, and Zeit cross referenced the information with other public information, including Twitter feeds, blog entries and other websites, to provide context and details as to Spitz's life. Somewhat eye-opening in how much information can be put together concerning your life with access to such phone data...

Miranda Neubauer was the first of a few of you to send in the news of a bizarre German court ruling that makes it effectively illegal to offer open WiFi. Seriously:

Germany's top criminal court ruled Wednesday that Internet users need to secure their private wireless connections by password to prevent unauthorized people from using their Web access to illegally download data.

Internet users can be fined up to euro100 ($126) if a third party takes advantage of their unprotected WLAN connection to illegally download music or other files, the Karlsruhe-based court said in its verdict.

"Private users are obligated to check whether their wireless connection is adequately secured to the danger of unauthorized third parties abusing it to commit copyright violation," the court said.

This is backwards in so many ways. First, open WiFi is quite useful, and requiring a password can be a huge pain, limiting all sorts of individuals and organizations who have perfectly good reasons for offering free and open WiFi. Second, fining the WiFi hotspot owner for actions of users of the service is highly troubling from a third party liability standpoint. The operator of the WiFi hotspot should not be responsible for the actions of users, and it's troubling that the German court would find otherwise. This is an unfortunate ruling no matter how you look at it.

The Skype app for the iPhone proved to be an instant hit, topping App Store download charts around the world, including Germany, where T-Mobile reminded its customers that using Skype, or any other VoIP app, could get them kicked off its network. The operator now says it's "looking at different ways of dealing with VoIP", perhaps including offering some special plan where users would have to pay some fee to use VoIP. It also says it's not actively blocking any voice apps, although when it begins selling the Nokia N97 smartphone later this year, the Skype application that's normally pre-installed on the device will be stripped out. T-Mobile's justification for removing the app is great: it's not because they don't want people undermining voice revenues by using Skype, but because "by not putting Skype on, subscribers could choose from a number of VoIP apps, and not be limited to just one." That's as opposed to having Skype pre-installed, and customers being able to download and install any other VoIP app alongside it. Only in the world of mobile operators does removing choices for customers actually increase customer choice.

Every day, we wake up hoping that some bit of common sense will find its way into the world when it comes to copyright issues, and yet every day we seem to find out about more and more ridiculous situations. For example, the Berlin Metro system has ordered a 21-year-old student to stop distributing an iPhone app that helps travelers look up a train schedule. I've used similar apps for train schedules in the US, and they're quite useful. In fact, the convenience of them makes it more likely that I would ride a train. So what's the complaint? Copyright, of course, with a touch of jealousy thrown in.

The Berlin Metro people are claiming that the application somehow violates their copyright on the train schedule and map. It's unclear whether or not there's any substance to the copyright claim. While in the US you can't copyright facts (such as a train schedule), in Europe they do have "database rights," which allow someone to copyright a collection of facts. Perhaps a timetable might fall under such a definition, though it would still be ridiculous to stop this app from being offered.

But, based on statements from the folks at the Berlin Metro, it's clear that this is not just a copyright issue. It's a jealousy issue:

That is our copyright and Apple is one of the richest firms in the world.

This fits with the psychological theory that many people are upset at being better off if it means that someone else is in an even better position. In this case, the Berlin Metro is worse off, because fewer people will use the Metro (and pay for it) because it's not as convenient to get the information. But according to the Berlin Metro, that's fine, because Apple is too rich (even though this app doesn't make Apple any money). Logic, apparently, is not a strong suit of the folks who run the Berlin Metro.

We've pointed to a bunch of stories that involved Apple somewhat arbitrarily forbidding or banning iPhone apps, but now it appears that the courts are getting in on the game as well. A German court has banned a VoIP iPhone app after T-Mobile, the mobile operator who offers the iPhone in Germany, complained. The court says that this VoIP app "makes use of unfair business practices," though it's difficult to see how. VoIP is a perfectly acceptable application, so why is it unfair? The court's explanation here seems a bit stretched as well. Apparently, the only way to run this particular VoIP app is on a jailbroken iPhone, and T-Mobile's contract forbids jailbreaking the phone. Of course, if that's true, isn't it an issue between T-Mobile and its customers who broke the contract? Why should the app maker be blamed? All it did was build a useful app? This seems like yet another case where a company is arguing that interference with a business model should be illegal.

Remember just over a week ago the good news coming out of Germany concerning an appeals court ruling that noted (properly) that the owner of an open WiFi access point was not liable for actions done by others on that WiFi? Well, apparently there's a bit of a "split" in the German courts. An anonymous reader sends us notice of a news report out of Germany with a lower level court apparently ruling in the exact opposite way (link in German, translations welcome; here's Google's translation). From what the submitter and the translation suggest, the court claims that it's the responsibility of the access point owner to secure the WiFi, and if they do not, they have to take on some liability for what happens on that system. There's no question, apparently, that the owners of the WiFi system did not actually share the file in question. They showed they were not at home at the time of the alleged infringement, and they had no file sharing software on their computer. While the case isn't yet over, the owners of the WiFi access point have to pay court costs, lawyers fees and the amount they were sued for... and they may face criminal prosecution as well.

There's been plenty of back and forth over the years concerning the question of whether or not an open WiFi network makes the owner of that network liable for or protected from charges of file sharing by others on that network. Since the entertainment industry can only trace back to the access point, but has no idea who's using that access point, some have always contested that an open WiFi network is a defense against charges of file sharing, since it could be anyone doing the sharing. Others contend that the owners of the open network should be liable for any crimes committed on that network.

A German court has now ruled that open WiFi network owners are not responsible for actions committed by other users on their network. This overrules a lower court decision, which the entertainment industry had been using to threaten people whose IP addresses turned up in file sharing sweeps. This doesn't mean that the owner of the network won't still be hauled off to court, or that they won't eventually be found guilty of infringement -- but if the person can present evidence that others used the network, then they have a defense against charges of file sharing. This seems like a reasonable ruling that hopefully other courts will follow as well.