Posted on 04/24/2011 9:10:24 AM PDT by decimon
BUFFALO, N.Y. Lying on his family room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of "pedophile!" and "pornographer!" stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises, the Buffalo homeowner didn't need long to figure out the reason for the early morning wake-up call from a swarm of federal agents.
That new wireless router. He'd gotten fed up trying to set a password. Someone must have used his Internet connection, he thought.
"We know who you are! You downloaded thousands of images at 11:30 last night," the man's lawyer, Barry Covert, recounted the agents saying. They referred to a screen name, "Doldrum."
"No, I didn't," he insisted. "Somebody else could have but I didn't do anything like that."
"You're a creep ... just admit it," they said.
Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice: Password-protect your wireless router.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
When I read that I thought...he doesn’t want to announce he’s suing yet.
I bet the odds are over 50/50 that he has a change of heart. They are just saying that now so the cops will let down their guard and be open about what happened. If they know they are getting sued the cops will circle the wagons and start lying for each other. This is the best way to get the cops to say something incriminating so they can win the law suit.
Cops do this all the time. They investigate people and say they are just a person of interest and they get them to talk. They know they intend to arrest them before they speak with them but they are wanting some incriminating evidence from teh person or get that person locked into a story so they can’t change it at court.
I’m sure this lawyer is just taking a page out of the cops playbook.
Exactly. At worst the person paying may be in violation of their contract for allowing “unauthorized” people to use their bandwidth, but the person using the bandwidth isn’t guilty of anything.
BTW, you seem to be a serious “letter of the law” person. Do you ever intentionally drive over the speed limit by even one MPH. Do you always consciously try to come to a “complete stop with rollback” at stop signs and “free right turns on red lights”.
I’m a “spirit of the law” sort of guy. I’ve noticed that the two types have pretty strongly different world views.
OMG...my SSID is “0Bama Sux”.
Great minds think a like. I did it on the day he was sworn into office.
I love the political statements you can make via the SSID. Before that it was DubyaWon.
Whew. Finally, someone knows what a real straw man argument is. Congratulations, you're prize in the mail.
"Your violent disdain"
Violent disdain? Hyperbole much?
"According to the article, he is no longer accused of committing any crime."
Where in the article does it say he was ever accused of commiting a crime. Does it say he was indicted, arrested or arraigned? I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
The story describes the service of a lawfully obtained search warrant. If the warrant wasn't lawfully obtained, the "victim" would have cause for action. He doesn't.
But, hey what do I know - I could be a butcher or something.
"A real prosecutor would know this."
Two straw mans, one posting. I'm sorry, but I do not believe this merits an additional bonus prize.
|
Plenty of people just think it’s perfectly fine to share the internet they buy. They just think it’s the right thing to do. They can decide to keep it all to themselves. And they can put their router settings that way. Or they can decide to share it, and put their router settings that way. If they share the internet, they might not get their own internet as fast, but they’re saving their neighbors money, or they’re providing internet to people who live in areas that are not served affordably by high speed internet.
That’s just the way it works - some people want to share their internet, to give it away for free.
FTA:
"We know who you are! You downloaded thousands of images at 11:30 last night," the man's lawyer, Barry Covert, recounted the agents saying. They referred to a screen name, "Doldrum."
So, are you being argumentative or just obtuse?
After all of that, you don't think he was at least arrested?
While a legal search warrant does help prevent legal action it's not full proof. What happens if it's shown the cops didn't use reasonable force? Or what happens if they prove he was thrown down the stairs and they never properly identified themselves as law enforcement and instead just started yelling get down pervert? So he asked who they were and they threw him down the stairs?
Does the search warrant protect against that behavoir? Or what if the cops shot him? Is that protected too because they had a search warrant?
Also I would like to think they should be able to show negligence in obtaining the warrant under false claims. Of course I'd need to see the warrant and what the police used to justify the request. If they lied on the claim and said the wifi device was secured or that no one other than someone in that house could have made that connection then there should be a law suit somewhere in that gross negligence--not sure if it's possible though. The prosectutors and courts get way too much power and protection for themselves.
Where I live the chief prosecutor was busted for not providing exculpatory evidence to the accused (and a bunch of other stuff). Still that person is the chief prosecutor even though there's a 2nd investigation into her and her office. At most she will just get her wrist slapped and this one individual *may* get released pending retrial. But in the meantime how many other people did she get convicted through illegal methods?
My solution to all this is any cops or prosecutors found guilty of committing a crime should get double the maximum sentence allowed. We all know it's extremely hard to catch a corrupt cop...so they clearly need a little extra encouragement.
For prosecutors...we need an outside agency that polices them (kind of like internal affairs) but they come from the ACLU. This would make it very interesting :-)
And judges should get triple the maximum for any crimes they commit. Like that crook in PA that was sending juveniles away to a contractor jail so he could get kickbacks/bribes from teh contractor.
I don't have WiFi. I doubt that it's much more than a minor convenience for most people.
What if I did have WiFi and left it open by choice. Why do I leave it open? Well, that's my business. I should owe no one an explanation.
What if my connection is used for some illegal activity? Well, the ISP is actually providing the service and the airwaves are in the control of the US government.
What if my credit card number is used to purchase kiddie porn? Should they (SWAT, non-SWAT, kinda like SWAT) kick my door in for that?
Not really directing these questions at you but trying to make a point. May I go about my life as a free man or live in fear of how my every action may be perceived by some government agent?
Therefore, I can tell you're an idiot.
Good grief. What if I'd referred to them as 'Police.'
Idiot.
In my house they would have been staring down a double barreled 12 gage. No knock, no excuse, storm the bastions and take your chances.
Regards,
GtG
You can make your open Wi-Fi access point unattractive to bad people by using OpenDNS.com which can prevent access to nefarious websites and. Schools use it to keep their computer labs clean.
Yes, he's to blame. If he wasn't to blame, I can promise you he'd be suing.
(How do you know he has not or in the process thereof?
"That, is total BS. It's not like drugs that can be flushed...That, is total BS."
Then you have absolutely no idea how child-pornographers work.
I would love to hear about all the child-porn cases you've successfully prosecuted. I've prosecuted about five.
WOW, you don't say? FIVE whole cases under "your belt?"
I'm "impressed!" (NOT)
Well that explains a lot.
An "Ambulance Chaser" no less and a CLUELESS one at that.
Where did you get your JD, from the same place Barry Hussein did?
Obviously you know SQUAT about computers and probably defending the NAZI-LIKE, Jack-booted thugs to make up for your ignorance.
You can NOT erase a hard drive (instantaneously) with a "click of the mouse," and even after how many "tens of minutes that would take," most hard drives are never fully erased...even if reformated.
As far as how some of us ascertained it was a SWAT team, that is very easy: try re-reading the article, especially the part which discusses "ASSAULT WEAPONS."
Case closed. Class dismissed!!
>>You guys are way too generous.<<
Thank you. :D
If, if, if.
If any of that was true, he'd be suing. He's not - but yes, I realize that you think that this is all part of a some lofty legal strategy, or something, and the pending legal action will be filed forthwith.
Let me know how it turns out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.