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 ...
If the government has tools to download all the data from a cell phone in less than 2 minutes and “smut sticks” that can read traces of likely porn without changing data, something that adds illegal smut while “scanning” it is likely easy.
Your logic astounds. As you must know, being a prosecutor and all, the process of suing would be arduous and lengthy. And it would bring unwanted publicity.
My, my. Now you're getting ridiculously desperate.
I notice you didn't address the rest of my post...the part where I nailed your blatant misrepresentation:
Where in the article does it say he was ever accused of commiting a crime......I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
""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."
Hmmmmm?
I'll wait for the spin......
I’d like to see big ol free wifi towers. Just point your antenna at the big ol tower. Useful in rural areas. And raise the power from 2 Watts (-33dbi) to something that is still safe, but much more powerful, can reach greater distances. The reason why the legal wattage is so low is concern with signal interference, not health risks. I think that total of -33db is FCC, so rural areas could ask for FCC waivers.
It doesn't take but 15 minutes to find the person who's "using" someone elses open WiFi connection. I know, I saw that happen first hand.
True story: A friend of mine and I were chatting on the radio (we're both "hams") one early Sunday morning about a year ago when his doorbell rang and he excused himself to answer it. Within a minute, he was back on the radio telling me the FBI was at his door and he was asking me what he should do.
I asked him if he did anything wrong (knowing he didn't) and advised him to open the door. They had a warrant to search his home, interview and arrest him, and seize his computer. He opened the door and invited them in and asked them why they were there.
He was informed that his IP Address had been tracked down as having sent a threatening email to the White House. he tried explaining to them it wasn't him, but of course they wouldn't hear any of that. Frankly, why should they believe him if they tracked the IP through the ISP (Comcast) who provided the proper logs and documentation to prove the IP address was assigned to him at the time the threatening email was sent using his internet connection.
He showed the FBI where his computer was, which happened to be in the same room as his radio equipment. As my friend keyed up to tell me the feds were there and seizing his computer, I informed him I was on my way to his home and I'd be there in less than 10 minutes.
As I got there, an FBI agent was scanning his computer using a device unlike something I'd seen before and another agent was asking where his router was.
Here's where the story takes an interesting twist. A few weeks prior, I had configured my friends Linksys router by first upgrading the firmware to Tomato and then setting the encryption keys, turned off broadcast SSID and allocated only enough addresses via his wireless connection for his two daughters laptops. I'd also coded in the MAC Addresses of his two daughters laptops as an added security measure so that no other wireless connection could attach to his router. When I finished setting his router, I hung it on his BASEMENT WALL next to where the cable modem was.
From a security perspective, that's about as secure as one can make a Linksys Router. Don't broadcast the SSID, put a complex password on it (Caps, special characters, numbers and letters so it's not easily guessed) and filter the wireless to allow only the devices one actually owns to stop unauthorized devices.
Now back to the story. When I arrived, an FBI agent was going into his ATTIC - to locate his wireless router - and pull whatever logs they could from it to confirm the IP address and MAC address of the device.
It was then I asked my friend "John" why he moved his wireless router from his basement to his attic. His response was that his daughters weren't getting a good signal in their bedrooms on the 2nd floor, so he moved it for them.
In the process, he forgot the password to the device and wanted to make it so his daughters friends could also use the wireless connection with their laptops when visiting. So what did my friend "John" do? He found the instructions on how to do a hard-reset on the wireless router on-line, which set the device back to factory defaults with NO WIRELESS PROTECTION OR ENCRYPTION WHATSOEVER.
For whatever stupid reason, he didn't think this was a 'bad thing' to do, and thought the security I setup for him was "overkill." FBI getting ready to walk out the door with all his computer equipment and ready to arrest him certainly changed his mind, but it appeared too late.
One FBI agent heard the entire conversation and went to whoever was leading the seizure/arrest process on sight and it was at that point they talked to my friend "John" about what had happened and why they were there. Thankfully they became convinced (somewhat..) that he hadn't sent the threatening email to the White House and then proceeded to pull the connection logs off the Linksys router. (I'd installed TOMATO Firmware on the Linksys router and it kept extensive connection logs!) The FBI located a MAC address in the log files that matched the date and time window of the threatening email that was sent to the White House, and began scanning the airwaves outside his house with a hand-held antenna and scanning device.
I don't think it took them 15 minutes to pinpoint the house with the matching MAC address from the routers logfiles. It turned out to be a neighbor 4 doors down from my friend "John." The computer was turned on and it was connected to my friends Wireless Router when they found it.
The owner was taken into custody, and my friend "John" had his wireless router seized for evidence, but he came out of it without being arrested having fully coooperated with the FBI. He has a new Wireless Router that I've again secured and configured for him. I don't think I had to tell him to not hit the hard-reset button on it, I think he's learned his lesson.
Once again, where does the government accuse this man of a crime? Interrogation is not accusation. I'm sure this concept is far too complicated for you.
Accusation = INDICTMENT. If you can show me where this man was indicted for a crime, I'll eat my hat.
You can show that he was arrested, arraigned or even indicted. All that happened is the government served a lawfully obtained search warrant.
I see your point. The reason I posted was not so much about free or non free as it was about it not being so free anymore about all ISPs are capped and someone using your WiFi could burn up your months usage very quick.
I at one time allocated some my of my WiFi for free usage but I cannot any longer because it is to costly.
In my mind heavy handed Cop’s of any kind need to be a thing of the past.
LOL!!!
No that is funny as all get out.
Your whole argument here has based on the biggest if of all....that the evidence was "SOLID"
Dude, give it up, you lost this one.
Unwanted publicity for whom?
Did you read the post that I was responding too?
I was commenting about the claim that the "victim" had cause for action.
But sure, it's my logic that "astounds".
I believe this is what they call "nervous laughter". It can be a sign of anxiety. You might want to get that checked out, medication might be in order.
"Your whole argument here has based on the biggest if of all....that the evidence was "SOLID"
If the government didn't have probable cause, the man would be suing for a violation of his 4th and 14th Amendment rights. He isn't. Gee, I wonder why.
"Dude, give it up, you lost this one."
Sure, I did. /s
Years ago my computer got hi-jacked, even my password didn’t work and I turned on the computer and all I got was porn. They had changed my IP phone number...I had to take the tower into a great computer guy to get it cleaned up. He was able to do it without crashing the computer...cost me only 50 bucks to remove all the virus and crap and he put on 2 good anti virus programs free...If someone has porn, it is possible that it was not put on by the owner...maybe I was a rare occurance but it sure pi$$ed me off...
>>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.<<
Funny you mentioned that. The one I use automatically defaulted Google image search to “safe search on” and you cannot change it. However, I noticed a couple of months ago that I could successfully turn it off. They must have decided it was “over” limiting. Actually it was, which is why I was testing it in the first place.
Ummm, are the people who served the warrant not government officials?
You can show that he was arrested,
The article does not say either way, but it is highly likely he was.
If he wasn't, that just proves even more how wrong the cops were and that they should have done their due diligence BEFORE busting down his door and holding him at gun point.
I don't know about you but if someone held me at gun point for some flimsy reason, I would be highly pissed off....and I'm sure you would be to.
The whole argument here has been that the cops acted out of line, you're defending it and yet you just inadvertently proved yourself wrong by saying he wasn't arrested.
Good going.
No, it is what is needed to keep fom getting nasty with an otherwise sensible poster.
The homeowner. To sue would bring the publicity of being a suspected kiddie porn devotee.
That’s a great story. Regarding the triangulating, I use this example: If someone REALLY wants your car, you can bolt it to the concrete in a secured warehouse and it will still be gone the next day. Likewise, if law enforcement is motivated enough, there is little you can do outside of a Borne Conspiracy movie that will protect you. Hence the antics I described in my posts 39 and 40.
I'm sorry you don't understand the very bright distinction between "investigation" and "accusation". But, I'm not surprised.
"but it is highly likely he was."
It's likely (in your mind) that he was, because....
You have offered no evidence or support about why the man was arrested, other than "the story doesn't say he wasn't". Not very compelling. The story doesn't also say that the man was shot and his dog was killed, are we then to presume that he indeed was shot and his dog was killed specifically because the story doesn't say it? I'm just curious, because this seems to be the logic you enjoy employing.
"If he wasn't, that just proves even more how wrong the cops were and that they should have done their due diligence BEFORE busting down his door and holding him at gun point."
Their due diligence was perfect. An internet connection that he owned was the medium for transfer of legally prohibited images. Their probable cause was CLEARLY accurate.
"I don't know about you but if someone held me at gun point for some flimsy reason, I would be highly pissed off....and I'm sure you would be to."
There's nothing "flimsy" about the dissemination and consumption of child porn. It's shocking you don't understand that.
"The whole argument here has been that the cops acted out of line, you're defending it and yet you just inadvertently proved yourself wrong by saying he wasn't arrested."
No, they in fact were proven right. They have indicted someone who downloaded internet porn using a connection in a home that was searched. Their investigation and search wasn't only warranted, it was quite clearly fruitful.
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.