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 ...
>>Anyway, if you did get permission, that would be a better way to silence those who posted here saying you were doing something wrong. And if you are sure you are doing nothing wrong, you should go tell the business.<<
And by NOT offering that information I remove their authority to have any more than an opinion on the global concept, rather than my particular situation. And even then, it is one thing to have an opinion. It is another to call me a thief on the existence of no evidence whatsoever based solely on my very general statements. It’s kinda sad. People think that the relative anonymity of the internet allows rude behavior. I speak to everyone here exactly as I would if we were in person. It is my MO.
>>If you are afraid to tell the business that you are using their internet, it probably means that you do think there might be something wrong with what you are doing<<
If you are “afraid”, it is probably true.
Everyone, here are the T’s & C’s of the company involved with identifying info redacted and replaced with “ACME”. BTW, I work as part of the legal department of a company and deal with the actual creation and publication of T’s & C’s.
Welcome to the ACME Public Access Network. The following conditions and disclaimers apply to all use: Acceptable Use Policy: See Qwest Communications Acceptable Use policy at http://www.qwest.com/legal/usagePolicy.html. In addition, ACME reserves the right to filter access to what it considers inappropriate content. Hackers, Viruses, Spam: Wireless usage is subject to the normal threats of the Internet. ACME is not responsible for exposure to viruses, hacking, or any other problems associated with Internet usage. We strongly suggest using a personal firewall. Availability: Wireless is offered as a convenience. ACME does not guarantee availability or technical support. You may report availability problems by calling (999) 999-9999. In accessing the wireless network, you agree that you have read and understand this notice, and you agree to abide by such notice, and release and hold ACME harmless for any loss, damage or liability that may arise out of access.
>>When deciding whether something I’m doing makes “sense” morally and ethically, one point I find is useful is to ask “what if everybody did the same thing”.<<
I used to use that yardstick. I don’t any more because a great deal of normal human activity would be off limits using that reasoning. Fact is that many, if not most, of the public activities of people are possible because “most people” don’t do it.
What if everybody went to a Mariners game? For starters, tickets would be more expensive. :D
Was it said publicly? No, they were in the man's own home. If the FBI had taken to the airwaves, or spoken to a reporter (like in the Richard Jewell case) and said that this man was a "pedophile" without qualifying as an alleged pedophile, then perhaps there's a defamation case to be made.
I concur. So let's all volunteer to have our computers inspected by the kiddie porn police weekly. Those that don't volunteer will be used as evidence for the search warrant. Are you with me?
I wonder why the police didn't storm into every ISP router building that the traffic went through? It's not like a wifi router can only host connections from the owner. I agree with you...but they didn't do enough to secure everyone that may have been involved in this kiddie porn transfer. I want them to raid all the business offices of that were involved in the transmitting of these images as well. Let's go after someone that has the means to defend themselves in court to really make a point. Kiddie porn will not be tolerated over all your rights. Once we win that one...it will be easy to get the kiddie porn volunteer search system running.
Oh, and for what it’s worth, I think they are being incredibly anal.
So the police can tell my family I’m a pedophile even without any proof?
Wow...I had no idea my family weren’t considered part of the public.
So if the mans wife leaves him over this and files for divorce and uses the police’s claim that her husband is a pedophile—it still isn’t libel/slander?
§1983 (the federal statute controlling these matters) demands that the state limitation for civil torts apply in the state where the tort occurred. I'm not a NY attorney, so I don't know the SOL for civil action in NY, but it's probably between 3 and 5 years.
In matters explicitly regarding race, those limitations can be extended, as was the case in many civil rights cases from the 1960s.
"Or does the release of that info typically occur after the law suit is filed...or at the very least at a press conference scheduled by the plaintiff’s PR or legal team"
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. But, it's not at all uncommon for defendant's attorney to publicly state (something to the effect) of, "we're weighing our legal options".
Something doesn't jive. Either the man was suspected of being the pervert or he wasn't. Which one are you claiming?
If he wasn't suspected then why the need for guns and all the police. One officer or even a letter to the homeowner could have provided the details needed top find the perv.
My daughter is confused by the narrow limits of your imagination. “He only could think of three reasons people would go into law enforcement? I’m not even in college yet, and I know better than that!”.
Sure. There's ample case law that allows this in furtherance to an interrogation or investigation. The police are allowed to be deceitful and tell bald faced lies. They just can't do it publicly.
What would that have proven? The perpetrator was stealing a man's internet connection. Their IP activity would have been self-evidently identical. That's why they came knocking on this guy's door. His ISP pointed authorities in his direction.
"Either the man was suspected of being the pervert or he wasn't. Which one are you claiming? "
Sure the guy was a suspect. If he wasn't a suspect without probable cause, the warrant wouldn't have been issued.
I do oppose child pornography, but I would note that a jpeg on your computer doesn’t look like an image of anything. It’s a collection of bits. If you cat them to your screen, it’s meaningless.
In fact, in order for that collection of bits to turn into child pornography, you have to run a computer program written for that purpose.
Maybe the person who wrote that program should be thrown in jail, since his program took a bunch of unidentifiable bits and made them into child pornography.
Makes you wonder what the cops would do if someone stored child pornography, but having written their own program to convert it to useful pixels? What if ordinary jpeg viewing made it look like a nice image of a lake, but the guy could run his program and the lake picture turned into child pornography?
This would be simple enough to do, you only have to take the two pictures, and then run a program that builds a conversion table. Then you store the conversion table, and feed it into a reverse program with the lake picture.
Neither the conversion table, the lake picture, or the program would be “child pornography”. Only if you put the three together could you get an offensive picture.
Good point!
Say this is you and you are furious and you're telling your lawyer you're going to sue. You lawyer then informs you of what is involved in suing ICE and how long it will take. Your lawyer asks if you can afford to take the necessary time from work and from family. Your lawyer lets you know that the details of the case will be public knowledge. Will you want to proceed with the lawsuit?
>>“He only could think of three reasons people would go into law enforcement? I’m not even in college yet, and I know better than that!”.<<
Actually, I narrowed it to two. My friend who had been in the business added the third. And I was using broad groupings and ignoring the standard stuff such as needing a paycheck, their dad was a cop, it was the only job to be had, like riding a cool motorcycle, using it as a stepping stone to some other job. I was getting quickly to the crux of my lack of respect for people who aspire to be police officers in the current politiical/cultural environment and keeping it at the two relevant (to the point I was trying to make) categories.
No problem with that, if that’s what they choose to do. It’s different however if it’s taking advantage of someone who doesn’t know how to secure their wireless.
Look at the original story. How much trouble was created for a guy who didn’t know how to secure his wireless router.
Per a 2002 Supreme Court case, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), for one to be prospected under child pornography statutes, the objectionable material must be photographic images.
You cannot be prosecuted for implied child pornography, that's where a child's head is Photoshopped onto an adult's body, or for graphically created depictions of child pornography - like art or whatnot.
I think we all agree on that...other than this thread you are a reasonable poster.
So why do you agree that you're otherwise reasonable? Kind of odd you're admitting to trolling.
I think anyone that puts out a virus or takes over a computer is committing a felony..No different than breaking into a house and stealing. Vandals are a pain the the behind. Its also a crime to vandalize your house or car...jail time would help solve that problem, but don’t know if its even taken serious by law enforcement..
You bring up a good point. Some people think that you should pay dearly for not locking down your router. However, it really IS a challenge for some people. I’ve seen it. If we used this paradigm with cars, some would say only mechanics should drive cars.
It should not be this hard. And if it is, the average person should not be held liable for not knowing what’s going on with his/her router.
IN other words, you are repeating a 3rd-hand account, and assuming it is factual. All we know for sure is that the reporter is claiming that the lawyer said the guy told him he was thrown down the stairs.
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.