Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NY case underscores Wi-Fi privacy dangers (SWAT, you perv)
Associated Press ^ | April 24, 2011 | CAROLYN THOMPSON

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 421-438 next last
To: DeFault User

>>A few days ago I noticed a white SUV on the street which would change positions every few minutes, up the street, down the street, one side, then the other. The dark glass on the vehicle didn’t allow anyone to see the driver. There were no markings indicating a commercial vehicle. It finally hit me that it was likely someone positioning himself for the best reception from a wireless router. Not sure, but a good bet. Why the guy didn’t park near a coffee shop or hotel, I don’t know. Maybe because of restrictions?<<

Maybe government with purposes other than trying to get free wi-fi.

On a side note, a few years ago my wife needed to check email before we had comcast hooked up at our new home there. She drove around and found a signal pretty fast and parked the car and logged in. After about 10 minutes a lady came out of the house and asked if she could help my wife. My wife told her she was just using their wi-fi to check her email.

I’ll be the lady’s hubby locked it down that night. :P


61 posted on 04/24/2011 10:09:19 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I am sure her neighbors mooching off her agree. Only she is required to pay the bill.

Perhaps her husband pays the bill.


62 posted on 04/24/2011 10:09:20 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Starwolf
Finally, the police could have easily checked for an open router before turning SWAT loose. It is called due diligence, and should be expected from professionals.

I concur. While this is a terrible crime and those found guilty should face maximum punishment--it's not a crime where a child was locked up in the person's basement and needed to rescued. They clearly had time to properly check for open wifi and if there were any "piggy-backers" while the file was being dowloaded.

Good thing this homeowner didn't think it was crooks breaking in and shoot at the cops...he would have ended up dead. Cops need to be completley thorough before invading a house with guns.

I know if I head someone stirring in my house and I was upstairs I'd have my shotgun pointing down the steps to protect my family. First guy I see with a gun would get blasted and in this case I'd end up dead as I'm sure the cops would return fire.

63 posted on 04/24/2011 10:09:28 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

Do you remember the days when people parked their cars in the driveway with the keys in the ignition?

We’re becoming a low trust society; this is just another manifestation of it.


64 posted on 04/24/2011 10:10:30 AM PDT by bornred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: decimon
"I used that term in the title. Whether or not my usage is precisely correct is irrelevant."

I see, so there's just as much evidence that it was a "SWAT" team as there is that it was Superheroes from the Justice League of America - none.

65 posted on 04/24/2011 10:11:07 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Where does it say SWAT was used?

It doesn't say so explicity. It does say they broke down his door in the early morning hours, entered enmasse and immediatly put everyone in the house on the floor and held at gunpoint, using assault weapons.

Is that a normal weapons and tactics scenario?

66 posted on 04/24/2011 10:11:10 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

>>So, you’re saying that it was someone else’s internet connection that was used?<<

By the perp, yep. And that “someone else” was the guy that got the swat team visit.

From the article:
Within three days, investigators determined the homeowner had been telling the truth: If someone was downloading child pornography through his wireless signal, it wasn’t him. About a week later, agents arrested a 25-year-old neighbor and charged him with distribution of child pornography. The case is pending in federal court.


67 posted on 04/24/2011 10:11:46 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: decimon

“Congress shall make no law” is an absolute prohibition that forbids exceptons for any reason. Even if not, Congress is not granted any authority to regulate speech, let alone criminalize it:

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.” — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #84


68 posted on 04/24/2011 10:11:48 AM PDT by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

I swear I don’t know why some ignore all logic when defending the police.


69 posted on 04/24/2011 10:11:57 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: SIDENET

>>This was an innocent guy. I don’t understand how “probably cause” gives LEOs the right to take away someone’s rights.<<

Swat teams. Use ‘em or lose ‘em.


70 posted on 04/24/2011 10:12:50 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Please, when you're through wallowing in your pool of self-imagined melodrama, point out for me in the story where the word "SWAT" is used.

Don't thank me.

Something tells me you'd be whistling a different tune if this had happened to you.

71 posted on 04/24/2011 10:13:26 AM PDT by SIDENET ("If that's your best, your best won't do." -Dee Snider)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
"If the evidence was so damn solid, why is the guy proved to be innocent?"

Proved to be innocent? Where does it say this guy was prosecuted or even arrested for anything?

The feds, while conducting an investigation into the distribution and receipt of child pornography, served a lawfully obtained search warrant and effected a search of the man's home based on information that it turns out is later proven to be 100% accurate - The man owned the internet connection that was used to download child pornography.

I don't know how much simpler it can be. You're either being argumentative or obtuse, I really don't care which it is.

72 posted on 04/24/2011 10:14:54 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Please, when you're through wallowing in your pool of self-imagined melodrama, point out for me in the story where the word "SWAT" is used.

Its right there in the headline.

73 posted on 04/24/2011 10:15:32 AM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Oh noes, they pointed a mean gun at someone. The horror.

"Is that a normal weapons and tactics scenario?"

For serving a felony search warrant? Yep.

74 posted on 04/24/2011 10:16:56 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Fresh Wind

>>Do you shoplift to save money on groceries and clothes too?<<

There really is a lot of judgmental idiocy on FR these days.

I actually have to click on an “accept terms and conditions” page before I access. What I am doing is completely permissible. I am not stealing anything.

Like the cops in the OP story, you may want to get your facts straight before coming in with both barrels.


75 posted on 04/24/2011 10:17:00 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
You mean the headline that a FReeper wrote, that headline?

Just checking?

The word "SWAT" doesn't appear ANYWHERE in the AP headline or story. It's entirely a figment of the poster's imagination.

76 posted on 04/24/2011 10:18:17 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
I'm surprised you don't write professional for the daytime soaps. You certainly have the right flair for the dramatic.

Yeah riiiiight, planted evidence NEVER happens...nooooooosiiirrrreeee.

If it wasn't his internet connection that was used, then whose was it and why did his attorney not say that it wasn't even his internet connection that was used?

What it shows is that because your connection is used it does not automatically make you guilty of what is downloaded, as this case so clearly proves.

The cops know that, that is why the guy should have been questioned and not treated as a serf by the rising brown shirt NAZI crowd.

But then they wouldn't have been able to justify their budgets and have some fun abusing and desensitizing fellow Citizens.

I mean c'mon, what fun is that, right?

77 posted on 04/24/2011 10:18:41 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (The Tree of Liberty did not grow from an ACORN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: SIDENET

I’m sorry, does that mean that you didn’t find the word “SWAT” in the story?


78 posted on 04/24/2011 10:19:17 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: halfright

>>Testing with the laptop in the car with hand holding the antenna I could get into my router from over a mile away.<<

Wow! Apply that to my “nefarious guy” scenario in post #39. A REALLY bad guy should NEVER get caught doing this stuff if he has a basic understanding of the technology.


79 posted on 04/24/2011 10:20:41 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
I swear I don’t know why some ignore all logic when defending the police.

Ditto!

80 posted on 04/24/2011 10:21:26 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (The Tree of Liberty did not grow from an ACORN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 421-438 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson