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 ...
That I think is the way to go. Free Wi-Fi. But the ISPs would prefer that every person who wants to use the internet has to pay them. And the government would like to be certain.
It’s good to have the option.
I don't care if they were or not.
Thanks for the JBT perspective, though.
>>The story CLEARLY states and his own attorney stipulates that it was ROUTER that was used to download internet porn. <<
Well, based on that logic, maybe they should have broken the door down and pointed guns at the offices of the Internet Provider first, just to be safe.
It certainly is a hidioius crime.but the cops aren,t supposed to meet out punishment for it.
A powerful antenna and a powerful but cheap 33db usb dongle can pick up signals a long way away.
>>I would love to hear about all the child-porn cases you’ve successfully prosecuted. I’ve prosecuted about five.<<
My problem with prosecuting internet child porn cases is that I’ve read about a few here where some guy inadvertantly clicked on a site set up by the government to catch pervs, and once he did, he was nailed. And the proof he was guilty was that he actually went to the site and there was child porn on the home page.
That is just sick.
I remember a gun hobbyist friend at my church, around 12 years ago, saying that one thing he learned from the internet search engines of the day was that “colt” meant “young boy” to homos. And no, my friend was not a homo nor was he a pedo.
Your arguments are highly disingenuous.
I never said he was arrested or charged.
I said he was proved innocent.
He was proved innocent in this case by virtue of an investigation that should have taken place before he was subjected to the idtiot brown shirts that violated their oath to uphold the Constitution.
Do you consider your actions to be theft of services? War-driving is simple, but you can be charged and punished with a five-year incarceration for stealing your neighbor’s WiFi. It’s happened.
“..it’s a crime that can be covered up with literally a mouse click or key stroke.”
As a certified forensic computer specialist, I can assure you that is not true. It takes a lot of time (hours) to wipe a drive, especially the multi-gigabyte drives in use today. If the perp tried to run a wipe program, all the cops have to do is pull the plug. You might lose some data, but not a significant amount. Formatting the drive doesn’t take long, but it also doesn’t delete any data - it just deletes the file system, which is easy to recover.
I agree that the cops had sufficient cause to get a search warrant. I disagree that serving the warrant required the SWAT tactics used, and they could be subject for excessive force charges. And remember, in a civil case, the jusry decides if excessive force is used, not a judge...
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.
I have erred in my usage of 'SWAT.' The LEOs of the story are not SWAT. S'wat that mean? Well, it means that we, being pedantic asses, would never want to employ the term SWAT for what is non-SWAT. I therefore command you all to begin using the term 'Jack Booted Thug' in place of the term 'SWAT.'
Or we'll come and get you!
Straw man? I don't think you understand your fallacious arguments. You said it was "SWAT". I'm just asking you to demonstrate where that term is used in the story.
I couldn't find it, and apparently neither could you. I guess.
There is nothing in the constitution that gives police the right to break down your door without knocking. No knock warrants are unconstitutional and should be ruled as such. Having a warrant to search means you go to the door and knock. IF the owner then refuses to answer the cops can forcibly enter, before that they do not have the right to do so. A search warrant means to search, not to throw people on the floor and stick a gun in their face, especially for a non violent crime.
I can tell you are a cop appologist. These police had no evidence that would justify a search warrant let alone using a frickin' swat team.
>>So you’re a thief?<<
No. See my post 75.
>>Also it’s not to hard to crack some of the older routers. So if you protect it and someone cracks it then piggybacks...you’re really screwed because they will argue in court it was secured.
Being unsecured is actually better legal protection than secured; however, unsecured is more likely to get you falsely accused.
I’d rather be falsely accused and then prove my innocence vice being falsey accused and found guilty.<<
This. And you laid it out better than me. Thanks.
I'm surprised you don't write professional for the daytime soaps. You certainly have the right flair for the dramatic.
Has that not been done with illicit drugs?
In your career as a "certified forensic computer specialist", have you have heard the terms "off-site hosting" or proxy server?
Its right there in the headline.
I added that. I didn't mean for it to be taken literally. It's a descriptive term.
No, there is something in the Constitution that says...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Does the Constitution give ANY guidence whatsoever about how those warrants are to be served? I don't think so.
There's nothing inclusive or exclusive in the Constitution with respect to so-called "no knock warrants". And, it's pretty clear that because the Constitution is silent on how those warrants are to be served, that they're leaving it to the Legislature and Judiciary to work out the details. And, those two branches of government certainly have.
But hey, why let a little ConLaw get in the way of a perfectly good argument.
I hope the chains rest lightly on you, FRiend.
Not that I've ever heard, cops are paragons of virtue donchaknow.
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.