Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bizarre Porn Raid Underscores Wi-Fi Privacy Risks

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the stranger-than-fiction dept.

Privacy 964

alphadogg writes "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. Sure enough, that was the case. Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice: Password-protect your wireless router."

cancel ×

964 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

b-b-b-but (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929398)

information wants to be free! homeless people with their ipads want to browse the internet!!! why would anyone take advantage of a free service like this?

2 2 2 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929404)

Secondary postage required.

guilty eh? (5, Insightful)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929408)

Guilty until proven innocent.

Re:guilty eh? (5, Insightful)

bobdawonderweasel (941828) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929562)

Indeed. This case has far more to do with the actions of police state than a criminal investigation. When will these morons in law enforcement learn: IP Address != Identity.

Re:guilty eh? (2)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929682)

Part of the problem is the downright fucking shoddy reporting in the mainstream media, especially in tech matters...FTA...

The agent identified the IP address, or unique identification number, of the router, then got the service provider to identify the subscriber.

They're teaching the average moron that IP Address = Identity. And as we all know, these morons are the "jury of our peers" when some fucking perv uses (y)our internet connections and we get busted for it.

Re:guilty eh? (5, Interesting)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929808)

When I was younger I worked as a tech in a major metro newspaper.

Reporters seem to have a overblown sense of self worth. They can't be bothered to go down the hall and talk to lowly "technical" people to find out if what they are saying even makes sense. This seems to happen with reporters at every level. They go on air regularly and make asses of themselves because they are sure they know everything.

You can complain to the paper, but it will just go to a jackass editor that even has a MORE overblown sense of self-worth.

Re:guilty eh? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929736)

Well he was innocent. But that doesn't mean he couldn't be arrested and tried. That fact that his IP address was the offending IP Address was enough probable clause for an Arrest Warrant. Just as if you left your car unlocked some one stole your car, and robbed a bank with it. Chances are Police will get an arrest Warrant and you will be arrested.

Re:guilty eh? (3, Insightful)

kenshin33 (1694322) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929772)

IP != identity but it's a start. The person becomes a suspect and the investigation continues ...

Re:guilty eh? (2, Insightful)

PingSpike (947548) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929598)

That's not true. He'll probably still be assumed to be guilty by a large percentage of people even after he is proven innocent.

Re:guilty eh? (4, Insightful)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929624)

I saw this story first on Yahoo! News and, surprisingly, the comments seemed to understand this. The highly-rated comments all said this is insane, that it's not the guy's fault for not securing his wireless network, it's the police being crazy. I was somewhat proud of my fellow countrymen for seeing through the attempted spin.

The horrible thing, to me, is that they're trying to use it to push securing your home internet. Breaking home wireless encryption isn't that hard, and it would have made it far more difficult for him to prove his own innocence. It's a bit of a double-edged sword.

Re:guilty eh? (1)

Rary (566291) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929786)

Breaking home wireless encryption isn't that hard...

But it's not worth the effort as long as there are unprotected routers available.

It's a bit like using a steering wheel lock in your car. It's not that they can't be defeated, it's just that there's no point wasting time trying to defeat it when there are plenty of cars without one.

no the lesson should be (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929660)

law enforcement needs to smarten the fuck up and enter the house covertly with a warrant and see for them selves.

FACT is someone in the area is a creep sicko and now cause of there fuck up he gets away.

Re:guilty eh? (1)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929694)

"Lying on his family room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of "pedophile!" and "pornographer!" stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises

I have to ask what's the point of this? Does the DEA shout "Dealer!" when they bust down doors? Why the intimidation? It reminds me of Bradley Manning's treatment. Can one sue for excessive force during an arrest, justified or not?

Re:guilty eh? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929734)

You can sue. Are you likely to get anything? Of course not, because our government isn't held accountable for anything.

Re:guilty eh? (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929702)

Guilty until proven innocent.

Not true.

"Guy not actually a pedophile" stories aren't nearly as sensational.

The original story probably got plastered all over the place... And there'll probably be hardly any attempt to correct the story.

He'll have a hell of a time clearing his name with anyone who happened to hear it or see his picture in the original story.

Re:guilty eh? (1)

kenshin33 (1694322) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929806)

Well no. Suppose they found a driver;s license of someone on a crime scene? that person becomes a suspect, they find him question him. That doesn't make him guilty of anything only a suspect. It's up to a court to decide the guilt.

Land of the free... (0, Flamebait)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929410)

... home of the brave.

That's why the government raids your house in the morning with no prior warning.

Re:Land of the free... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929418)

if they gave prior warning, it wouldn't be much of a raid, would it?

Re:Land of the free... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929490)

Gov't: Hey we are planning a raid on your house next week what time would work for you for us to swing by?

You: I'm kinda busy this week. I have some computers I need to toss out. How bout you swing by next Thursday

Govt: Ok see you then

Re:Land of the free... (3, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929666)

.... and use assault weapons to arrest someone you have no reason to believe is armed and dangerous.

The police has become a domestic military force.

Re:Land of the free... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929700)

Well, you know, wanna-be kiddie diddlers are known to be dangerous, wantonly violent individuals.
You cannot give him the opportunity to inject his special blend of gamma ray enhanced pedo-roids...you wouldn't like him when he's horny...for children.

Search Warrant? (5, Insightful)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929412)

So maybe... just maybe, this is a clue that it's not quite right to break down people's doors because of an ip address?

Re:Search Warrant? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929442)

What? Dude, no. Cops are NEVER in the wrong. If a mistake was made, it's obviously on the part of the WiFi router owner.

Really, I'm surprised that the cops haven't charged him with wasting police resources-- those SWAT raids aren't cheap...

Re:Search Warrant? (5, Insightful)

rbollinger (1922546) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929572)

First Point: ICE raided the house not the police.

Second Point: ICE needs to have a federally issued warrant in order to raid a house.

Honestly it is the Judges that need the wake-up call. Too many just don't understand the intricacies of technology and internet crime. A Judge would have been shown how ICE had tracked the IP back to a specific person, and he should have known that that IP address doesn't necessarily identify that person as the perpetrator, and denied the warrant. Furthermore, he should realize that by authorizing a raid like that he reduced the chance of actually catching the real criminal. If the neighbor wasn't such a bone-head, he would have realized what was going on, and fled after he saw the raid on his neighbor's apartment. Instead he probably though he had successfully pinned the blame on someone else.

Re:Search Warrant? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929650)

judges barely understand technology, so unless the judges step forward who is going to speak to them about it? Many don't even know how to use email or an ipod.

Re:Search Warrant? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929596)

I'm surprised you believe "cops" have anything to do with this. Sure, they're the ones who get assigned the task of raiding his home and taking him in, but rest assured they're just acting out their orders. "Cops" aren't the ones who created legislation which allows for your rights to be set aside.

Re:Search Warrant? (3, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929812)

I have heard that defense before, but it sounded more like "Befehl ist Befehl". I don't think it worked that time either.

Re:Search Warrant? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929484)

Even if he was guilty, there wasn't a good reason to attack him with a military unit of the police because his proclivities are abhorrent. Why couldn't regular cops handle the warrant? He wasn't accused of buying machine guns after all.

Re:Search Warrant? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929590)

He may have owned a gun, and a gun only has one purpose, to kill people. They are just playing it

Re:Search Warrant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929504)

Nah, there's totally a pedophile exemption in the Fourth Amendment, you just weren't looking hard enough. Same goes for terrorism, drugs, and in rem forfeiture actions.

Re:Search Warrant? (-1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929814)

And what should they do instead? The IP address is the only thing they have at that point - the rest of the evidence is collected AFTER they gain entry to the house. To understand why they use the 'break down the door' technique all you have to do is look at previous slashdot articles where people give such helpful advise as 'run truecrypt, and pull the plug when the cops knock at your door'.

If you are going to let others use your identity (and your IP address is one form of identification), you need to accept that others may do things that land you in hot water.

Is it that hard... (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929414)

...to set up a password? I've never had much of a problem, and I'm a Luddite.

But, yes, this is an area inhabited by much hysteria, mostly generated from "Think Of The Children" LE Nazis and - yes - the News Media looking for the sensational story...

Guest Wi-Fi (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929464)

...to set up a password?

If you run a business that offers WLAN Internet service to its guests, how do you reliably communicate the password to legitimate guests without also communicating it to those who deal in child pornography and unlicensed controlled substances?

Re:Guest Wi-Fi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929522)

What, are you saying you don't ask for a full criminal background check for all patrons in your café? I knew I was doing something wrong...

Re:Guest Wi-Fi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929612)

Video cameras might catch someone or a license plate in the parking lot.

Re:Guest Wi-Fi (2)

rbollinger (1922546) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929652)

Run your users through a "Captive Gateway" to authenticate them an agree to your Acceptable Terms of Use. Here [smallnetbuilder.com] is a guide I found for some open source solutions using a quick google search:

Re:Guest Wi-Fi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929766)

Yes because people that make their meager living BREWING COFFEE now need batman level technical skills in order to compete with major multinational corporations.

Re:Guest Wi-Fi (2)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929672)

You don't worry about that, and instead focus on securing your guest WiFi through some kind of walled garden or forced proxy setting to prevent people from abusing the service. It's actually quite trivial to force all traffic through a silent proxy without having to configure client PC's for it at all. If you don't want to go to that much effort, you can also simply block everything that isn't on HTTP or HTTPS default ports, and just force those ports through a proxy.

Just because you're providing wireless service to your guests means you have to give them complete and unabridged access to the web at large. Most users would never notice the difference if you blocked ports, and those who would can be satisfied by posting a sign offering to open specific ports upon request.

Re:Guest Wi-Fi (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929696)

yay proofreading... that should read "just because you're providing service to your guest doesn't mean you have to give them complete and unabridged access to the web at large...."

Re:Guest Wi-Fi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929804)

Print the one time, time limited login on the bottom of their receipt.

Re:Is it that hard... (2)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929496)

Not difficult, but as the article (briefly) points out, there are plenty of people who are quite happy to share a little of their bandwidth in exchange for the knowledge that others will do the same for them. There are even businesses [fon.com] based on that very premise.

Sure, pointing at an open hotspot as if it exonerates one from any suspicion would be foolish, but I'm inclined to think that so is smashing down someone's door and throwing them down the stairs based on an IP address.

Re:Is it that hard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929690)

... to break a password? I've never had much of a problem, and while I'm not a Luddite, all it takes is a computer, a wireless nic and a few google searches.

Re:Is it that hard... (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929742)

Is it that hard...to set up a password? I've never had much of a problem, and I'm a Luddite.

It shouldn't be... But, yes, it can be that hard to set up a password.

There can be issues with the router's web UI - maybe it doesn't like whatever browser you're using, or some plugin you've got installed in that browser.

There can be issues with your computer - random crap and viruses that you've picked up along the way.

There can be issues with user education - maybe that warning from the self-signed certificate on the router scared him away.

Duh (-1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929420)

With the few routers I've bought in the last 5 years or so, and the few I've helped set up for non-savvy friends and family - you have to try pretty hard to set one up insecurely - it's no longer the default.

TFA says this guy "got fed up trying to set a password". So basically, he knew it was insecure, he made a conscious decision to leave it insecure, and as a result unauthorized people accessed it.

I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for someone who knew for a fact it was insecure and didn't seek help or look for another solution.

Re:Duh (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929470)

You are the reason people think all IT professionals are jerks.

Re:Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929608)

We're jerks for being right? That's like calling a guy who blames the driver of a car who went past a Stop sign after seeing it, knowing what it meant but ignoring it and ending up in a collision a jerk.

Re:Duh (5, Insightful)

heptapod (243146) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929476)

Just because it's easy for you, Mr. "I Compiled^W Gent^H^H^H^H Installed Ubuntu Last Weekend", doesn't mean that you represent the mean computer intelligence of your peers.

Big surprise, son! Not everyone has the patience for tech regardless of its ease of use.

Re:Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929536)

"Gentoo: because watching stuff scroll by on the screen really fast makes me a Linux expert practically overnight -- which is how long it takes to install^W compile. Who needs to use their computer for computing when you could be using it to compile that entire world meta port for that single package upgrade?"

Re:Duh (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929664)

"Gentoo: because watching stuff scroll by on the screen really fast makes me a Linux expert practically overnight -- which is how long it takes to install^W compile. Who needs to use their computer for computing when you could be using it to compile that entire world meta port for that single package upgrade?"

Wow...if you take all weekend to compile a single package AND can't seem to use your computer while it is compiling...I think you have more problems to worry about than what distro you're using.

However, that being said...if you DO have really old hardware which would take some compiling time (but you can still use the thing while it is compiling)...those older machines do benefit the most from having things custom compiled for them.

Re:Duh (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929604)

It's not difficult to follow written instructions.

Everyone is responsible to secure their own internet connection. If he can't handle that, then he should be using Cat5e

Re:Duh (5, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929532)

I'm more bothered about the fact that a screenshot and an IP address is enough to warrant (no pun intended) an armed unit (from Immigration and Customs, for some reason) smashing the door down and throwing the guy down the stairs. When the evidence is that slim, I'd suggest maybe turning up in the daytime and knocking on the door with a warrant to search/confiscate the computers would be a more measured response.

Re:Duh (2)

AntiNazi (844331) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929588)

Well, other than the fact that he did nothing illegal but got raided and harassed by police and probably has his name associated with kiddy porn all for leaving his wifi open. What difference does it make if he left it open due to ignorance or if he was just being nice? That facts are that an IP address is not a person and the police need to stop treating it as such.

Re:Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929752)

I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for you just because your kid got flattened by a dump truck. After all, there WAS a crosswalk down the block...

Re:Duh (2)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929780)

I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for someone who knew for a fact it was insecure and didn't seek help or look for another solution.

My Nintendo DSi only supports WEP for certain games, what other solution is there?

But I want to share (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929426)

If someone is sitting outside my house, where there is no mobile phone service, and they really desperately need to make a quick Skype call or check their e-mail, it is a neighbourly thing to do to let them use my wifi, just as if their car broke down, it would be a nice thing to offer them a glass of water and a quick phone call to their car breakdown company.

Child pornography trading was not a strict liability offence last time I checked. You have to show some intent, damnit. And until that happens, I'm going to say fuck you to fear and be a good neighbour.

Re:But I want to share (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929480)

If someone is sitting outside my house, where there is no mobile phone service, and they really desperately need to make a quick Skype call or check their e-mail, it is a neighbourly thing to do to let them use my wifi

Then let them knock on your door and ask you for the WEP key to your guest AP. Log who asked and on what day.

Re:But I want to share (5, Insightful)

spikenerd (642677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929526)

Then let them knock on your door and ask you for the WEP key...

No. Who are you to tell me how to do it? If this is a free nation, I'll do it however I want. If I want to shine their shoes as they use my Internet connection, I'll do that too. It's none of your business how I choose to do it.

mod parent up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929668)

Then let them knock on your door and ask you for the WEP key...

No. Who are you to tell me how to do it? If this is a free nation, I'll do it however I want. If I want to shine their shoes as they use my Internet connection, I'll do that too. It's none of your business how I choose to do it.

and give him a nice shoeshine kit.

Forget the shoes... (1)

earls (1367951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929732)

How about a blow job?

Re:But I want to share (4, Insightful)

AntiNazi (844331) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929636)

If you are using WEP, they won't need to ask for the key. WEP probably makes your situation worse. "Sir, you have a secure wifi network, how could anyone be responsible except for you?"

Re:But I want to share (1)

Thoguth (203384) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929676)

If you're using WEP, they don't have to knock on your door and ask, they can just crack it.

Re:But I want to share (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929726)

So if a person's car brakes down and they ask to use the phone will you make a copy of their drivers license?

That's nonsense. What happened to just being neighborly nice and helping people in need. I thought the government's job is to server and protect not harass and knock down doors because of an IP address.

So rather than (5, Insightful)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929438)

So rather than two Federal Marshalls in ties having a discussion with the gentleman, the Feds come in Police State style, tossing American citizens around like ragdolls and trampling the Constitution and the natural rights of man.

What is wrong with this country?

Re:So rather than (4, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929518)

What is wrong with this country?

The voters, even if they remember the incident come November, will still vote for the same politicians they have been voting for their whole lives.

Re:So rather than (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929546)

What is wrong with this country?

We used to have guys like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine as our leaders.

Now we have guys like George W, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Clinton, Janet Reno and Nancy Pelosi as our leaders. That's what's wrong.

And nothing BHO has done convinces me that he's any better than any of the 2nd group.

Re:So rather than (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929566)

It's run by people.

Re:So rather than (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929570)

What is wrong with this country?

Too few people willing to stand up for what they claim to believe in?

Same as most other countries really.

Re:So rather than (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929600)

Simple. Fat and complacent because we are not starving and are deluged with entertainment, we ignore it when they "come for the jews"..... even if we "are jews" we do not speak out.

First They came... - Pastor Martin Niemoller

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
---
Now pay attention to this...because right about now, it seems that we're on step 2....unions are under attack as we speak.

No-knock warrants are _necessary_... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929744)

If the awful pedophile (I would say "alleged", but we all know he dunit) had known the cops were coming, he could have flushed or otherwise destroyed evidence before they could get to him. Thus, they have to come in middle of the knight, knock the door down, and surprise him - for the safety of the evidence.

Re:So rather than (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929782)

What is wrong with this country?

we're learning from our parents, the UK.

nanny-state: here we come!

Crime? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929440)

Maybe they could stop considering certain arrangements of colored dots to be a crime?

Re:Crime? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929488)

Sure, as soon as pedophiles stop considering kids to be a subject of sexual interest.

Re:Crime? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929534)

So it isn't the patterns of dots, it's the use of kids to make the patterns? Then why is CGI kiddie porn illegal?

Re:Crime? (2)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929538)

maybe while they're at it, they could stop considering putting certain arrangements of molecules into other arrangements of molecules a crime as well.

Wrong Damn Point (5, Insightful)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929462)

"Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale."

The summary is a perfectly accurate representation of how the police/statist spokespeople are spinning this, and of course the mass media just regurgitates it verbatim. But that is totally the wrong point to take from this. It's a cautionary tale, all right -- of the horrifying real-life consequences of our brain-addled priorities towards pornography. And the result is they'll want to make it illegal to share our Internet and information access with fellow citizens. Pretty outrageous.

Re: brain-addled priorities (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929632)

Yes, but not just about porn. This has been going on for decades, but porn is probably the earliest iteration of it, at least in the last century or so. Add to that alcohol, "drugs" (ie: those not patented by big-pharma)... and the latest and greatest bogey-man of all, terrorism. Nixon may have started the War On Drugs, but it was little more than an afterthought until Reagan doubled-down on that fool's errand. It was bad enough back then, but the American police-state just went into overdrive after 9/11. Brazil [imdb.com] , here we come!

Re:Wrong Damn Point (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929710)

No shit.

Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice: Password-protect your wireless router.

It's within anyone's rights to not do that, so maybe they can give that advice after a few heads roll over breaking down the door of someone who did NOTHING ILLEGAL. I mean, hey... what could possibly go wrong? It's totally unimaginable that he might react in self-defense to an unexpected violent break-in, right? No innocent people could ever be killed in a raid like this...

Whoever authorized this raid put both the law enforcement agents AND the innocent homeowner at severe risk. People could have died. Hold the bastard accountable. THAT is the advice that I want to see.

This is a cautionary tale... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929468)

... but it's the police who need to learn.

Maybe we don't need to send SWAT teams in to arrest people unless there is specific evidence that the person being arrested is armed and violent?

Maybe what passes for "probable cause" is a joke these days?

cautionary tale indeed (5, Insightful)

spikenerd (642677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929474)

Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale

Indeed, this should be a cautionary tale: obtain better evidence before you make an arrest. Surely there is some kind of penalty in our well-designed system for such sloppiness on the part of law-enforcement. Surely our freedoms have built-in protections. Surely we do not need to respond to attempts by law-enforcement to try to scare us into using encryption if we don't want to ...right?

Re:cautionary tale indeed (3, Informative)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929628)

"Surely there is some kind of penalty in our well-designed system for such sloppiness on the part of law-enforcement."

Almost exactly the opposite. Thee days, there's quite a bit of aggravation aimed at (a) partial immunity for law enforcement, and (b) complete immunity for prosecutors. (Of which the latter often blankets and protects the former.)

How ridiculous. (3, Insightful)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929494)

My advice would be "No one password protect your router"

Then all your concerns about the federal government snooping in on your internet traffic become moot.

Having everyone password protect their router gives the state more power over you.

Hi, I'm Chris Hansen from Dateline NBC (3, Funny)

fak3r (917687) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929498)

Why don't you have a seat over there? ... What were you thinking?

Re:Hi, I'm Chris Hansen from Dateline NBC (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929542)

What happens if the person that shows up turns out to be a year or two younger than they were pretending? Does the cop have a seat?

Better not use WEP either. (2)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929540)

Just using a password isn't safe either. I 'cracked' my own home router that was running WEP encryption in about 5 minutes using a live-cd distribution for that purpose. I've made sure that everything is on WPA2 now, but very few home users are going to know the difference between encryption types.

It's not just wireless that presents problems like this. If your computer or router gets cracked and starts routing illicit traffic for third parties the exact same thing in the article can occur.

Re:Better not use WEP either. (1)

dev.null.matt (2020578) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929716)

Of course, if you limit the MAC addresses of computers that your router will offer addresses to, it doesn't REALLY matter what kind of password you put on your network. This is a very simple and secure method, that really requires virtually no extra effort on your part (assuming you're moderately tech savvy).

I implemented this on my home network the other day when I noticed a suspicious looking connection to my network. I've been monitoring the network fairly closely since then, and I haven't seen anything I don't expect to be on the network since then.

On a side note, does anyone know if would be considered wire fraud in the US to do something malicious to someone that connects to your network illegitimately? Like present them with a fake page for their email service login page indicating their account has been terminated or something along those lines?

Bungled raid tips off actual perp. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929544)

The raid could have tipped off the actual perp so he could destroy evidence.

I hope they assign smarter agents to violent crime and terrorism.

Before you know it ... (2)

Super Dave Osbourne (688888) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929554)

you will be cited for not locking your door, on your car, house or modem/router. The problem is all will be penalized in this stupid police state called America, the home of the 'free' where that means free to take the liberties of the huddled stupid masses. Dumb the population down via poor education and what do you get, a bunch of sheaple willing to be taxed to death and afraid to do anything about it. Get what you deserve here, sadly this country is hopeless until a very blood revolution and a system pride by education occurs.

Re:Before you know it ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929720)

Looks look like ICE is also totally dumbed down...this has happened often enough that you would think that ICE would have procedures in place to prevent that sort of thing from happening. Haven't they learned from past experience, or do those cowboys just don't care?

Remember... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929578)

Remember when SWAT teams were only used on violent offenders in situations that were expected to get excessively violent?

Unfortunately, I don't, I was only born in the 80s. I know SWAT teams as being used for everyday arrests and serving warrants, most often by busting down doors of family homes in the dark and shooting people's pets (like the DC area mayor who's dog was shot in the back as it ran away from police during a raid for a crime police had strong evidence he didn't commit but set him up for anyway). No police force needs APCs. Nor should the first line of investigation involve Afghanistan-style street warfare. And where's the police force policing these out of control police forces?

Fucking pigs (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929584)

Wake up and realize the cops have militarized against normal citizens.

Celebrities and politicians, under the same charges, are given the opportunity to peacefully turn themselves in.

Normal civilian? Full on SWAT raid

Fuck cops, fuck their families, fuck their friends.. The position these days is only held by the most reprehensible human beings we have to offer.

Warning to the police... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929586)

We are PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL proven guilty. You stinking murdering pigs.

WPA2-PSK --- WPA2-PSK --- WPA2-PSK --- WPA2-PSK -- (1)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929594)

WPA2-PSK!!!

How often must this be said, WEP is NOT security - it's a giant virtual white flag to any wardriver saying "Hi There - I'm Open, Please Hack ME!"

Re:WPA2-PSK --- WPA2-PSK --- WPA2-PSK --- WPA2-PSK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929698)

Perhaps more importantly, if you are really concerned about misuse of your internet connection - if you put WEP on it, it shouldn't decrease the chances of misuse particularly much (anyone who intentionally goes to other houses in order to use the internet for nefarious purposes should have easy knowledge of WEP hacking), but it likely increases the chances of you being convicted.

The public who hear about this raid and probably the police should at this point know the difference between a password-protected router and an open access router. Unfortunately that may be the only thing they know.

And.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929622)

Enable MAC filtering, and then you only need to worry about somebody spoofing one of your devices.

Bizarre porno raid underscores risks from ICE (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929740)

ICE needs be abolished and turned back into its 2 constituent agencies. The combination has proven to be dangerous to the health of the Internet and the public.

Innocent until proven guilty (1)

Larry_Dillon (20347) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929756)

Perhaps the cops should gather more evidence than an IP address before they bust in, guns drawn?

dur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929758)

Here's some advice for the police: stop (wrongly) assuming that you can map IP addresses to individuals.

Think of the Children (1)

WCguru42 (1268530) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929790)

Imagine if this person had a child in their home. The trauma of that type of raid would probably be much worse than the risk of serving the arrest without SWAT.

Very Lucky The Man is Not Suing (4, Insightful)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929796)

The Feds could readily determine that the router was unsecured. That means that anybody within a certain radius of the computer could have downloaded the picture.

Probable cause means facts and circumstances that would cause a person of reasonable prudence to believe that the computer in the house that was searched was used to download criminal material or used to store criminal material.

The router is evidence of a crime. It is the device used to get the criminal material. The feds had a legit reason for the search and seizure of the router.

The problem that I have is that the ICE agents behaved like pigs--complete pigs--with respect to the man whose home they invaded. They had facts sufficient to know that they had no probable cause to believe that the man they threw on the ground had done anything wrong. They were under no threat, yet they assaulted him for no good reason.

I think a poll is in order... (1)

roubles (716740) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929800)

Asking the slashdot community what wifi security protocol they employ for their home wireless network. I would be interested to see how many people are not on some variant of WPA2.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?