If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   SWAT team throws flashbangs, raids wrong home due to open WiFi network that allowed the teen next door to make online threats against the local cops. But wait, there's more   (arstechnica.com) divider line 210
    More: Asinine, SWAT team, Wi-Fi, Internet Crime, internet police, Spring Hill, hand grenades, open wifi, american police  
•       •       •

21828 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jun 2012 at 10:36 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



210 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-29 05:36:56 AM

tgambitg: ROBOTwHUM4NHAIR: PW/encryption isn't the only way to protect your wifi, at least not with my router. No one can connect to mine unless I give their specific MAC address access to it. If its not my ipod, printer, or other computer its not connecting

.....

10 seconds sniffing, and I've spoofed a MAC address of a device and I'm on your network, reconfigured it to have my actual MAC address as a valid client and then erasing logs (assuming logging is even on in the first place) and unless you keep a written record of every MAC address entered, you'd never know. This is basic net penetration 101.

MAC filtering is not a substitute for encryption.


MAC filtering for wireless security is the equivalent of putting a 3 inch high fence around your property to stop people from being able to get in.
 
2012-06-29 05:51:23 AM

hej: Wifi security is simple enough to set up. If you're too lazy to turn it on, you deserve to be assaulted by a SWAT team.


Or too stupid to use it.
 
2012-06-29 06:29:26 AM

Nuclear Monk: I'm not so sure you can have that 'reasonable' expectation though. You are providing a means to perform actions, including illegal ones, online under your name (or IP address, anyway) if you leave the network unsecured. It'd kinda be like openly advertising your car is freely available to borrow anonymously.


Uh, well, IANAL but if it's publicly known that you lent your car out anonymously it would be pretty hard to convince a sane judge that your house needed to be broken into to prevent you from committing any more crimes with that car.

But to most people over 40, computers and the internet are a satanic conspiracy powered by black magic and big voodoo, so let's just send the Apache gunships, no sense in taking a chance that one of those computer viruses might have mutated and started taking over guns and automobiles like in the movies.
 
2012-06-29 06:40:48 AM
It's better safe than sorry, amarite?
 
2012-06-29 07:23:07 AM

Arcturus72: SDRR: [Not this thread again facepalm jpg]

That's what I was thinking, but once again the jack booted thugs are used to getting their way, and stomping on your freedoms, citizen...

I agree that some idiots have completely failed their reading comprehension if they didn't have a problem with this, considering how the real culprit got treated with a knock on the door, when the knee jerk reaction of sending out SWAT got the bad PR...

I hope this family got more compensation that just "Damages repaired"... What about mental anguish?


FTA: "The city will be paying to repair the damage it caused."

I was wondering if it included tratement for the anxiety, lack of trust of authority figures and PTSD that are sure to follow.
 
2012-06-29 07:32:39 AM
the circle of fail
you elect the politician who makes the law
you elect the Governor who appoints the judges who okay the warrants
you elect the mayor who regulates the city and appoints the chief of police
or you vote him in also
you elect the district attorney
you elect the judges

and then you moan about the worker bee
who is told what laws to enforce
and HOW to enforce them by the amount of shi'ite that rolls downhill from all the people you chose to represent you.

I'm not saying cops don't fark up as human beings
but the people you wanted to take control of your rights are standing behind them
your fault
boo hoo
 
hej
2012-06-29 07:40:25 AM

ykarie: hej: Wifi security is simple enough to set up. If you're too lazy to turn it on, you deserve to be assaulted by a SWAT team.

So you have a WPA2 RADIUS system set up for your home wifi, and check the intrusion logs regularly, right? Cause you know how easy it is to defeat WPA-PSK if the router doesn't start filtering deauth attempts, and that's hardware options that the user doesn't have access to in most cases. And I'm sure you know how worthless WEP is, and how MAC filtering doesn't work against good wireless adapters.

One cheap USB wifi device (mine was PCMCIA, w/ custom firmware in the 802.11b days), one computer, and a bootable CD with pen-test tools, and you can set up an easy way to break into every 'protected' wireless network in your area. As a former bored teenager who did this, it isn't hard. As someone who still listens to security mailing lists, it's still ridiculously difficult to secure against a neighbor who has all day to mess with you.


Regardless of how strong of flimsy wireless security might be, you can't possibly think that your scenario is the same as some kid sitting in his parents house who turns on his computer and just automatically ends up connected to the first open access point it finds.
 
2012-06-29 08:06:21 AM

ROBOTwHUM4NHAIR: PW/encryption isn't the only way to protect your wifi, at least not with my router. No one can connect to mine unless I give their specific MAC address access to it. If its not my ipod, printer, or other computer its not connecting


LOL im in ur router, lookin at ur pr0n rite now ha ha

/sorry
 
2012-06-29 08:48:37 AM
Anyone who read this story and thought "well, this would never happen to me because I'm smart and wouldn't make the same mistakes the innocent homeowner made" should keep in mind that the innocent persons house was not raided because of a mistake she made but because if several major mistakes the police made.

It does not matter how smart you are when raids like this are due to the police farking up without any accountability.
 
2012-06-29 08:50:10 AM
www.lawtechguru.com

At least lock your doors. Sure, people can pick the lock, but why make it easy?

Named my SSID "FBI bait router"
 
2012-06-29 09:00:13 AM
"the circle of fail
you elect the politician who makes the law
you elect the Governor who appoints the judges who okay the warrants
you elect the mayor who regulates the city and appoints the chief of police
or you vote him in also
you elect the district attorney
you elect the judges

and then you moan about the worker bee
who is told what laws to enforce
and HOW to enforce them by the amount of shi'ite that rolls downhill from all the people you chose to represent you."

images.needcoffee.com

Made me think of this.....go ahead, sing it with Elton's voice...I couldnt help myself

/watched this movie about 400 times when my son was little, ugh
 
2012-06-29 09:01:27 AM
It helps if you dont broadcast your wireless network name either. Ya, it still can be picked up, but not by the average goon.
 
2012-06-29 09:22:33 AM

machoprogrammer: MaudlinMutantMollusk: At what point do we, as the employers of these f*cking lunatics, demand that they stop doing things like this? Is there any outrage at all, or have the majority of us surrendered to complacency and a false sense of security?

Considering that the police are just agents of the city to generate revenue, it won't happen unless we elect brand new officials. Which, let's be honest, won't happen because too many farktards are too busy thinking their "team" is the best and vote blindly for their side.

And fark the police. I hope they get the shiat sued out of them.


I agree with you on principle, but if you're not going to secure your Wi-Fi, you're simply begging for problems
 
2012-06-29 09:22:38 AM
F*cking pigs.


They must have been awfully disappointed they were unable to at least kill some puppies.

Hate cops.
They are standing armies in our cities.

Remember that creepy weird kid who sat alone at the lunch table back in high school? You know,the one who wore his scout uniform to class and always had C.B. Colby books in his locker. Sat in the back of the bus staring at your girlfriend.

He is a cop now.
Angry goon with a uniform and a badge and worst of all.....the power of arrest.

Him and all his ex-high school creep cop peers are all part of a brotherhood who watch each other's backs. Cover for each other. Set up civilians. Manipulate law and procedures. etc...

Get away with being fascist thugs.

Google the following:

"war on drugs casualties" (drug war Rant.com)

"police duty to protect" (every site that comes up is "NO" duty)
 
2012-06-29 09:30:14 AM

Dokushin: Enemabag Jones: Dokushin - bachelorhood, single, unmarried, celibate
You geniuses got any plans for how to handle violent conflict in the world you breathlessly envision without police? Those guys get shot at as part of their jobs. You ever been shot at? You don't think that might make you a little cautious?
Wear a uniform and knock on a druglord's door sometime.

1-They were not forced to become a cop. They chose a more exciting job with relative job security, better pay for the cost of entrance, and good social benefits.
2-Cop is next to sanitation engineer and taxi driver in terms of how dangerous it is.
3-I would be that if it was a known *druglord's door they would either not knock or come in with full paramilitary protection.

*By druglord do you mean a neighborhood dealer, a local thug higher up in the chain, or someone living in a mansion with security?

I notice you haven't pointed out whether you've been shot at or not. Or whether anyone in your workplace has been shot at in the line of duty, for that matter.

What do you consider an acceptable level of threat before breaking a window (and paying for it) is not an unreasonable precaution?


I have. And guess what. If anything, I'd be a bit more cautious about busting into a house. I'd actually want some modicum of intel about what I'd be getting into before just bursting in. If anything, I'd first check to see if a raid was even warranted as to avoid casualties on both sides. But no, I wouldn't just go bouncing around like a scared jackrabbit. It's called planning and forethought. These guys apparently developed it after their first clusterfark.
 
2012-06-29 09:34:01 AM

dlp211: freewill: hej: Wifi security is simple enough to set up. If you're too lazy to turn it on, you deserve to be assaulted by a SWAT team.

^ This should be printed on the front of the Quick Start guide that comes with the router.

Again, you have the right to not run a secure network and should reasonably expect not to be raided by SWAT.


You know how I know you don't pay for internet?

t3knomanser: freewill: hej: Wifi security is simple enough to set up. If you're too lazy to turn it on, you deserve to be assaulted by a SWAT team.

^ This should be printed on the front of the Quick Start guide that comes with the router.

And what about those of us that run both a secured network for our personal use, and an open network for guests and neighbors?


Hi t3k. Meet one of your guests/ neighbors.
 
2012-06-29 09:34:22 AM

Dokushin: You geniuses got any plans for how to handle violent conflict in the world you breathlessly envision without police?


I have an idea what it would look like, armed people kicking down your door in the middle of the day, throwing explosives through the windows to deafen and disorient you, shooting your dog, and all the while there's no fear of prosecution by the courts. GORRAM, what a nightmarish scenario. I hope we never see those days.
 
2012-06-29 09:42:16 AM
I helped a friend set up his router. He said he wanted a password at least 3 or 4 times more secure than "password." Not knowing what to make of that statement, naturally I set his password to be "passwordpasswordpasswordpassword."

/csb

Zoomaster: cretinbob: I love open wifi connections

=========

A friend of mine just moved to a new apartment building and wasn't happy to find out he had to wait two weeks until his cable and internet were to be hooked up. He logged on to his computer to see if there was anybody with an open connection, but there wasn't. It took him less than five minutes to find someone using "password" as their password. In all he "borrowed" a half a dozen different Wi-Fi signals until his internet was set up. All the passwords were either "qwerty" "12345" or "password"


/No he didn't go to any "bad" sites, at least that is his story
//Yes, his password is a little harder to bust

 
2012-06-29 09:49:36 AM
Is this happening more often, or is media just more diligent in reporting it?
 
2012-06-29 09:59:04 AM

lar_m: farkityfarker: Sad story, but at least the kid who didn't understand why it's wrong to use his neighbors' wi-fi without permission has learned a very hard lesson.

Being - they will flash bang NOT yer house? Yea I'm sure snowflake is traumatized.


Yeah, but I imagine the WiFi house learned to secure their router, now didn't they.

Gyrfalcon: baka-san: And if the homeowner had a gun, and thought, as most of us would, they were under attack(which they were) and shots were traded, wounding or killing one or more people?

How about a little more "policing" and less "COD" guys.

It says serve and protect, not search and destroy on the cars...

When did we become so damn afraid, needing to swing the big dick as a Weeners.

CoD is way more fun than "knock knock police search warrant WHAM!!! GET ON THE GROUND!! DO IT NOW!!!...oh, our bad. Sorry for your door."

I find it amusing that the FBI has (finally) learned to do a bit more surveillance before kicking in the door. But they don't have to justify their DHS grant money, I guess.


Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK06Hl5DkrI
 
2012-06-29 09:59:51 AM

Almet: Glad to see my hometown police force getting national recognition.

Seriouly, though, the local PD are in full paramilitary mode pretty much all the time.

They sent dogs in after a PC tech at one of the local schools as he was doing weekend upgrades in preparation for some standardized tests. No calls to the school district or alarm company, just send in the hounds.


Did they he dip beneath the lasers?
fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net

/hot like Catherine Zeta Jones
 
2012-06-29 10:02:26 AM

Z-clipped: freewill: NightSteel: All you folks making analogies to unlocked houses, open garages and unattended cars should keep something in mind; each of those requires someone to physically enter and/or steal your property to perpetrate a crime. Using open wifi is NOT the same and is generally NOT treated as a criminal act (despite a few edge cases). If it was, cops would already be rolling with AP/direction finder combos in their cars, waiting for people to connect and busting them for unauthorized use wholesale. It'd be easy to do with some cheap hardware and a little bit of design work, and we all know how much they love the easy busts. Call it the digital equivalent of a bait car.

Actually, I gather that this is a complicated issue that involves a lot of poorly written state laws. It's certainly risky to infer that just because the police don't actively investigate, it must not be a crime.

Without trying to comment on individual statutes, just to follow your analogy, even if there is no other criminal act involved (like breaking and entering or theft), using someone's unlocked router is still similar in principle to trespass, and I believe this is the charge in those "edge cases". The router *is* the homeowner's property, installed on their property, and you're using it. The owner left the door unlocked or left their property in plain view in their yard, maybe even within reach of the sidewalk, but that doesn't mean you have any implied authorization to use it.

When you begin using this unlawful, unauthorized access in order to commit another, potentially more serious, criminal act, I'd say that's going to step up law enforcement's interest in your trespass considerably, just as with a trespass that becomes a burglary.

It is absolutely not similar in principle to trespass. It IS similar in principle to listening to music from your neighbor's stereo system because he left the window open.


More like stealing your neighbors cable, and committing crimes with it.
 
2012-06-29 10:15:40 AM

betelgeux: Dokushin: You geniuses got any plans for how to handle violent conflict in the world you breathlessly envision without police?

I have an idea what it would look like, armed people kicking down your door in the middle of the day, throwing explosives through the windows to deafen and disorient you, shooting your dog, and all the while there's no fear of prosecution by the courts. GORRAM, what a nightmarish scenario. I hope we never see those days.


At least in that scenario you get to shoot back, and if you survive, you don't go to prison.
Or you can move to Indiana.

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana_First_State_to_All o w_Citizens_to_Shoot_Law_Enforcement_Officers_120611
 
2012-06-29 10:26:29 AM

NightSteel: You're right about the edge cases. Those cases are usually based on 'unauthorized access' laws which ARE very poorly written for this specific type of situation. As I recall, it's usually some guy sitting in the parking lot of a library or business and using a laptop, and because they're not inside, that supposedly makes it unauthorized. Which is ridiculous. And honestly, not all that similar to trespass at all, unless said library or business secures their wifi and/or has clearly posted signs that the wifi is for patrons and/or customers only (the equivalent of NO TRESPASSING signs). That would clearly make it unauthorized access, if someone were to ignore the signs.


You don't have to have signs up for it to be criminal trespass, it just makes it easier to prove the trespasser's intent.

The issue of authorization is a very fair one. In the absence of statute that clears it up, in the case of somebody outside of a coffee shop, I'd think that a person who is routinely loitering outside of a business in their car to use the network knew it was intended for customers and that it was their intent to avoid spending the few bucks to become a customer and receive implicit authorization. More than that, though, as I said, follow the metaphor. If I leave my router on the edge of my property, so that you're able to plug an ethernet hardline into it without otherwise trespassing on my property, that is not any kind of authorization for you to do so.

Now, you could define authorization in a number of different ways. It might clarify the network owner's responsibilities to view it from the system's perspective: if you are getting in without bypassing or defeating a security measure, you are technically authorized. That, however, diverges considerably from the trespass metaphor, and leaves quite a few intrusions that could not be prosecuted because it would be an uphill battle to determine exactly where the crime is. (I say you gave me your password, you say I didn't.)

Maybe the difference could be illustrated by a woman's abusive ex stalking her. When we talk about unauthorized access, do we need to prove that she had a password and he stole it, or should it be sufficient to prove that he knew she doesn't want him going through her bank records and reading her personal correspondance, but did it anyway?

NightSteel: That's also true, but it doesn't relieve law enforcement of their duty to investigate and ensure that they have ascertained enough information to be certain that they're storming the right house. Again, TFA laid it out: All they had to do was bring a laptop and check for open wifi, and perhaps the raid could have been avoided. But I doubt anybody there with a badge on cared about de-escalating the situation.


firefly212: An IP address alone shouldn't be grounds for legal action, law enforcement action, or anything... if you want to go raiding places with guns, placing civilians and cops in harms way, you should have some clear, articulable target.


Let me just say again that there are two separate issues at work here:

1) Whether or not a SWAT team storming the house is a proper response.

2) Whether or not it is correct to direct that response at the house where the internet connection is hooked up.

It would be silly for anyone to think that they can leave their personal property open for use by criminals, then expect that, once the police learn their property is involved, that the police should not follow up on this and that the owner's rights are being violated if they do.

It is, however, perfectly right for someone to think that storming the house with flashbangs over random ranting on the internet is completely and truly insane.
 
2012-06-29 10:30:22 AM

RedVentrue: More like stealing your neighbors cable, and committing crimes with it.


No, that's still not a very good example, because stealing cable is in itself a crime. That's *definitely* theft of services; you are gaining access to content that you haven't been authorized to view. It's also possibly trespass, depending on what you have to do to actually steal the cable. That argument might hold a little more water if ISPs started forbidding customers from running hotspots, but violating T&Cs is still more of a civil matter than a criminal one.

I agree with the listening to your neighbor's stereo analogy a lot more.
 
2012-06-29 10:31:47 AM

RedVentrue: You know how I know you don't pay for internet?


Because you're an idiot who thinks that I don't have FiOS business class 25 up and down?

My internal network has 3 routers, a 24 port full duplex HP proliant switch, and no less then 15 devices connected at any given time. Hell my fish tank has an outward facing web server running.
 
2012-06-29 10:44:06 AM

NightSteel: RedVentrue: More like stealing your neighbors cable, and committing crimes with it.

No, that's still not a very good example, because stealing cable is in itself a crime. That's *definitely* theft of services; you are gaining access to content that you haven't been authorized to view. It's also possibly trespass, depending on what you have to do to actually steal the cable. That argument might hold a little more water if ISPs started forbidding customers from running hotspots, but violating T&Cs is still more of a civil matter than a criminal one.

I agree with the listening to your neighbor's stereo analogy a lot more.


You are sending a signal through the neighbors property in order to access his/ her access point, and using that IP adress to communicate with the net. That is not only tresspass, it's identity theft.

dlp211: RedVentrue: You know how I know you don't pay for internet?

Because you're an idiot who thinks that I don't have FiOS business class 25 up and down?

My internal network has 3 routers, a 24 port full duplex HP proliant switch, and no less then 15 devices connected at any given time. Hell my fish tank has an outward facing web server running.


Then what are you worried about?
 
2012-06-29 10:45:51 AM

freewill: You don't have to have signs up for it to be criminal trespass, it just makes it easier to prove the trespasser's intent.

The issue of authorization is a very fair one. In the absence of statute that clears it up, in the case of somebody outside of a coffee shop, I'd think that a person who is routinely loitering outside of a business in their car to use the network knew it was intended for customers and that it was their intent to avoid spending the few bucks to become a customer and receive implicit authorization. More than that, though, as I said, follow the metaphor. If I leave my router on the edge of my property, so that you're able to plug an ethernet hardline into it without otherwise trespassing on my property, that is not any kind of authorization for you to do so.


The problem with the 'router at the edge of the property' analogy is that people don't *do* that. Intentionally running an open WLAN is fairly common among the 'information should be free' types, and businesses. Your Starbucks example makes some sense, but still isn't perfect, because if Starbucks wanted to stop people from sitting in the parking lot and leeching, all they have to do is *establish security*, rotate the keys, and give out the keys to legitimate customers. Hardware capable of this does exist.

Now, you could define authorization in a number of different ways. It might clarify the network owner's responsibilities to view it from the system's perspective: if you are getting in without bypassing or defeating a security measure, you are technically authorized. That, however, diverges considerably from the trespass metaphor, and leaves quite a few intrusions that could not be prosecuted because it would be an uphill battle to determine exactly where the crime is. (I say you gave me your password, you say I didn't.)

That's one of my points. Until owning an open WLAN is itself illegal, if the owner of a WLAN doesn't want other people using it, then the onus is on them to secure it or otherwise make this fact known. It has to be, because again, people do run open WLANs intentionally.

Maybe the difference could be illustrated by a woman's abusive ex stalking her. When we talk about unauthorized access, do we need to prove that she had a password and he stole it, or should it be sufficient to prove that he knew she doesn't want him going through her bank records and reading her personal correspondance, but did it anyway?

That's not a very good analogy either, because stalking is in itself a crime (in most areas). Stalking is about fear and control, where connecting to an open WLAN is about gaining access to the Internet.

Let me just say again that there are two separate issues at work here:

1) Whether or not a SWAT team storming the house is a proper response.

2) Whether or not it is correct to direct that response at the house where the internet connection is hooked up.

It would be silly for anyone to think that they can leave their personal property open for use by criminals, then expect that, once the police learn their property is involved, that the police should not follow up on this and that the owner's rights are being violated if they do.

It is, however, perfectly right for someone to think that storming the house with flashbangs over random ranting on the internet is completely and truly insane.


I absolutely agree with you on both points. But, the burden still has to be on law enforcement to diligently investigate, and again, in this case, it's obvious that they did not. If they had taken a laptop out of one of their cruisers and searched for an unsecured WLAN, perhaps the raid could have been avoided and they would have been able to talk to the homeowners, like they did to the real suspects down the street.
 
2012-06-29 10:50:15 AM
I really hope this sort of "oops" never happens at my house, as it wouldnt end well. There have been robberies with people kicking in the doors of houses and yelling "police" to get the homeowners off guard. Sadly this means that anyone that kicks in my door will be greeted with AR-15 fire...and if it happened to be real police, no doubt they would respond with some of their own. Bad situation for all involved.


Fortunately none of us are involved in any sort of criminal activity, likely anyone kicking in the door would be a robber.
 
2012-06-29 10:53:55 AM

RedVentrue: You are sending a signal through the neighbors property in order to access his/ her access point, and using that IP adress to communicate with the net. That is not only tresspass, it's identity theft.



Or, as an alternative view, you're sending a signal to your neighbour's router to say "hey, can I connect to you and get an ip address please", and your neighbour's router is sending some packets back to say "sure you can, here, have this IP address, happy browsing"

You've requested permission to connect, and it's been granted. No theft involved.
 
2012-06-29 10:59:49 AM
"The city will be paying to repair the damage it caused."
There's that
 
2012-06-29 11:00:12 AM

DammitIForgotMyLogin: RedVentrue: You are sending a signal through the neighbors property in order to access his/ her access point, and using that IP adress to communicate with the net. That is not only tresspass, it's identity theft.


Or, as an alternative view, you're sending a signal to your neighbour's router to say "hey, can I connect to you and get an ip address please", and your neighbour's router is sending some packets back to say "sure you can, here, have this IP address, happy browsing"

You've requested permission to connect, and it's been granted. No theft involved.


Only if the owner consents. Otherwise it's router rape.
 
2012-06-29 11:00:56 AM
Who cares about hitting the right or wrong house or securing wifi? Since when is SWAT an appropriate response to an internet post?
 
2012-06-29 11:06:45 AM

RedVentrue: NightSteel: RedVentrue: More like stealing your neighbors cable, and committing crimes with it.

No, that's still not a very good example, because stealing cable is in itself a crime. That's *definitely* theft of services; you are gaining access to content that you haven't been authorized to view. It's also possibly trespass, depending on what you have to do to actually steal the cable. That argument might hold a little more water if ISPs started forbidding customers from running hotspots, but violating T&Cs is still more of a civil matter than a criminal one.

I agree with the listening to your neighbor's stereo analogy a lot more.

You are sending a signal through the neighbors property in order to access his/ her access point, and using that IP adress to communicate with the net. That is not only tresspass, it's identity theft.

dlp211: RedVentrue: You know how I know you don't pay for internet?

Because you're an idiot who thinks that I don't have FiOS business class 25 up and down?

My internal network has 3 routers, a 24 port full duplex HP proliant switch, and no less then 15 devices connected at any given time. Hell my fish tank has an outward facing web server running.

Then what are you worried about?



I think you are confused about what I said. I said that I have the right to run a open router and allow anyone access if I deem it fit. That is a right that I have, and the police should recognize that an IP address is at best an area location to a perpetrator.
 
2012-06-29 11:24:46 AM

Fano: And that's why my Wifi network is named FBI Van 4



That's all sorts of awesome.
 
2012-06-29 11:25:32 AM

dlp211: RedVentrue: NightSteel: RedVentrue: More like stealing your neighbors cable, and committing crimes with it.

No, that's still not a very good example, because stealing cable is in itself a crime. That's *definitely* theft of services; you are gaining access to content that you haven't been authorized to view. It's also possibly trespass, depending on what you have to do to actually steal the cable. That argument might hold a little more water if ISPs started forbidding customers from running hotspots, but violating T&Cs is still more of a civil matter than a criminal one.

I agree with the listening to your neighbor's stereo analogy a lot more.

You are sending a signal through the neighbors property in order to access his/ her access point, and using that IP adress to communicate with the net. That is not only tresspass, it's identity theft.

dlp211: RedVentrue: You know how I know you don't pay for internet?

Because you're an idiot who thinks that I don't have FiOS business class 25 up and down?

My internal network has 3 routers, a 24 port full duplex HP proliant switch, and no less then 15 devices connected at any given time. Hell my fish tank has an outward facing web server running.

Then what are you worried about?


I think you are confused about what I said. I said that I have the right to run a open router and allow anyone access if I deem it fit. That is a right that I have, and the police should recognize that an IP address is at best an area location to a perpetrator.


I would say that your IP address is your responsibility, and if you don't protect it, then you are responsible for what happens with it.
 
2012-06-29 11:27:41 AM
wtfhub.com
 
2012-06-29 11:29:40 AM
oops wrong thread

I'll just be going now.
 
2012-06-29 11:40:21 AM

Dokushin: Enemabag Jones: Dokushin - bachelorhood, single, unmarried, celibate
You geniuses got any plans for how to handle violent conflict in the world you breathlessly envision without police? Those guys get shot at as part of their jobs. You ever been shot at? You don't think that might make you a little cautious?
Wear a uniform and knock on a druglord's door sometime.

1-They were not forced to become a cop. They chose a more exciting job with relative job security, better pay for the cost of entrance, and good social benefits.
2-Cop is next to sanitation engineer and taxi driver in terms of how dangerous it is.
3-I would be that if it was a known *druglord's door they would either not knock or come in with full paramilitary protection.

*By druglord do you mean a neighborhood dealer, a local thug higher up in the chain, or someone living in a mansion with security?

I notice you haven't pointed out whether you've been shot at or not. Or whether anyone in your workplace has been shot at in the line of duty, for that matter.

What do you consider an acceptable level of threat before breaking a window (and paying for it) is not an unreasonable precaution?


There may be circumstances where that is warranted (under very, very limited circumstances), but NOT because you got your feelings hurt when some dimwit is shooting his mouth off on Topix for God's sake.
 
2012-06-29 11:44:51 AM

Mell of a Hess: oops wrong thread

I'll just be going now.


Wait, don't go...
 
2012-06-29 11:48:05 AM

NightSteel: The problem with the 'router at the edge of the property' analogy is that people don't *do* that. Intentionally running an open WLAN is fairly common among the 'information should be free' types, and businesses.


It doesn't matter if they do it. It's a hypothetical, and if the principles we're discussing here actually work, they should yield a sensible enough result.

Your Starbucks example makes some sense, but still isn't perfect, because if Starbucks wanted to stop people from sitting in the parking lot and leeching, all they have to do is *establish security*, rotate the keys, and give out the keys to legitimate customers. Hardware capable of this does exist.

The point in bringing up the "edge of my property" example is that, yes, Starbucks can prevent this, but the fact that they do not does not mean that they are granting authorization to the public. (In point of fact, they go out of their way to promote the fact that they do.) If you don't want your phone stolen, you can put it somewhere safe, but if you don't, the person who takes it still a thief. Leaving it on the bar when you get up to go to the bathroom does not constitute permission to other bar patrons to make dirty phone calls to your mother or run up international minutes, and it's not just because you put a passcode on it.

That's one of my points. Until owning an open WLAN is itself illegal, if the owner of a WLAN doesn't want other people using it, then the onus is on them to secure it or otherwise make this fact known. It has to be, because again, people do run open WLANs intentionally.

So, if Neighbor A leaves his truck unlocked and lets everyone in the neighborhood drive it around to pick up their furniture, the onus is on Neighbors B and C to lock theirs and post a sign that they do not authorize the use of their truck? No. You have no rights to the routers that you see when you scan for networks. Until you have some substantive reason to believe otherwise, there is no basis for assuming that you have authorization to use it. The fact that your hippy neighbor runs his that way or that Starbucks runs theirs that way does not mean that you're entitled to assume that other routers are run the same way. If you need to know whether or not you have authorization, you can always ask.

That's not a very good analogy either, because stalking is in itself a crime (in most areas). Stalking is about fear and control, where connecting to an open WLAN is about gaining access to the Internet.

Irrelevant. It could be a nosy mother-in-law. The point is that it's an unauthorized electronic intrusion that I'm sure we can both agree is and should be illegal. The question is whether we're relying on the hardware of the owner to define authorization in order to make it so.

Question: if you've been fired from a company but they forgot to remove your access from the system, are you still legally authorized to use the system, or are you now an intruder?
 
2012-06-29 11:57:27 AM

NightSteel: Until owning an open WLAN is itself illegal


...and for what it's worth, this may already be the case in a number of states, where the law addresses enabling unauthorized access to an internet service provider. So, if your service agreement forbids sharing your connection, bam. You could conceivably be jailed for having an open router if somebody wanted to ruin your day.

In addition, even benign access to an unsecured wireless network is apparently already a felony in some jurisdictions:

Link
 
2012-06-29 12:10:21 PM
I like how the media is reporting this incident as being caused by an open WiFi network instead of reporting the actual cause: the police not doing their job properly. Now we're going to get idiots rooting for laws to make open WiFi routers illegal.
 
hej
2012-06-29 12:15:18 PM

MythDragon:
Named my SSID "FBI bait router"


Mine is "IdentityTheftHoneypot".
 
2012-06-29 12:59:20 PM

Mell of a Hess: oops wrong thread

I'll just be going now.


That's funny, I thought that was an inter-thread reply to what the guy above you said.
 
2012-06-29 01:11:06 PM
This is why I don't join in the boo-hoo maudlin parade cheering "hero" when something bad happens to a cop. Most of them are testosterone fueled morons who get their rocks off with shows of ridiculously out of proportion force.

A cop ought to be summarily executed every time an innocent person is inconvenienced by them until they learn some goddamn perspective.
 
2012-06-29 01:12:35 PM

Nuclear Monk: dlp211: freewill: hej: Wifi security is simple enough to set up. If you're too lazy to turn it on, you deserve to be assaulted by a SWAT team.

^ This should be printed on the front of the Quick Start guide that comes with the router.

Again, you have the right to not run a secure network and should reasonably expect not to be raided by SWAT.

I'm not so sure you can have that 'reasonable' expectation though. You are providing a means to perform actions, including illegal ones, online under your name (or IP address, anyway) if you leave the network unsecured. It'd kinda be like openly advertising your car is freely available to borrow anonymously.


And if you do, and someone takes it and runs over someone, YOU don't get in trouble. You might have a biatch of a time with your insurance company.
 
2012-06-29 01:19:22 PM

studebaker hoch: What happens when these SWAT boneheads hit a "wrong address" house with armed PTSD veterans inside?


....Jesus H. Fark. I winced just thinking about that.

/And I would feel like such an asshole for laughing...
//Seriously, can we start training these dickwads to ACT LIKE CIVILIZED HUMAN BEINGS?
 
2012-06-29 01:37:07 PM

PsiChick: studebaker hoch: What happens when these SWAT boneheads hit a "wrong address" house with armed PTSD veterans inside?

....Jesus H. Fark. I winced just thinking about that.

/And I would feel like such an asshole for laughing...
//Seriously, can we start training these dickwads to ACT LIKE CIVILIZED HUMAN BEINGS?


It's happened before...

usually the vet gets a couple of the cops who then cordon the place and bring in gas and their tank to knock down a wall.
 
2012-06-29 02:13:33 PM

freewill: The point in bringing up the "edge of my property" example is that, yes, Starbucks can prevent this, but the fact that they do not does not mean that they are granting authorization to the public. (In point of fact, they go out of their way to promote the fact that they do.) If you don't want your phone stolen, you can put it somewhere safe, but if you don't, the person who takes it still a thief. Leaving it on the bar when you get up to go to the bathroom does not constitute permission to other bar patrons to make dirty phone calls to your mother or run up international minutes, and it's not just because you put a passcode on it.

So, if Neighbor A leaves his truck unlocked and lets everyone in the neighborhood drive it around to pick up their furniture, the onus is on Neighbors B and C to lock theirs and post a sign that they do not authorize the use of their truck? No. You have no rights to the routers that you see when you scan for networks. Until you have some substantive reason to believe otherwise, there is no basis for assuming that you have authorization to use it. The fact that your hippy neighbor runs his that way or that Starbucks runs theirs that way does not mean that you're entitled to assume that other routers are run the same way. If you need to know whether or not you have authorization, you can always ask.


In both of the above paragraphs, it seems like we are quibbling about what a reasonable person can or cannot assume. I hate to sound like a broken record, but these analogies are still terrible, because they deal with physical objects that can only be used by one person at a time. In both cases, you must physically take possession of the object (the phone or the truck) without permission, thereby depriving the rightful owner of its use. This is theft, and is not something that a reasonable person would assume is OK without permission. When you connect to an open WLAN, the most you can deprive its owner of is bandwidth (provided you aren't committing other crimes). The owner can go right on using it along with you (unless you're sucking up all the bandwidth, which would be denial of service), which is far more reasonable than stealing a phone or a truck because hey, it was there.

The point is that it's an unauthorized electronic intrusion that I'm sure we can both agree is and should be illegal. The question is whether we're relying on the hardware of the owner to define authorization in order to make it so.

No, I disagree completely. I still believe that unless running an unsecured WLAN is not legal (which may be the case in some places, as somebody else mentioned), the onus has to be on the owner to secure it if they don't want people using it. Otherwise, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that it was intentionally left open, as people and businesses do do that, and in using it, you aren't depriving the rightful owner of its use.

Question: if you've been fired from a company but they forgot to remove your access from the system, are you still legally authorized to use the system, or are you now an intruder?

If you were fired from a library, would that preclude you from using the library's website in the same way as the general public? If you were fired from Starbucks, would that preclude you from using their wifi as a customer?
 
Displayed 50 of 210 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report