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 01:36:03 AM  

Dokushin: 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?


You sound fat. And ugly.

There. I committed the exact same crime as this kid. Twice. And I even did it from my own (properly secured) router, from my own home ISP account, with no anonymizing software.

Now, are you going to send a swat team after me for that insult? How about an unmanned drone? Or why not just take the nuclear option and turn my whole state into a glass parking lot? After all, as a dangerous criminal armed with plenty of insults, the police really can't take any chances when taking someone as dangerous as me off of the streets. I might even tell the police officer that his father was a hamster, and who knows what kind of emotional damage that could cause if the responding officer doesn't have all the proper military gear to handle such an insult?
 
2012-06-29 01:38:00 AM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: ialdabaoth: dlp211: 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.

It is simple to set up, but not everyone knows that it even exists. Also you have the right to not run a secure network and should have a reasonable expectation that SWAT won't assault your house.

I worked with an FBI SWAT agent for some time in Afghanistan and we were talking about missions and the difference between conducting operations in America and in Afghanistan. He started talking about this big bust and I chimed in I would just of went in guns a blazin'. He asked me why, we sat there and reasoned it out. Our conclusion, there is never any initial circumstance that SWAT should just go assaulting a house because it is a high risk-low reward situation.

It is time to demilitarize American police forces.

No.

Yes. It is past time to demilitarize the American police. Violent thugs using military tactics and equipment are not necessary to enforce American laws. Enough is enough.


www.jonesboropolice.com

I SAID, NO.


Move along, citizen.
 
2012-06-29 01:38:36 AM  

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.
 
2012-06-29 01:42:12 AM  

dlp211: No, they had a reasonable suspicion that some computer connected to the internet at a particular address committed a 'crime'. The assumption of police forces should be that an open wifi network is being used and do the 15 minutes of detective work it takes to discover where the computer is connecting from. I can literally do this with the equipment I have on hand in my house right now, and nothing I have is special or expensive.


I agree completely. Unfortunately, that would mean the police would have to put their funding toward actual crime-fighting tools rather than a fleet of brand new Mustangs.

But with the info they had, and their intentional lack of tools and knowledge, the only option (other than ignoring it and giving up all that free TV time) was to investigate the address given by the ISP.
 
2012-06-29 01:45:35 AM  

the ha ha guy: A dropped wallet requires none of the above, but that doesn't mean you have an inherent right to store your wallet on a park bench, nor does it mean that you shouldn't expect the police to investigate you when some criminal "drops" your wallet and ID after a robbery.

I'm not saying that a paramilitary swat team is a fair response to something like "Drew is a big fat doody head", but the police did have a reasonable suspicion that the house in TFA is where the "crime" was committed.


A dropped wallet is still not a valid comparison for the very same reason. It's a physical item. At *worst*, using somebody's open wifi to access the Internet without permission could be considered some kind of theft of services, but there's absolutely no way to know upon casual inspection whether a wifi is intentionally open or not. Until *having* an open wifi is made criminal, *using* one cannot be. I would compare it to something like a 24 hour convenience store; as a public space, most people have the right to be there, but you can also be asked to leave and/or not to come back, at which point their presence becomes trespassing. The analogy doesn't hold for people who can't figure out how to secure their wifi, again because it's not a physical item or space, but it's the closest thing I can think of.
 
2012-06-29 01:46:44 AM  
dlp211
I'll add to this. As I posted earlier, I had the fortunate opportunity to work with FBI SWAT ( I have also worked with FBI HRT), and they generally as a rule don't do no knock warrants, even for drug lords. As I also pointed out, the US military has moved away from no knock raids and now uses a call out. It actually gives you better control of the situation and significantly lowers risk. But don't let the 3 trillion dollar lessons of two wars and the tactics of the FBI get in the way of your world view.


What is your point. For the record I don't have a problem with professionals doing SWAT activities when it is necessary. But if the FBI or the military is stepping away from from no-knock warrants because they may not work then that is ok too.

However most of the problems with no-knock warrants are Mayberry PD getting a little excited at the chance to break out their black kevlar.

It appears that we agree so what are we disagreeing about?

Dokushin
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?


OK, lets look at this incident.
1-Is an IP address acceptable criteria for assuming people in that household are responsible?
2-If the people in that home can be deemed responsible, is a no-knock warrant necessary?
3-Did the police even try to see what kind of security was on the wireless router before putting on the kevlar?
4-Did violent posts on a discussion board create a good reason for a no-knock warrant?
5-Was there a better way reach the people inside the home safely if they were a threat?

Local PD's are getting a little too happy with the kevlar and shotguns. Feel free to present it as a dumb all or nothing game if you want to anyway.
 
2012-06-29 01:49:34 AM  

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?


One man had his house wrongly raided. Two of his friends sympathize. One hundred thousand men and women feel safer knowing that the cops will do whatever it takes to bring law and order to their peaceful neighborhood.

/Repeat every time the department farks someone over.
//The only way to change the guard is for them to screw over the mayor & councilmen, especially if it's a pissing match of corruption.
///Everyone in power sucks.
 
2012-06-29 01:49:41 AM  

dlp211: The assumption of police forces should be that an open wifi network is being used and do the 15 minutes of detective work it takes to discover where the computer is connecting from. I can literally do this with the equipment I have on hand in my house right now, and nothing I have is special or expensive.


Yup. It was even laid out in TFA. All they had to do was bring a laptop and check for open wifi. I'd bet $500 that they had more than one on scene with all the cruisers that must have been out there.
 
2012-06-29 01:54:16 AM  

Dokushin: 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.


No one is saying that we don't need police; what we don't need are a bunch of paramilitary bullies that look for any reason to rough someone up. In terms of danger, note that your local garbageman and cabbie has a job just as dangerous as a cop.

The problem is that now many police departments consider every dwelling the home of a potential drug lord. This has to stop.
 
2012-06-29 01:57:21 AM  

NightSteel: I would compare it to something like a 24 hour convenience store; as a public space, most people have the right to be there, but you can also be asked to leave and/or not to come back, at which point their presence becomes trespassing. The analogy doesn't hold for people who can't figure out how to secure their wifi, again because it's not a physical item or space, but it's the closest thing I can think of.


But if the police are aware that the store in question is a common spot for dealing drugs, does the store owner have a reasonable expectation that the police won't enter the store to investigate or stop the crime?

I do agree that the problem lies squarely at the feet of the police in this and similar cases, but until the laws are updated to deal with new tech, and when a reasonable workaround is just a few clicks away, why should anyone purposely open themselves up to that possibility?
 
2012-06-29 01:58:23 AM  

tgambitg: ialdabaoth:

No.

Wow... What a well thought out and lengthy rebuttal.

There is NO GODDAMN EXCUSE for this behavior. NONE. Not only did they not get the right person, but they traumatized a family for someone posting a message on an internet board? SWAT teams are not supposed to be used in this manner. For a hostage situation? Sure. Armed standoff? Yeah. Someone posting an anonymous threat online? HELL NO. There is no reason they couldn't just go up and knock on the door. Especially when that's what they did when they finally DID have the right person identified.


Here's your excuse:

magnanamouse.files.wordpress.com
mfs.piccsy.com
digitaljournal.com
www.policebrutality.info
images.mylot.com
2.bp.blogspot.com

Any farking questions?
 
2012-06-29 01:59:06 AM  
NightSteel
Yup. It was even laid out in TFA. All they had to do was bring a laptop and check for open wifi. I'd bet $500 that they had more than one on scene with all the cruisers that must have been out there.


Why is the question just open wifi or not open wifi?
The wrong assumption is linking an internet ip to a specific user in that house when WIFI can go for nearly a block.

Dumb aggressive cops are the problem.
 
2012-06-29 02:01:34 AM  
This kind of shiat is why when I have a house built the damned thing will be damned near impossible to get into using force. A custom door that'll stop damned near anything out there (think plate steel and Milibar), reinforced steel door frames doubling as moment frames, security film on windows, defensive landscaping, you name it. You'll never see any of it either because it is so easy to hide all of it in plain sight. Even the fence along the road will be designed to stop a speeding semi. None of it is difficult for an architect with a mind for security. It wouldn't be the first time I've designed a house with security in mind.

If anybody asks, I'll tell them I've seen the concrete coont cast iron biatch that nature is and I'll be damned if I'm letting her rape my house.
 
2012-06-29 02:02:14 AM  

Enemabag Jones: What is your point.


No, that was my point. When I said 'I'll add to this.' I literally meant I was going to add more justification to your argument.

/I understand how my replying to your comment can be confusing
//not being a jackass
 
2012-06-29 02:04:15 AM  

freewill: 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.


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.

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.

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.
 
2012-06-29 02:06:50 AM  

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.
 
2012-06-29 02:07:07 AM  

Enemabag Jones: NightSteel
Yup. It was even laid out in TFA. All they had to do was bring a laptop and check for open wifi. I'd bet $500 that they had more than one on scene with all the cruisers that must have been out there.

Why is the question just open wifi or not open wifi?
The wrong assumption is linking an internet ip to a specific user in that house when WIFI can go for nearly a block.

Dumb aggressive cops are the problem.


Alternatively, dumbass plebs who think they're "citizens" with "rights" are the problem.
 
2012-06-29 02:08:55 AM  

ialdabaoth: Alternatively, dumbass plebs who think they're "citizens" with "rights" are the problem.


obvioustroll.jpg
 
2012-06-29 02:10:55 AM  

the ha ha guy: But if the police are aware that the store in question is a common spot for dealing drugs, does the store owner have a reasonable expectation that the police won't enter the store to investigate or stop the crime?

I do agree that the problem lies squarely at the feet of the police in this and similar cases, but until the laws are updated to deal with new tech, and when a reasonable workaround is just a few clicks away, why should anyone purposely open themselves up to that possibility?


I agree with you up to a point. I wish everyone *was* smart enough to secure their WLANs. But, that's not the case. Given that, and the fact that it is not illegal to run a hotspot, the onus has to be on law enforcement to investigate further than 'that IP address corresponds to that address, bring the tank around and let's go'. Especially given that it is *so easy*, checking for open wifi should be a step in any computer-related investigation.
 
2012-06-29 02:12:00 AM  
dlp211
Enemabag Jones: What is your point.
No, that was my point. When I said 'I'll add to this.' I literally meant I was going to add more justification to your argument.
/I understand how my replying to your comment can be confusing
//not being a jackass


I feel like a dumbass now.
/I think my current job is making me more angry then before.
 
2012-06-29 02:13:59 AM  
NightSteel ,
I agree with you up to a point. I wish everyone *was* smart enough to secure their WLANs. But, that's not the case. Given that, and the fact that it is not illegal to run a hotspot, the onus has to be on law enforcement to investigate further than 'that IP address corresponds to that address, bring the tank around and let's go'. Especially given that it is *so easy*, checking for open wifi should be a step in any computer-related investigation.


I have heard people say that some wifi can be broken depending on how it is setup?
 
2012-06-29 02:14:05 AM  
Interesting that the linked story with video doesn't mention that they invaded the wrong home. Don't wanna bite the cop hand that feeds you, I suppose.
 
2012-06-29 02:14:56 AM  

Enemabag Jones: Why is the question just open wifi or not open wifi?
The wrong assumption is linking an internet ip to a specific user in that house when WIFI can go for nearly a block.


That's true, but as TFA points out, if the WLAN is secured, it's less likely that someone outside the house is using it. Still possible, but less likely. I'd say that makes a good tipping point for having enough evidence for a search warrant. Hey, if the FBI's figured out to look for it before breaking down doors...
 
2012-06-29 02:14:58 AM  

NightSteel: But I doubt anybody there with a badge on cared about de-escalating the situation.


That's the saddest part, I think. Not long ago, maybe 10 years or so, most police were experts at de-escalation because failure to de-escalate situations quite often meant that someone got shot and killed, and it wasn't always the "suspect". Now they can send in SWAT with no warning, taser anyone they damn well please for any reason whatsoever and even charge people with resisting arrest with no accompanying charges. And if you try to catch them doing this, they will usually trash your recording devices and arrest anyone trying to help you, hide behind bullshiat anti-terrorism laws and even if you do manage to get them to admit that something was done wrong, all the actual cops get as punishment are paid leave for a few weeks, followed by a promotion upon their return and maybe, if they did something REALLY bad, sensitivity training classes.

There's just no legal check on their power anymore. They can do almost anything and get away with it... and they actually believe that they can do pretty much anything they want and get away with it. Their job isn't dangerous anymore. Well, at least not to them. To the rest of us... a different story.
 
2012-06-29 02:19:09 AM  
There is no such thing as a secure wireless network. Want security? Use a wired network.
 
2012-06-29 02:22:15 AM  

Enemabag Jones: I have heard people say that some wifi can be broken depending on how it is setup?


Entirely true. WEP encryption can be broken with minimal effort. WPA with TKIP is breakable with a little more effort and some time. WPA with AES and WPA2 are still generally secure, to my knowledge. But securing your WLAN is the digital equivalent of putting up a no trespassing sign. It's now obvious that you don't want other people using it, so there is no excuse for breaking into it. Breaking that encryption would then cross the threshold for most unauthorized use laws.

The law isn't so clear-cut in the case of WLANs that are not protected, because without security or some kind of sign, there's no way to know if it was intentionally left open.
 
2012-06-29 02:23:41 AM  

raddad: There is no such thing as a secure wireless network. Want security? Use a wired network.


You could also turn your equipment off when it's not in use. My brother-in-law the untech-savvy goon that he is, worries night and day about someone 'hacking" his computer, yet he leaves the thing on 24/7. I tell him, "Turn it off, and then nobody can hack it," but he's one of those fools who believe a "hacker" can turn your computer on remotely or something.
 
2012-06-29 02:24:23 AM  
DON'T TASE ME BRO!
 
2012-06-29 02:24:41 AM  
I wonder what it'd look like if I shot a flash-bang right down a six-month-old's throat? Man, I bet that'd make a mess.
 
2012-06-29 02:28:22 AM  

LarryDan43: What no golden retriever around to shoot? They are slacking.


Sadly I was thinking along those lines too. Just not enough ....*something* in that story.
 
2012-06-29 02:31:14 AM  
I wonder, if you forced a woman to suck your cock while your buddies all tazered her at once, would you feel it?

You'd need some way to keep her from chomping down though...
 
2012-06-29 02:32:06 AM  

NightSteel: Enemabag Jones: Why is the question just open wifi or not open wifi?
The wrong assumption is linking an internet ip to a specific user in that house when WIFI can go for nearly a block.

That's true, but as TFA points out, if the WLAN is secured, it's less likely that someone outside the house is using it. Still possible, but less likely. I'd say that makes a good tipping point for having enough evidence for a search warrant. Hey, if the FBI's figured out to look for it before breaking down doors...


What I find amusing is that if they would have gone to the house with.... anything. A Nintendo DSi perhaps... or perhaps maybe a laptop... they would possibly have noticed the open WiFi, checked the IP and realised they did not actually know which house it was coming from. However there really is no way they would think to do that do the likelihood of it being that simple.
 
2012-06-29 02:35:29 AM  

ialdabaoth: I wonder what it'd look like if I shot a flash-bang right down a six-month-old's throat? Man, I bet that'd make a mess.


ialdabaoth: I wonder, if you forced a woman to suck your cock while your buddies all tazered her at once, would you feel it?

You'd need some way to keep her from chomping down though...


Trying to get a Fark ban or did someone break into your Wi-Fi? Either way welcome to my ignore list, I don't use it often so I'm afraid you won't have much company.
 
2012-06-29 02:38:39 AM  

Acharne: NightSteel: Enemabag Jones: Why is the question just open wifi or not open wifi?
The wrong assumption is linking an internet ip to a specific user in that house when WIFI can go for nearly a block.

That's true, but as TFA points out, if the WLAN is secured, it's less likely that someone outside the house is using it. Still possible, but less likely. I'd say that makes a good tipping point for having enough evidence for a search warrant. Hey, if the FBI's figured out to look for it before breaking down doors...

What I find amusing is that if they would have gone to the house with.... anything. A Nintendo DSi perhaps... or perhaps maybe a laptop... they would possibly have noticed the open WiFi, checked the IP and realised they did not actually know which house it was coming from. However there really is no way they would think to do that do the likelihood of it being that simple.


It says right in TFA that the FBI has figured out to do this for computer crimes. Guess they need to send a memo to local law enforcement.
 
2012-06-29 02:39:26 AM  

Hand Banana: ialdabaoth: I wonder what it'd look like if I shot a flash-bang right down a six-month-old's throat? Man, I bet that'd make a mess.

ialdabaoth: I wonder, if you forced a woman to suck your cock while your buddies all tazered her at once, would you feel it?

You'd need some way to keep her from chomping down though...

Trying to get a Fark ban or did someone break into your Wi-Fi? Either way welcome to my ignore list, I don't use it often so I'm afraid you won't have much company.


Face it: with the level of discourse that's tolerated here, it's impossible to know where the line is until you cross it.

People say worse and don't get reprimanded. People say less and get tossed.
 
2012-06-29 02:40:03 AM  

raddad: There is no such thing as a secure wireless network. Want security? Use a wired network.


My house was wired for ethernet so I'm still using it. No need for Wi-Fi and I've always been uncomfortable having a microwave transmitter bombarding me 24 hours a day (even though I know their harmless...probably).
 
2012-06-29 02:45:10 AM  

ialdabaoth: Hand Banana: ialdabaoth: I wonder what it'd look like if I shot a flash-bang right down a six-month-old's throat? Man, I bet that'd make a mess.

ialdabaoth: I wonder, if you forced a woman to suck your cock while your buddies all tazered her at once, would you feel it?

You'd need some way to keep her from chomping down though...

Trying to get a Fark ban or did someone break into your Wi-Fi? Either way welcome to my ignore list, I don't use it often so I'm afraid you won't have much company.

Face it: with the level of discourse that's tolerated here, it's impossible to know where the line is until you cross it.

People say worse and don't get reprimanded. People say less and get tossed.


You just can't call people mean names, as I've learned lately.
 
2012-06-29 02:46:42 AM  

Gyrfalcon: ialdabaoth: Hand Banana: ialdabaoth: I wonder what it'd look like if I shot a flash-bang right down a six-month-old's throat? Man, I bet that'd make a mess.

ialdabaoth: I wonder, if you forced a woman to suck your cock while your buddies all tazered her at once, would you feel it?

You'd need some way to keep her from chomping down though...

Trying to get a Fark ban or did someone break into your Wi-Fi? Either way welcome to my ignore list, I don't use it often so I'm afraid you won't have much company.

Face it: with the level of discourse that's tolerated here, it's impossible to know where the line is until you cross it.

People say worse and don't get reprimanded. People say less and get tossed.

You just can't call people mean names, as I've learned lately.


For various values of 'you', apparently.
 
2012-06-29 03:14:46 AM  

Skyfrog: raddad: There is no such thing as a secure wireless network. Want security? Use a wired network.

My house was wired for ethernet so I'm still using it. No need for Wi-Fi and I've always been uncomfortable having a microwave transmitter bombarding me 24 hours a day (even though I know their harmless...probably).


A couple of things:

The only secure network is one that doesn't exist. There's ALWAYS a way in.

Also, you get a higher amount of more dangerous radiation walking outside for 5 minutes than you would ever get from a WiFi router. Different types of radiation, as well as greatly diminished power along with the inverse square law. WiFi is limited in the US to a transmitting power of 1W. You get more leakage standing next to your microwave oven while it's on than if you held your head next to the antenna of your router.
 
2012-06-29 03:22:48 AM  
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
 
2012-06-29 03:29:10 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


.....

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.
 
2012-06-29 03:35:32 AM  
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.
 
2012-06-29 03:35:41 AM  

Xcott: I would have thrown something at the TV, but instead I told myself that this was probably the last time a news magazine could get away with this level of computer illiteracy, and only because their audience was mostly the Matlock crowd.


News is a delivery method for advertising.
 
2012-06-29 03:39:37 AM  

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

 
2012-06-29 04:05:31 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.


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.
 
2012-06-29 04:09:30 AM  

SilentStrider: I'm going to post the following from TFA without comment.

So the cops did some more investigation and decided that the threats had come from a house on the same street. This time, apparently recognizing they had gone a little nuts on the first raid, the police department didn't send a SWAT team at all. Despite believing that they now had the right location and that a threat-making bomber lurked within, they just sent officers up to the door.

"We did surveillance on the house, we knew that there were little kids there, so we decided we weren't going to use the SWAT team," the police chief told the paper after the second raid. "We did have one officer with a ram to hit the door in case they refused to open the door. That didn't happen, so we didn't need to use it."


Perfect my friend
 
2012-06-29 04:10:19 AM  

OniNeko: Enemabag Jones: rka
A bit of both. These guys will come with guns a blazin, all Rambo, if they think they have the drop on you. But, the minute that there might be any real danger they'll all hunker down behind their SUVs and wait for backup after backup.
Go look at the complete cowardice that the entire Denver metro area police forces showed during Columbine. Two kids with guns, who had killed themselves 30 minutes into the "standoff", caused a hundred cops to piss in their boots outside for 4 hours while innocent people bled to death.

Link
Note, police is number 10 in this report.
No. 1: Fishers and related fishing workers
No. 2: Logging workers
No. 3: Aircraft pilots and flight engineers
No. 4: Structural iron and steel workers
No. 5: Farmers and ranchers
No. 6: Electrical power-line installers and repairers
No. 7: Driver/sales workers and truck drivers
No. 9: Refuse and recyclable material collectors
No. 10: Police and sheriff's patrol officers
No. 11: Taxi drivers and chauffeurs

I suddenly wish to become a fisherman. Just thinking "made it home alive" at the end of the day would be extremely fulfilling.

Why yes, I AM an adrenaline junkie. How did you guess?


I love adrenaline, worked a season in Alaska on a 155 ft salmon processor (with one of the easiest jobs on the boat as the cook), never again

/great money for a cook on those decent sized ships with a crew of 40 or so
//if you aint the cook, captain, his mate, or engineer never ever get on one of them things!
 
2012-06-29 04:14:45 AM  

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.
 
2012-06-29 05:12:48 AM  
Im sure they will all get medals and promotions for this brave act
 
2012-06-29 05:18:34 AM  

freewill: 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.

In principle, I agree with you, but this isn't a perfect world.

If you leave your garage open and drug dealers start making meth in it at night, the police may become legitimately confused and you may end up devoting a lot of resources to clearing up a dangerous misunderstanding.

Your router isn't different.

This is, of course, a separate issue from whether or not throwing flashbangs is a reasonable response to some dumbass kid making threats on the internet in the first place.


I gotta say that it seems odd that we would expect end-users to understand the technology at their disposal when clearly the cops and judges are also behind the ball. You need security on your router, to be sure... but can we just once all agree that the cops, lawyers, and judges, who purposely muddle the difference between an IP address and an actual identification of a person are also contributing greatly to this problem.

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.
 
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