backtop


Print 93 comment(s) - last by BZDTemp.. on May 24 at 12:51 PM


Two separate New York state homeowners recently found their doors kicked down and were arrested on suspicion of distributing child pornography. In both cases the men were innocent -- the true culprit was a neighbor cybersquatting on their Wi-Fi connection.  (Source: UTNE Reader)

Increasingly, cyber-criminals are turning to open networks to commit crimes, including distributing child porn. Government agents often miss clear clues that point that the true suspect might be someone other than the network owner. For example, in one of the N.Y. cases, the culprit had connected on a college network under the same alias -- a lead which would have led officers to a different door, had they followed up on it.  (Source: Chicago Title Co.)

At the end of the day about the only thing citizens can do to prevent their house being subjected to a police raid is to secure their wi-fi connections. But even that isn't 100 percent foolproof as secure routers can be hacked.  (Source: Chronicle UK)
Homeowners arrested, held and gunpoint for neighbors' child pornography

It's a common practice that seems like generosity, but could lead to your home being invaded by federal agents.  Recent cases underscore the dangerous nature of having an unsecured Wi-Fi router.

I. A Rude Awakening

On March 7 at 6:30 a.m. a resident of Buffalo, New York received the scare of a lifetime.  With a thunderous crash his front door was broken, awaking the man and his wife.  Putting a robe on and rushing downstairs he saw federal agents wearing a strange acronym I-C-E (which he would later discover stood for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

An ICE agent charged the stairs, hurling him down it, leaving him cut and bruised.  The man's lawyer, Barry Covert, recalls the agents screamed at him, "Get down! Get down on the ground!", to which the man screamed back, "Who are you? Who are you?"

Armed with assault weapons the agents began to hurl slurs at the injured suspect that gave him the first inclination of what was going on.  "Pedophile!" and "pornographer!" they screamed.

He dressed at gunpoint in the bathroom and was escorted to an interrogation room at a government facility.  Agents accused him of using the name "Doldrum" and downloading pornographic images.

The man was flabbergasted.

He recalls the agent grilling him, stating, "We know who you are! You downloaded thousands of images at 11:30 last night."

He recalls arguing, "No, I didn't. Somebody else could have but I didn't do anything like that."

Unconvinced an agent sneered at him, "You're a creep ... just admit it."

II.  You've Got the Wrong Man!

Only he wasn't a creep.  

After having his family's laptops, iPads, and iPhones seized, federal agents would later conclude that the man was right -- he had no stash of child porn.  However, they would later discover that his 25-year-old neighbor who was accessing the man's Wi-Fi was downloading explicit videos and images.

That neighbor, John Luchetti, was arrested March 17.  

The irony is that if police had conducted a more thorough initial investigation they likely would have had a far different encounter with the first man.  Mr. Luchetti was tracked down because "Doldrum" also accessed two internet protocol (IP) addresses at State University of New York at Buffalo using a secure token.  When the university revealed the student's identity, federal agents realized that the true "Doldrum" was a man living in an apartment complex very close to their original suspect.

To be fair, Mr. Luchetti himself has pleaded not guilty to the distribution of child pornography.

The case was a tough one because in theory the feds could have done everything right in gaining warranted entry in the original suspect's home.  The feds began their investigation on February 11 when they received peer-to-peer file transfers from "Doldrum" and grabbed the IP address.

They tracked the IP downloading the files to that address, thanks to cooperation from the internet service provider.  So in theory, the homeowner could have been the primary suspect.

On the other hand, as mentioned, "Doldrum" also connected from other IPs and a thorough investigation would have revealed that.  

U.S. Attorney William Hochul and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent in Charge Lev Kubiak reportedly have apologized to the homeowner.  

Amazingly, in today's era of "fast-food lawsuits" the homeowner is not suing the government.  He just wants to share his story with the media as a warning to other homeowners and to pressure federal agents to be more thorough in their searches.

III. Unsecured Wi-Fi: Not Uncommon

According to a study conducted by Wakefield Research on behalf of the Wi-Fi Alliance, approximately 32 percent of adults have used someone's unsecured Wi-Fi connection without their knowledge or permission.  The study, which polled 1,054 Americans age 18 and older, also estimates that America has 201 million Wi-Fi connections.  

Ironically 40 percent of people said they were more likely to give their house key to someone than their Wi-Fi key.  The admission illustrates the dichotomy between those with some knowledge of security and those who fail to understand the repercussions of leaving your virtual door open.

Some understand the risks and willing open their connections, though.

Rebecca Jeschke, a spokeswoman for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that takes on cyberspace civil liberties issues argues that people shouldn't be afraid to leave their networks unsecure.  In an interview with the Associate Press, she states, "I think it's convenient and polite to have an open Wi-Fi network.  Public Wi-Fi is for the common good and I'm happy to participate in that — and lots of people are."

Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington University Law School, disagrees.  He states, "[Whether you're guilty of downloads on open networks] you look like the suspect."

He adds that accessing open networks without permission is a legal gray area today.  He explains, "The question is whether it's unauthorized access and so you have to say, 'Is an open wireless point implicitly authorizing users or not? We don't know.  The law prohibits unauthorized access and it's just not clear what's authorized with an open unsecured wireless."

The Federal government for its part argues that homeowners shouldn't leave their networks open.  The Computer Emergency Readiness Team -- a federal organization -- suggests users disable their networks from broadcasting their presence.  They also suggest that users change the default passwords (which are widely known) and keep their routers patched (to prevent exploits).  At the end of the day, though, many users won't have the knowledge and skills to follow through on such suggestions.

It's also important to consider that there are ways to break into most consumer "secured" network routers, as well.  Having password-protected encrypted traffic is no guarantee that your connection is completely safe from savvy cyber-miscreants.

However, it's perhaps best not to make things easy for abusers by leaving your connection wide open.  

Stories of bad experiences are mounting.  A Sarasota, Fla. man had a cybersquatter download tens of thousands of child porn images from his marina's network by boosting his signal using a potato chip can.  And in North Syracuse, N.Y. a man this spring was greeted by authorities who suspected he was downloading child porn.  It turned out it was his neighbor, who was arrested April 12.

Aside from law enforcement and child porn, thousands have received threats from the Recording Industry Association of America and other industry groups for infringed copyrighted materials that were downloaded over their connection.  Some of these individuals were forced into payouts totaling thousands of dollars.

The issue of open networks and how law enforcement should deal with them is an issue that seems certain to only grow as time passes.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Swat team for a this?
By Schrag4 on 4/25/2011 2:34:35 PM , Rating: 3
Oh I'm not saying he should have engaged in a firefight. But, let's play out a hypothetical here. Let's say you and your wife are sound asleep. You are startled awake by the sound of your door being kicked in. Do you go do you bedroom door and yell "YooHoo! Who's theeeeere?" Probably not. It might be in your best interest to arm yourself with a weapon and a flashlight first. (the flashlight is important for indentifying someone before you decide to shoot them). Now you just retrieved your safely locked-up yet easily accessible firearm of choice when your bedroom door gets kicked in as well and the guy who kicked it in is pointing a gun at you. If you're alert and have time to see that it's a police officer (assuming he's in the appropriate uniform), you *might* drop the gun fast enough to avoid getting shot. If it's a homicidal maniac and you try to make this distinction (remember, the guy is already pointing a gun at you), you're probably going to act too late.

I'm sorry if I came across as gun-toting crazy. I pray I never, EVER need to even retrieve a firearm to check out a strange noise (I haven't so far). I'm well aware of the legal trouble one can endure for engaging a suspect, even in a legally justified way. And that would take a back seat to knowing you altered/ended someone's life. It's not something I or anyone should take lightly.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By Schrag4 on 4/25/2011 7:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
Here's an example to back up my position that if the police decide to raid your home, whether you're guitly or not, and whether you have a gun or not, it's a very dangerous situation for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6Bq8xeQrU&feature...

Again, I believe if someone breaks into my house, they're far more likely to be a bad guy than the police, so I'll still arm myself. And of course if I believe it's the police then I'll make myself appear as non-threatening as possible. From the looks of it, though, this poor guy didn't have a chance.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By MrBlastman on 4/25/2011 11:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
The officer in question that shot the suspect should face a criminal proceeding. Anything less is injustice. The man had a golf club--yeah, not even a gun. This is the officers second killing in a few years, too. The first one was justified but in no way was this one.

I also think that just from watching the video the whole process of no-knock warrants need to be completely revised.

That video makes me sick to even watch.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By hyvonen on 4/26/2011 3:55:01 AM , Rating: 2
Yes - ugly stuff.

Just for the sake of the argument - if the person living there didn't have a right to own a gun, do you think the police would've felt as stressed to make a quick kill-or-be-killed decision? My guess is that without the risk of getting shot himself, the police wouldn't have pulled the trigger so quickly.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By Schrag4 on 4/26/2011 8:33:31 AM , Rating: 2
Having the right to own a gun and actually owning one are 2 different things. In this particular case, I believe the owner of the house might have been in trouble with the law before and therefore actually probably didn't have the right to own a gun.

I think the point of your post, though, was to suggest that as a society if we didn't have the right to own guns then the police wouldn't have to go in with guns drawn. That seems to be the response after something bad happens involving a firearm. As MrBlastman suggested, though, the proper response to these sorts of things is prosecution of the officer(s) who pulled the trigger without justification and revision of police policy.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By RagingDragon on 4/28/2011 6:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
Even in countries where guns are heavily restricted, illegal guns are so commonplace, police have no way to know whether or a homeowner is armed or not. I'm not american, but based on american it sure seems that alot of American law enforcement officers seem to think they're action movie stars with a god given right to beat anyone they please, shoot first, and never ask any questions.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By Lerianis on 4/29/2011 3:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, you hit the nail on the head about most officers in the United States. I wish that police officers were not like that, but most of them are.

The few that are left have a bad habit of thinking that they are on a mission to 'protect society' which really equates to forcing their personal likes and dislikes through fiat of law on everyone else.


"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki