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: In the police's defense...
By cjohnson2136 on 4/25/2011 2:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
I would completely agree with you assessment that the gov't should be responsible I am not arguing that they should not be liable. The point I was trying to make was don't criticize them for making a mistake. Based on the information they had they believed they had the right person. They had a warrant to check the house based on good information. But for people to say the police/agents were lazy and didn't do their job on checking info I think is a gross misinterpretation. Just because other evidence comes up later that would prevented all of this doesn't mean that the police were not right to get a warrant for that house. Remember Hindsight is 20/20. Of course we can look back and say of that was wrong because now we have new evidence. But based on the evidence the agents had at that time they went after the right house. But I would agree that they executed the warrant incorrectly and didn't need a SWAT team to apprehend a pedophile.


RE: In the police's defense...
By delphinus100 on 4/26/2011 9:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
"But I would agree that they executed the warrant incorrectly and didn't need a SWAT team to apprehend a pedophile."

And that's the real point here. Even if they were right, it was inappropriate and unnecessary force, considering the crime and suspect. Quietly watch the guy's routine for a few days, then just grab cuff him as he comes out of the house to go to work (Like the NBC Dateline series where they decoy a guy in who thinks he's going to bang a young teen girl he met on-line...once he's had his on-camera talking-to, the cops are waiting outside.)

Save the stormtrooper stuff for terrorists and hard drug or illegal weapon distributors where it might in fact be necessary...


RE: In the police's defense...
By mindless1 on 5/5/2011 12:50:10 AM , Rating: 2
I feel you are missing the point, which is a show of force to discourage people from feeling they can fight off peaceful and low numbers of officers.

If they just waltzed up to him and politely asked him to put his hands over his head, criminals would get the idea it's not a big deal to play games about submitting to officer demands.

Remember that these men and women officers RISK THEIR LIVES over and over, it is not reasonable to put those who attempt to protect our way of live via law enforcement, at any greater risk of harm than necessary.

On the other hand, I can see an argument for shooting the suspect from 100 yards away with a tranq dart rather than trying a direct confrontation type arrest. Point is, safety in numbers and force OR safety from a distance, but always safety for the officers - remember when in doubt, they are the "good guys" the majority of the time.


RE: In the police's defense...
By rcc on 4/27/2011 12:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Remember Hindsight is 20/20


This is only occassionally true these days. Unfortunately, people don't seem to learn from their mistakes anymore, primarily because they refuse to accept responsbility for them.

I'd say hindsight is about 20/100 now and getting worse.


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














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