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 EricMartello on 4/28/2011 5:16:57 PM , Rating: 1
This is a nice idea, but in practice, it's a weak argument. The likelihood is that anyone who's willing to riddle a crowd with bullets isn't going to care whether someone in that crowd might have a gun to shoot back with. They're already far beyond the barrier of common sense.

I didn't say it was a deterrent, I meant that if there were more armed citizens, it would be a lot more difficult for someone to go on a shooting rampage. Sure, he may still take out a few but he'd be put down long before he can do any real damage.

The other likelihood is that if someone decides to shoot you and you don't know it (much like these crowds don't know it), it doesn't matter if you're carrying a loaded, fully automatic weapon. If they shoot you first when you're not suspecting it, you're likely not going to be able to shoot back, so owning that gun isn't going to do anything against a threat you don't know is going to hit you first.

You're making some weak assumptions here. First of all, you're assuming that only one person in the crowd would be armed and capable of retaliating. You're also assuming that the "surprise attack" would take out the only person capable of retaliating right away.

You clearly didn't put much thought into your response. If I hear gunshots and I am not hit, I'm running for cover...and if I have a gun, I will do my best to identify and neutralize the threat. Since most people do not carry guns they have no recourse other than to hide. My point is that if most people were carrying guns, then they could retaliate and stop "lunatics on a rampage". I never said the body count would be zero.

The defense logic is total BS- guns are offensive tools by nature. It is impossible to "defend" yourself or your family with them. There are only two possibilities with a gun: 1)Shoot before a threat shoots you (unless you're in a war or a gang member, 9 times out of 10 you don't know if someone's going to harm you) 2)Shoot after being shot at/harmed (which constitutes revenge/payback, not defense)

Really hung up on the word "defense" but you don't seem to understand a life or death situation, you DEFEND until you are either dead or the threat is eliminated.

Anyone who decides they're going to shoot you knows that you might shoot back, realizes the risks, and decides it's worth it. Or, they don't, and are crazy, therefore it doesn't matter anyway. There is no possible way to use a gun for defense as it cannot prevent harm.* *I own a gun a believe in my second amendment rights.

The act of defending is basically defined as "warding off or stopping an attack". Why are you talking about harm? It's not a qualifier for defense. Defending does not mean "preventing harm". If you are shot and you can shoot back, you are DEFENDING YOUR LIFE. Obviously someone who shot you is intending to kill you, and if they did not it is a logical conclusion that they will continue to attack until you are dead.

You wasted time to make a long post full of asinine assertions and completely fail logic, when you do not even grasp the fundamental meaning of SELF DEFENSE. I'm increasingly less surprised at how low the bar has fallen for the average DT reader/poster.

RE: Swat team for a this?
By glennc on 5/2/2011 3:12:36 AM , Rating: 1
I didn't say it was a deterrent, I meant that if there were more armed citizens, it would be a lot more difficult for someone to go on a shooting rampage. Sure, he may still take out a few but he'd be put down long before he can do any real damage

we may be ignorant but you are delusional. a lot more people are killed by guns that are not from a shooting rampage. the world is in trouble with your nation in the mindset it is in.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By EricMartello on 5/4/2011 5:47:54 PM , Rating: 1
A rampage happens when an armed person or people are able to attack without anyone shooting back, and therefore they can rack up a hefty body count BECAUSE NOBODY CAN STOP THEM.

If more "regular citizens" were packing heat as a matter of personal protection, rampages would be prevented due to the fact that the people who were previously the victims could now shoot back and stop the attacker BEFORE it becomes a bloodbath.

Try to grasp this difficult concept...I know the idea I'm presenting - leveling the playing field - may be a challenge for some of you to comprehend.

"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki