It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NY case underscores Wi-Fi privacy dangers

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Regardless of whether the router was password protected or not, the amount of force used here was beyond the pale. It was way overdone for a non-violent offense. Especially when they did not even check to see whether the system was secure or not first. They could have sent a couple detectives at a reasonable hour. They did not need to use stormtrooper tactics for this type of offense.




posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
This is extremely scary...We have a secured router but for years never bothered to secure it. We finally did when we found out the next door neighbour was dloading tons of mp3s on our connection. We were paying extra every month to our isp for going over our cap and couldn't figure out how that was happening. My mother in law also had probably more than one person using her connection in a high rise building. She only uses the internet for email and to play a few online games, so should never come even close to her limits..but her isp actually cut her off until she secured the router for going way over the usage.

Anyhow, to I think it was topher that asked how to secure the router...call your isp and see if they can help you. If not google the make and model, there are tons of walkthroughs available.

Michelle



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
There are also programs that hack a wifi password.

When you broadcast a wifi signal, there are bits of your password included in the broadcast. If you can capture enough of a stream you can use that to decompile the password.



This is only true for WEP or WPA-TKIP with a weak password. WPA2-AES with a strong 64 or 63 bit password is essentially uncrackable and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
They probably should have given the man a chance to explain himself since, obviously, he wasn't running anywhere. It is excessive force in this case.

However, he IS responsible for his own internet.

The best answer for ALL wireless, is to combine WPA2, strong key, and MAC filtering, which is what I do on all my WiFi devices.

It's a pain in the butt to maintain, but worth it in the long run.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by wasco2
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Ask the guy with the Federal Stormtrooper's gun at his head if this is an issue or not. And it's happened a lot more than just the incident in the OP's post. Anyone operating an unsecured wifi network is an idiot.



reply to post by gougitousakusha
 


And there you have it. Wi-fi is not the problem. The problem is idiots who have guns

edit on 24/4/2011 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
However, he IS responsible for his own internet.


Ok I see this comment alot here. Tell me is there ever been a case where the internet connections owner is held responsible for something that someone else did that was criminal? Ever? I mean open wi-fi's are everywhere. Coffee shops, airports, schools, libraries, government facilities etc. Has any of those ever been held responsible for illegal activity committed through them? Even within a family. If a spouse or children do something illegal are the ones whose name is in the contract ever held accountable? I've never heard of a case.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Well, in the same way that a parent would be responsible for their child's internet use. Although, I will say this, it is still arguable in court, and there really is no precedent that would definitively place blame on the consumer.

Judges HAVE ruled that other than the contract holder may be liable, but almost all of them, if not all of them are tied up in appellate courts.

These days, it honestly depends on what you want to believe, in a way, as, no matter it seems how many judges make a ruling (even the Supreme courts) another judge somewhere is overturning it.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Can you point me to some of those court cases? Sounds interesting. If someone who owns wi-fi and keeps it open for others gets convicted then lots and lots of public wi-fi providers might reconsider.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
With what can be downloaded or who would leave their network open.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Other people have said this all before but it bears repeating because clearly the message isnt getting through to the world.

* Turning SSID broadcast off is of no help whatsoever, and can just cause connection problems for yourself.
* WEP encryption can be easily cracked.
* WPA, any version thereof, is the way to go. Yes, technically speaking there are more and less secure types of WPA (as wasco pointed out earlier, WPA2-AES/CCMP is great) but they will all in the end cause a hacker to say "too hard". BUT you must not use a password that is in any dictionary, and there are also programs that create new variants of dictionary words. eg.. radio1, radio 2, radio3 etc...
* Its your door the stormtroopers will be busting down.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
They probably should have given the man a chance to explain himself since, obviously, he wasn't running anywhere. It is excessive force in this case.

However, he IS responsible for his own internet.

The best answer for ALL wireless, is to combine WPA2, strong key, and MAC filtering, which is what I do on all my WiFi devices.

It's a pain in the butt to maintain, but worth it in the long run.


Is he as responsible as the ISP then? It's not HIS internet, it's theirs. So why don't they assume any responsibility?

If somebody gets busted with child porn on a wi-fi connection, then by your logic, the ISP should be held liable. It's their internet, they failed to stop it from happening, therefore, it's their fault. Yet you will never see them pay for a single crime that happens on THEIR internet connection. See the double standard here?



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Is he as responsible as the ISP then? It's not HIS internet, it's theirs. So why don't they assume any responsibility?

If somebody gets busted with child porn on a wi-fi connection, then by your logic, the ISP should be held liable. It's their internet, they failed to stop it from happening, therefore, it's their fault. Yet you will never see them pay for a single crime that happens on THEIR internet connection. See the double standard here?



A) It's not my logic.
B) I'm merely regurgitating things I have read in the papers from time to time.
C) If you want me to apply logic, I will.....I wouldn't suggest anything of the kind, and, in fact, were *I* the one to say it, I would say the complete opposite, that the ISP's are NOT responsible. If you rent a car and commit a crime with that car, YOU are responsible for the crime, not the company who rented it to you, and CLEARLY not Toyota who manufactured your rental. How far do you want to take this? Is Cisco responsible for creating the router? Is westell responsible for developing the DS-1 switches? How about the individual LEC's? Them too just for existing?

How could you have possibly missed the mark so professionally on what *MY* logic is?



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
The problem here is not open wi-fi's. That is the way of the future. The problem is LEO's who apparently don't have the slightest clue on what's happening in the real world.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


The problems is those using the Internet for illegal activities know their ISP can be logged and traced. Their solution is to use someone else's ISP for their illegal activities. Authorities initially have no way of knowing who was using an IP address for illegal activity when they raid a location traced to an IP address. The danger comes when a heavily armed SWAT unit breaks down your door in the middle of the night thinking they have a child pornographer or terrorist. Got a big dog? Or really any kind of dog? Count on him being shot in the first seconds of the raid. Are you yourself armed? Do you come out of a sound sleep instantly awake and alert? If not and you appear in front of the Storm Troopers armed there's a good chance you yourself will be shot. Is everything on your computer easily replaceable? If not you may lose it because they are going to take your computer and dismantle it. How about your furniture, your belongings, even your walls? All of those things may be destroyed when a search warrant is executed. Even if they eventually realize you are innocent and let you go all you are going to get for the damages is at most a "Sorry, mate".

You keep living by that pie in the sky fantasy creed of "Free Internet for All!" and it may be you suffering in the aftermath of an entirely legal devastating raid by law enforcement.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
That force is insane. It's like they suspected him if gun running or haboring a mercenary force or something.

And how can they come charging with absolute certainty like that? One of the big and most often excuses paraded out for this coming internet ID is that the gov and homeland security keep saying there is no definite way to know who is at the other end of a computer.

But it's definite enough that a federal ICE SWAT team can kick in your door with guns drawn and toss you down the stairs?

The SCOTUS or the ACLU or somebody needs to stop this guilty until proven innocent crap that's so popular lately.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I always use fun SSID names to deter, tempt or amuse people connecting to WIFI.

"FBI Surveillance Team" and "L'Ron's Chicken and Waffles" are 2 of my favorite. My neighborhood's is catching on, as more funny names are appearing on my block.

I keep an old linksys router on just to broadcast "secure your wifi" sometimes.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by wasco2
 


As I said it before you guys have it completely wrong. In here we dont have that problem at all. Even if someone is going to be 'raided' they will come and ring the door bell. Then they will talk to you. That's how it is here. I know that even in the most serious raid they don't pull out guns untill there is a reason to believe someone is going to be armed when they come. I have personal experience with east european mafia using a wi-fi to do their stuff. No guns were shown when the cops came and never even saw a uniform. I was very involved as I had taken photos of the suspects and their vehicle even though the wi-fi itself wasn't my personal system. It was student dorm wi-fi that I was part of setting up and a user.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


That may work in Finland. Finland is a tiny ethnically homogenous country with a total population about 25% of the New York City metropolitan area alone. The US is 300 million people with large ethnic minorities from dozens of countrys. I'm happy for you but doubt if the US will ever return to such a simpler time.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I live in Buffalo. Used to go to UB too. HA.

Anyway. It's not the guy's fault. Do you know how many people aren't really tech-savvy 'round here?

Here's another thing. I don't want to say everywhere, but for some reason we got a real lot of horn-dog college students. Go to the Buffalo C-list. There are hundreds and hundreds of new "Gay ads" every freaking day. Half coming from UB. EWwwwwwwwwww. Woman to man? maybe a legit one, ONCE a MONTH.

And this is probably the first time there was an actual "Child Porn Download" intercept like this in the City. Some cases of child porn downloading and sharing, but those are far from here.
edit on 25-4-2011 by PaR3v because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
Whether or not his inet connection is password protected, HE is still responsible for any usage that goes over that connection that HE is providing.
.

Really? So why dont they "arrest AT&T, Comcast, et al for being responsible for any usage that goes over the connection THEY are providing?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join