Oh Look... Another Open WiFi Criminal Caught Through Detective Work
from the ain't-so-fool-proof-after-all dept
For many years, there have been all sorts of fear mongering stories about how today's cyber-criminals can simply use any open WiFi network and never get caught. Of course, that's ridiculous. Anyone committing a crime leaves all kinds of clues behind -- and just because you can't track them down via their IP connection, it doesn't mean they can't be tracked down. It's like complaining that a bank robber who wears gloves can't be caught because he doesn't leave any fingerprints. Chances are that he left other clues behind. That's why it should come as no surprise that an extortionist who was using open WiFi to cover his tracks was eventually caught through good, old-fashioned detective work, just like other cases we've covered where open WiFi criminals were later caught through old-fashioned detective work. So can we put to rest the myth that open WiFi means cyber criminals can never be caught?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: criminal behavior, detective work, open wifi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WiFi Thief?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WiFi Thief?
I think you misread the post. We're not talking about the crime of using open WiFi (which, we agree, should not be a crime). We're talking about someone using an open WiFi to then *commit* some other crime -- such as extortion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WiFi Thief?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re AC #1
I found his analogy to be spot on.
In both cases it was about saying that a criminal can't be caught because of one little detail of their crime.
Which, in both cases, is just wrong.
This article helps to prove that those assumptions are wrong.
So why was the analogy so far off in your opinion?
Perhaps since it is so extremely off, in your opinion, you might provide a better one?
Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WiFi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
disingenuous write-up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: disingenuous write-up
My point? What is the point of t article? No one has ever disputed the fact that it is possible for a criminal to get caught, no matter what aids he uses. This fact does not begin to imply that the "aids" are not highly useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: disingenuous write-up
You are wrong. Lots of people have repeatedly stated that open WiFi would mean criminals would never get caught. I pointed to a few articles that have said exactly that. So you are simply proving my point by saying that, yes, there are ways to catch criminals that have nothing to do with the fact they use open WiFi networks, which disproves the myth that open WiFi network criminals will never get caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: disingenuous write-up
I didn't say that the WiFi network left clues. I said the criminal left clues.
The only thing old-fashioned here is stupid criminals get caught.
Which was my point. Criminals leave trails. They get caught.
They didn't trace him through the network.
I never said they did. I said they caught him through traditional detective work, which was my point. You didn't NEED to trace him through the network.
You are accusing me of having said something that I never said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what's real detective work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't agree that Police tracked him down
"But on December 3, police intercepted an email demanding a large sum of money be "dropped off" at a local park, and the man was arrested by undercover officers."
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,22901810-15306,00.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhh
Fact of the matter is that if you are going to commit an online crime that stays online and don't connect it to yourself in the physical world then you're never going to get caught.
It is pretty similar to stealing someone else's cell phone. If you rack up calls to phone sex operators then no one will ever find you. If you start making calls to your friends then clearly there is room for detective work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it's hard to make the point that open access doesn't make crimes, especially cyber crimes, easier to commit without getting caught. Not all criminals who commit crimes from their home computers get caught. Those who were only traced thanks to their IP or other digital footprint might have been lucky enough to avoid being caught had they used an open connection.
But then again a lot more criminals would get caught if only the police was allowed to use cars. I'm sure there'd be less crime if you made guns, knives and baseball bats illegal (though I'm not sure how awful it would be if you got rid of the first). If you're gonna blame open WiFi for facilitating crime, as some people obviously do, I'd be more than happy to point you in other directions - directions that hinder progress a lot less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As far as *I* can see
Would have been nice to say that, though, if that was really his point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As far as *I* can see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Detective work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A.C. posts
Not that I'm proposing registration, I know you aren't in favor of that. I'm just saying your popularity makes it kinda hard to track argument threads nowadays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am, however, glad to see our reality challenged friend dorpass favouring us with another of his amusingly simple minded contributions, always brings a smile to my face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old fashioned? Why not use newfangled techniques?
I mean, people talk about this stuff and say "even though he left no digital fingerprint" as if that's possible. If a linksys router has wifi or even just DHCP client logging enabled (and by default they do) and the wifi owner or installer sets a router admin password (and they should) then the criminal's MAC address - which is static (spoofable, yeah, but still static) is logged in that router until several more people connect. It seems to me that of police would do the digital equivelent of securing the crime scene (i.e. unplug the router) they could review these logs and then use any number of utilities to track down the MAC Address, including calling the wifi card manufacturer and subsequently the laptop vendor. Often major vendors like Dell and HP keep records of the wifi (and ethernet) MAC Addresses and the corresponding serial numbers, which can then be linked to a name and address. Sure, you'd need a subpoena to get that information from Dell or HP (or you could invoke the almighty civil-liberty-trampling power of the Patriot Act) but it seems to me that you can use the supposedly anonymous wifi against the criminals.
The original story analogized using a public wifi as similar to a bank robber using gloves, and while this is good, a far better one might be him using a mask with no gloves. Any public wifi you connect to most likely (i.e. 95%+) logs that connection. Your MAC address is all over it. Just like a fingerprint, a cop can't look at it at the crime scene and instantly surmise your name (unlike looking at your face) but they can take that MAC Address and use it just like a digital fingerprint to track you down after running it through a few databases.
So the real question here isn't why cops talk about public wifi as if it kills their case. The real question is why cops don't look at public wifi as a much better piece of evidence. A fingerprint that no gloves can stop and that can't be wiped off with a cloth or cleaned with Windex. Like the blood inside the knife handle - it's evidence most criminals don't realize they leave behind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not use newfangled techniques?
Just to remind you that its not compulsory to leave your name and address with a retailer when buying a PC/laptop? Hence, the MAC address may not be tracable to an individual in that way. You do not want a situation where by the police spend a fortune of tax payers' money on a wild goose chase.
It might work though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a dumb article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]