SWAT Team Raids Home Because Guy Had An Open Wireless Router
from the wrong-lessons-learned dept
This is just ridiculous. Apparently a SWAT team raided the home of an innocent guy, accusing him of downloading child porn:Lying on his family room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of "pedophile!" and "pornographer!" stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises, the Buffalo homeowner didn�t need long to figure out the reason for the early morning wake-up call from a swarm of federal agents.It seems that law enforcement folks now admit that they screwed up, but the "lesson" they're getting out of it seems completely backwards. They're saying the lesson is that you should protect your WiFi router. That may be a good idea for some people, but there are plenty of legitimate reasons for offering an open WiFi connection. Furthermore, as noted, some people don't know how to set up their WiFi security.
That new wireless router. He'd gotten fed up trying to set a password. Someone must have used his Internet connection, he thought.
"We know who you are! You downloaded thousands of images at 11:30 last night," the man's lawyer, Barry Covert, recounted the agents saying. They referred to a screen name, "Doldrum."
"No, I didn't," he insisted. "Somebody else could have but I didn't do anything like that."
"You're a creep ... just admit it," they said.
But the bigger questions are:
- Why is law enforcement sending in a SWAT team for child porn downloads? You could potentially see it in cases of production, but with downloads, can't they just do a standard arrest?
- Why didn't they do a simple check beforehand to see if the router was open before bursting into the home with assault weapons and unproven assertions?
- How come none of the "cautionary lessons" involve law enforcement folks realizing that they overreacted?
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: law enforcement, passwords, privacy, raids, swat team, wireless
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So how heavily armed was the suspect?
In this situation, could you even ask if he was suspected to be armed and dangerous?
Probably what really happened. ICE finds a cache of child porn on a P2P share with an endpoint of this mans location. They start putting together a warrant and they think "Man this is going to make the news, I need to tell my buddy in SWAT". Guy in SWAT sets up a raid instead of a calm visit by 2 men in grey suits because he has a daughter and despite innocent until proven guilty wants to kick this guys nuts in. SWAT team goes in after being pumped up by their commander about how filthy a child diddler the man they are going to bust is. SWAT team treats him as reported "roughing" up the suspect a bit (read: Legalized Police Brutality).
Cautionary lesson to learn in all this: If the original warrant doesn't state you are using SWAT and the situation doesn't change to situation where SWAT is needed (Snipers, Guerrilla style warfare, Riot, Hostage Situation) don't bring in SWAT.
Also IP address does not identify individuals, it identifies a device, in this case one that broadcasts out to a location the size of a football field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So how heavily armed was the suspect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So how heavily armed was the suspect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So how heavily armed was the suspect?
Actually, it probably had something to do with childhood trauma on their part...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So how heavily armed was the suspect?
From the article:
"child porn in the first place. Are people who download kiddie porn known to be heavily armed?"
Well maybe just one arm...
Thank you thank you, I'll be here all week, try the veal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So how heavily armed was the suspect?
SWAT: Special Weapons and Tactics (not Team)
So it is Special Weapons and Tactics Team
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
less then half a day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: less then half a day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: less then half a day
(okay, maybe the vatican is close...)
uh, strictly, uh, for, um, law enforcement, uh, purposes...
they have to -you know- look at all that porn -numerous times a day- to 'protect and serve' us li'l peeps...
it is true that 'our' (sic) gummint is the single largest consumer of porn...
...all to keep us delicate sheeple 'safe' !
the sacrifices donut-eaters make for us !!!
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: less then half a day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is something fishy about how this story is presented. I wonder if all the details are real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Police can raid the wrong house and end up shooting an innocent guy in the head, and the worst they'll get is paid leave while internal investigations is busy determining how to get them their next medal for heroism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Supposedly aggregated from - By CAROLYN THOMPSON, Associated Press Carolyn Thompson, Associated Press � Sun Apr 24, 3:35 pm ET
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, downloading is a non-violent offense. Why was SWAT needed at all? There was no evidence of immediate need to enter the home (the computer wasn't going anywhere), nor any lives in immediate danger, nor any reasonable expectation of a violent confrontation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, that IS sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why isn't this a cautionary tale of an ip != person?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why isn't this a cautionary tale of an ip != person?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: why isn't this a cautionary tale of an ip != person?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: why isn't this a cautionary tale of an ip != person?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another slightly depressing thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another slightly depressing thought.
I saw this story first on Yahoo! News and, surprisingly, the comments seemed to understand [that this is a case of law enforcement gone crazy]. The highly-rated comments all said this is insane, that it's not the guy's fault for not securing his wireless network, it's the police being crazy. I was somewhat proud of my fellow countrymen for seeing through the attempted spin.
The horrible thing, to me, is that they're trying to use it to push securing your home internet. Breaking home wireless encryption isn't that hard, and it would have made it far more difficult for him to prove his own innocence. It's a bit of a double-edged sword.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another slightly depressing thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another slightly depressing thought.
They just send you to Guantanamo Bay with a note pinned to your chest that says "enemy combatant."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No excuses citizen/terrorist
/sarcasm - for those to whom it isn't obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SWAT
> team for child porn downloads? You could
> potentially see it in cases of production,
> but with downloads, can't they just do a
> standard arrest?
This is something that's been bothering me for a while now--this trend towards the overuse of SWAT/tactical team to make arrests when they're not only not needed but can actually escalate the situation and make it worse.
There are some departments where it's now policy for SWAT to make *every* pre-planned arrest. Unless you're a patrol officer who makes an impromptu side-of-the-road DUI or dope bust, you're required to use SWAT to make initial contact with the arrestee.
It's absolutely ridiculous, but that's the trend these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SWAT
You're still pissed if they search your house for something you didn't do, but a less confrontational interaction is much better for the police in the long term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SWAT
... too many police are[should be] grown-ups who get to use other people's [tax]money to play adolescent soldier games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SWAT
I'm not implying that SWAT isn't useful for it's intended purpose, but if it costs $5000 (being conservative) to 'arrest' a suspected child porn downloader, compared to $500 to send a couple patrolmen in a black and white, is this really their purpose?
From the government perspective, perhaps the real purpose of SWAT is to inflate the cost of apprehending the "bad-guys" so that they can justify the excessive spending that's going on... but.... but.... but... it costs $5000 to arrest one individual (because we made it a requirement), we need more money or all those other nasty child porn downloaders will get away while we aren't looking.
/sarcasm off, now where did I leave that aluminum beanie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Situations like this should NOT happen, and when they do happen, it should cost the LEO's millions. Maybe then they will do some actual police work and treat "suspects" in a dignified manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would gladly forgo the cash for a written assurance that the morons responsible were terminated and barred from further law enforcement employment!
Once stripped of their protective blue armor, sue them individually, and hope they do the right thing and commit suicide.
Uniformed thugs and sociopathic murderers, they do far more harm than good!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Digital Dark Ages:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Digital Dark Ages:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P.S. If either of them ever sings "Happy Birthday" then I'll have to raid their college fund in order to pay the license fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Headline a bit misleading
It's like saying a farm got raided for not having a fence when the cops show up to address a pot crop in some out-of-view back corner of the property.
I think it really is a good argument for making sure your router is locked down, especially since, as has been advocated by Mr. Masnick previously, having an open router is seen by some as essentially an invitation for others to use it. So, I'm not sure what the problem is with the concept that use of your router to commit a crime will result in the cops knocking on your door to ask you some questions about it. You would logically have some 'splainin' to do.
That being said, having the SWAT guys break down the door and manhandle the suspect really does seem on odd choice of tactics for this sort of thing. As others have said, I suspect we don't know quite all the relevant facts here.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Headline a bit misleading
So, I'm not sure what the problem is with the concept that use of your router to commit a crime will result in the cops knocking on your door to ask you some questions about it.
They didn't knock ON his door, they knocked DOWN his door and then pointed a gun in his face while screaming at him about being a pedophile. Can you not see how these things are different and one is clearly inappropriate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
As for breaking down the door and pointing guns and so forth, that's exactly what the last part of my post addressed. I agree it seems very weird. Not that downloading child porn is OK, but not sure how that (by itself) justifies a full frontal assault like that.
My point is that the lesson to be learned by people setting up their home networks is VERY valid, and should not be discounted, as it was here. If you set it up so that someone can do bad things in a way that looks like it might be you, you have to expect to be questioned when those bad things happen. The fact that the police resposne here seems over-the-top is an independent (and irrelevant) issue.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
It's more like witnessing a drug dealer known to be carrying pot cross an unfenced front lawn and then raiding the house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
The title past the link: "Guy Gets SWAT Team-ed for Not Securing His Wireless Connection"
The original article: "NY case underscores Wi-Fi privacy dangers"
Mike also isn't claiming that the sole reason for the raid is just because he had an open router. He knows that the reason for the raid is because of child porn and states as such in the second sentence. He knows it and assumes his readers are smart enough to not take headlines so literally and possibly read the article.
I guess he's giving the commenters on the lower end of the curve a little too much credit here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
It was also caused by law enforcement's failure to properly investigate. If you're not aware that unsecured (or as good as unsecured) wireless networks are common place, you don't know enough to be conducting this sort of investigation. Failing to look into such a possibility before making accusations this serious is irresponsible regardless of whether a SWAT team is involved or not. It's networking 101.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
I view the two issues as distinct. However, the post clearly discounts the security lesson to be learned in order to focus on the argument that criticizes the cops. Sure, the cops seem to bear some need for criticism here, but that doesn't minimize the homeowner's situation AT ALL. If you set up an open router, you just might have to deal with a knock at the door when someone with a badge needs to find someone using your open router. In this particular case, it just so happens the cops knocked so hard the door fell down.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
As to securing routers, as Mike already pointed out, there are legitimate reasons for leaving them unsecured. There is no requirement not to, nor is there a legal doctrine which makes you responsible for the activities of people who use your unsecured connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
Corporations (the same ones pushing the passing of the new laws) will be exempt from the new laws that will be included as a small sub-clause in the next, "think of the children, punish the pedophiles" type bill that nobody will want to stand up and say no to (what, you're not for saving the children?), at least those big enough to lease their own congress critters. So while the government would have no problem with the mom and pop coffee shop getting shut down for users activity on their free-wifi, they wouldn't want McDonalds being held responsible for users doing bad things on their free wi-fi.
Some of this stuff is just so crazy it seems insane.... then it actually happens one day and people go WTF when did that become a law and why didn't someone stop it.
Much like a stopped clock being right twice a day, a conspiracy theorist only has to be right once and suddenly they aren't such a nut job after all... Then the men in black show up, throw them in a military prison, keep them awake and almost naked in solitary confinement for 23 hours out of the day, put him on 'suicide watch' and tell everyone that he's just a little unstable and the harsh treatment is for his own protection, and suddenly everyone goes, "Oh, well he did some things we don't agree with (whistle-blowing...), so maybe he really is just a little out there and deserves to be treated that way."
Now for a modified Neimoller quote:
First they came for the Whistle Blowers, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Whistle Blower...
Then they came for the Open Wi-Fi Advocates, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not an Open Wi-Fi Advocate...
Then they came for the Accused Child Porn Downloaders, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not an Accused Child Porn Downloader.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
It's easier to accept the evil we know (our governments public issues) than the evil we know must be going on behind the scenes. /sarcasm off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
The question isn't whether that COULD happen, but whether it SHOULD happen. In some places you COULD be pulled over and harassed just for being black, a.k.a. "driving while black", but SHOULD you be? Would you suggest that black people shouldn't drive and if they do then it's their own fault if they get harassed because they knew the danger?
In this particular case, it just so happens the cops knocked so hard the door fell down.
That response makes me think that the answer to my previous question is yes, you would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
The question isn't where it could happen, but whether it needs to happen. Then you have an obvious axiom reply and not one based in the hypothetical and theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
Are you really, seriously, suggesting that knocking on the door of the house where a router has been identified (not just because it's open, but because you can see it being used) is equivalent to a racist police officer pulling someone over for driving-while-black?
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
A "knock on your door" if far different from what was described in the article and you know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
If you're just interested in stories of cops being too gung-ho, then there are plenty of stories that have nothing at all to do with tech issues - and, actually, this is one of them.
Again, it seems the cops did go into ths with way too much adrenalin (assuming there are no other facts which would explain their tactics here), and they should have acknowledged that. However, the lesson for Mr. Open Router is no less valid for the fact that the cops went Rambo on him.
If a particular router is being used to conduct illegal activity, it's only logical to first look to the place where the router is located - not next door.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
No, how the cops reacted is the whole point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Headline a bit misleading
In checking out the location to see if it was dangerous or not, it does not seem that much of a stretch to suggest that maybe seeing if the WiFi was open and available at the location would be unreasonable to think of.
Given that most routers can be comprised by people of not great technical skill, and the law enforcement overreaction to everything they can get headlines for I see it being worse if you bother to use the security because then you HAVE to be guilty.
Security =! Completely Secure.
IP =! Person.
But we have special rules for people accused of kiddy porn in this country, guilty and marked for life on mere accusation even if found innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It wasn't that serious...
As for other people thinking there are other facts and details. I'm open to being show otherwise but I'll bet money the SWAT theatrics were for show. They thought they would get some publicity out of the bust so they wanted it to look all dramatic like an episode of Cops, but instead came out more like Reno 911. Now that this guy's been splashed all around his area as a child porn collector I hope he sues the holy hell out of that police department.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But...But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But...But...
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So damned if you, do damned if you don't..
I just imagine this swat(power struggle) situation getting worse and when it comes to guns being pointed pacify and litigate or retaliate?
Oh, Where is the brain that is supposed to be located in these humans covered in black boots and such?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At leat nobody was...*puts on sunglasses*... ICEd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At leat nobody was...*puts on sunglasses*... ICEd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At leat nobody was...*puts on sunglasses*... ICEd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why indeed...
Because it's low-hanging fruit. Using these type of tactics against the (suspected) undesirable elements in society (chesters, dope dealers, lawyers, etc.), followed-up by public chest-beating and media sensationalism, makes it justified in the public's eyes.
Once such things become generally accepted/approved, then they apply it to progressively less-heinous offenses, until it becomes SOP.
If you want to boil frogs, the best practice is to heat the water slowly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why indeed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not local swat
so not only does this beg the question why do you need machine guns to arrest a pedophile, but wtf does this have to do with customs and immigration.
The answer is probably, it would have looked nice on the news if we hadnt fucked it up
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110424/ap_on_hi_te/us_wi_fi_warning:
"It was 6:20 a.m. March 7 when he and his wife were awakened by the sound of someone breaking down their rear door. He threw a robe on and walked to the top of the stairs, looking down to see seven armed people with jackets bearing the initials I-C-E, which he didn't immediately know stood for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
"They are screaming at him, 'Get down! Get down on the ground!' He's saying, 'Who are you? Who are you?'" Covert said.
"One of the agents runs up and basically throws him down the stairs, and he's got the cuts and bruises to show for it," said Covert, who said the homeowner plans no lawsuit. When he was allowed to get up, agents escorted him and watched as he used the bathroom and dressed. "
oddly no mention of swat teams in the actual perpetrators arrest:
http://www.wkbw.com/news/crime/Man-Charged-With-Distribution-Of-Child-Pornographer-11817439 9.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two Conspiracy Theories
Now it also doesn't make sense that the homeowner wouldn't be trying to sue. Any lawyer would be foaming at the mouth over this sort of thing. If this really happened maybe they're hanging an aiding and abetting charge over his head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't need to prove their assertions to obtain a search warrant. They just need to show that there's probable cause, which they would still have even if they did know the router was open.
The result of what you seem to be advocating would be that someone could make themselves basically immune to arrest and search of their computer (and hence ultimately to prosecution) for any computer crime simply by making their wireless network open: the police would never be able to "prove" it was them rather than a neighbor before searching their computer and never be able to search their computer without "proving" this.
(To be clear, using a SWAT team for something like this is surely a rather silly abuse of police resources, and probably a result of someone wanting to appear "tough" on child pornography. I'm also a little skeptical of the arrest warrant.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This makes no sense at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
- If you download child porn to your computer on your own home internet connection with closed wireless, then (after checking that your wifi is closed) the police get and execute a warrant to search your computer.
- If you download child porn to your computer on your own home internet connection with open wireless, the police check and discover that your wifi is open and then can't get a warrant to search your computer because any of the neighbors (or random people off the street) could have done it.
The result would be that you could protect yourself (to some extent) from investigation for child pornography simply by keeping your wireless open, whereas common sense suggests that this ought not to be the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your conclusion is not based upon any factual evidence, it relies upon supposition and innuendo. Logic fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps, if this neighbor hadn't noticed a SWAT team, his computer would've still been connected to the open Wi-Fi network, and checking the router's logs might've helped pinpoint the neighbor in question.
However, by now that neighbor has been busy reformatting his hard drive(s). No evidence left. Too bad.
Anyway, good thing I know how to set up encryption on my router. (Remember kids, use AES, not TKIP.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.buffalonews.com/city/communities/buffalo/article369032.ece
http://www. buffalonews.com/city/communities/west-side/article369806.ece
http://www.buffalonews.com/city/capi tal-connection/albany/article401580.ece
The guy says he won't sue, man I would sue, I would sue hard, I would get Kuntsler, and sue them to hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only there were kind of a law about not extracting confessions while pointing guns at someone and without presence of an attourney... :-\
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because, law enforcement these days needs to send out the entire police force just to get a cat out of a tree. Then you wonder why we never seem to have enough cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bigger picture craziness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bigger picture craziness
Be careful! There's no tolerance for rational thought where child porn is concerned...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the norm
For reals, some quick math on how much it costs to execute a no-knock dynamic entry quickly reaches into the thousands of dollars for this operation. Money aside, these units are not trained to community police, they are trained to enter with overwhelming force and neutralize armes suspects. Not Mr. Rodgers next door who wanted to share his interwebs.
For reals, I hope this guy didnt have a dog, because standard procedure on dynamic entries is to "neutralize" all canines that cross your path. Better yet, I hope he didnt have kids, cause his children will be wetting the bed for months after having a paramilitary force breach their house with bright lights, shouting, and physical force, all while probably waking up from a nice nights sleep.
Sickens me. But you know, he was asking for it. After all, if he didnt want the SWAT to go all ape on him, he should have locked his wifi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is the norm
You live and you learn I suppose.
What's next - No knock blow up your house ?
It's your own fault. Those predator drones would not have been necessary had you locked your wifi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe this is just a bad description but if that is what they did the computer forensics was done improperly. You might insert a write blocker and do a bit of scouting of existing connections for a computer that was running at the time of the bust. Generally, I turn off my computer before I go to bed. If it was off, they should have just cloned the hard drive without turning the computer on. I cannot see a forensic examiner looking around for 2 hours even if the computer was on before copying the hard drive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SWAT members are just thugs with badges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, I can't see a homeowner getting very far in his speech about how the Bill of Rights explicitly grants him the right to bear arms, and when taken in combination with the universal human right to property, it led to him shooting two cops in the face.
The news would call it a tragedy, but that word is so diluted now I hear it used when someone forgets to (-)tomatoes on their burger at mcdonalds. Nothing would change, the whole thing would be forgotten in 2 weeks by everyone except the families of the involved.
Because some politician wanted to put on a show? And I don't mean political party politician, above a certain level in -every- organization of more than 10 people everyone is a politician or they wouldn't be there.
-I can't think of how to end this in a concise and thought provoking way, soooo, uh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What if the guy was an alien from outer space or some kind of changeling monster that simply looked human .... then what - huh?
That's it man, game over man, game over!
Nuke the open wifi from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bingo!
Blame 9-11, blame the war on everything, blame over-zealous politicians bottom feeding for votes. All of it has corroded our way of life like nothing else ever has.
This country is toast as a freedom-loving tribe. It's all over but the shouting.
It will be interesting to see what other vile surprises they have in store for us in the coming days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I did not see anyone suggest a willy-nilly approach, did you?
I did see suggestions about reconnaissance prior to contact with the suspect. One would think this is standard operating procedure, apparently it is not,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
conflict
Anyone have tips for administering an open wireless connection while still being a responsible network operator and minimizing the chances of finding myself in this guy's situation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: conflict
Congratulations, you have fallen prey to their plan of scaring people out of sharing anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: conflict
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smoked pork for dinner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pay ur taxes, work as a good dog for you boss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]