Page 1 of 1

Unsecured Routers Land People in a Heap of Police Trouble

Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:03 am
by DesR85
I was browsing Daily Tech 5 days ago when I come across [url="http://www.dailytech.com/Unsecured+Routers+Land+People+in+a+Heap+of+Police+Trouble/article21453.htm"]this article[/url] which caught my attention. An excerpt from the article:
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...

...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...

Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:23 am
by DesR85
Sorry for the double post as the OP is too long, even after trimming some of the non-essential parts. So anyway, here is my take on the situation:

For the police to resort to such measures is excessive and unnecessary, especially when arresting somebody downloading lots of child porn. From the methods they used, were they given information that this creep is heavily armed and dangerous? Worse still, they used this on the wrong person. At least they apologised, but I agree with the author of the article that they should be more careful and thorough with their investigation.

Another thing worth pointing out is the idea of 'opening' your home Wi-Fi connection to the public, from the article:
Rebecca Jeschke, a spokeswoman for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based non-profit 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."
I have no idea why anybody in their right minds would want to simply leave their Wi-Fi unsecured, even if it is for a 'common good.' If you want to leave it open to anybody, hey, it's your call. But I find it really naive and simply idiotic to let anybody use your connection without your permission, especially when you have to foot the bill for the internet connection. I remember a friend of mine who left his router (combination of both wired and wireless) unsecured and around 10 people squatted on it hogging his connection until he couldn't even browse properly. Since then, he locked it and nobody can squat on it anymore. :p

From a security perspective, it also makes sense to leave it secured. Wouldn't want to be a target for spam, viruses and hackers, since who knows what these people who connect to your router are doing.

Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:09 am
by Kipi
If you leave your WiFi unprotected (no passwords), IMO it's your problem.

Something related to this incident, it has been decided by the court that here in Finland using open WLAN network, no matter who is the owner, is considered legal.

Why consider it legal? Well, first of all, it's not that difficult to set password protection to your connection. It's actually rather simple, all routers come with instructions of how to do it. So claiming that you don't posses the skills to do that is not valid anymore. Another thing is that as the public WLANs, meaning the WLANs meant to public use for example in trains, universities and so on, are have become so common today that it would be too much of hassle to find out which ones would be "legal" connections and which wouldn't. So, any open WLAN is considered legal.

Of course, if you leave your WiFi open, you accept the risk that someone may use it to illegal things, like child porn in the case of the article. Of course you are not guilty of what others do, but you accept the fact that you, as the owner of the network, will be the first to be accused.

About the methods the police used while arresting, well, I think they should have used some common sense in that. Was the guy considered dangerous enough to warrant such actions? Most probably not, though without knowing of what info the agency had back then is unknown to us. But didn't the old saying went "Not guilty until proved otherwise"?