Open WAP = Probable Cause?

RockoTDF writes "A court in texas has ruled that an open WAP is not a sufficient defense against child pornography charges, a ruling which could carry over to p2p users. In addition, it appears that an open WAP could be seen as probable cause by law enforcement."

solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have secured my wap.

I hope nobody finds out that the passphrase is 0x01020304050607080910111213

I also hope others do not do the same and we all create open accesspoints that are actually secure :-)

Now we can claim we were hacked! problem solved and stupid lawyers and police are end run for at least a few more years.

No suprise here

[Todd Knarr]

I'm not surprised. I'm sure one of the things the court considered is that someone who knows enough about wireless to raise the "open access point" defense also knows enough to know the risks of an open WAP and to do something about it if only to protect themselves from exactly this sort of problem. And with the amount of publicity, even the average Joe by this point knows the risks of open WAPs. So I'm not surprised the judge essentially said "You knew it was open, you knew what the risks were, you didn't do anything about them. You're responsible for it.". Can you say "attractive nuisance"? Similar deal with probable cause, if the abuse of open WAPs is wide-spread enough for defendant's argument to be even someone probable then it's wide-spread enough that police can treat open WAPs as a known problem.

And of course, if someone were using the WAP then the CDs wouldn't have been in his room. He might be able to make the argument that, given the IM name especially, the CDs belong to his roommate, but it looks like his attempt to get fancy scuttled that option.

It was not the WAP that got him jailed, but the CD

[ArwynH]

It was not the WAP that got him jailed, but the fact that he had a CD full of child porn in his room. The Open WAP was just deemed not an acceptable reason to invalidate the search warrant and make the CD in admissible as evidence.

It makes sense in this case.

[fatboy]

There was cause to search his house because a crime appeared to have occurred there. When the house was searched, more evidence in support of establishing that a crime occurred there was found. I don't see how the second set of evidence could be thrown out, if all procedures were properly followed in establishing the cause to search his house. I don't see that it matters he had an Open WAP.

If they searched his house and found no evidence supporting the initial reported crime, I believe he could use the Open WAP as defense.

Re:Accept Jury Duty

[Archangel Michael]

Every time I get called for Jury Duty, I go. And when they ask if anyone has a reason NOT to sit on the jury, I raise my hand. They ask me for my excuse, and I say ..

"I have a brain and can think outside the parameters of instructions given by the judge. There is at least one side that doesn't want me on the jury, and perhaps even both sides. If you choose me to be on the jury, you'll find out what my wife already knows, I'm a pain in the arse."

I haven't sat on a jury yet, as I get dismissed right there. They don't want people with brains.

News like this worries me...

[zappepcs]

Now, if they have evidence, IMs, emails, browser logs, and enough to convince even /. crowds that there is evidence, that is all good and well.

What if you are using an app that downloads from newsgroups automatically. You are a pr0n fan, but someone puts pictures in the newsgroup that are both undesirable and illegal that then are downloaded to your system. Unless you spot them and remove them, there they are to be found if inspected.

Does anyone here know if there is a defense for this predicament? I'm not in it, but conceivably be some day.

Catch - 22

[Jerry]

IF you run a password protected WAP and some cracker hacks your AP and begins downloading illegal stuff then these legal beagles will say that you are guilty because no one else can use your account.

Either way you are hosed if someone uses your AP illegally.

Re:News like this worries me...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK that makes you guilty.

They have separate offences of making an image, transmitting an image, and storing an image. You will be breaking the last one. Ignorance is not an excuse. It's similar to having your drink spiked - you are still guilty of driving over the limit.

I have wondered why more viruses are not passed out with kiddy-porn pictures attached. Just one getting spread well about would really shake up the legislative process. Especially if it got onto Congress or Senate machines.

 

Re:Accept Jury Duty

[FuzzyDaddy]

Still worth it. I was part of a hung jury over a guy that sold $10 worth of Crack cocaine to an undercover officer. One day of jury selection, one half day trial, 2 and a half days arguing. But it was really and interesting process.

On the other hand, the judge let me out of a murder trial because I pulled the "I work for a small company and three weeks would hurt the business badly", which he was sympathetic to. (And which was true...)

Re:The Stack of Kiddie Porn DVDs convicted him...

[Achromatic1978]

I'm sure there must be case law on the roommate scenario, since it probably comes up often in drug cases. Does anyone know what the precedents are?

Simple, really. They just enacted laws that said that every occupant of the house could be presumed to have equal liability unless they could demonstrate cause as to why they shouldn't. Not exactly guilty until proven innocent, but definite guilt by association. Welcome to the "War" on (some) drugs.

Re:Something is fishy here..

[EveryNickIsTaken]

So, in effect, if you want to send child pornography over the net, you should go to a Starbucks and use their Open WAP?

Re:Probable Cause?!?

[redog]

So if the police need a warrant to search a suspects house, and the suspect has an open wap, all they need to do is commit a crime or perhaps attempt to commit a crime from the wap to get the warrant to search the house?

scary

Example of bad reporting

[Ahnteis]

Really, the /. summary is just an example of bad reporting. I mean, you take the story, completely twist it, and come out with something brand new. It's like some kind of bizarre transmogrification.

Didn't say it was a stack of pedo-porn ...

[tinkerghost]

They just said it was a stack with pedo-porn. Remember screenshots from Traci Lords career are still around - and they are sill illegal in the US since she was under 18 while filming. So downloading a CD with a single shot from one of her films gets you a Pedo rap.

Without knowing the pictures & the quantity/percentage of the images, you can't really say anything. In some cases, the source is important too. If you burn archives from usenet, I'm sure your archive is going to contain some. In that light 1 shot of a 17 year old on a full CD doesn't a Pedo case make. An entire directory of obvious children in obvious sexual positions does.

Re:Cite your sources

[kannibal_klown]

. I would maintain, though, that freedom of speech is more respected here. Nobody gets called a traitor for opposing a war, for example.

Yeh, over here in the states you're either "for the war" or "against our troops."

It's worse than that.

[ScrewMaster]

You get booted if you have a clue, period. Doesn't matter whether the case involves technical issues or not. Neither the prosecution nor the defense want intelligent, educated individuals on juries. They really don't, in spite of any claims they make make to the contrary, and the reason for that is simple. People that are actually capable of juggling numbers, analyzing statistical claims, and generally seeing through the ridiculous arguments both sides may try to present are simply not wanted.

I was called to jury duty about ten or twelve years ago. I really didn't have any idea what to expect, but I was prepared to be a responsible citizen. What I did not expect was to be booted from nearly a dozen courtrooms because I answered honestly when asked, "What do you do for a living?"

"I'm an engineer, Your Honor." I would say. In every single case, the instant those words came out of my mouth a peremptory challenge was issued for my dismissal. I tried varying it a little, "I'm a software engineer" or "I'm a programmer." No dice. I didn't really understand what was going on until later (I kinda took it personally, at the time) when an attorney relative of mine said that that was just how the system worked. One judge asked me what kind of TV shows and books I read. I said, well, I tend to like science fiction. He laughed and asked me if I meant Star Trek and Doctor Who, that kind of thing. I said, "Yes, Your Honor." Everyone else in the courtroom also laughed, but within five seconds the defense attorneys had conferred and the lead counsel spoke into his mike, "Ah, Your Honor, we'd like to dismiss this juror." Fuck. It wasn't so much that I wanted to spend some unknown number of days (or months, or years) serving as a juror but by the end of the day I was getting pretty pissed at the time I'd wasted, when I'd had virtually zero chance of ever being selected in the first place.

I was more than a little disturbed when I saw the caliber of people that managed to survive the selection process. Housewives, bartenders, gardeners, people from all walks of life who shared one thing in common: lack of intelligence and education. I'm not picking on my fellow citizens, so don't misunderstand me here: I got to know a number of them in the hours I spent waiting for my next rejection. Most seemed to be very decent human beings ... but I had no confidence in their being able to come to a rational judgment, or be able to see through an emotional play or some other courtroom con job. All the other people like me that had technical, scientific or engineering qualifications were dismissed (at least, as many of us as could be using peremptory challenges.)

The system (at least in the area where I live) apparently selects for the least educated, least intelligent, most easily swayed individuals for jury duty. I hope I never land in court, where my fate revolves around the understanding of a complex technical issue. I'd probably never see the light of day again.

The only good news was that by the time they let us leave, I discovered the local McDonald's was still open and I used the eight bucks they gave me to buy a Big Mac meal with a large Coke.