OT: unathorized network user.
jjrboucher at gmail.com
Thu Jan 24 21:57:28 UTC 2008
On Jan 24, 2008 4:15 PM, Bazooka Joe <fastfish at gmail.com> wrote:
> ahh, all true. But if we all ran open wireless networks then the cops
> would know that this could be an open network and would handle it
> differently. Right now they assume one ip one person because people
> like you keep it that way.
Not to belabor the point (again my apologies - last posting). But
even if everybody opens up their wireless point the police would still
have to start by eliminating the registered owner of the IP. They'd
have no choice, they have to start somewhere. The home where the
network connection came from would be the most logical starting point
in an investigation. They might not arrest the person in the home if
your scenario were to become common and known to police. But they'd
still seize the equipment for 6-12 months in order to do a forensic
analysis to determine if the malicious/illegal activity originated
from within the house or not. And if found to not have come from you
then they'd be hoping to find evidence in your router logs. Most
people don't want the hassle of being without their computers for 6-12
months (never mind the social stigma that comes with the police coming
to your home and hauling out all your computer equipment) so opt to
secure it instead.
If someone runs a secure AP that gets compromised, yes the police
would start at the source in that scenario for the same reasons I
noted above, to see if the malicious activity came from a system in
the house. If no evidence was found to confirm that fact no charge
would ensue and they'd look at the logs for evidence of others who
connected to your AP. So you would not end up being convicted of
something you didn't do as there would be no evidence on your system
to take you to court on seeing you didn't do it.
More information about the users