Slashdot Mirror
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."
Open WAP = Probably Cause?
CmdrTaco = Editor?
Just a reminder to ACCEPT jury duty if you get called. It is one of the best ways to directly affect how things work in the U.S.
Idiot.
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.
This guy gave a conditional guilty plea even though "evidence" linked the yahoo account to his roommate. You don't accept a deal for 4 years in prison if you're not guilty. Clearly, someone is lying here.
Is this a new legal term?
You probably did it. ??
Just to clarify before a hundred people comment without understanding this distinction. The court in this case ruled that child pornography tracked to a given open access point was probable cause to search that residence and specifically the rooms belonging to the person who ran the open access point. They did not rule that running the open access point proved that the owner was guilty of transmitting the child pornography, but ruled him guilty because of the stacks of DVDs found in his room.
The identity of the user was only questioned after the fact. They actually found kiddie porn in the IP address registree's room. I'd bet that he'd stand much stronger, legally if they hadn't, but he's trying to get the case thrown out of court because he'd set up an unsecured Wifi, which his lawyer argued made it unlikely enough that it was him that the police should have walked away...
If you RTFA, it says they raided his place and found CDs of child porn. Now it also says he had a roommate and that the IM that got them in trouble was sent from his roommate's account. Which should have made them investigate him as well, but that's another story.
Bottom line here is that there was evidence of child porn found locally at the address connected with that IP. So it's not really "using an Open WAP defense" as it would seem from summary. If they found nothing to collaborate the on-line transmissions at his address, then it would be more believable someone else could have done it.
You have the write to remain soylent. Anything you do say can and will be used against you in a cart of law.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
My grammar sucks probably 'cause I have open WAP.
Thats like saying because you wanted to get a hand gun, your going to be a school shooter. There are TONS of open WAPs because people don't know better. It gives me the desire to go from home to home and do child porn searchs and FBI searches from all the homes to force this decision to get overturned. I mean come on.
;))
I don't know whether or not the guy was innocent/guilty but I do think that this "probable cause" thing is complete crap. If I see cops going down the streets with laptops I'll chase em away and sue the city! Mental anguish or something. (luckily, I don't live in texas
If they make openWAP's probable cause, then what about a coffee place where you get free wifi. Will the owner be held responsible for this customers actions? Will you be *REQUIRED* to get a permit for an open WAP. This is complete crap.
Support the source, Open Source! An entire site developed with OSS
It looks like the argument was that since this guy (who was actually guilty but was trying to have evidence suppressed) had an open access point, the cops had no probable cause to search, since it could have been anybody using his connection.
The article, and the summary falsely conclude that having an open access point gives the authorities probable cause to search your premises and systems. In reality, what this means is that having an open access point doesn't mean the cops can't search, since "it remain[s] likely that the source of the transmissions [is] inside that residence".
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.
TFA states that they found a CD with child porn on it in his room and that was the only room searched. Even if he got off the hook on the image sent across Yhaoo IM he was toast. I'm just suprised the DA didn't try to use the guy's attempted defense of a roommate and an open WAP to get a warrant to search the roommate's room as well in an attempt to get them both. Even if the images sent across the network were tied back to the roommate (or somebody nextdoor, whatever) this guy was still toast over the CD they found. Accepting the plea bargain was probably this guy's only chance of avoiding a much longer sentence.
If I am reading the summary and the article correctly and if your wirless network is open and bad stuff is traced to it, there is probable cause for obtaining and sharing that evidence in court.
It weighs against you. But if you can show you were in the middle of a wilderness trip when illegal stuff was downloaded, I doubt you will be found guilty.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
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.
He wasn't charged based on the IMs - he was charged because they found CDs of child porn in his room. Had they searched his place and found no child porn images, he most likely would not have been charged - at the very worst, he would have been charged and been able to raise a successful defence that it wasn't him (unless they had hard evidence to link the conversations to him).
"I'm sorry your honor, I'd like to request a brief recess so that I can bone the prosecution behind my assistant DA/girlfriend's back."
"Very well, Mr.McCoy, but I'll remind you that this is a high-profile, ripped-from-the-headlines case that will decide the fate of alleged child pornographers for years to come, and I--Mr.McCoy, could you at least wait until the courtroom has been cleared?"
Yes, it's offtopic, but have you ever WATCHED that show?
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.
--fatboy
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.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
The stack of Kiddie Porn DVDs convicted him, not the open access point. The whole thing revolves around the fact that they found an IM of somebody with an IP originating from his residence that contained a child porn picture. This got them a search warrant, and they found additional evidence including a stack of DVDs with child porn images on them (and think HOW MANY images are needed to fill more than one DVD).
The only point where the open access point comes in to it is that he claimed that because it was open, it means that ANYBODY could have used IPs from inside his house, and thus the search should have been thrown out, and the evidence gathered suppressed. But the judge didn't go for it.
In non-technical terms, it's like claiming that your house is always unlocked, thus any evidence they ever find there should never be admissible, since anybody could have put it there. And as I said above, the judge didn't go for it, and rightfully so IMO. So this isn't "police look for open access points, and go fishing wherever they find one" but rather "an open access point doesn't get you out of finding DVDs of illegal material in your house."
The ruling is here.
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.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
If you did what you suggest---go to a bunch of open WAPs and do child porn searches---then none of the people you target will ultimately get in trouble. They might get their homes searched, but the FBI wouldn't find any evidence of child porn, because you're long gone.
Furthermore your second paragraph isn't a fair characterization of what happened here. The cops aren't going around searching for open WAPs. It was the defense that brought this argument, not the cops. The allegedly illegal IM traffic came from the defendant's IP address, and he used the open WAP argument to suggest that since it could have been a drive-by or neighbor, that they didn't have enough evidence to search his house. Well, they may not have had enough evidence to convict, certainly---but you don't need nearly as much to get the search warrant. I frankly agree with that decision. The evidence stated that a crime was committed in the vicinity of that house.
I think you mean corroborate.
Maybe if you were on vacation and the place was closed for the summer, but not if you were living there at the time.
-b.
In all seriousness: Can you provide links to people claiming that European countries are "more free" than the U.S.? I'm an ignorant USian and have never heard such things.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
DVDs are flat smooth surfaces ideal for holding fingerprints, as anybody with a three year old will tell you. If they guy was innocent then he would be going on about how his room mate's fingeprints were all over the child porn.. As it is, going on about how his access point was open so they had no right to find the DVDs is total bull. They probably didn't even know that it was his access point until they entered the place.
Think physical; you shoot someone in your house, then claim that the police search which found the weapon was illegal because some of your windows were unlocked, so the police could have thought that it was a long distance sniper. BAAAHHHHH.
Is that anything like Open Sores?
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
Apparently the court making that decision has no clue as to the technical ineptitude of most users that buy a wireless router. Odds are, the judges themselves are just as inept. Makes me sad to hail from Texas. I remember when my school system (PISD) was ranked 4th in the nation among independent school districts. Now I look at the rankings, it's fallen behind every other state. :( So much for education and No Child Left Behind.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Uhm, read any page on the internet where topics related to politics are discussed? Such as /.?
Global warming is a cube.
Idiocy:lack of knowledge. somebody knows that you are driving from Chicago to Detroit. This person puts a bag of weed or cocaine underneath the rear bumper. Because you didn't know it could be stored there, nor that it was there, you are held liable for possession of cocaine/weed when you get pulled over for speeding. Its the same thing, either way your screwed.
Support the source, Open Source! An entire site developed with OSS
I could not get to the linked article, but if they are talking probable cause to search, that smacks right in the face of the constitution.
Having an open wep is no different thenleaving your livingroom window curtains open but not expecting the police to come breaking down your door to search your closet in your bedroom.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"Watch out for plagarism" -Me
I demand $6,000,000 in damages be paid to me immediately.
In america, If you leave a corpse in your living room and then open the windows so the neighborhood can see in, the police dont need a search warrant, because what they need is in plain sight. You can't later claim that they violated your 4th amendment rights because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. This is why its legal to go dumpster diving, among other things. What's to stop the police from taking the same stance with an open WAP, since you've left it open, you're inviting the whole world to look in and see. If they find evidence of copyright infringement, or kiddie porn, what's to stop them from saying it was in plain sight?
Lagito ergo expectabo
RTFA people. An IM that contained child porn was sent via Yahoo from this guy's IP address. It was reported, the authorities obtained the IP address used to send the IM and obtained a search warrant for this guy's house. Authorities discovered a stack of CD's that contained child porn when they searched his residence.
I don't see the problem here. If someone was using his open WAP to send the IM authorities wouldn't have discovered child porn when they searched his house and/or computer and there would be no prosecution. The guy was on physical possession of the material in question.
An open WiFi network can't be used as an argument against probable cause. It makes perfect sense to me. If illegal activity is occurring from a particular IP you can't even know if there was a WAP involved, let alone if it was open or not, at the time the crime took place. You need a search warrant to further investigate. Sure you couldcheck for an open WAP without a warrant, but all that would tell you is if there is an open or closed WAP there now, not if one was in place or was secured or not when the activity in question took place. To make that determination you'd need more information but at that point you do have probable cause for a search warrant.
Old Lady #1: When my ex-husband passed away, the insurance company said his policy didn't cover him.
Old Lady #2: They didn't have enough money for the funeral.
Old Lady #3: It's so hard nowadays, with all the gangs and rap music..
Old Lady #1: What about the robots?
Old Lady #4: Oh, they're everywhere!
Old Lady #1: I don't even know why the scientists make them.
Old Lady #2: Darren and I have a policy with Old Glory Insurance, in case we're attacked by robots.
Old Lady #1: An insurance policy with a robot plan? Certainly, I'm too old.
Old Lady #2: Old Glory covers anyone over the age of 50 against robot attack, regardless of current health.
[ cut to Sam Waterston, Compensated Endorser ]
Sam Waterson: I'm Sam Waterston, of the popular TV series "Law & Order". As a senior citizen, you're probably aware of the threat robots pose. Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel. Well, now there's a company that offers coverage against the unfortunate event of robot attack, with Old Glory Insurance. Old Glory will cover you with no health check-up or age consideration.
[ SUPER: Limitied Benefits First Two Years ]
You need to feel safe. And that's harder and harder to do nowadays, because robots may strike at any time.
[ show pie chart reading "Cause of Death in Persons Over 50 Years of Age": Heart Disease, 42% - Robots, 58% ]
And when they grab you with those metal claws, you can't break free.. because they're made of metal, and robots are strong. Now, for only $4 a month, you can achieve peace of mind in a world full of grime and robots, with Old Glory Insurance. So, don't cower under your afghan any longer. Make a choice.
[ SUPER: "WARNING: Persons denying the existence of Robots may be Robots themselves. ]
Old Glory Insurance. For when the metal ones decide to come for you - and they will.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
These days, even if you download pictures of cars or povray renders off usenet, you are liable to get kiddy porn.
You have to look to weed it all out, and technically you just committed a crime. ( or 2 )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Reading comprehension has a purpose. Wild generalized statements do not resemble links to back up the claims.
Try again.
"For the children! We've got to close down the Internet for the children!"
You can bet that the child pr0n horseman will cause all anonymous access to the Internet to be lost, no matter the cost to the public. At some point somebody is going to write a "render your own kiddie porn no real children involved" program, at which point the authorities are going to have to make or break the case that kiddie porn causes child abuse. What if it doesn't? Will they lie to protect their power over us? Will the Pope still be Catholic?
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The problem is that the article is a little light on details. They mention a subpoena, but not a warrant. Did they mean a warrant?
Actually, I don't see where probable cause even factored in to this article. Stating that an open WAP is sufficient for probable cause, would mean that an officer drove by, noticed that a particular house had an open WAP, and then traipsed off to obtain a warrant to search the house becuase having an open WAP is indicative of "X-Y-Z".
According to the friendly article, this investigation started due to an IM sent from a yahoo account. This account was then tracked back to the house's address via the orriginating IP address. The link between the IM account and the address would have been enough for the investiagion, allowing a warrant to be issued and the house to be searched. That should have been the probable cause to issue the search warrant. Upon searching the house, they police found a stack of CDs in the guy's room with child pornography. Case closed. End of story.
It appears to be the defendant himself who is trying to draw the link between an open WAP and that being the source of probable cause for the investigation. That's pure FUD. The IP address linked to the IM was the probable cause. This could happen to somebody with a secured WAP or no WAP at all. Where's the open WAP come in to the picture? To my knowledge, the police didn't even mention the WAP in their presentation of evidence for a search warrant. The defendant's merely attempting to confuse the issue with the open WAP defense. In this case, the physical presence of the pornographic materials on site was more than enough evidence to convict him.
Any one of use could get our houses searched due to this same process of discovery, open WAP or no WAP. This guy's just pissed because he's about to get gang raped in prison.
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
You don't mess with Texas. Do ur weirdo perverse acts in Sweden+Norway+France+New Jersey.
I thought everyone knows that Europe does everything the US does, only a bit later? But in case you didn't know (of course only a rant, no links - we're on the internet, after all):
So when the US invented civil liberties a few centuries ago, the European nations followed in the course of the last two centuries - and now that the US abolishs them again, so they will follow the US on that lead over the next decades. However, as there is a bit of lag involved, one can easily expect that there comes a short window of time where Europe actually is more free than the US (just plot the graphs).
On a more serious note, freedom (or rather, the absence of freedom) is somewhat relative. For example, in Europe, we have laws against talking about the Holocaust (you see, unless you use the government-approved education materials, you are going to be imprisoned for Holocaust denial); in the US, you're impeaching presidents and imprisoning students for a blow job. In Europe we have more strict laws against guns (and, interestingly, a significantly lower rate of [esp. gun related] killings per capita); in the US, you use electronic voting machines.
For a more extreme example: China and Russia are "more free" than the US because they don't respect such absurd freedom-limiting concepts such as "intellectual property". Thus everyone can claim his country (or aggregate of countries, which is Europe) to be "more free" than the other; However, I would not talk about the actions in which you are "more" free but about those in which you are less free: Which of those limitations of freedom you prefer is your decision. I for one would rather none of them.
I'm not sure what "conditional" means in Texas but the man pleaded guilty. Only later did he try and get his conviction overturned by appealing his own guilty plea?
Maybe a child porn case isn't always the best to take to jury because of the lynch mob mentality we have right now about electron dots and thought crimes...
But I can tell you this, if I were on his jury it would have been hung or he would have been acquitted. Even with the CDs they found in his room. They'd have to prove they were his and not his roommate's who owned the IM account sending the porn. And they'd have to prove his roommate didn't access the open WiFi. Without that proof, there's doubt in my mind he's guilty and I believe that doubt to be reasonable.
-[d]-
That's a fine straw man you have there but an accurate headline would read: Kiddie Porn = Probable Cause. The ruling simply means that having an open WAP does not preclude PC. Try reading the article rather than the headline before whipping yourself into a righteous fury.
I'm not all that outraged about this, to be honest.
"Probable Cause" is not a conviction; all it means is that the cops were able to convince a judge that there was a reasonable suspicion that something illegal was going down. If kiddie porn is being transmitted from a given IP address, yes, I think that's plenty of justification for going in and searching the premises.
Again, this is not a conviction. If Perez had been convicted based solely on the logs of kiddie porn coming from his IP, I'd be singing a much different tune. Instead, the cops followed legal procedure; they detected an illegal activity from a residential IP address, and asked the judge for permission to search the residence. There, they found additional evidence, and used it to convict Perez.
Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
why is it that tech blogs et al never provide even rudimentary citations to the cases they cite? failing to do so certainly makes it difficult to assess the validity of the oft-times sensational legal claims made therein.
I completely agree with your analysis. Apart from the question whether it is probably cause or not (or in all cases; imagine open wap becoming ubiquitous, one might conclude differently in the future), that was that courts' current vision on it.
It was the CD-stack that did him in. Legally speaking, he would have had a better case if it had just been on his HD.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
for their editors.
I've seen this with what appears to be increasing frequency lately. Slashdot publishes and article very suggestively worded ("ex-employee downloads sensitive nuclear data for Iran", "Open-WAP implies probably cause", etc.). Then, you read the actual article and see a somewhat different story. Take the present case, The open-WAP was not the probable cause here. The discovery of child porn associated with the WAP was. Is this enough evidence to convict? NO, of course not, it's an open portal so anyone could have used it. Is is enough to justify a closer look? Hell yes.
And what did they find? Multiple DVDs worth of child porn.
C'mon guys, I know you're better than this.....drop the loaded headlines, OK?
A goal is a dream with a deadline
If you were advertising on your front lawn with a big sign that you have kiddy porn and show some graphic pictures do you think the police would need much to get a warrent to search your house? Thats why this defense should fail.
They had probably cause to get a warrent.
The title of this summary is horribly misleading...now I know this is slashdot so no one RTFA, but I happend across it by other means this morning, the ruling was not that having an open WAP is probable cause for kiddy porn, the ruling was that an open WAP was no defense against a finding of probable cause.
In this case they found that kiddy porn had been sent to someone else from this guys IP, they used this fact as probable cause to search his room were they found cd's full of kiddy porn.
So this is not saying that the police can barge into someones house just because the have an open WAP, it is saying that if someone has an open WAP and something illegal is done via that open WAP then the police have probably cause to search the location of the WAP and I think this is perfectly reasonable, we are talking about probably cause here not conviction, I would have a problem if someone was convicted on just the evidence of a IP address period regardless of the presence of an open WAP, but I do not have a problem with this being considered cause.
In a somewhat applicable analogy it is like getting a warrant to search an apartment after witnesses claim a man in that apartment had shot someone on the street, true the man might not be the apartment owner, but the fact that part of the crime did happen in the apartment is certainly probably cause to search the apartment.
Wait a minute... shouldn't the lower court have ruled it an illegal search?
To make an analogy (albeit somewhat of a stretch): Suppose "Joe" owns a coffee shop with a computer, and has a pile of copied music/movies in a storeroom. Someone walks in and uses his own Yahoo account to send child pornography from a flash drive. The FBI traces the IP address (not the Yahoo account!) to me and obtains a warrant for a search. They can't find the images on the hard drive (let's say it's write-protected) but finds the illegal/pirated CDs/DVDs. And they charge him for that.
Or the situation could be hidden child pornography in Joe's house. It should be the same. And yes, the evidence is illegal in both cases, and child pornography is despicable. But aren't the initial grounds for the warrant at fault?
I'm assuming the lawyer tried that with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, but must have been unable to bring that up due to a technical reason. Obviously, he or she is a lawyer, and I'm not.
In this case the issue at hand is whether the physical media containing child porn that were found in his room could be used against him. The arguments with regards to OpenWEP would cover incidental usage but here he is actually in possession of physical media not just an access point that was used.
As stated in the article the question on appeal is whether the use of the AP was sufficient grounds for a search warrant to be executed on the home. The catch is that this is different than the question of whether OpenWAP == Probable Cause. In the case of the former the issue is that someone on the network was in possession of Child Porn so the argument goes that the first, natural, place to look is the person who owns the network itself.
If, on the other hand the latter was the case then simply having an openAP would be sufficient to trigger an investigation, that was not the case here. As such the headline and title article are somewhat misleading.
Anyone else seeing reasonable doubt flying out the window with this crap decision?. The slope just got one HELL of bit more slippery!
Note that the article mentioned CDs and not DVDs. If you are going to talk about quantity of images stored, please read the article and get the media type correct.
Still, even if CDs were the media being used, that is still a lot of pictures of a subject that is reprehensible.
There is no smell to unwanted activity on a WAP
You'll notice this funny little bit:
Open WiFi networks represent a potential maelstrom of scum and villainy, according to some people. SCO chairman Ralph Yarro recently told the Utah legislature that the state should regulate WiFi networks, even to the point of banning free and unintentionally open networks.
Who would know better about sco^hum and villainy?
The heading in the article is completely wrong. From the contents
"In particular, they didn't buy Perez's arguments that a "mere association between an IP address and a physical address is insufficient to establish probable cause"
The primary evidence in this case was the instant message from his IP address containing a child porn pic not the open WAP. The police then had probable cause to execute a warrant against the premises associated with the ip address. Specifically the judge ruled that the Open WAP was no defence against the previous assertion of probable cause.
I guess the headings were added by an editor or sub-editor after the main article was written, perhapps with the view to getting a slashdotting hmmm.
The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
The first part of the article focused on a court decision that merely said that the vicinity of an IP address of a recorded crime is sufficient to give police probable cause. I reluctantly agree with the reasoning, while slippery slopes are inviting to law enforcement, if there is indeed a provable crime linked to an IP address, it is LIKELY that it happened where the router is. That is, by definition, "probable cause." Probable cause is not a suspicion that "john doe" is committing a crime, it is a legal precedent that allows police to search a premises without a warrant because they have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed.
Personally, I would argue that probable cause does not apply here because there is an understanding that probable cause is an "emergency procedure" that police may use to stop a crime that is in progress. Since they had enough evidence to go after the guy after the fact, they certainly had enough time to get a warrant and there was no emergency condition to violate the rights of the individual.
The Yarro law is nonsense, even if you don't have an "OpenWap" there are so many wap systems out there with known security issues, you could easily make the legal argument that if it is criminal negligence to have an open wap, then wap companies, linksys, dlink, et. al. are criminally negligent for providing waps that are default open *AND* not providing services to maintain the security of the router for a documented period of time.
Once there is precedent that lack of REAL security (i.e. actually preventing unauthorized illegal activity) is "criminal negligence," EVERYONE in the tech industry is in danger, and at the top of that list is Microsoft. And you know there is no way Microsoft will allow a precedent that links failed security and criminal negligence.
If a bug in software allows criminal activity, you should be able to prove that you had no knowledge or control of the software. In fact, most EULAs explicitly state you may not disassemble the software, so you have a provable case that there is no way you could know and that the software provider is actually the one who is criminally negligent.
Is that you OJ? :-)
Summary of the events form the article...
Someone at IP address X which is assigned to Javier for a period of time sent kiddie porn, via Yahoo IM, to someone in New York. Somehow the FBI found out and raided the apartment of Javier. The yahoo account belonged to Javier's roommate, Robert. The apartment is raided and they are both arrested due to a collection of kiddie porn cd's they have.
Here's the thing. Javier was maintaining an open WAP. He claims that because it is open he has no responsibility for how it is used. He claims that makes the search warrant invalid.
IMHO the court is correct. They did not get the warrant based on the existence of the wirless access point. In fact, the wireless access point is immaterial. The warrant was obtained because kiddie porn camre from that IP address at a given time and the physical address was ascertainable. If the cops had arrived and only found two guys with no kiddie porn collection and an open WAP then there would be a case for wrongful arrest (assuming the cops arrested him in that case). In this case there was probable cause.
There is the temptation to ask about Javier's rights here. Is he responsible for Robert's sending kiddie porn over his WAP? I dont think so. Even if he had secured it and given his pederast roommate the logon info he STILL shouldnt be accountable. His freedom to offer bandwidth should be considered a free speech issue. This is primarily because open WAP's offer a channel for protected speech and therefore we cannot engage in prior restraint of that speech. that's important. Withholding special circumstances, We, as a nation, by Constitutional law, cannot prohibit free speech just because someone MIGHT abuse it. You can tell the guy with the megaphone he cant commit slander, incite riots, or announce his intentions to kill the president, but you cannot tell the guy handing out megaphones to stop.
The most important thing to notice about this case is slipping past everyone. The police and court know that Robert sent the offending IM. They raided the apartment and found all sorts of incrimintating stuff. Instead of assuming Javier's innocence they arrested him as well. This is the core issue. It should not be assumed that because your roommate is a pederast that you are too. The issue in this case is one that does not interest the editors at Ars Technica.
The real issue is that Javier is under arrest and trial for sharing a room with a pederast. This kind of fascism where the laws are designed to force individuals into spies and informers continue to propagate throughout our law system. The law has no right to expect every citizen to act as a member of the executive branch, yet laws which assume the guilt of "everyone in the room" continue to pass. Put a joint in an ashtray at a party and EVERYONE's guilty. A line of coke or a dime bag with crystal meth residue? Get the paddy wagon! Your roommate in college has a cd of kiddie porn? Hire a lawyer! Scared of guilt by association? Preempt the problem and turn them in! Who cares if your right or wrong, just stay safe! The law is designed so that if you have the slightest inkling of what's going on you're supposed to turn someone else in or be held accountable as well.
If we keep settling for this bullshit we'll slowly be conditioned into doing heinous things to innocent people.
You're right about that one. My bad, it did say CDs in the article, not DVDs, though I agree with your final line as well, not that it should really matter about numbers. Having them at all is reprehensible.
Rather they made the reasonable ruling that if someone does something illegal from your IP then the police still have probable cause to get a warrant. Hell, they probably didn't even go that far since as long as the police acted in good faith the warrant would be valid and the police likely didn't even know he had an open WAP at that point.
Calling this proof the open WAP defense doesn't work is the dumbest thing I ever heard. It's like claiming the defense, "I didn't do it my identical twin brother did it" won't work because the police will serve search warrants on both of you.
The police just need to have good reason to believe there will be evidence relevant to the investigation at that location. Given there is a high probability the person owning the account was using it this is a perfectly justified search.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
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.
Who would know better about sco^hum and villainy?
Han Solo would.
'course, he's probably off on Corellia or something.
Uhm, well, European gun laws tend to be a lot tighter, and several EU countries have national ID card systems. And like the other poster said, there are certain limitations on freedom of speech in certain countries, including such things as holocaust denial in Germany. Here in the UK, inciting racial or religious hatred is illegal (something I personally agree with). I would maintain, though, that freedom of speech is more respected here. Nobody gets called a traitor for opposing a war, for example.
Thing is, freedoms are pretty variable from country to country, the European Convention on Human Rights not withstanding. Even in the UK there are different rights in Scotland and England with regard to land access, and this is something I'm quite curious about - what land access rights do USians have?
Even if this prompts legislation to make open WAPs illegal, most people will undoubtedly break the law since the majority of people just don't know how to make the WAP secure, or find it too bothersome. I have talked to 3 people in my neighborhood about their open WAP and the responses were: 1.) What does that mean? How do I fix it? (I helped them secure it, and about a week later they asked me to undue it because of problems). 2.) I don't care, it is a pain to setup (we know it really isn't) 3.) I have nothing on my PC for people to hack, so what do I care. Surprisingly, the majority of people have some sort of security setup (I can see a good 5 or 7 WAPs) from my house.
The gun is a poor analogy, as it is extremely rare that a gun is handed around to strangers. Given it's ability to injure, and it's inability to be used by multiple people at the same time, it is a poor choice. For a better analogy, consider using something that is commonly shared among lots of people. How about a front yard. An open wifi is privately owned, like a front yard, but there is an implicit invitation for strangers to enter. Just like a front yard.
Should finding a picture containing kiddie porn found on someones front lawn, be allowed as probable cause for searching the home?
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.
I'd just like to say that while I agree fully with the above statements, I am not the one who posted them, and I think the person who did post them is a dickwad for logging out before doing so.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
As explained in this more detailed article about the issue, is that someone could harrass someone else by transmitting illegal material from an open WAP. It certainly has happened before. It's a lot harder to get away with a phony trail of blood leading to someone's door.
If I leave my keys in my car for anyone to use, that means I can't use it. Which is why you never see cars with keys left in them. If I leave my AP open for anyone to use, I can still use it. At worst, I have to close it if someone over uses the bandwidth, but even then it's immediately back under my control.
The fact that "my" IP is used for something illegal does not constitute probably cause.
A warrant stipulates *where* they may search. Any evidence they find is fair game, regardless of whether they knew they wanted it beforehand or not.
Why advocate "open" WAP? why not just use a... helpful ESSID? like "The Key Is: fuckTheRIAA"
If you RTFA, it says they raided his place and found CDs of child porn. Now it also says he had a roommate and that the IM that got them in trouble was sent from his roommate's account. Which should have made them investigate him as well, but that's another story.
Actually, the roomate is the whole story though it's difficult to get out of the Ars Technia article. Had the police searched everyone in the house, their probable cause argument would make sense - but they did not, focusing instead on the person identified by the ISP who was different from the person who committed the original offense. The evidence which should be questioned is that provided by the ISP, a name and address associated with a specific IP address and time. The original intent of the warrent was to find the person who sent a rude picture to a woman in New York, not to go on a digital fishing expedition. When the names did not match up, further investigation or blanket approval from the judge was required.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This is such bullshit.
The truth is that the "authorities" want every single person to be tracable every single time they use any form of electronic communication.
An analogy:
Let's say you live in a nice neighborhood and leave your gate to your property and some doors open. A stranger drags a child onto your property and does evil things.
The courts blame you - saying though you didn't actually commit the crime, your failure to secure your property enabled the commission of the crime...
This seems like an apt comparison. I think it's easy for courts to set bad precedents because of the fact that most of the people involved in these rulings barely understand the technology (if they understand it at all) and definitely don't understand the way it is actually used in the real world. If someone piggybacking a wi-fi connection can cause the owner of the router/ap to be charged with child porn - then certainly any other sort of computer offense (hacking a bank or govt website)could be blamed on them as well.
This is wrong - it's like a presumption of possible guilt placed on you because some unknown person who probably doesn't exist may do something bad - it trumps your right to run your network as you see fit, and could even get you in trouble. WTF?!?!?
Is this how we're going to run everything? Let the actions of very, very, very few - a comparitively infinitesimal number of people doing shitty things cause us to be under suspicion and rubber stamp probable cause? I guess that is the new paradigm in the US - especially every time someone does something "evil." You don't have a free and safe society by trying to ban everything and by putting the responsibility for criminal acts on the law abiding.
I manage both my home network and a corporate LAN - both have wired and wireless access points, and I always secure them and instruct family and friends to do the same for their home wireless setups - but, if I or somebody else wants to run an open AP - for whatever reason - whether it is technical, {which is a whole other argument, because even with security there are going to be moments, during setups and upgrades where your security isn't on if you're testing things) or you simply want to allow your friend next door access for a day without having to go over and set up security on their laptop.
I'm just tired to my bones of the incremental ushering in of the control grid; and this is more of the same - they don't want anybody being able to do or say anything without tracability.
I see it this sort of way:
If you get pulled over and the officer suspects s/he smells weed then they can almost certainly get a warrant to search your vehicle. Then while searching your car they find a body in the trunk, but no evidence of drugs.
This guy is essentially trying to argue that because the original warrant didn't turn up what the drugs they were looking for, then the body shouldn't be admissable as evidence in a murder trial
Informative? It is crap!! Add Spain to the list of countries in the EU where there is no rule about having an open WAP. I have never heard of any such rule in any country (EU or not) until this thread. Maybe be is confusing EU with USSR?
It only stipulates what they are looking for as a reason for the search in the first place. If they find anything else along the way, they're perfectly entitled to use it. If the warrant is for the house, and there's a dead body in the shed, the warrant doesn't give them the right to search the shed (but probable cause from the smell would).
Now, they still have to have a reason to seize anything not listed on the warrant. If it isn't immediately suspicious, they probably can't do anything about it (besides get another warrant). A bag of weed would be fair game, even if you had it hidden inside the couch, so long as a reasonable argument could be made that they were searching the couch for something that was listed on the warrant. The gun you used to shoot your mother in the ravine with wouldn't be (presuming you own it legally).
The article doesn't say that the open WAP is enough for sufficient cause. The child porn being sent from the IP was the sufficient cause. What the article says is that the defendant claimed that, since the open WAP means that it didn't necessarily come from _him_ that they shouldn't have searched his place and therefore his stack of child porn CDs should be inadmissible.
I'm of the opinion that if a crime is committed over someone's open WAP, they should be subject to a search warrant.
I usually don't read the articles either, but then again, I don't comment about something I didn't read.
Sorry if this was already pointed out. The comment nesting is so deep that I can't determine if anyone else responded directly to you.
Hey, I want a jury of peers!
Lawyer: I think this guy is good for the jury.
Me: Ask if he has ever read slashdot!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Tis a lesson to keep one's WAP shut.
Argh I couldn't resist.
I'm not going to argue the whole probable cause bit because it's already being well argued here. What I am going to do is present a simple solution to the problem of uninformed/lazy consumers with wireless rigs.
It's really quite as simple as the companies making these routers to write software that is to be run on the PC(s) to be used on the wireless network, which would gather all the necessary data from the PC(s), and then connect to the router, setting up WPA/WPA2 with a strong password (created by the consumer, with guidance towards a required password comprised of numerals, letters, and special characters), allowed MAC list, etc. To later add (an)other PC(s), one would merely need to provide the setup software with the password set on the router to allow it to send/receive config info. Voila! A working and fairly hardened/secure wireless network.
Now, would this actually stop the situation of the story from popping up? Not really. A WAP, open or not, is still going to have a specific IP. And if said specific IP was witnessed to be transmitting or receiving child porn, warez, or what have you, then probable cause for a warrant exists for the premises linked to that IP address. The WAP is immaterial.
Now it's time to start loading child pron seeking Trojans onto ALL politicians computers then, isn't it?
We can clean out this now wretched country in about 6 months!
In all seriousness: Can you provide links to people claiming that European countries are "more free" than the U.S.? I'm an ignorant USian and have never heard such things.
--
I guess you're a Christian?
Unlike Texas for example, in Europe the 18 million atheists can hold even the highest office.
The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. An official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
This form of religious intolerance is not limited to Texas. Seven other states (AR, MA, MD, NC, PA, SC and TN) all have similar exclusionary language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions.
In a few states whose constitutions include the text of the oath of office, the candidate must swear an oath to God. Such an oath would prevent ethical non-theists from taking office. Of course, non-ethical non-theists would have no problems with such an oath.
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.
... 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.)
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
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The biggest problem is the classification of some people as 'children'. The day someone turns 18 it doesn't magically make them a responsible adult. The line has been set as by age, but unfortunately that means very little. In fact, society would be much better off if there was a test that determined adulthood. It should cover: Common Sense, Ability to transport oneself, Ability to house, feed, and take care of oneself, Ability to do the same for others. Generally do things which are necessary in our society. Creating this test would eliminate the arbitrary line, one which says that you can suddenly make your own decisions, smoke, etc.
"The quickest way to end a war is to lose it" -Orwell
http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2005/04/freedom-of- speech.html
post
http://johngalt.joeuser.com/articles.asp?AID=88160
Bottom of page
Admittedly, not a lot, but they are out there.
Of course, Switzerland, which has more guns per capita than the US, has one of the lowest rates in the EU. Israel also has an extremely low rate barring SB deaths. Morover, the one town in america that adopted the guns in every home approach has lower crime rate than switzeland. The US has 3 times the non-gun murder rate of Britain. Guns are irrelevant, culture and the conditioning of children in responsibility for oneself is the only thing relevant.
Pffft, all athiests are just as irrational as television evangelists, if not more so. They must activly believe that absolutely nothing created the universe.
US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.
But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A Benjamin Smith was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherffs Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.
Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number? When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.
Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.
According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap 2510_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this
chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap 2510_2522.htm
or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA270 1_2712.htm
of this title for any person
(i) to intercept or access an electronic
communication made through an electronic
communication system that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily accessible to
the general public;
2510. Definitions ;
(16) readily accessible to the general public
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not
(A) scrambled or encrypted
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47 cfr25_04.html,
subpart D
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47 cfr74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47 cfr74.501.htm,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47 cfr74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47 cfr74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47 cfr74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11 is ruled by
part 15
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47 cfr15_04.html.]
I do tech support for Comcast and I constantly get people calling in for support problems who are having issues with thier wireless network. In 6 months only 3 of those people even knew that thier WiFi router had an internal web server. Only one knew how to changed the SSID and configure any type of security.
Heck, I get a lot of customers who blame every computer issue from system crashes, misconfigured wifi (when wired pc can connect) and not knowing thier windows system login on a bad internet connection.
no your not pulled over for speeding, your pulled over for cocaine falling from your friends stash in the bumper, and the cops find your stash in the glove compartment and don't even check the bumper.
The pervert in the article had kiddie-porn, the cops had probable cause to search for kiddie-porn because his room-mate, rod-ram was sending kiddie-porn out over the internet, the open WiFi was irrelevant. If the pervert didn't have CD's full of kiddie-porn, and the only evidence was packets going to an IP address and no residual on his computer's caches, then the open WiFi could be argued to a judge or jury to establish and reasonable doubt defense.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Why didn't he try to raise the argument that some IP's are dynamic and cannot always be traced to the right place?
It could conceivably work.
It is stupid to have you Wire Access Point (WAP) open anyways. It is no worst than have your fly open ;)
What about all of those free hotspots that we use, what is their responsibility?
If you leave you WAP open and someone external uses it to surf for images or other illegal stuff how can you really prove either you or someone did it? Unless you have the untouched NAT logs with the MAC addresses from your wireless router then you can have verifiable proof that you or someone was logged on to surf the net during that time to get images or other illegal stuff. I don't think that just have something open is not probable cause unless you have verifiable proof like untouched log from the wireless router. You cannot use the logs on the ISP logs since they only see up to the router and NAT not visible to the ISP.
Perhaps this is a bit biased, considering there is no mention in the summary of the stack of CDs containing child pornography found in the person's room that is claiming this defence. I'm sure that had something to do with this ruling.
...is not an issue when the question is the validity of a search warrant.
It would be an issue at trial, except that the defendant here entered a guilty plea (though it was conditional, because he was challenging the validity of the warrant which produced the physical evidence.)
What if the porn SAYS she's 18?!? How was I supposed to know until I downloaded it?
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Why must we believe anything of the sort? (a) we weren't there, so we don't feel any need to make up stories about it, (b) the fact that we hold no belief in any god or gods doesn't address universe creation in any fashion that I am aware of, (c) lacking belief in a god or gods in no way implies a lack of belief in the universe or the possibility that it is the result of some (of course, unknown) process. (d) science is cooking right along, and perhaps it will provide further insight into this question; until it does, we still don't feel any need to make up stories. You might even trouble yourself to wonder why that is.
In fact, the last time I looked at the Hubble deep space image, the idea of a god came to mind as straight-up humor. Sure some all-powerful dude put all that together. You bet. And stuck us out here on some rural limb of a mediocre galaxy. With Aardvarks, Platypus, Dodos and Octopi. Not to mention Scientologists. I laughed for about five minutes before I was able to get on with my day. :-)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
use both bs and bullshit
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Seriously, though, the Open WAP seems to have been a failed attempt to prevent a search which, according to other posters, turned up a LOT of highly illegal material which had been identified as having been downloaded to that IP address. The only way this could be compared to a school shooter would be if a homocidal gunman decided to advertise that all their firearms were for rent in an effort to claim the police had no cause to believe the gunman was the one who fired them.
"Probable cause" isn't the best system possible. It gets far too many who are innocent, and lets off far too many who are guilty. It's certainly open to abuse, and there's plenty of evidence that it has been abused. I would love to see more effort put into devising a better system, rather than just patching an inherently flawed approach. Patches only get you so far before the bugs introduced by patching exceed the bugs fixed by the patches. However, in this case it seems to have been entirely applicable and correct.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I think they would have to appeal the warrant separately (to the issuing judge, not the trial judge). There would probably have to be something significantly wrong for this to go forward.
Otherwise, regardless of how wide the warrant was, the trial judge could only throw out things definitely outside that warrant. I think. IANAL et al.
What the fuck do long distance bills have to do with Open access points ?
"The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. An official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
This form of religious intolerance is not limited to Texas. Seven other states (AR, MA, MD, NC, PA, SC and TN) all have similar exclusionary language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions."
What you are forgetting is those laws were proposed by the people, and than voted on democratically by the people. If that is what the people of those states want, and use a democratic process to get there, what is wrong with that? Are you saying people in Europe know what is better for Texas than the people living there?? If enough people in the states you mentioned shared your view, they could democratically remove or change the law. I know, letting people say what they want and decide amongst themselves what laws they want may seem a little crazy to Europeans, but not to Americans.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Well, yes, I do in fact believe that absolutely nothing created the universe. And a non-atheist believes that absolutely nothing created god, which then created the universe. Either God is not a fundamental part of the universe, or we already agree.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
The simplest of logic can point out that causality didn't need a cause. I don't need god to exist, I don't need him not to. Lacking any evidence of either case, I'll pick the version that requires I make up the least amount of stuff. "Nothing did it" sounds like the minimum.
With no scientific backing, I believe that the idea of God was first conceived of when trying to get a two-year-old to shut up and go to bed.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All