Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open WAP = Probable Cause?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the summon-sam-waterston dept.

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."

6 of 466 comments (clear)

  1. Accept Jury Duty by gleather · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Accept Jury Duty by jimstapleton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And that 1 time out of 100 where it's a tech case, you'll get booted because you have a clue about the subject matter.

      Remember, Justice isn't just blind, it's also retarded.

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    2. Re:Accept Jury Duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Either that or they don't want people who think "Having a brain" means "Being disrespectful of authority on principle"

  2. Something is fishy here.. by EveryNickIsTaken · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. The Stack of Kiddie Porn DVDs convicted him... by Erioll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

  4. If you did what you suggest by mcg1969 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.