The housemate's scheme didn't have to be elaborate in order for the spoofed MAC address to provide a smoking gun. It's dead simple. Beyond that, Tufts' theories are elaborate, or maybe a better word is torturous, but that's on them.
The more likely scenario is a straightforward remote-access trojan installed by a housemate. Every other detail then falls out socially.
Ultimately, prosecution of computer tampering continues to reek of "burn the witch!". With emotionally charged terms simultaneously used to focus blame by ascribing superpowers to the defendant, while deflecting any competing theories as too complex for anyone but the witch.
Point is, I can easily imagine a grumpy and misinformed IT person placing an unrealistic amount of confidence in a piece of evidence drawn from a MAC address.
I was on a jury for a case where a guy plead manslaughter down to reckless driving because IT supporting various police agencies was inept or working with ancient junk and a expert witness was unable to explain how NTP works.
The defense attorney was able to dazzle and jive his way to dismissing the evidence. This happens because the issues are complex and the practice of IT is so poor.
I've seen something similar in regards to a normal DUI case. The defense lawyer talking about 1970's RADAR tech in airplanes, NTFS filesystems, Windows Server, "md5 hashing protocols" and other items "related" to the case.
The judge was all sorts of confused and "phoned a trustworthy friend who worked in a fortune 500 company" for clarity.
That guy got out of a DUI after 5 x 2-3 hour sessions in court. 10+ hours of court to get out of a couple hundred dollar ticket, if that.
I really wonder what the lawyer fees were though. No way was he doing that for free or cheap. It was his first offense and this state is very lenient on DUIs.
Showed me exactly why I never want to be in court, on either side.
/leaving a lot of details out, but man, was it depressing to watch.
Spending many thousands of dollars on lawyer fees to get yourself out of a DUI can make a lot of sense unless you're in a jurisdiction that doesn't take DUI seriously. Of course it makes a lot more sense to only drive when bone dry sober.
>> jurisdiction that doesn't take DUI seriously
That describes where this was at perfectly. Which is why I had put
>> It was his first offense and this state is very lenient on DUIs.
I probably should have used a different word than lenient, but it is what it is.