Hacker News Reader

Comment by linsomniac | Hacker News Reader

My BIL used to work CP with the DHS, a tech going in heavy with the first wave to secure devices.

I asked him if he had ever run into Tor exits, he said no, but they did sometimes run into people with unsecured wireless that had been used by third parties and once it was clear that was what happened it was pretty much dropped. I'm sure they would have ways to deal with people leaving their WiFi open as a way of camouflaging their activities...

He also said that one thing they're usually do if there are multiple people in the house is sit them all down on the couch and say "We are here because someone has been downloading CP", and often everyone would turn and look at one person.

View on HN

>everyone would turn and look at one person

So the person everyone thinks would do it is pronounced guilty. I don't see any way that could go horribly wrong.

It at least gives you an idea of where might be fruitful to begin your investigation...

That's likely the starting place for the investigation, not the end.

You don’t want to be a suspect though as now you need to hope they will play fair.

> I asked him if he had ever run into Tor exits, he said no, but they did sometimes run into people with unsecured wireless that had been used by third parties and once it was clear that was what happened it was pretty much dropped.

Could one have open Wifi "accidentally" (on purpose) as a defence mechanism against one's own actions to introduce reasonable doubt?

Bruce Schneier in 2008:

* https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/my_open_wirel...

Yes, but it is a very weak defense that can be smashed e.g. your device is seen communicating with the BSSID of the closed wifi, or your mac address (open wifi) is seen communicating with surveilled target.

Maybe in 2008 this was plausible, but it was also plausible to disguise one's self and walk to mcdonald's free wifi with a burner wifi card and/or Kali Linux. With the proliferation of surveillance devices everywhere it becomes an uphill battle

In college I used this excuse when my apartment buildings self managed wifi cut off my internet for torrenting. I just went into the office and was like “a torrent? Idk what that is…”. But it wasn’t anything more official than a guy in my apartment’s office’s ability to turn my internet back on. I didn’t even have to prove I had an open Wi-Fi network.

I had a similar lockout problem but it was because I hit a honeypot when port scanning the entire university network for fileshares.

> and often everyone would turn and look at one person.

Probably falsely assuming it's the 12 year old son instead of the 35 year old father.

This sounds far more like a roommate situation than a semi-nuclear family. Still applies, albeit less so. Not like looks are real evidence, but it points them the right direction.

> This sounds far more like a roommate situation than a semi-nuclear family.

Think again.

If there's someone in the house who downloads CP, do you think that person's kids don't know who it would be?

I struggle to imagine the cops bringing a family together in a living room to accuse them collectively of downloading CP. Any halfway competent parent is going to utter the words "I want a lawyer and you do not have permission to talk to my children" way before the cops sit anyone down.

>and often everyone would turn and look at one person

Slowly, like in sitcoms and cartoons?

How often do they raid a residence and find nothing?

I have no firm data on it, but he did mention some cases where there was CP but it wasn't clear where it was coming from (open wireless situation I mentioned), and it sounded like they didn't pursue it once it was obviously not the resident.

What he said sounded like they didn't go into a place without having evidence of CP already though, things like "This IP address has uploaded CP to these locations at these times" evidence.

What's BIL?

Brother-in-law

Reply on news.ycombinator.com