What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
My wife likes to take pictures of everything. Got any ideas? view!
bestbuy.com - With a Kodak(r) EasyShareTM 3X Zoom, she'll have impressive 10.2-megapixel performance, right at her fingertips
121 Comments
- kodek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+57I dare them to raid the owner of 127.0.0.1. Heheh.
- andynms, on 10/12/2007, -3/+51I love the Shaq angle on this story. Can you imagine Shaq knocking down your door and taking your computer?
- RunnyBabbit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+48Did he open up a can of Shaq Fu?
- Wolf451man, on 10/12/2007, -0/+43Knockless entries should be the exception, and possibly only for a capital crime warrant.
Shaq was looking for pirated copies of NBA Live 99.
Now that I've said that, apparently out judges and law enforcement need a lesson or two in network topology. - wicketr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33Why was Shaq there?
+++++++
Apparently they had an illegal copy of Kazaam on their computer that they were sharing. - NCSUGavin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+36"As the Nuckols family and Bedford County Sheriff's Department found out, that data is not always accurate"
WRONG WRONG WRONG!
"Some time after the search warrant was executed, we were notified that Fairpoint had misread the court order and done a wrong conversion on the time."
The data was RIGHT it was just simply MISREAD - blankman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33Yes he is: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10397089/
- halfcockedjack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31Looks like they updated the story to confirm that
1. Shaq was indeed present (I would have crapped myself)
2. It was the ISP's fault for giving the sheriff's department the wrong information.
I wonder if a lawsuit will be forthcoming? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27Why in the hell was Shaq there? Is he a voulenteer cop or something?
- stevekeller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23PWNED% 100.00
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25WTF? Why was Shaq there?
- enzyte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Fairpoint Network Technician - "Who had this IP at 9:00 PM? Do I add or subtract 5 hours to these logs for UTC? Does UTC have daylight savings time? I'll check Wiki..."
End sarcasm - shelby1076, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19That is my dream. Not only would be the Sheriff's office be liable, but so would Shaq. I sudder to think how many lottery tickets that litigation could buy!
- modian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Shaq Stats:
PPG 10.8
RPG 4.50
APG 1.5
EFF +10.50
FT% .469
IP% .000 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15***** police, they should use dogs next time to sniff the good ip :P
- rageguy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+24.. and did Aaron Carter come out of the blue?
- MrMysterious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Shaq is a volunteer deputy in Miami. So he very likely could have been busting the door down.
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16".. and did Aaron Carter come out of the blue?"
An Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny reference got dugg down? Shameful... - chichin0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Shaq is a cop... in case you didnt know.
- webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9And the reason I run an open WiFi access point is... plausible deniability. Oh yes.
I put the open WAP on a different VLAN to my actual LAN. Anyone using the open WAP gets about 10KB/s and only 'net access. I turn logging off.
Of course, someone could say, surely a knowledgeable user such as yourself, having such a setup, should secure both access points? Well, of course, it's for older hardware that doesn't accept a WPA2 key. Like my PDA, or an initial install of Ubuntu. - yankehoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Shaq was really there:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/heat/2005-05-25-shaq-undercover_x.htm - maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I hope Shaq has better aim with a gun than a basket ball
- ElGuano, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9gmprunner: It is unfortunate, but being the target of a police raid (i.e. search and seizure) is a HUGE deal to more than just a few people. This is an important part of our civil liberties in the United States, and is one of the few that are explicitly protected in the Constitution. The police have a Constitutional obligation and duty to get it right, and the fact that they were led down the wrong path by the ISP resulted in much more than just a minor inconvenience to the victims; they busted into a home without reasonable cause. With the power that the police already hold, letting them get off with a "it wasn't our fault" excuse is opening the door to a rash of abusive possibilities. The point is, if the police have the authority to enter your home and seize your property, we as citizens must have the right to ensure that they are getting their evidence correctly and doing the job right.
- stevekeller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8correct me if I am wrong:
sure, the ISP could tell the police which customer was issued the IP address, but wouldn't the computers MAC address be the only way to show that it was one of your personal computers accessing the information. there are tons of open wifi hot spots, I could use my neighbors access point to download illegal content. how could it be possible to prove that a specific computer was downloading content solely based on your external IP address? - jhunt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Then you would know that the police got false information from an ISP after the ISP was served with a subpoena to produce the subscriber info for an IP.
So how exactly are the cops dumbasses? - ElGuano, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9What does this have to do with the inaccuracies of IP addresses? Looks like the system was 100% accurate, the ISP just looked up the wrong data.
Maybe confused articles like this will lead to the police getting statewide automated IP-ID database, without having to go through an ISP's "error-prone" personnel. And what good would that do for privacy and the 4th amendment? - dstz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Me my wife and kids being raided by a military equiped thought police for child pornography, that a ***** star comes with them doesn't really make for a better moment. But maybe thats just me, maybe because I'm not american and stuff.
- dziban303, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7See, this is why I prefer doing all of my Internet Activity of Questionable Legality on my neighbor's wireless networrk.
But seriously, am I the only person who would have laughed if Shaquille O'Neal executed a search warrant on my house? - littleidiot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10i believe shaq was there so he could earn a little money before christmas ;)
- Yage2006, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Well if your not dong anything wrong you should have nothing to fear from a police raid :)
Isn't security America's #1 priority now ?
/Sarcasm Apathy - crackhammer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Shaq - the new Elvis
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This article is misleading, and it is obvious that many of the commenters took the bait. This is NOT a problem of the government or police officers "not understanding technology" as on comment says. This is simialr to if a phone company gave the cops the wrong phone number.
The IP the cops were given WAS the house that they raided. This is NOT an example of how an IP does not tie down a specific home address. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"How long before no one respects our current form of government and law enforcement?"
What time is it now? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Read the article first, and then decide if you still want this comment to appear next to your name.
My guess is no. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Celeron..if you read the article, then that makes the fact that you posted what you did even WORSE.
It would be better for your credibility if it had been simply that you got fooled by the intentionally misleading title/description. But instead it is you not understanding a very simply fact.
That the cops did NOTHING wrong in this case. They raided the house they were told to BY THE INTERNET COMPANY! In other words...the samrt TECHNOLOGY company screwed up. Not the "dumb cops" who don't know nothin' 'bout 'puters. - ElGuano, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Good question. I think in a situation where the police rely on obtaining information from a source that is unverifiable or in the control of a third party (an ISP, phone company, retailer, etc.), there should be procedures to first double-check the information before a search/seizure under the 4th amendment, or a legal mechanism to hold the third party liable civilly for damages due to these kinds of errors, or possibly a rule that the police need to do more research based on the information they've been given (get a warrant for electronic surveillance before busting down the front door), though the latter may be too high of a bar for effective law enforcement. The former two seem reasonable to me.
- rdotson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There are places where the headline would have read:
SHAQUILLE O'NEAL SHOT AND KILLED BY RESIDENT DEFENDING HIS HOME AND FAMILY IN RAID AT WRONG ADDRESS - skatingrox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Xombie Abraham Lincoln! Oh the humanity!
*faints* - burke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Did he get flattened by the batmobile?
- Branden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You don't know the name of your ISP? It said in the article that Fairpoint is the company that goofed up.
- gheide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The biggest problem right now with any IP based law enforcement is that a lot of people use VNC to remote control their systems at home/wherever. I myself used VNC quite a bit until I found out that somebody had been using my networked drives for their French Dubbed Movie storage due to a VERY SEVERE authentication vulnerability in VNC (too bad I don't speak French)... Just this weekend I set up a honey-pot with the bad VNC build on it and within an HOUR I had over FIFTY IP addresses all remotely accessible via the modified client with no password. Do a search on google for BL4CK VNC - you'll see what I mean... I found school surveilance systems, doctor's computers, default XP loads, etc... All remotely controllable through the desktop... so If I was criminally inclined to setup an FTP share on any of those systems, and the RIAA traces activity to that vulnerable system, the owner of said system is pretty much screwed (not me)... We need to educate these non-geeks that are stomping all over our rights and make them aware that this type of thing is happening...
- spiderfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We can only hope that ipv6 will never make it!
- ih8regs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3IQ: 60
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Maybe the cops should be more careful about evidence that is not collected by the police?
During raids, people are sometimes accidentally killed, property is damaged, lives and jobs are affected.
Maybe, when you plan on something like that you should be very careful about what 'evidence' is there and do your best to prevent mistakes.
Making a phone call and not looking at the log means that the target of the raid was based on ONE person; and that person was not a trained police officer. There is no way to ensure that the individual is trained in proper evidence handling.
Based on this story, you could take out your favorite politician with simple IP spoofing - qwab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You mean to tell me there is respect for our current form of government and law enforcement? Dayum, news to me!
/Sarcasm - willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Funny, I thought Janet Reno was gone by then
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So, you are saying that its the ISP's fault that the police let the ISP do the job of the police?
There are people whose job it is to collect and process evidence, such as police officers, forensics, and medical examiners. Trusting some yahoo, with no forensics training, from an ISP to gather evidence, and then to get a warrant on that evidence is what most people would call sloppy and careless.
Granted, the judge who issued the warrant based on evidence gather by someone in that position holds an equal amount of responsibility as the police.
The judge is supposed the be the check, in that system. He failed by not requiring the police to at least validate the evidence. - theDevilsDue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree, sort-of...what if someone has a child in their home and is raping them and recording it on video to pass on to all the other sick ***** in the world. Should law enforcement just hang out and try to catch the criminal doing something wrong outside of the home? No.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 125 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is