4 ms·
That scares the shit out of me if I'm being honest. years ago I read an article by bruce schneier talking about how he ran an open home network so if someone a
by P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
That scares the shit out of me if I'm being honest.
years ago I read an article by bruce schneier talking about how he ran an open home network so if someone accessed illegal content he could claim it could have been anyone. His argument was that if it was secured the police would argue it had to have been him.
I got the point but disagreed.
a year or two later I was reading an article about a police officer that got convicted of accessing child pornography on the police computer systems. The chief of police was quoted as saying "we know it was him because he used his password".
My ass went home that night, opened up my home network, and I've ran it that way ever since.
of course it's not that simple, understanding why that chief of police was wrong (I'm not making any claims about whether that police officer did or didn't access that material) in his confidence is what caused me to suddenly strongly agree with Bruce Schneier.
So when I hear things like your dog story, I just know that confidence has to be misplaced, even if I don't fully understand why (although in this case I do).
- rnk 4y agoThose aren't really the same thing. You can go to the next level of detail on the password question. Was the officer reliably in the area, was his password well known, is it trivial for anyone to find the password. Whereas wifi at your home, there are endless ways to get it, plus did you share it with anyone.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agoGood luck making those arguments to law enforcement.
- toast0 4y agoArguing with law enforcement is a losing battle. You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride, etc.