[funsec] Bizarre Story of the Day: 'Wrong IP Address' Leads to Sha q Attack on I nnocent Family

Drsolly drsollyp at drsolly.com
Wed Oct 25 10:51:43 CDT 2006

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Brian Loe wrote:

> On 10/25/06, Drsolly <drsollyp at drsolly.com> wrote:
> > Huh?
> >
> > The story that I read, says that it was a mistake. The police had an IP
> > address, but that doesn't give them a physical address. So they contacted
> > the ISP, who looked it up, and gave them the *wrong* physical address, and
> > the police did the raid based on that.
> >
> > An unfortunate mistake (on the part of the ISP), but not something that is
> > the fault of the police.
> 20 years ago the police would have conducted an investigation prior to

But they did, and that led them to a particulat IP address, which led them 
(via a mistake from the ISP) to a particular physical address.

> requesting a warrant (warrants typically require some kind of cause -
> but the level of cause has been lightened enough to make the process
> merely an inconvenience for law enforcement) and then gone in to
> gather more evidence.

But that's exactly what they did. Are you alleging that they raided 
without a warrant?

> Because of over legislating the war on drugs and MADD and all that,
> these gatekeeper processes hardly keep the animal that is government
> caged.
> >
> > So then they got the right address from the ISP, did the raid to the right
> > place, and caught a child pornogrphy distributor.
> >
> > So your wish that this type of person should be hunted down and shot, came
> > true, except that they haven't been shot, because they're entitled to a
> > fair trial first (and that's the protection of the individual rights).
> What about the innocent family's rights? That's what I was addressing anyway...

Their rights were safeguarded by their right to a fair trial, and the 
presumption of innocence.

More information about the funsec mailing list