police seize computers

[SpyCatcher]

I read the article (interesting) until I can read the actual filing for the search warrant.

I call Bulls*it......

There would be no credible method for the ISP to prove they lost a estimated $250k on existing network.

This is my opinion..you don't have to respect it, I don't have to respect yours. I will read yours without responding childishly.

[Soporific]

Well, what if they put all of these guys on their own network segment and monitored how many bytes of data were passed in one day. If that data exceeded what a (whatever connection speed they had) would actually be able to put through in a day, and by the sound of it they had full control over the pipe. They could charge them whatever amount they wanted to really. This isn't meant to be an argument. It's just what I would do if I suspected a few trouble makers were causing my network to bog. I doubt they will be successfully be prosecuted, however they just succeeded in scaring the bejesus out of another 90 percent of people they didn't arrest in this raid who were doing it on other parts of their network or other networks.

~S

[bug]

got a link to the article?

[TeenInternetAddict]

Here's the article (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=TO&Date=20020627&Category=NEWS03&ArtNo=106270073&Ref=AR) Spycatcher is talking about.

[SpyCatcher]

Good opinion soporific: let me ask this... in order for your scenerio to occurr 2k customers would have had to complain Simultaneous. Very unlikely...may be possible....

[Soporific]

SpyCatcher,

Just curious, but why would 2K customers need to complain? I would think their network administrators would notice where say one region had (just for arguments sake) 1000 customers. Their network capacity in that area has been 50% for months on end we'll say. Suddenly someone figures out how to uncap their network/modem and network usage shoots up to 85-90% average usage. And knowing they had not increased their customer base in that region by 40% they figure someone is robbing bandwidth, thereby setting up some process of weeding these people out. I would think that, versus customer complaints is what might have set it off.

~S

[Old Fart]

Spycatcher

Only one person needs to complain, if the technician he is complaining to is thorough.

Lets say one of my DSL customers complains about speed.

I run a program called MRTG, Multi Router Traffic Grapher. Simple, robust, IP assignable traffic monitor. Gives me realtime (every 5 minutes), daily, weekly and monthly graphing of circuits I assign it to monitor.

In running this prgram, I see circuit #1 is running high as far as bandwidth from the net to the customers on that segment of my network. If I have set up MRTG to monitor those individual IP addresses, I can tell easily who is sucking all the bandwidth.

Now my customers have a hard cap issue to deal with of 1.5 Mb, but if I were a cable provider, selling 1.5MB access on a line that will support 3 MB, and someone uncaps, it isnt hard to see who is breaking my TOS and the law by looking to see who got a DL speed of +1.5Mb.

It's not all smoke and mirrors, and yes, the ISP can tell who is abusing from a single complaint.

[SpyCatcher]

I believe I understand your point it may be easy to see who is using more bandwidth but to say the ISP has suffered 50k in losses in five months that is a reach.

If my math is correct that would equal nearly 6 mbs up/down 24/7 for five straight months from all thriteen homes..not impossible but highly unlikely. Based on what everyone here has posted in the past it is unlikely.

The reason I say this story is BS for several reasons.
1. 50k in losses the math does not add up
2. where is the filing for the search warrant "I want to read it"
3. the FBI would not get involved, their dollar value is 500k or high profile cases this is neither
4. If the ISP noticed five months ago some users were abusing their network why not just call them or turn off their service?

If by some chance the ISP did somehow prove they loss money in my opinion it would be from a poor customer service.


And by the way "old fart" I take expection to the last line in your post. "Before you call people stupid you may want to look in the mirror first - John Wayne Bobbit"

[Soporific]

Well, here's what I would say:

1. 50K in losses might be debatable, but either way they were stealing service, in which case they can probably charge whatever they feel like. Just because they are asking for 250K or stating it doesn't mean they will get it, 250K was their estimate. If they were all running server farms, then who knows?

2. Dunno, but it's probably public record in that jurisdiction. You should be able to look it up.

3. The FBI investigates interstate crimes, this is one.

Federal Statutes investigated by the FBI:

United States Codes (U.S.C.)
18 U.S.C. 875 Interstate Communications: Including Threats, Kidnapping, Ransom, Extortion
18 U.S.C. 1029 Possession of Access Devices
18 U.S.C. 1030 Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
18 U.S.C. 1343 Fraud by wire, radio or television
18 U.S.C. 1361 Injury to Government Property
18 U.S.C. 1362 Government communication systems
18 U.S.C. 1831 Economic Espionage Act
18 U.S.C. 1832 Trade Secrets Act


4. It's possible they didn't catch it until 5 months later. No one is perfect. The ISP I used to work at didn't catch a bug that enabled one login/password to dial up from 20+ different locations, and it wasn't because they were stupid.

~S

[Kip Patterson]

Well, the Toledo Blade is a reputable newspaper, and they are reporting on something that happened at a subsidiary or jointly-owned firm.

A similar report appeared on the web site of a local TV station and on Reuters.

Now, I have trouble with the $250k number also. But, the story doesn't make it clear what that refers to. If it is internet bandwidth, that would amount to perhaps 250,000 gigabytes, or 10,000 per offender. A 2megabit connection can do maybe 600GB a month, so it doesn't add up.

[SpyCatcher]

The search warrant can not be located in public records.

Interstate or not... the value of the crime would not get the FBI's attention. There have been reports of websites, ISP who have been the victums of 500k in esitmated losses or more the FBI did not get involved...with all that is going on in the USA presently this would not be a good choice/use of FBI man/woman power. If the FBI did get involved as a taxpayer I am offended at the waste and would call for the Ohio "agent in charge" job.

If the alledged did use "steal" bandwidth the goverenment/local police would have to prove the ISP was harmed / suffered monetary losses. Not going to be easy to prove...Did they 13 homes bring the ISP's network to a stand still? Did the 13 homes launch a DoS? Did the ISP lose customers because of poor connection speed or are the customers who shut off their service doing so becuase of poor prior service? There are many senerios for both sides I still find the story interesting but at this point not factual.

If the ISP was harmed does this mean cable users through out the USA can seek class-action status for poor/lack of connection speed from 3:00 pm to 5:30 pm, everyday there are brackets where connection up/down speed drops below 33.3 Consumers still have to paid for poor service.

4. Soporific: contradicts another poster factual information..........

[Soporific]

Well, out of curiosity, where did you attempt to locate the record?

It's the FBI's job to investigate interstate crime is why the FBI would get involved. A state trooper has no powers of arrest in a state outside of his own and if this theft occured in multiple states, they would be required to get involved I believe.

Well, if what Old Fart says is true, it would be easy to figure out a monetary loss based on traffic. They could be buying their bandwidth from another carrier, whatever price they are paying they could transfer that on to your bill/lawsuit and ask for damages for compromising their network. They may also pay a higher rate yet if they need bursted bandwidth to accomodate those uncappers. This is all speculation, as none of us really have the inside scoop though.

Regardless of whether they lost customers, were recipients of DoS attacks, or brought their network to a stand still, they were the victims of fraud which is quite illegal. You can't steal electricity from the power company and say "well they didn't lose any customers, so I didn't do anything wrong". Bandwidth is as much of a commodity as oil or gold, and probably will be traded just like it in the near future.

As far as the 3:30 to 5:30 window you are talking about, it was most likely agreed on at the start of the contract with said provider, that service may drop for certain periods of time, not to exceed x number of hours per month. And usually if either parties violate the Terms of Service agreement, either side has to pay or make some kind of restitution. If a customer complains that their ISP isn't meeting the TOS they are typically compensated in some way. Old Fart can probably add more to this, but this is what I've come to know as far as a TOS goes.

~S

[Soporific]

4. Soporific: contradicts another poster factual information..........

I'm not quite sure what you mean here?

~S

[Old Fart]

Spycatcher, when was the last time you paid the monthly contract price on an OC 3 connection to the net?

$50K of bandwidth charges to me in one month from uncapped modems possible? Hell yes. Especially if it were as widespread as the news stories indicate. If I were a cable provider these guys would have put me out of business by driving my overage charge through the roof.


As an ISP our connection to the backbone IS NOT FREE. Lemme send you my bandwidth bills for one month, Spycatcher, see if you think it is possible to run up a 50 thousand dollar loss in 5 months.


And by the way "old fart" I take expection to the last line in your post. "Before you call people stupid you may want to look in the mirror first - John Wayne Bobbit"

Most people would take exception to my quote. Apparently you took expection, which I have yet to find in a dictionary. Mr. Wayne was making a comment on society, not an attack upon a person.

I, on the other hand take exception to anyone who would quote John Wayne Bobbit, a man whose only claim to fame was beating and abusing his wife to the point she felt justified in taking the action she did.

Have a nice day.