According to the press release from last week’s Crimes Against Children Conference, Sergeant Dave Mathers couldn’t be happier with the product.
AirCheck is a simple, elegant, and easy to use tool that aids in locating suspects on wireless networks. The tool easily verifies wireless network settings, providing us with more confidence that we’ve identified the suspect’s location. Using this information, we can eliminate more variables while focusing on the suspect downloading the illegal content.
So easy! Now anyone can catch a predator!
After powering on, the AirCheck immediately registers all of the wireless networks in the area and allows you to monitor signal strength, bandwidth, and the number of connected computers. AirCheck also comes with a wand-like antenna, which allows you to track any device connected to the network like a honing beacon.
It’s a useful tool for the office IT guy, and maybe even for wandering around my apartment so I can figure out which of my roommates is using all our bandwidth, but how’s it going to help the cops?
Assuming the police have figured out the IP of the suspect–usually from the ISP by way of a warrant–they’ve still got to make sure they get the right user on that IP. Not so hard you say? Well creepy cyber-criminals, crafty bunch that they are, like to do sneaky things like latch onto the unlocked networks of their unsuspecting neighbours. Basically, before the cops bust down a door to nab a suspect, they use AirCheck to make sure they’ve got the right person.
According to the guide for law enforcement [PDF] , there is a very specific scenario in which the gadget will save the day. Once police have identified the suspects location, they stake out the area and figure out when the illegal porn downloading begins based on the corresponding spike in bandwidth on the AirCheck. The police officers can then follow their antenna to the source to seize the suspect.
But as we all know, in any given area there can be countless wireless networks, which are all connected to many computers, several of which will be transmitting lots of data at the same time. You already tracked the (alleged) creep to within the throw of a Wi-Fi signal. Why spend nearly $US2000 for a device that in the best case eliminates a single variable from the equation? [PR Newswire via Networked World]
Frank
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 11:18 AMThis comment has been deemed inappropriate and has been deleted
Jonathan
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 11:40 AMThere is no difference. Regardless of your age, if you are viewing material of minors depicted in a sexual nature, you are breaking the law. Not only in viewing the material, but in that you support the abuse of minors to create such material. There is no way you can spin it to justify the means.
olearymo
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 11:46 AMI think you mean there is a difference – as in, an 18 year old looking at a 13 year old is different from being gay straight old or young.
Never mind I’m just nitpicking, or I may have misread.
Anyway, Frank… um… if you don’t see the problem in that scenario? You should probably talk to someone about it. It’s not acceptable in society and if you don’t acknowledge that you could find yourself in some very deep trouble one day.
wsDK_II
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 12:24 PMWhat about if a 13 year old girl at school sends sexual images to her friends, and some of them pass it on to others?
Also olerymo, Frank may be wrong today, in societies view; But remember when being gay was also bad? (early 1900′s for example).
what if one day this is considered ok? (as long as it is consensual)?
world is fucked up anyway, what else could go wrong?
FSM
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 7:22 PMwsdk_II, funnily enough at the same time being gay was banned, having sex with 13yo’s was perfectly acceptable :P
olearymo
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 7:42 PM“What about if a 13 year old girl at school sends sexual images to her friends, and some of them pass it on to others?”
Do you REALLY think that’s what this article is about?
Okay, so you’re saying in 100 years child porn will be legal? God, is this the twilight zone?
Steve
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 7:58 PMDon’t even use the gay analogy to defend paedophila. One involves the consensual relationship between two adults. The other involves often the involuntary, or in the ‘voluntary cases’ (statutory rape) taking advantage of youth, inexperience and naivety.
There’s a reason why age of consent exists and no, it’s not just some arbitrary legal mumbo jumbo. Prior to this threshold, responsibility and maturity still haven’t caught up to physical development.
olearymo
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 8:11 PMthankyou Steve, finally someone sane.
olearymo
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 11:48 AMAlso, Frank, even though what you described is illegal (depending on the way the image is taken/displayed), what the article is talking about is stuff that is specifically more serious – younger, abused children, and highly organised and malicious groups sharing images thereof.
Don’t try to slant or spin things, and don’t try to ‘downplay’ abuse. Abuse doesn’t have to be physical striking.
olearymo
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 11:49 AMAlso, humans and animals together?! I’m pretty sure that’s illegal too!
Actually, Giz, you may want to consider deleting this guy’s comment and our responses? A bit concerning.
wsDK_II
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 12:22 PMWhy delete it? and your responses?
i dont understand – we (in america) have freedom of speech, and it is one of the last remaining aspects of America that i like.
Please keep the comments, and freedom of speech – i will always stand up for the right to say whatever is on my mind, and your mind.
olearymo
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 12:50 PMFreedom of speech and the promotion of illegal activities are two different things.
If I stood on the street and told everyone that it’s okay to look at kiddie porn and that we should murder people, that’s not really in the spirit of ‘freedom of speech’.
wsDK_II
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 1:46 PM@ olearymo
Why cant you say it? just cause it is incorrect doesnt mean you shouldnt be able to say it. Besides, if you were to stand on a street and shout those things people will probably tell you to F* off. You would lose your friends, not be able to get a job and your life would be ruined.
free speech FTW!
Steve
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 7:52 PMFreedom of Speech is not a ‘get out of prison card’ for saying whatever you want. Freedom of Speech implies a mutual respect of voice, NOT malice and condoning harm upon others (as is often the case with child porn or hate speech).
Maybe you should brush up on your rights before using them as a paper shield. The only thing you possess is the the freedom from thought persecution. Ie. Think about kiddy porn all you want, if it floats your boat. But When you begin publicly condoning it, or acting it…
Jade
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 3:40 PMWhy shouldn’t people be able to say it? Yes they are disgusting things to say, but no matter what they say people should always have the right to say it. As long as they don’t practice activities they think should be legal, they should be able to campaign for it as much as they want. Free speech also gives people a much better indication on who to avoid and stay clear off.
olearymo
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 12:52 PMhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations
All things within reason, dude.
Steve
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 7:47 PMKiddy porn apologist spotted.
Because there’s a huge goddamn difference between an 18 and 13 year old. 5 years is very little later in life, but at that age, it’s the biggest 5 year difference in maturity and responsibility. A 13 year old is basically a child, an 18 year old is an adult, and not by some arbitrary legal standard, but is roughly the end of sexual development.
And don’t even attempt to dilute the crime of child porn, by using the most innocuous example. The overwhelming majority of paedophiles are a lot older than 18.
Are you a member of NAMBLA too?
LMFAO
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 5:04 PMAll people who participate or condone child pornography in any way should be publicly flayed.
Hows that for freedom of speech.
Ruen
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 7:11 PMPretty much par of the course actually
NaE
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 5:52 PMThe problem I see with this thread is people are linking being gay and the issues that gay people went through, to pedophilia, which is an absolute BS point to argue.
They are nothing alike.
olearymo
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 7:40 PMonly Frank is linking them, NaE.
The only problem I have is with the guy claiming kiddie porn is okay, and I’m being told by everyone it’s his ‘right’ to say that.
Lovely. And so what happens if he convinces someone to molest a child? Oh, it’s okay! It’s freedom of speech.
FSM
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 7:46 PMI have an issue with the way paedophelia is applied, such as people saying Frank is sick etc for his example.
Paedophelia is about pre-pubescent attraction, 13 is not usually pre-pubescent, is ludicrous to call someone a paedophile for admitting attraction to someone who is going through or gone through puberty.
All throughout nature you see animals hitting puberty and becoming sexually active, usually with a male at the height of his physical prowess (about 35 for human males).
We have obviously decided that this isn’t the best thing mentally in the society we have, which I agree with.
But feeling and acting on are two different things, you are not sick for feeling attraction towards those who have hit puberty.
For those who haven’t yet hit puberty, yes you have a problem, hopefully one day we will have a way to prevent/cure this as there is clearly something going on upstairs that isn’t normal.
olearymo
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 8:08 PM“Paedophelia is about pre-pubescent attraction”.
Yes, technically it is. According to Wikipedia, that means under 11 years of age.
So by your logic, if someone has photos on their computer of 11 year old girls naked and engaging in sexual activity, that’s cool? I mean, it’s not ‘paedophilia’ by definition! So… carry on!
What an interesting viewpoint, FSM.
I am certainly not a believer in the ‘any slightly strange thoughts and kill them!’ school of thought. But the thing is, Frank coming into an article about ACTUAL child pornography, and saying something like that…
I mean, really! Do you not get where I’m coming from?
Steve
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 8:13 PMNo-one’s persecuting people for feeling a certain way. If there’s anything I’m a firm believer in, it’s that there should never be such a concept as a ‘thought crime.’
But it’s not as black and white as that. Children are being victimised and sold as sex slaves to fuel the lust of a deviants. Child porn is not a victimless crime.
Steve
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 8:11 PMThere are only two people here attempting to link homosexuality with paedophila. People will use any sort of historic example to defend their personal vices.
“Fat is the new Black” (what a spit in the face to the civil rights movement that was)
and now the shameless attempt to justify sexual relations with a minor to consenting sex between two adults capable of making informed choices.
bob
Thursday, August 18, 2011 at 12:51 AMuhm, frank, get help.
although legally, sometimes people who are charged with ‘pedophilia’ related offences are ‘wrongfully’ done so (ie. 17yr old sleeping with 15 yr old etc.), pedophilia should and will never be accepted as a mainstream sexual orientation.
Many sexual fetishes or orientations are generally harmless (ie. homosexuallity, weird positions/acts etc., furries, hentai)
but there are some fetishes that harm the people involved:
rape (genrally a power display by the perpotrator)
pedophilia (atraction towards children that dont have the judgement skills to make sexual decicions or are not even sexually developed)
BDSM
and Beastiality (i put these last because there are only victims depending on ur point of view/how these fetishes are gone about)
While i am against the witch hunt against pedophiles in society today, pedophilia is a orientation/fetish that needs to be treated before the person harms someone around them
olearymo
Thursday, August 18, 2011 at 9:19 AM+ a million bob, this basically sums up my thoughts.
It comes down to the fact that innocent people are harmed.
Can’t believe we all had to go through an entire page of ridiculous comments to get to that point.
bob
Thursday, August 18, 2011 at 9:51 PMlol, his comment got deleted ne way bahaha