Florida makes Texas look like Vermont.
That said, I personally doubt that this matter will come to any sort of trial. But my foundation for that is what reasonable people might do in their own interest. I have scant evidence for that.
I"ve heard that sometimes people steal pens from their workplace.
This is theft. A felony.
Employers should call the police on these people, and they can get a warrant, go in guns drawn and haul these people out to face the consequences.
Theft is theft. We cannot condone any illegal activities.
Modern IOS and Android devices do have a permanent MAC address, but they generate random ones for the different networks they connect to in order to prevent tracking. I’m not sure if Macs or Windows computers do it to, but there is no technical barrier to doing so. This behavior can be disabled, but in the latest versions of IOS and Android it is on by default. Generally the same randomized MAC address is reused for the same WIFI network so you aren’t having to constantly login to a portal and re-authenticate.
For IPv4 there is going to be a DHCP server somewhere on the network. In most cases it is going to be the home router or router/modem combination. The DHCP server will at a minimum keep a record of what MAC address is associated with which IP address that it has leased. Once the lease expires then there may no longer be any record. Some will keep a record and reuse the same address, so every time you come home your phone gets the same IP address. Others don’t, and you’ll get a new address every time.
Additionally, the security on home networks is very loose. Any device that connects to the network can just assign itself whatever (unused) address it feels like, and the router won’t have any record of that, except an ephemeral arp table, which will be gone a few minutes after the device stops generating traffic.
Someplace I saw (up thread?) that it was an IPv6 address, in which case it probably is working differently. In that case, the ISP assigns a /64 or /56 block of addresses to the network, and devices either self configure or are assigned an address in that block. Usually devices will get multiple IPv6 addresses, but will usually connect to the outside world with a private address, in which parts of the address are random. Another option is to use an IPv6 address derived from the MAC address, which as discussed early might itself be random.
So, there are several hurtles here. Does the state know the IP address where the message originated? Does the ISP who owns it know who they had assigned it to at the time it was used? Not all ISPs have accurate records, or they mess up the time, UTC vs EST, for example. If the IP address, or IPv6 /64 block, was assigned to her home determining which device sent the message from just the IP address is going to be near impossible.
Very long, sorry. So if the IP address used to send the message was given to the ISP, and they came back and said it came from her house, that would be pretty suspicious to me, and worth further investigation (if it’s worth even bothering to investigate at all). Of course an IP address is not a person, and the prosecution definitely does not want me on the jury if the only evidence they have is an IP address.
And that is all if we accept what the police and prosecutors are saying is true, and not just a story to harass her.
Last I checked, theft of >$1000 was a felony, and theft of a lesser amount wa a misdemeanor. That was in NY a couple of decades ago. It probably varies by state and may change over time.
But I doubt that stealing a pen is a felony.
Just like posting to a semi-public email list shouldn’t be a felony.
Absolutely agree, that’s outrageous to me.
Sorry to bump this after a month but I was reading a NY Times article about this yesterday and the final paragraph doesn’t so too good about her. I’m hoping she this does not reflect on her Covid info. Normal people don’t stalk exes.
NYT Article
Jones has encountered law enforcement before. She faces a pending misdemeanor charge of cyberstalking a former romantic partner in 2019, to which she has pleaded not guilty, court records show. Another cyberstalking charge and a sexual cyber-harassment charge stemming from the same incident were dropped. Previous charges against her of criminal mischief, trespassing, robbery and contempt of court for violating a domestic violence injunction were also dropped
Of course it doesn’t, the SDMB already concluded that she is a hero above reproach.
So, even if she did access the network: What’s the evidence that that access was unauthorized? She used a password that she was knowingly and deliberately given, and that password was never disabled. That looks to me like she was still authorized.
Apparently breaking news says she faces a pending misdemeanor charge, so we are stupid for believing anything she has to say anymore.
I guess this is the yardstick we are supposed to use.
I bet she was on the crackaPCPajuana too!
Don’t forget a bunch of other misdemeanor charges – that were dropped.
She probably makes shitty cornbread too.
Wow Dopers. Do you know a lot of people that have had 5 criminal charges against them? I don’t. Lest you forget, cyberstalking is a big deal on the left, as it should be. And robbery and contempt of court? Come on, this is not normal behavior for a person. We have called on people to resign office for less than this.
Someone just might want to read up on the genetic fallacy . . . 'cause they’re using it.
Yes. I think perhaps you lead a somewhat sheltered life; good for you.
“Where there’s smoke…”
Ok, campers, time to invest in smoke machines!
Criminal Case
As I thought, the charges seem to have been dropped because she had a plea deal, which is normal. It seems the plea deal was pulled before the raid on her home. Also, though I can’t verify it, some sites say the person she stalked was a student of hers.
I grew up in a shitty part of NY and still live in NY, so no nothing special. I just don’t surround myself with people that commit crimes. Not that hard for most people, you should try it.
I think @CairoCarol was a bit prescient here. Again, not saying “SHE’S GUILTY!!!” but allowing for the possibility that she brought this trouble on herself not because she stood up for what’s right, but because she’s the kind of person that causes trouble.
That doesn’t minimize how screwed up the Florida law is, or how heavy-handed the search was, not at all. But really, there doesn’t seem to be any willingness to accept the possibility that she was at least partially in the wrong here.