Slashdot Mirror
Busted for (L0pht)Crack Possession
TaoJones writes, "Seems like the city of Hopkins, Minn. has declared L0phtcrack illegal. The story from Channel4000 details 11 felony charges against one David Thomas Bell, including two counts of "possession of burglary or theft tools"... namely L0Phtcrack.
" What next? Debuggers?
When I was in my lockpicking phase (anyone have a link to the MIT Lockpicking Guide?), I learned an important point:
Having lockpicks isn't illegal. Using them in conjunction with a crime (breaking and entering, robbery, etc.) is illegal and a separate charge.
There is no difference in having cracking tools. If I'm not cracking anything, then it doesn't matter. A quick look at the article indicates they were using those tools to crack machines. Thus, a separate charge.
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
What exactly is the issue here? I expect a flame war will shortly erupt here over whether or not l0phtcrack is inherently evil, and eventually conclude that it's a tool that can be used for any purpose.
In this case, the purpose appears to have been the theft of userids/passwords from their former employers, which is already illegal under several existing statutes I'm sure.
So, please pardon my confusion, where does their posession of l0phtcrack become an issue here?
Anthony
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
They were NOT busted just for possessing lophtcrack, they were busted for stealing usernames, passwords, and customer lists.
Just like there's nothing wrong with owning a crack pipe until you get caught with crack, there's nothing wrong with owning crack() until you get caught cracking.
--
blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
Would someone like to fill us in on when and where just the possesion of a specific tool became illegal. I have many tools that can be used in the process of theft and I'd like to know what jurisdictions I shouldn't carry them in.
I think this is akin to carrying a screwdriver. You can use it to fix a lock, or you can use it to break a lock, enter a building and steal the contents.
Let's not get too sensationalistic here..
ekk
Read closely and you may not feel so sorry for them. They used L0phtCrack as a tool to commit a crime, rather than to secure their own networks.
L0phtCrack is a legit tool and is legal, HOWEVER, should you use that tool, it could be called a tool to commit a crime. If he had done a physical entry they would have called his power tools, should they have been used to break in, as theft tools. Its a way to add on years (or the threat of) to their possible sentance. Somehow this is supposed to deter other criminals. Don't ask me if it works or not. I don't have a clue.
"These crimes were the high-tech equivalent of physically breaking into a business and stealing valuable documents from a locked file cabinet..."
People need to learn that the two simply don't equate. Stealing means that a victim does no longer have what was once theirs. Breaking into something means physically harming a device intended to prevent entry for the purpose of extracting data.
Neither of these things apply in this case. I understand that IP works differently, but we're going to have to work on the laws to make them apply. "[P]ossession of burglary or theft tools" just don't cut it.
-Waldo
The software isn't banned. You can use it for any legal purpose. This guy wasn't.
Just like slim jims (the car entry device, not the alleged food product). OK to have, OK to use on your own car, NOT OK if you have one while snagging somebody else's radio.
-- Jeff Paulsen
This guy was not charged because he had L0phtcrack, but because he used it to steal passwords from companies. It's like a locksmith having tools to break locks. He wouldn't be charged with a felony for possessing lock-breaking tools. However, if he used them to break into a store, and steal inventory, then he would be charged with a felony for use lock-breaking tools.
Whether it's lock-breaking tools, or guns, or axes, or 2x4's, or password-cracking tools, they can all be used ethically, or illegally. If used ethically, you won't have a problem. But if used illegally, should it be any surprise that you are charged with a felony?
-Brent-jwb
Epicor officials considered the list of user IDs and passwords to be very confidential information which they had taken significant security measures to protect
What "significant" security measures allow a widely known freely distributed security program to crack all the company's passwords? How about putting some restrictions on the password formats to make them resistant to such tools?
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
These people are not primarily being charged for having L0phtCrack. They're being charged with stealing a lot of sensitive information from former employers, and L0phtCrack is one of the tools that they used to break into others' accounts to get that information.
One interesting quote from the article, though:
The company may have considered the passwords very confidential, and they may have tried to keep them secret, but they apparently didn't do a very good job of it. Their security measures may have been significant, but they weren't particularly effective. Running some standard security checking programs (not to mention requiring hard-to-crack passwords) probably would have helped a lot in preventing this.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
The summary of the article provided as the blurb here on slashdot, right down to the very title of the article itself "Busted for (L0pht)Crack Posession" is extremely misleading, and I have to wonder if it's deliberately so?
I'm not usually one to come out and accuse the
The article says they were arrested and charged with 15 felony counts not for posession of L0phtcrack, but for repeatedly hacking into the computers of their former employers to steal lists of usernames and passwords. This is illegal, and no new news.
If we could moderate the articles themselves, I'd moderate this one down as Flamebait or Troll.
Anthony
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
kids... read the article first before flaming...
While it is perfectly legal for me to walk around with a baseball bat, even swinging it around wildly... But it becomes illegal at your nose...
Oh yeh - at this point the baseball bat would become "a deadly weapon"
So posession of these programs is not illegal, but using them to harm someone else's property is... and then they become "weapons".
As long as we only prosecute people for actions and not thoughts, we're fine...
of course... with "hate crime" legislation and profiling people to community forced anti-psychotic medication (really... its happening in california) we may have moved far away from this principle...
hopefully we can fix this system and not have to scrap it...
... hi bingo
The guy and his wife were busted for stealing trade secrets from two different companies.
They face 11 felony charges.
To quote the article
"They face three counts of unauthorized computer access, two counts of theft of trade secrets, two counts of attempted theft of trade secrets, two counts of computer theft and two counts of possession of burglary or theft tools (specifically, a software program for extracting user IDs and passwords from a computer system). "
I have no remorse for them. I don't know anything about L0Phtcrack, but if it is a program for extracting names and passwords and you use it illegally and get caught. Tough.... You made your bed and now you have to sleep in it.
If you have the L0Phtcrack software and don't use it illegaly, I doubt anybody will come knocking on your door.
I realy get tired of seeing claims like this from companies "They said that the user IDs and passwords provided access to proprietary information valued in millions of dollars, and they estimated the cost of issuing new user IDs and passwords at approximately $12,500. " Explain to me how in god's fucking name can someone justify that much to reissue new id's and passwords? The only way I could see this being an issue is if this also required email addresses to be changed and there was lost business messaging. Maybe costs related to notifying people of new email addresses? Some please explain to me how this number can be justified.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
The problem comes because there is a level at which something isn't dangerous enough that it needs to be illegal. Obviously we can't use the argument that something MIGHT be used to harm someone, therefore it should be illegal to possess, since just about any piece of matter in the universe could be used to hurt someone in some way. (Ban books, because big heavy ones can be dropped on people from ten stories up!)
The point is that we eventually do draw a line somewhere. However I don't think that, in general, things that aren't intended for causing injury to other people should be illegal. (Burglary tools, for example, or cracking programs.) I say SHOULD because, in general, things that aren't intended for harming people are NOT illegal. So why should software be any different? The only way I can see this being justified is if the software is designed to circumvent safety locks/overrides on, say, an elevator, or the air traffic control system, or a nuclear reactor -- things that, if they break, will almost certainly cause injury. And much as I appreciate and agree with the old saw about cracking to show that the security is weak, when people's lives are at stake, I don't think it holds up any longer.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
I see a lot of people already up in arms, claiming that the next thing to be outlawed will be crowbars and ski masks. Many parallels are already being drawn between these things, which can be user to commit crimes, and Crack.
This is incorrect reasoning. Crack's purpose is [drum roll] to crack passwords. There is no other application for the program. That's why it exists. Much like a set of lock-picks.
Here's the rub though, lock-picks and Crack can be used in a legal manner, by people who provide a service to breaching security to people who should rightfully have access. Ever lock the keys in your car? Nice to have somoene to call, isn't it?
They can also be used illegaly, to gain access to where you do not belong. This is when such tools become implements of criminal activity - when a trespasser has gained illegal entry to your home, and a set of picks is found in his posession, wouldn't you want that used against him?
Nobody is going to outlaw crowbars, flashlights or SATAN - even though any of these can be used to 'scope a place out'. But if you bludgeon a guard with a blackjack, or have a program designed for DoS attacks on your machine, and you are conclusively linked to a crime, then you're in for it.
Commiting robbery with your bare hands versus doing so whith a gun are two very different crimes, because of the potential for harm, or the ease with which harm can be caused. Similarly with means of trespass, if after being caught, your place is searched, and a map of the sewer beneath the facility you broke into is found on your desk...
Before we all over-react to this, let's read the article for what it is. The possession of Crack wasn't the crime, it was an additional charge brought against people who had commited a break-in.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Okay yeah, Rob went a bit nuts with the summary so we need to give him a collective good kick in the ass. Someone set a date/time in Zulu time and I'll be there.
anyway, I'm puzzling over the fact that the company states that it will cost US$12 500 to issue new logins and passwords? WTF? Depending on the size of the company, it's going to be an administrative bitch, but it's nothing terribly difficult and is basically a time is money issue.
Are they embellshing for effect, or are they just morons?
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick! A 30 second glance at the linked story would make it obvious that the charges stem from using the prog to actually break into systems. How can that possibly justify the hyperbole in the headline/blurb?
I don't expect slashdot to be the most journalistcally sound source of info, but this is pathetic.
--
If your map and the terrain differ,
trust the terrain.
How are the actions referred to in the article even remotely comparable to either of the things you cite?
Do you actually claim that the man and woman did nothing wrong? I just can't see it. Bell was *FIRED* and then used both his contact on the inside and l0Phtcrack to break in and steal stuff. It's clear he wasn't supposed to be there. There's no way he could use the defense "I was just looking around/experimenting/playing/didn't know what I was doing". It was pretty clear he was persona non grata.
The main page headline for this article is just sensationalistic. Please, read, then THINK, then post.
after reading the article, these people were not just busted for possesion of l0phtcrack. they were busted for illegal activities and for the possesion of the tools that they used to commit those illegal activities.
this is not only irresponsible, but sensationalistic on the part of cmdrtaco.
Come on, this story is clearly "score -1: misleading". We need to get story moderation going so that people can filter out stories like this. /. editors pay a little bit more attention to what they are posting.
Either that, or have the
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Had the submitter actually read the story, the lead-in might have been a little different. The tool became a theft tool as soon as they used it to steal as opposed to securing their own machines.
Anyone can have a copy of l0phtcrack; when they use it to commit a crime, though, then they'll get nailed for it.
Oh, go on, check out my job.
Owning a crowbar for use in opening locks, it's questionable.
Owning a crowbar for possible use in killing living beings, a bit more questionable.
Owning a crowbar for bashing people's heads in plain sight, most likely illegal.
I think this is a very poor arguement. It's quite clear that these two were busted for illegal use of the 'tools' and they are just trying to bring as many charges as possible against the two. That way, that's one more charge that they have to plea bargin down.
I know I have been burned by this issue myself once or twice, but it's important to establish intent to use a weapon/tool. I might own a gun and be just a hunter. Or I might own a gun and use it to shoot children. Our country has decided that intent is more important than the possiblities of danger. And well.. that's a whole different issue. `8r)
--
Gonzo Granzeau
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
If you read the article, it appears (to me anyway) that the possession of the cracking tools was not the issue. They are being prosecuted for the use of cracking tools to steal accounts and passwords, the possession of these stolen accounts, and use of this information to manipulate email accounts that did not belong to them at a company that had fired them.
:)
Just because someone has cracking tools does not make them a criminal. However, just because someone has cracking tools, they are not automatically some kind of hero either. They might just be a petty criminal.
Funny, the slashdot article headline and the actual story seem to communicate completely different stories to me... Either the poster / editor know something about the case that is not in the cited news article, the poster / editor did not read the article very closely before publishing, or the poster / editor have some kind of alternate an agenda here.
Of course a 4th possiblity is that *I* misunderstood something. This would not be the first time
A rough analogy here is the position of the NRA relative to firearms. They will fight like crazy to protect your right to own and possess them, up until the point where you have used them in commission of a crime. They then fight like crazy to see that you DON'T have any right to possess them (for example Project Exile and the three strikes laws), and in fact work pretty hard to see that you spend a LONG time in jail for it.
Bill
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
Occassionally one of my friends used to pull out a little brass pipe and smoke pipe tobacco out of it just to be a wiseass. He was questioned but they couldn't do anything because there weren't any traces of anything naughty inside. You can posess a questionable item, unless its used in a criminal action. Then the posession of the guilty object becomes a felony (basically levied by the DA to increase the number of charges the prosecuter can try to nail you for).
Dr. Fardook drfardook@evilconspiracy.com
Oh wait, that's not news. Nowhere in the article does it say that L0phtCrack (spelled LOphtCrack by the news media...i guess their keyboards HAVE a capital-o character) was made illegal. It's always been illegal to break into a company (physically or electronically) in retaliation for being fired though, and I have absolutely no sympathy for that.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Stealing is taking something that dosen't belong to you. If you used a high quality scanner to copy my drivers license and return my original copy without my knowing, you have still taken something that you had no right to take.
Breaking and Entering dosen't have to involve harm to a device. If you find a store key laying on the sidewalk and unlock the door and walk in, you can still be rightfully charged with B&E. The reason? You didn't belong there. You had no permission and having possesion of the key is not a free license to use it as you see fit. It is still a crime if no damage is caused.
If someone had a duplicate set of keys to your car, would you complain when they take it only because they can? What if they decide to just keep it because they like it?
Geez, I learned these things when I was a child. Do most people even care anymore?
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
So you are saying that the customer list of the company YOU work for has absolutely NO value, and you won't mind handing it over to me immediately, then?
No? I didn't think so.
Think about it this way -- how much $ was spent to acquire each and every customer? Wouldn't it have some value approximate to that?
Gun Owners that use their guns to commit crimes are arrested. Maybe the wording of the charges isn't the same, but its the same basic principle. If you have dynamite and blow up a safe with it, you will be introuble for having it. However if you use it legitimately there is no problem.
P.S. http://not.a.real.link.com is back up...
"I do not go believe comes out therefrom that I will concentrate on always more special zones."
--Linus To
If someone had a duplicate set of keys to your car, would you complain when they take it only because they can? What if they decide to just keep it because they like it?
That's what makes this all so interesting. I own a crowbar, which provides me with access to your vehicle. Owning a crowbar is not illegal. They're using for many things beyond getting into cars. Using a crowbar to get into a car is illegal.
I'd hate for this to be the first step towards banning digital crowbars (read as: tools.)
Although I don't nescessairly agree with the emphasis on l0phtcrack that the article has, I'm fairly sure this is the usual case of underinformed slashdotites getting over excited when the see a word they recognize in a mainstream article.
Let's be perfectly clear with something. It was illegal to steal the customer lists from their two places of employment, regardless of the methods. The article has some bad wording, but it seems like they were referring to a l0phtcrack datafile found on the guy's computer, not the software itself.
In any case the software was used to commit a crime and therefore it's not like the police saying it's illegal to have the software.
What these people really should be busted for is stupidity. They got caught. They were using prefabbed tools (prolly not 100% suited to the job) and didn't use encrpytion. Geeze, what happened to the good old days when people knew how to commit computer crime.
My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
Possession of L0phtcrack along with *.lc files from companies that you don't have authorization from is a "bad thing" ie crime.
How so? If I run L0phtcrack from my home machine on the cable modem and happen to intercept some login packets, and then decrypt them, what Bad Thing have I done?
Using that information to break into the network - yeah, that's bad, that's illegal. But listening for login packets and decrypting/storing the info seems to me to be just as "bad" as using a scanner to listen to cell calls. If the data is sensitive, don't blast it through my airspace/network.
That depends on where you live. Where I live having 'paraphernalia' used to be legal. Then they made it so that it was legal until it was used (IE contained 'residue'). Now it is illegal to posess at all. Technically zig-zag type rolling papers and old-man type tobacco pipes are illegal under the current laws. Of course those items are sold openly at tobacco shops and drug stores, etc. Old geezers would never get bothered about possessing such things. The law isn't applied uniformly of course. If someone who is say under 40 had such items, they would likely be considered dangerous contraband. The owner of a local t-shirt/music store was busted on drug paraphernalia charges for selling the same zig-zag papers that are sold openly at the local Walgreens drug store.
Back on topic: While in the case at hand, the person getting busted may have actually used the tools for unlawful purposes, it may be only a matter of time before someone else is charged with only possession of tools. Not every jurisdiction makes sane judgements about such things, even ones who might on other issues. Heck, sometimes such things are strictly related to election year politics (the 'head shop' crackdowns tend to happen in years the county prosecutor is up for re-election). Coincidence?
The point is, this is one of those slippery slope issues where once things start downhill, it is very hard to get back up again.
Ladies and Gentlemen, please realiz that something being considered a 'burglary tool' with regards to a crime is not the same thing as that thing being outlawed.
If you caught breaking in to someone's house, and you happen to have a bag containing a crowbar, grappling hook, climbing harness, glass cutter, and a portable blowtorch, a radio scanner, and a stethoscope, they can accuse you of having 'burglary tools' in your posession, and this adds to the charges against you.
These items by themselves are certainly not outlawed, and you can posess them all you want.
Why should computer related crime be any different?
As best as I recall, the judge threw the case out, on the grounds that cracking software could not be construed as a lockpick, that the means of gaining entry was transient (the password wasn't stored, so no fake "key" was ever really in the posession of the cracker), and no actual damage had occured (therefore there was no "breaking").
The UK introduced a "Computer Misuse Act", forbidding unauthorised use of a computer's resources, not too long after.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
As far as the overesitimate of monetary damages, companies have an incentive to overestimate damages for insurance reasons. There was a great series of articles in 2600 a year or two ago (summer '97 issue if I recall) called "A Guide to Getting Busted" that explains how/why a company will grossly overestimate monetary damages due to being cracked and how that translates directly into figuring how much jail time an unlucky skr1pt k1ddy will serve.
So the bottom line is this guy cracked a former employer and he got caught and now they're throwing the book at him as is the case when any cracker gets caught. Don't be surprised if they charge him with the Kennedy assination and the ebay DoS attack just for good measure.
Directly from the article:
In short, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, these people weren't busted for having l0phtcrack. They were busted because they had it, and actually used it gain unauthorized access to computers. Also found in Bell's possession was the confidential list of clients for the company in question, username and (cracked) password pairs, and the contents of a restricted file on the system.
If this shouldn't be against the law, I ask you to tell me what should.
My god, you guys.. STOP POSTING FALSE MISLEADING HEADLINES!
1) Nothing was DECLARED ILLEGAL
2) Nobody was busted FOR HAVING L0PHTCRACK
3) This is no big deal.
1) people were busted for cracking.
2) One of the charges laid against them was for posession of burglary tools. THIS HAPPENS WITH ANY CRIME! THE TOOLS USED YOU ARE ALSO GUILTY OF POSESSIN!
Jeesus christ... get a grip people.
Ok, then how much would YOU value it at? There are multiple ways to value this:
o How much did it cost to produce?
o How much would someone who really wanted it, pay for it?
Let's look at bullet one. According to Epicor's 4th quarter release (from http://www.epicor.com), they did $258M in sales last year. According to their balance sheet from the Feb.2 earnings release, last year's cost of sales and marketing was $89M. That makes $2.5M for the customer list (the primary product of that $89M) seem pretty darn reasonable to me.
Now bullet two. You are the primary competitor of Epicor. Don't you want to know what sales they just landed? Don't you want to know what regions they are expanding into? What companies bought the newest product? How much would you be willing to pay for that? $500K? $1M? How much of YOUR $89M will having that list save you?
My point being: damages are up to a jury to decide. The company is in the best position to figure out how much they have been damaged. I imagine that estimate could be 2x-5x off from reality. But I doubt it's much more than that. This estimate seems pretty close to me.
In several jurisdictions (DC for one), the mere possession of bolt cutters, crowbars, or other "burglary tools" (outside of your residence or place of business) is admissiable as prima facie evidence of intent to commit a crime.
(Disclaimer: IANAL)
"The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
If this is the case, the company has a legitamate criminal complaint. There's good reason to believe that he would have reason to attempt to hurt his former employer.
This isn't a heavy handed crackdown. This isn't a small town declaring that L0phtcrack is illegal to possess. This is a criminal arrest where a former employee is believed to have accessed a computer system after being terminated from his job. The logical motive would be to hurt the company by giving information to competitors.
CmdrTaco, how many times have we complained of uneven, uninformed media coverage of internet and digital media issues? Wouldn't it help our credibility and our cause to not be guilty of the same thing? I read the story that was linked to in your post. Did you even bother? You post does not provide ONE DAMN SHRED of evidence that you did.
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
Is anyone else somewhat shocked that the police actually knew what they found. I'm not trying to knock the police but I'm somewhat interested that they actually found it and knew what they were looking for. I've never used this particular tool, so for all I know it's obvious, but it is interesting that they actually found it and knew what it was.
If I murder somebody with a rock, I should get charged with murder, not possession of a rock.
The issue that I see is that many many programs can be exploited manually. What if you have a vulnerable network daemon and the attacker uses nc to feed it input. Is nc illegal then? How about if somebody writes a trojan in C, is the compiler illegal? the linker?
I'm not attempting to be difficult, I just fail to see the point of criminalizing a particular password recovery tool moreso than other methods of attack. If the alleged crimes are true, then I have no problems with them going down for what they did, but I don't see the how as being particularly relevant.
----------------------------
If I was to get arrested for breaking into a motor vehicle by using a Screwdriver, I would be charged with Attempted Break and Enter, Attempted Theft of over $5000, and for possessing Break and Enter tools. This does NOT mean that physical possession of the screwdriver is a crime, only the intent of possession.
I hope these geeks-gone-bad get nailed. They give the rest of us (and the tools we use) a bad name.
Jailbrekr.
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
You can be arrested for carrying a screwdriver if a cop thinks you might have bad intentions. It doens't matter if you have actually commited a crime or not.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
From the article: (emphasis is mine)
David Thomas Bell, 33, of Coon Rapids, faces 11 felony charges. They include three counts of unauthorized computer access, two counts of theft of trade secrets, two counts of attempted theft of trade secrets, two counts of computer theft and two counts of possession of burglary or theft tools (specifically, a software program for extracting user IDs and passwords from a computer system).
So, you see? Apparently (L0pht)Crack is a burglary tool, and Bell was charged with 2 counts of possession of it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Yes, that's the point.
I was (young and stupid long ago) arrested, for attempted burglary. In addition to the burglary charge was a charge of possession of burglary tools. These tools included: a flashlight, a backpack, a hammer, my old homework (as it was in the backpack).
If yo use something, no matter how legal it may be in and of itself, to do something illegal, it becomes another thing they can tack onto the charges.
It's always been like that.
m.
CIA Industries - Running the world for fun and profit
This comparison of murder with a rock was covered elsewhere (look for someone talking about crowbars).
The point is that you're also charged with murder. Should you get out of the murder charge for some reason, there's still use of a deadly weapon. I'd bet there would be a string of charges should you kill someone with a rock.
L0pht crack when used to steal passwords is illegal. This doesn't make the compiler illegal, much like using a grinder to make lockpicks doesn't make the grinder illegal. It's the picks and using them in a crime that is.
It's just that the laws in this jurisdiction are probably broad enough to cover this. See my earlier comments for the laws in MA (which appear to be tighter). The DA/prosecutor is probably savvy enough to know cracking technology.
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
So I take the bait, check out the story, and it turns out these guys likely planned and executed a simple robbery. One of the tools used in the theft was (L0pht)Crack.
Had I not checked out the story, I would have been left thinking these guys got busted for possessing (L0pht)Crack.
So when did Rupert Murdoch buy the guys who bought the guys who bought the guys who bought slashdot?
>What next? Debuggers?
What next, aliens having Linus babies?
If you hit someone with a bat, it becomes assault with a deadly weapon, but possession of a baseball bat is not a legitimate charge. Even possession of deadly weapon shouldn't be a legit charge. I mean, what's the point of making it a separate crime if you can't be prosecuted for it without committing another crime? Why not just increase the punishment for the actual crime? Bell was charged with 2 counts of possession of burglary tools for having (L0pht)Crack on his computer in addition to his actual crimes.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Sure, here it is:
http://www.magnet.state.ma.us/leg is/laws/mgl/index.htm
--
Drink! OHBC >O+
From the article (my emphasis):
David Thomas Bell, 33, of Coon Rapids, faces 11 felony charges. They include three counts of unauthorized computer access, two counts of theft of trade secrets, two counts of attempted theft of trade secrets, two counts of computer theft and two counts of possession of burglary or theft tools (specifically, a software program for extracting user IDs and passwords from a computer system).
Seems like that's where possession of (L0pht)Crack comes in.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I mean come on, this is just ridiculous. It's bad enough that the "quality" news has gone from 4-5 articles a day to 4-5 articles a WEEK but do we really need the whole tabloid sensationalism as well? I'd imagine that someone making the money Rob is would take pride in RESEARCHING things before posting them. But then again, when you get paid millions for a website, it may be harder to keep sight on such things.
Well gee, what are they gonna charge you with? Possession of a "SWAG BAG?" If they are going to charge you with murder, then they should charge you with murder, not possession of a knife. If they want the sentence to be longer, then they should work at getting the maximum sentence for murder to be made more severe (hmm.. in Texas, that would mean they get to fry you AND your dog :) If they can't get that done, then maybe it's because people feel that the current punishment is enough, and if that's the case, tacking on b/s charges is just wrong.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The statute in question can be found here. Other statutes can be found at this parent site for the legislature, or specifically at this one for the general laws.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
From the article (my emphasis):
David Thomas Bell, 33, of Coon Rapids, faces 11 felony charges. They include three counts of unauthorized computer access, two counts of theft of trade secrets, two counts of attempted theft of trade secrets, two counts of computer theft and two counts of possession of burglary or theft tools (specifically, a software program for extracting user IDs and passwords from a computer system).
From this we see that having the "burglary tools" is one of the charges. The screwed up thing about charges like this is that they can't seem to be brought unless you commit a crime. Once you commit a crime, they tack on this extra crime, that isn't really a crime by itself, just so they can increase your sentence. Why is this necessary? Apparently because some people don't want anyone to understand just what the penalties are for a crime. If they want to put people away for a longer time, why don't they just work to get the maximum sentence increased for that crime? Maybe because people wouldn't like that? So they just look for a way to get around what the people want and we end up with b/s charges like this one.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The real problem here, as I see it, is with the whole concept of "Possession" laws. It should not be illegal to own any object; be it a gun, lockpicks, boltcutters, or hacking tools. The crime is not owning some object, the real crime is the using that object to cause harm. The action of causing harm is what should be punished; the instrument used is irrelevant. Placing the blame on the object, instead of the person using the object, is a stupid concept which is unfortunatly accepted all too readily.
If someone runs over you with a car, you are still just dead as you would be if they shot you; but people think that a gun is somehow more "evil" than a car. If 10 people got shot standing on the sidewalk, every knee-jerk idiot will come out of the woodwork saying how bad guns are and that the government should do somthing about those evil guns. But if those same 10 people had been run down by a lunatic in a Buick, those same people wouldn't be screaming for car control, they'd put the blame right where it belongs - on the actions of a person.
"Possession" laws (of weapons, tools, drugs, whatever) are all flawed because they assign criminality to an object, instead of an action. Let's say that one person breaks into a house by picking the lock and steals $5000, and second person breaks into a house by kicking down the door and steals $10000. It is morally indefensable to say that burglar 1 deserves a harsher punishment than burglar 2 merely because burglar 1 used a tool and burglar 2 used his foot. The additional charge of "possession of lockpicks" achieves no useful purpose.
The criminal justice system is so mismanaged and overtaxed that it usually cannot keep convicted criminals behind bars for more than a small fraction of the time they are sentanced to. Rather than fixing the real problem, the politicians have decided to try and keep criminals in jail longer by creating more crimes. Police and prosecutors are rewarded (with raises, promotions, etc) for having a large number of arrests and/or convictions, providing them with a personal interest to come up with as many charges as possible for any given case, regardless if it's in the public's interest or not. These factors combine to create a system that has an enormous potential for abuse.
Sorry if this seems rambling or off-topic; I'm running on too much caffeine and not enough sleep...
"The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Using anything to break into a car (without the owner's permission) is illegal. I could use a rubber ducky to break in and it would be illegal. The point of this is that the crime is breaking into the car, not possession of a rubber ducky. Possession of a rubber ducky shouldn't be a crime, even when it's used to break into a car. The crime is breaking into the car. That crime has a punishment associated with it. Why do we have to overcomplicate matters by trying to say that possessing a rubber ducky is a crime if you break into a car with it?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
From the article (my emphasis):
David Thomas Bell, 33, of Coon Rapids, faces 11 felony charges. They include three counts of unauthorized computer access, two counts of theft of trade secrets, two counts of attempted theft of trade secrets, two counts of computer theft and two counts of possession of burglary or theft tools (specifically, a software program for extracting user IDs and passwords from a computer system).
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Well, I don't see why not. I'll admit that I do not understand why using a tool to commit a crime is somehow "more of a crime" than committing the same crime without a tool. But I've heard of strange laws where using a gun to commit a robbery is treated as worse than using some other type of weapon (e.g. katana, disintegrator beam generator, monkey wrench). For some reason, that's just how the law is in some places. Use a gun, go to jail. Use a nuclear warhead (the "implosion" model -- not the "plutonium gun" model!) and maybe you won't go to jail.
The funny thing is that logical extension, the tool definition could be applied to just about anything. Commit a computer crime, and you're in trouble. But if you used a keyboard or a monitor to help you commit that crime, you're in even worse. Maybe if you commit purse-snatching and then run away from the scene, your shoes could be considered theft tools? What about the spoon that you used to eat the Wheaties than make you run so fast? Spoon == theft tool. Since it might be difficult and distracting to commit a crime while suffering from a toothache, I would definately classify a toothbrush as a theft tool too. And, of course, the perp wouldn't have been able to commit the crime if he had stayed home taking care of the kids, so a condom is a theft tool too. And if he had died in the car crash that he had last year, this crime surely would not have occurred, so his seatbelt and anti-lock brakes are theft tools.
But let's get back to that condom thing. Dad was sloshed on beer, after a night's celebration due to winning a high school football game. Dad didn't have a condom handy, nor the foresight to use one, and when the head cheerleader saw his big football trophy, she got really excited and one thing led to another, resulting in the birth of the perp. Dad died years later, and the perp inherited his house, which includes that old trophy up in the attic somewhere. That trophy is a theft tool. He is in possession on an object that enabled him to commit a crime.
It looks like just about any crime can have an arbitrary number of sub-crimes attached to it, thanks to these using-tools-laws. I think it would be fun to be a prosecutor for a day, just to throw the book (which probably happens to be a theft tool in some way) at suspects.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Sorry. PCS is an acronym. 'Possession of a Controlled Substance'. You really don't see people charged with it, unless they pled down; the drug laws have become so insane that any meaningful quantity qualifies for the bigger charge of 'Possession With Intent to Distribute'. The intent is assumed by the fact you have more than a couple j's worth in your pocket. I've seen guys go through twice what the minimum for PID is in an afternoon!
.sig: Now legally binding!
You're missing the point. It dosn't matter if they used a slim jim, a rock, or their fist; your radio is still gone. The action of stealing it is what should be punished, not what tools they used to help them steal it.
Stealing a radio out of someone's car is already illegal. It's unnecessary, illogical, and immoral to invent a new "crime" for the mere possession of an object, regardless of what they have done with it or might intend to do with it. Put the blame where it belongs, on the criminal and not the tool.
Bad laws do not help deter or punish crime; all they accomplish is to create a system that's prone to abuse.
"The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
We already hashed this discussion out a bit on the firewall-wizards list.
Jurisdictions that make possesion of certain tools illegal refer to them as burglary tools. This is by state or by county. It is quite illegal to carry lockpicks in some places if you're not a licensed locksmith.
The definition of burglary tools is anything that has been classified as burglary tools.
There is no licensing for security professionals or system administrators.
Therefore, since L0phtcrack has been classified as a burglary tool in Hopkins, and you can't get a license to "carry" it, it's illegal to have there, for as long as the "burglary tool" classification sticks.
Quite stupid, yes?
If you are carrying a screwdriver, and someone breaks into houses nearby, you will be considered a suspect, whether or not you actually did the break-ins.
Although in this particular case it appears that the suspect probably was using L0phtcrack to breakin, and therefore it would be a burglary tool (if he is found guilty, of course)... These laws are often open to abuse--Laws on possession of burglary tools can be used, for example, to hassle transients or other "rif-raff" who are passing through a rich neighborhood, if for example, the guy in question happens to have a nail clipper with a nail file attached (i.e. nail file = potential lock pick).
--
I can't stand lines of reasoning like yours, since it's the same sort of reasoning that encourages some people to keep things like sodomy laws on the books: "Sodomy laws aren't ever enforced against people who merely commit sodomy. They're only used as an additional charge to bring against violent rapists."
Quite frankly, it's a bullshit sort of reasoning. If it's so important to increase the penalty for the act in question, go ahead and increase the penalty for the act in question. Don't surrepticiously contrive additional unnecessary charges. If a person can be punished for committing a crime, then it's simply redundant to charge him with possessing the means by which he committed that crime -- of course you had the means, since, after all, you were successful in committing the crime. Laws that aren't uniformly applied reek tyrranical abuse of power.
The only thing that can be accomplished by having this additional statute is letting the state punish individuals for the mere possession of the tool in question. In fact, if you go ahead and look at history, you'll find countless examples of how states have found it much easier to punish possession of the means or knowledge of the method of committing crimes than punishing the crime itself -- for the most part, honest citizens won't put up much resistance since, after all, they don't consider themselves criminals and feel no need to possess things that are overtly associated with criminals.
Before you jump to the conclusion that no one will outlaw mere possession of these sorts of tools, ask yourself why there's so many gun-control laws and why, until recently (and technically, currently), you need special permission to export encryption software, which is, after all, just a tool.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
That's right. L0phtCrack is a burglary/theft tool when it is used to commit a burglary or theft. A crowbar qualifies too. Using a meat cleaver to kill someone makes you guilty of possessing a deadly weapon.
If I beat someone to death with a rubber ducky, then the rubber ducky is a deadly weapon, just like anything else would be if I use it to kill someone. What, then, is the point of it being a separate crime? Why not just charge me with murder, regardless of what I used as a weapon? How does it make sense to have a separate crime for using a rubber ducky or a cleaver or anything else to commit murder? Murder is the crime. Stupid extra charges should not be introduced when they serve no purpose.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Illegal by what law? Who passed legislation that made this software illegal?
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
This is a no brainer people. Buying a sledghammer is not illegal. Taking it into your back yard and driving posts with it is not illegal. However if you go to your neighbors house and bash his door in to steal his television then you are now using a burgulary tool. If you try and kill someone with it then the sledghammer becomes a deadly weapon. The whole point of the matter is context.
Another point to consider is often as many charges as possible are filed knowing that the defense lawyer will bargain and have some of them removed and then plea to some of the lesser charges. Don't think that this hasn't been thought out well in advance by the DA.
"when it gets down to specifics the police that I know personally err on the side of caution"
I have to concur. When a police officer recieves a complaint or sees something suspicious, the first thought is to take care of the situation as quickly as possible by using whatever methods they have at their disposal.
These include:
Speaking to the subject(suspect)
Confiscation of item(s)
Arresting the subject(suspect) or taking the subject into custody (these are different things, of course).
Shooting or disabling the subject (almost always a last resort).
Anecdote:
In the State of Illinois, all knives are legal besides switchblades and ballistic knives (knives which shoot the blade). Butterfly knives are (and contrary to popular opinion), last I checked, legal. So, by extention, swords are legal. So, standing out in your front lawn with a sword, chopping on your own tree is legal.
A friend of mine did this.
And when the police officer came by, she confiscated the sword. The reason the officer was called was because an elderly person across the street called and complained.
After some hassle, including threatening legislation, he got the sword back.
So, the sword is not illegal.
However, if he went over and threatened the elderly person who called with the sword, that would be illegal, and the tool would be rightfully confiscated. Same thing if he chopped her head off.
I hope this wasn't that confusing.
later
Dan
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I seem to remember the NSA sponsered (very good) Windows NT security guide at www.trustedsystems.com (avalible for free, pdf format) recommends admins use L0pht Crack. The line is somewhere in a footnote around the middle of the docuement (might be wrong, it is late and I am working from memory).
Right. If you have something that you INTEND to, or more often, DO use in the commission of a burglary or theft, then it is considered a burglary/theft tool.
Your crowbar, blowtorch, car, glass cutter. Nobody said you can't have them, but you intending to use them, or knowingly giving them to others to use as a tool to comitting a crime is illegal.
The technical details are not relevant.
1) He *KNEW* he had no access to the network. It was not open to the public, and he had no permission to use it. He cannot claim it was an 'accident' or 'not obvious' that he wasn't suppoed to be using it.
2) For DECADES now, unauthorized use of a computer system has been EXPLICITLY ILLEGAL.
3) Though theft may not be the right term, and perhaps he should not be charged with 'stealing' the data, especially if he didn't use it for anything, the fact that he copied it, knowing he was not supposed to, should make it very illegal.
What if you broke in to my office building, and used a camera to take pictures of all my documents? Is your posession of those documents leagal? *NO*, you obtained them illegally.
The data the boy has are proceeds of crime.
Yes. Posession of burglary and theft tools is illegal. But a tool does not become a burglary or theft tool until it is used, or it can be proven it was intended to be used, for a burglary or theft. Until that point, it is just a plain old tool.
I have to say that I do not feel bad for these two people. The possession of LophtCrack alone did not do the damage. I am sure that the authorities are not going to come knocking on your door if you happen to own a copy of the software. The two jokers did use the software for something that was against the law and they deserve whatever punishment they get. -Me
Is Slashdot going mainstream??? I mean, going like mainstream media : addicted to sensationalist story that look so until you read the actual story???
--
" It's a ligne Maginot-in-the-sky "
[It is legal swing a bat wildly...] but it becomes illegal at your nose....
Not quite. (IANAL, but) it is a crime ("menacing") the instant you present a credible threat of intentionally striking the other person with the bat.
This has some pretty deep consequences. If you swing the bat at me, I don't have to wait until the bat connects before acting in self-defense. This applies even if you're "spoofing" me and I misinterpret the facts in the fraction of a second between seeing a fast-moving bat and my response. Since a baseball bat to the head is "lethal force," in most jurisdictions I have the right *to kill you* in self-defense. In these cases it won't even matter that the bat is a hollow plastic toy, if I have no reasonable way to know this. (This could happen if you come up on me from behind.)
On a related note, every so often you hear about some teen killed while branishing an unloaded weapon - or even a realistic toy. They seem to think that there is some legal distinction if the weapon is unloaded (or unreal). They're wrong - and just as in the case of the bat the victim isn't forced to wait until the instant the bullet strikes his skull before he can act. In many jurisdictions merely displaying possession of a gun constitutes use of lethal force - and the other person is legally able to use lethal counterforce to remove himself from that situation. People might be able to outrun bats and knives, but not guns, and the only sure way for most people to disarm someone with a gun is to kill them first. Remember that next time some kids complain that The Man has no sense of humor about them driving down the street while waving (realistic) toy guns out the window. That actually happened here, a few years ago!
What you quoted is actually a misquote a First Amendment "protected speech" argument. Your speech might offend me (and others), but it doesn't cause us harm in the same way that a punch in the nose does. So we have to live to learn with objectionable speech, not with idiots who wildly swing their fist (or bats!) around others.
Back on point, this is totally irrelevant. Nobody said that L0phtCrack was intrinisically illegal to possess, they said that it was a "criminal tool" used while commiting criminal acts. That's no different from calling a hammer a "criminal tool" because it was used to break car windows, a screwdriver a "criminal tool" because it was used to break the lock in the steering column, etc.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Doesn't the DMCA, especially when interpreted with the precedent of the DeCSS case, make provisions for regulating the possession of ICE debuggers and certain tools that could contravene protection? (The judge in said case stated that the DMCA's provisions allowing reverse engineering apply only to specially authorised personnel, or something like that.)
Here's the key point: Possessing lockpicks for the purpose of breaking into other people's houses is a crime, whether or not you ever successfully get into a house using them. If a cop catches you in my house, and the lock on the front door has been picked, and you have lock picks, he has a strong case to prove that not only have you broken into my house, but that you have those lock picks FOR THAT ILLEGAL PURPOSE, which is also a crime. But that's not the only conceivable way such a crime could have happened; if the cop catches you using those picks on my front door without my permission, the prosecutor could still charge you with possessing burglary tools, even though you weren't yet a burglar.
If some script kiddie with l0phtcrack ran it against a machine without any success, and it could be shown that his intent was to break into other people's accounts (say, by e-mail he sent out, or by recorded statments in an IRC), he'd still be guilty of possessing system cracking tools. And that would still be a crime, even though he never actually got into the system. Of course, the easiest way to show that the possession was criminal is quite simple: to catch him inside a system he's cracked. But that doesn't mean that the crime of possession is subsidiary to the crime of information theft; it merely means that the crime of information theft probably entails the crime of possession of cracking tools.
The prosecutor has a duty to charge a defend with all the crimes he could reasonably be believed to have committed, so that he has the best chance of convicting him. That's his job, even if you don't like it.
These aren't "pseudo-crimes". They are very real offenses. They are documented in the state's criminal statutes. You can be charged and convicted if you commit them.
You can't be charged and convicted for a "pseudo-crime" alone. That's my point. It's only a crime when you can prove that someone committed another crime, so there's no real point in making the method of committing a crime a separate charge from the crime itself. Now do you get it?
Breaking into a car" and "stealing a car" may actually be two different offenses.
They are two different crimes, and you can be convicted of one independently of the other, they are very real crimes and not what I was talking about.
If I'm charged with stealing a car, my lawyer will first say, "Well how did AC steal it?" If the prosecutor says, "He broke in with a crowbar", my lawyer may well say, "Well, you didn't CHARGE him with breaking into the car. You clearly can't PROVE he broke into the car. Therefore, you can't prove he stole it."
Actually, the fact that the cops pulled him over while he was driving it without the driver's permission is enough to convict him of the theft. The rest, in the abscence of anything more than circumstantial evidence, would be up to the judge and/or jury.
obody except CmdrTaco and you is talking about "possession of a crowbar". We ARE talking about using a crowbar to commit a crime. There is a difference.
Yep, there's a difference. Possession of a crowbar is not a crime. "Using a crowbar to commit a crime" is not actually a crime (or shouldn't be, which is why this argument started), the crime that was committed using the crowbar is the actual crime, regardless of the method used to commit the crime.
I think we're arguing from two different perspectives. You're looking at how things should be. I'm looking at how things really are.
I thought this was understood from the start. I'll concede that people are convicted of "pseudo-crimes" all the time, the article is a perfect example. What I'm saying is that it's a stupid practice and it should be stopped.
Finally, I don't ask my lawyer what programming language is best, but for some reason slashdotters seem to think they know more than the people who do law for a living. How arrogant is that?
Are you a lawyer?
Assuming that everyone who reads /. is a programmer isn't so bright either.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Exactly, you're agreeing with me yet claiming you're disagreeing. The trouble is that they are non-technical people who are setting precedent about the legality of certain pieces of software. While you and I both logically know that stealing passwords is illegal whether done through lophtcrack or a poorly configured, ancient version of sendmail, the average jury member does not. The fear that I have is that by allowing them to get charged with possession of burglary or theft tools, that the tools will become not illegal when used illegally, but just plain illegal. This is the first case that I'm aware of where the program used in the break-in has been classified in this manner, and I foresee a possibility of a dangerous precedent. However, as with all but seven other people who regularly post on /., I'm not a lawyer. Colour me paranoid if you will, but the charge that is listed with relation to l0phtcrack does not have an obvious 'if used to commit a crime' clause. I attempted to find the actual text of the law to check this, but couldn't find the statute on-line and don't have the free time to check a library.
----------------------------
As long as the Internet was computer scientists, engineers, and a few students working on machines with little commercial significance, there was very little regulation. But now, you get businesses, families, lawyers, policemen, everybody moving on-line.
They are going to be asking for the same protections and laws that they ask for in the real world, whether it makes sense on-line or not. That's why you see strong efforts to combat pornography. That's why you are probably going to see efforts to outlaw the on-line equivalent of "burglary tools".
The popularization of the Internet reduces it to the lowest common denominator of society, both in terms of skills and expectations. Whether there is anything we can do about it remains to be seen; perhaps the Internet will eventually break up into distinct parts with very different rules, only sharing a common hardware and protocol infrastructure.
I would have been perfectly happy with the Internet remaining what it was and most non-technical people working on some simple commercial system like Minitel or a proprietary WebTV. But, I suppose, the way things have turned out, they are at least a lot more interesting.
Is not the point of these "pseudo-crimes" to have a way to catch exceptionally slippery criminals (or suspects with very good lawyers)?
Say a cop or a security guard finds AC wandering around in a closed store. They charge him for theft or breaking in. Now AC claims "Oh but I thought the store was open. You see the door was open so I just figured I'd do some late night shopping"
This is where it is nice to be able to build a case upon those lockpicks in AC's back pocket. If the real charge wont stick, bring out the lesser charge which you can *prove*.
BTW is it not a strange experience to read a conversation btw an AC and a high-karma /.'er on threshold 1+?
All opinions are my own - until criticized
This is related to the right to be "presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".
Technically, everyone is supposed to be presumed innocent. This is a major hassle for the state. Proving guilt is hard. It takes time and money and sometimes they have to see people walk even when they know they're guilty.
Since you can't send someone to jail simply because they're probably a criminal the state makes certain suspicious activity illegal. For example, possession of lockpicking tools, possession of "paraphernalia", possession of spraypaint, etc.
So a person can effectively be found "guilty of being a suspect". Technically this doesn't violate your right to presumed innocence. Technically you're being charged with a different crime that you are guilty of.
Where I live, possession of an unregistered handgun is punishable by up to 25 years in prison- the same as for certain degrees of murder. I doubt that's just a coincidence.
If you've ever wondered why there are so many "victimless crimes" this is one of the reasons.
ay a cop or a security guard finds AC wandering around in a closed store. They charge him for theft or breaking in. Now AC claims "Oh but I thought the store was open. You see the door was open so I just figured I'd do some late night shopping"
This is where it is nice to be able to build a case upon those lockpicks in AC's back pocket. If the real charge wont stick, bring out the lesser charge which you can *prove*.
That might make some bit of sense, but as I understand it, possession of burglary tools isn't a crime unless you are also charged with burglary or attempted burglary. Now, if they couldn't charge him with burglary or attempted burglary, then they wouldn't be able to charge him with possession of burglary tools either. (or if they did charge him with burglary and couldn't make the charge stick, then carrying the lockpicks isn't a crime by itself)
Either way, if you can't charge someone with a real crime, then you shouldn't be able to charge them with these pseudo-crimes either. As someone else pointed out, it's a kluge that is intended to patch up the screwed up legal system. It didn't work very well.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Might as well arrest me for rape.. I carry the tools around all the time..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Err, you can also use to kill.
I am not joking. There is a country in the world where you can be arrested for carrying a deadly weapon as well. And a sharpened screwdriver is a deadly weapon. The wound does not close.
Overall: whatever you do and whatever you carry if the police wants to bust you for something they will bust you for something. Period. If you have a look through all laws, mini-laws and other regulatory crap (I had to do this a few times related to chemicals and software) there is always something that is sufficiently vague to get you busted and in jail. You have no rights. Only illusions ;-/
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Anyway, sometimes I wish for a /. house lawyer. There are far too many "IANAL but..." threads here.
Consider someone on /. arguing along the lines of:
"Well IANACE (I'm not a computer expert), but I read the specifications and since I think that since they limit our freedom to write however we like, I suggest we disobey them."
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Well, its not really a hard and fast age thing. It is more a cosmetic appearance thing. If you look 'dignified' versus you look like 'a punk'. Age of course plays a factor. A grizzled old bum wouldn't get hassled for drug paraphernalia no matter how scruffy he looked and a kid in his 20's would probably get hassled no matter how 'respectable' his appearance might be. A lot of this just depends on the jurisdiction in question, perhaps you live in a community that isn't quite so crazy when it comes to the 'war on drugs'.
Consider someone on /. arguing along the lines of:
"Well IANACE (I'm not a computer expert), but I read the specifications and since I think that since they limit our freedom to write however we like, I suggest we disobey them."
There's a big difference between disagreeing with computer specs and disagreeing with the law. We're all qualified to give our opinions of the law, since we are "the people" whose beliefs and standards the law is supposed to represent. We may not fully understand why some laws exist or why things are done a certain way, but we have every right to seek an understanding and to be critical of things that don't make sense.
Over time, the law has grown more and more complex. It's damn difficult for the average person to have even an inkling of how things work until they've actually had to deal with the legal system. Most people who do have to deal with it don't come away with a favorable impression, even if they win their case. Justice is expensive these days. Due to overly complicated laws and procedures, you have to get a professional attorney to tell you what the heck any of it means. That's fine if I'm dealing with my car or my computer, I chose to buy those and accepted the complexity when I did. The legal system shouldn't be innaccessible to the people who must live with its judgements and work within its constraints.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The problem is that "the will of the people" is very hard to define. If most people care more for security than freedom, would that make surveillance cameras OK?
Or more drastically: What if the majority doesn't care about the rights about a minority?
The laws of any country are patchworks, each law designed to adress a problem without disturbing the system too much. Think about how hard it is to fix a computer system ten years old. Well the lawyers have to deal with "code" that is hundreds of years old. Each new fix may cause a security hole or a resource conflict somewhere. And they have their share of script kiddies, who just love to throw some dirt into the law machinery.
Of course we are entitled to have our opinions about how the law should work. I'm just so tired of all people who seem to think that you can apply a quick fix to a law and solve the problem.
That is why I sometimes wish for a /. lawyer. Somebody qualified (and honest) enough to say "Yes, this law leads to some unwanted results. However, the proposed change would be worse" or "No, that act will not grant Gates the right to monitor your disk, because of this law" and so on.
Or simply /. editorials on legal aspects of geek stuff, from someone who actually knows what he/she is talking about.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Age of course plays a factor. A grizzled old bum wouldn't get hassled for drug paraphernalia no matter how scruffy he looked
:-)
Wrong, it's precisely because of his socio-economic status that he will get hassled.
I wasn't saying he wouldn't get hassled, he just won't get hassled for drug paraphernalia. He would most likely just get rounded up to the drunk tank or told to more or less get out of town just for being a bum.
and a kid in his 20's would probably get hassled no matter how 'respectable' his appearance might be.
As a white man in his late 20's I have never been hassled by the police for carrying a briar.
I wouldn't recommend carrying one if you find yourself down here. I've known people your age who were hassled even though they actually even had tobacco on them (the cops went rifling through the tobacco pouch looking for anything 'suspicious' hidden in there).
(And I started enjoying the occasional bowl in my teens, which I am sure contravened a statute or two)
Tons of teens smoke, but almost all of them smoke cigarettes, so a teen or 'young adult' (what a loaded term) smoking a pipe is bound to raise a lot more attention.
The difference is though I engage in such subversive and nefarious activities in these strange times such as; pipe-smoking, attending evil musical displays like George Clinton & The P-Funk All-Stars, going to hockey games & horse racing, defending civil liberties, advocating political & judicial reform and most subversive of all: canoeing; I look like someone who might have fallen out of a Big'n'Tall commercial, and speak like someone (in public anyway) enamoured with the Queen's English.
You'd probably really be in trouble down here with the last bit given the temperment of the typical redneck cops -- and their command of, or perhaps lack thereof of the English language.
This is the real point, if you dress like, act like & speak like a hoodlum, don't be surprised if you attract the attention of law enforcement.
Agreed. Sad as it may be, most of the world judges people based largely on appearances.
One of the things that really bothers me are punks (the worst ones are suburban white kids) who look, speak & act like they just stepped out of a Rap Video, then wonder why they get hassled by The Man!
Yea, I really don't get that either. There are tons of that sort of 'wannabe' punks like that around here. Its kinda weird because they are really the antithesis of the people they are trying to emulate.
Pretty soon 'the man' will get used to seeing the kids in their baggy-ass jeans and Tommy/FUBU shirts and not pay attention to them anymore. Of course once it no longer gets attention, they will move on to the next fad. To a certain extent I think they are disingenuous when they act surprised they get hassled, because a lot of them are doing it to get attention, even bad attention.
The great irony here is that these supposed "subversives" buy into the mass consumerism that fuels the masters who seek to oppress them.
Exactly. It is nothing new though, the latchers-on in the 50's all tried to be James Dean, in the 60's all the kids bought commercial pseudo-hippie clothes, in the 70's they bought all of the platform shoes, leisure suits and whatnot fake disco clothes. Its all still conformity, just conforming to something different than their parents did.
You want a real subversive? It's someone who looks like they shop at Brooks Brothers, who sounds clarion calls against the status quo, and goes home and pops in their favourite NWA CD.(Mind you, this could just be my bias toward "Old-School")
I'm not all that interested in intentionally trying to be subversive anymore, but neither can I be bothered to try to conform. I just don't care that much anymore about what other people think. I buy what I find to be cheap and comfortable, not what the fashion police say is the hot thing these days. My political views aren't that way out for Slashdot, but probably would raise a few eyebrows amongst the average populace. I'm not at all familiar with NWA, but my listening tastes aren't at all mainstream either.
Then, simply speaking, you didn't read the article.
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin