Slashdot Mirror
College Police Think Using Linux Is Suspicious Behavior
FutureDomain writes "The Boston College Campus Police have seized the electronics of a computer science student for allegedly sending an email outing another student. The probable cause? The search warrant application states that he is 'a computer science major' and he uses 'two different operating systems for hiding his illegal activity. One is the regular B.C. operating system and the other is a black screen with white font which he uses prompt commands on.' The EFF is currently representing him."
It's not as scary if you read the application for search warrant instead of the slashdot headline. The detective who filed the application had interviewed the suspect's roommate, who said that, among other things, he had "observed [the suspect hacking] into the B.C. grading system that is used by professors to change grades for student," that he suspected the suspect of damaging his brand new computer, and that the suspect had posted a fake web site profile of the roommate. Other evidence, such as network reigstration information, supported the detective's belief that the suspect had engaged in at least some of the alleged activities.
The evidence needed to show plausible cause for a search warrant is very low, but it certainly isn't as low as merely using a Linux operating system. This search warrant is not evidence that the sky is falling.
I think the EFF does a lot of good things -- but their PR blurbs tend to leave out enough critical info that I am beginning to dismiss them out of hand.
Good call. The warrant affidavit goes into some detail about the alleged crimes. The informant is not anonymous and had provided credible information for other investigations. That is generally enough to meet the fairly low burden of probable cause.
Certainly, there's a lot there for a defense attorney to attack. For example, the person whose property was searched has allegedly played a prank on the informant. That goes to credibility at trial, though, not to whether the informant can provide evidence sufficient to make out probable cause.
This whole story is stupid. What's going on is that the search warrant request says that a witness has said the suspect uses two operating systems in his computer as a means of hiding his illegal activities. That's not a claim that having two operating systems is in itself suspicious. It's just a claim that this particular suspect, in this particular case is using a second operating system to conceal something.
Context, folks, context.
Are you adequate?
As an alumni of Boston College I can tell you that the BCPD are not what most people think of when they think of "Campus Police" - they are a bona fide division of the Newton Police Department (in which Boston College resides) and have all of the powers that a normal police officer does - on or off campus. Unfortunately, because of this private/public entanglement, I have seen the BCPD get away with *far more* than any police department would on other college campuses. I've seen people get burned on other campuses (Wesleyean, URI, UConn to name a few) , but nothing like what I have seen at BC. They are very aggressive and care little for your rights.
BC has a pretty Draconian administration - worse than any Jesuit school I have come across. They use the BCPD as a hanging threat - basically, you have to arbitrate any offense committed on campus according to BC's liking (aka, admitting your guilt) or else the case gets handed directly to the real, legal system with a fairly effortless transition, as their "Campus Police" really *are* police officers; their statements and actions transition to the Massachusetts court without a hiccup.
In other words, if you want to defend yourself, you have to go to court - any attempt to do so in the arbitration process is impossible. If you admit guilt, there are many cases where it is still considered a crime, and still gets put on your criminal record even after arbitration -although agreeing to resolve in arbitration absolves you of any sentencing because BC then decides what your punishment will be (which is of course the reason why the option is attractive). I have a friend of mine who tried to enter medical school and once was at a small party where people were smoking Marijuana. He was too afraid to defend himself in a court of law, so he admitted guilt, and in the end he had to explain his charge of possession of marijuana to every school he applied to (He got in eventually).
From what I understand, they also don't need a search warrant from BC for on-campus searches, because technically that space is privately owned by BC, not the college student, and the BCPD is always given tacit consent by the college. Computers and other containers are a different story however- I know a couple of people who got off the hook because the beer they had while they were underage was in their fridge (and hence a container, property of the student that would require a warrant in lieu of permission).
BC does more harm than good by playing Big Brother to all of the student body. BC even goes so far as to have "off-campus RA's", or RA's that "watch" specific buildings known to have lots of students - and they all have the BCPD on speed dial.
If it wasn't for the education, I would have transferred out after my freshman year. I hope this kid's lawyers are good.
If anyone bothers to actually read the entire information they would notice that the warrant lays out grounds to believe that the accused has accessed school computer systems for the purpose of ALTERING GRADES.
If that isn't "unauthorized" I'm not sure what is.
As for the other charge of fraud, it isn't simply a matter of posting an article somewhere and saying 'so and so is gay'. its impersonating someone else and creating a gay profile for the purpose of defamation (which would be an unfair advantage). If someone pretends to be you, and misrepresents themself as you for the purpose of defaming you. This is the kind of misrepresentation that can amount to fraud.
The hacking does not relate to the profile, but rather altering student grades in a teachers computer system.
Nothing in the warrant says that the crime is "outing a gay person".
The officer does seem to make too much out of the fact that the accused apparently can use linux on his machine. but after you remove the sensational parts of the warrant, there is still definitely an allegation of a bona fide crime.
its unfortunate that cops think that judges are too stupid to follow a logical line of reasoning without dressing it up. But what do you expect when judges are elected and only people with strictly average IQ's can get hired as police.
its entirely possible the cop was awestruck by linux, but it doesn't matter because altering grades is clearly the kind of thing almost everyone thinks of as unauthorized access.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
The concern isn't that he committed libel (crime) by sending out email to a list of people that outed the informant by linking him to a gay personal ad that he probably created (fraud). The problem is that he a suspect in several other crimes including a stolen laptop as detailed in the motion to quash:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/CalixteMemSupport.pdf
While there is probably quite a bit for the defense to attack in how this warrant was obtained, my biggest concern is how it was handled. I suspect the following description is more common than we would like to know:
"... seized, among other things, Mr. Calixte's cell phone, his iPod, computers, disks, and "postit" note on which Calixte was in the process of taking notes about the officers' actions during the search. Christopher left a Property Receipt with Mr. Calixte listing items seized during the search. (Kessel Decl. Ex. C.) The seized post-it note does not appear on that receipt."
That's the type of bullying that makes me sick.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/09/nyregion/metro-news-briefs-connecticut-judge-rules-that-police-can-bar-high-iq-scores.html
METRO NEWS BRIEFS: CONNECTICUT; Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS311US311&q=police+high+iq+discrimination&btnG=Search
15,900 results
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
email would be libel, for words in print, just like in a newspaper.
Slander is for spoken words.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
the real reason they have to dumb it down; yeah I have friends who are/were cops; is because of political correctness. Hell they had to reduce the physical requirements in some districts because the fatties sued.
The majority of cops (like 95% or more) are very good people. Just like any other industry you get a few bad apples who ruin it for everyone else. Just like any unionized shop they are practically forced to keep them. There are only so many desk jobs to go around to place truly bad ones in. You can get them if they do something truly illegal and get caught doing so. Still the reason why cop abuse stories hit the news so hard is because it isn't common place; well it might be more so in some areas but overall it isn't.
Don't go off thinking most of these are country bumpkins; don't confuse elected sheriffs with real cops either, some of those are real ego trippers.
The fact is most are just like the rest of your neighbors. The difference is they are in the public eye all the time. Many have college degrees, its required for advancement in some areas.
The standard people are applying here is the same thing the cops in the story are being doing... and who is being vilified for it?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
So yes, it's sometimes possible for a true statement to be defamatory.
Do you have case law on this? Now, maybe you're in the U.K. or somewhere in Europe, but my understanding is, at least in the U.S., is that truth is an absolute defense. You can say anything about someone, no matter how malicious you use it, as long as it is true. Now, if you've got case law or some statute law to the contrary I'd love to hear about it. I think that the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell would be instructive in this case. Hustler was sued because it ran a parody ad (marked as such) that said that Rev. Falwell admitted he had sex with his mother in an outhouse. The jury found for the magazine for libel (the ad was a parody so it was clear it wasn't him actually claiming what was said, therefore not libelous) but found for Falwell on emotional distress. The magazine appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled there was no defamation because no person could possibly believe it was true, and merely having your feelings hurt is not adequate to be compensable damages absent actual libel. So if something which is false and insulting about someone that cannot possibly be believed as true cannot be defaming, then declaring saying something which is true to be actionable would appear to be madness.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Please people, I beg you. Wake up and see what's happening before this becomes more common.
OK, I'm awake and aware of the problem. Now what do I do?
The story the EFF is putting forward is actually incomplete and VERY misleading. The guy is being accused of a LOT of things; changing students grades, "jail breaking cell phones" (since when is THAT a crime?), massive copyright infringement, and harassment, to which the e-mail in question is related.
/. story.
Considering all of THAT, data storage devices are practically MANDATORY for the warrant. And considering that iPods can, and frequently ARE, used as USB hard drives, they're fair game.
Also, we ARE talking about an iPod Touch, as mentioned in the second link in the
Link to the full warrant affidavit: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf
My sig can beat up your sig.
hyperbole doesn't help your argument
the number of accidents where excessive speed is a factor is variously quoted by the police at anywhere from 10-15%
total number of road deaths in GB in 2007 was 2,946
so we can assume 300 of those are speed related
this compares with about 275 knife crime related deaths for the same period
or 8,724 alcohol-related deaths in 2007
even if you dispute the 13% figure and assume all road deaths are speed related, you may wish to see the number of drug related deaths for the same period
The total number of deaths related to drug poisoning in 2007 was 2,640
speeding may not be a very safe or desirable activity, but to suggest it is the most dangerous criminal activity is disingenuous at best