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."
Campus police are not rent-a-cops. They are real police. Sadly.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
You can get in trouble for writing an email saying that someone is gay?
Don't forget that there's a judge that approved that warrant. He's just as much part of the problem.
Hey, is it any surprise campus security are afraid of Command Line Interface Terrorism?
Seriously, I'd love to be able to read more info on this... without knowing all the evidence presented to get the warrant, it's a little silly to say that his use of multiple PCs and Linux was enough for the judge to have granted the warrant.
Most likely, the reason those items were brought up as evidence for the warrant is so that the warrant would cover the devices in question -- to justify action bigger than just reviewing his account history on the BC networks.
If he was a suspect for some other reason, wouldn't it make sense that the police would have reason to search his multiple devices?
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.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
And I'm sure, before Linux, they were running other evil black-screened operating systems with blinking cursors.
You've gotta wonder if these cops ever made it to high school, let alone college.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. This was from a search warrant application. Not every cop is computer literate. This is worthy of a few snickers, not a front pager.
It's not, if the person really is gay. Libel and Slander only apply if the person can prove he is not gay and the claim substantially damaged him in some way.
It's still a dick move, though.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
... the cops that caused a city wide panic because they misunderstood a few funny lighted signs?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
But the fact that it says he uses 2 operating systems to hide his activity
If they think dual-booting is "hiding illegal activity" I wonder what they'd think of full disk encryption?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
No, but having those things mean you have the ability to do things the government doesn't want you to do. The easiest way to prevent crime is to take away everyone's freedom.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
For many of them, including municipal police, no, I don't wonder at all.
Google that, you'll find it is common practice in police departments to reject higher IQ candidates and dumb down the entrance exam requirements. It's a barely hidden scandal. You see a lot of dumb cops because there are a LOT of dumb cops, on purpose, by design. They want violence oriented, stupid, malleable, no questions asked goose stepping type "warfighter" order followers for their new world order agendas. Been obvious for around two decades and change now, since they went full speed ahead transforming local police departments into paramilitary goon squads. Not all of them, but sure as hell a shitload of them.
Security is the title of this one.
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
Please tell me that someone else here actually read the full warrant. The kid is accused of harassment, theft, and copyright infringement. His use of Linux is tied only to claims that he encrypts people's hard drives for them so that copyrighted material can't be easily scanned for (which, as far as I know, isn't illegal).
There is actually a pretty significant amount of evidence for these claims, especially the harassment claims. Two of the accused computer's were used (according to network logs) to send the harassing email. The only computer on the entire campus network to access the site used to set up the harassment was registered on the network as belonging to the accused. Is it enough to convict someone? Probably not by itself. Is it enough to get a warrant? I would say so.
Yes, you can learn a lot of things from 24!
Today I learned that, by vectoring two aircraft so that their paths cross at some point, they will instantly be sucked into the same spot and explode outside the White House. Somehow they even managed to disable the onboard TCAS system, being a closed system thats quite impressive!
All this of course made possible by the "CPI device" that can bypass the one and only firewall that the whole US has to protect ALL its critical infrastructure.
It can also jam radio waves from hundreds of miles away between different aircraft, from hundreds of kilometers away. I think Jack Bauer is in for trouble this time!
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Since when is it against the law to post to a mailing list (or any forum) that someone is gay?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
That affidavit link was pretty good. The people who are claiming this is all because he called someone else gay or uses Linux should read it before pontificating. The student in question is accused of breaking into college systems to change grades and there is other evidence (DHCP logs) to suggest that he was behind these activities.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The question is what their other evidence is. Obviously, using command line is not "probable cause" for doing anything. I honestly don't think this was their primary concern. They say he's being charged with unauthorized access to a computer or network. Assuming that the college has very strict rules on how you can connect to their network (only from one machine, only from your own user name, etc), using linux could circumvent their system. Intentionally or otherwise, I think that this is the real tragedy: that him using a number of devices was enough to bring a charge of unauthorized access to a computer and confiscation of his devices. All of this assuming that he wasn't doing anything illegal after all, of course...
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
When it's libelous or slanderous?
Some of the info is superfluous, but the officer is only quoting what somebody else told him when he mentions "the regular BC operating system and the other [with a] black screen with white text".
The officer supports a lot of information with MAC addresses, University logs, comments from the University Director of IT, etc. One witness being technologically inept doesn't really matter. The officer, at least from my understanding of the affidavit, KNOWS what Ubuntu is. I suspect this witness' statement is there just to provide ancillary evidence that links the Ubuntu laptop as owned by the suspect being investigated.
I've seen a lot of stupid police actions, but this guy seems to be reasonably well-informed.
If I were in the position of a judge today, and I saw that warrant, I'd sign off on it. Please find & read the whole warrant.
*Once investigated by the campus police because I used the terminal on OS X, and the other student thought I hacked her laptop. Grrrrrrr.
SIG: HUP
still should be a tort crime (civil), rather than a police matter. Regardless of whats said, can't go to college? Become a cop! You'll be a big man then.
Simple. I'd shoot you, write up the report, then move on.
Suspect became violent when questioned....
Police don't come knocking on your door for slander. Lawyers do.
>Simple. I'd shoot you, write up the report, then move on.
Right, a college campus police officer shoots a student who is in your custody, being investigated for some completely nonviolent civil question.
You wouldn't simply "move on."
It would end your career, starting with you being kicked out of your criminal justice program or whatever you're doing there.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The actual quote and 'other evidence' are courtesy of the student's roommate, with whom he apparently doesn't get along with and had attempted to turn him in previously as having a stolen college laptop.
Reading the actual warrent request is a hoot.
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf
So? We'll blame the technology and not the human? Do you suggest that we'll treat any user of said technology as guilty until proved innocent?
Sorry if I failed to spot irony in your post.
I know everyone likes to make fun of rent-a-cops, mall cops, fake bacon, etc... but I have more respect for them than real cops. Private security is providing a service that's valuable to a property owner who's spending their own money instead of yours. If they assault someone, they can even be held accountable. I'll take private security over a pig any day.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT I hate the many paraphrased forms of that quote. As soon as you take out the part about the liberty given up being essential, and the safety temporary, you end up with a wholly unreasonable statement.
We sacrifice inessential liberties for safety all the time. We are required to get our cars registered and inspected (in some states), our buildings inspected, and our restaurants must conform to code. All of these things restrict our freedom, but also help to keep us safe and healthy. Do the folks who conform to these codes, and expect others to conform as well, deserve some kind of punishment for their willingness to sacrifice liberty?
The spirit of Ben Franklin's quote was really that there are some very particular freedoms that should not be sacrificed. That one about being free from unreasonable search and seizure is just non-negotiable.
But those other freedoms, like the freedom of a local restaurant manager to keep a filthy kitchen and as a result give me diarrhea, I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice. So yeah, all those paraphrased versions of Ben Frank's quote have been said too much. They're overly broad, and they come from a place of blind, ideological patriotism. Sorry for the rant.
The majority of cops (like 95% or more) are very good people
Anyone who has ever busted a pot smoker is not a very good person at all. "I was just doing my job" is no excuse.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Why do you hope the student wins? He sounds like a dirtbag who steals computers and calls people gay because he thinks it's funny.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Not all of us are willing to sacrifice "those other freedoms". Some of use believe the sacrifice should be essential not the liberty when weighing the equation. The attitude of most sacrifices aren't important is scary and leads down a dark path. The idea that the sacrifice should be exceptional not the liberty is what I believe he was getting at.
Thanks EFF for being a liar. The police have probably cause to seize the computers, not because they are black with white font (zOMG!) but because a reliable named witness told them the student was engaged in changing grades for other students.
From the warrant application: "[The witness] advised Officer Eng that Mr. Calixte has changed grades for other students by accessing the Boston College computer system.... It should be noted that [the witness] is not only a named witness to these allegations but also a reliable witness in another investigation which he brought to our attention.... [The witness] reported to me that he has observed Mr. Calixte hack into the B.C. grading system that is used by professors to change grades for students...."
Also, emails were sent out from an anonymous Yahoo! account claiming that the witness (who is roommates with the suspect) was gay. The IP address of the client sending the Yahoo! message corresponded to a computer whose MAC address was registered to a computer whose computer name had only been used on the computer of one student at B.C. -- the suspect.
Clearly, there's probable cause enough here for a search warrant.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT I hate the many paraphrased forms of that quote. As soon as you take out the part about the liberty given up being essential, and the safety temporary, you end up with a wholly unreasonable statement.
We sacrifice inessential liberties for safety all the time.
Benjamin Franklin considered all liberty to be essential. That's why he said "Essential liberty", not "Essential liberties". "Essential" modifies the concept of liberty itself, not certain particular instances of liberties. This was not an accidental word choice.
Also, I feel it is safe to say that Franklin considered all safety won through the sacrifice of liberty to be temporary.
He chose those words specifically so as to remind the reader that liberty is essential, and safety is temporary.
The spirit of Ben Franklin's quote was really that there are some very particular freedoms that should not be sacrificed. That one about being free from unreasonable search and seizure is just non-negotiable.
Actually the spirit of his quote is much closer to the paraphrasings than to your interpretation. He didn't mean it's okay to sacrifice "inessential" liberties any more than he meant that it's okay to sacrifice "essential" liberties if the safety you are gaining is permanent.
They're overly broad, and they come from a place of blind, ideological patriotism.
Benjamin Franklin was an ideological patriot. How sad that we'd try to revise history to make him anything else.
The enemies of Democracy are
Still the reason why cop abuse stories hit the news so hard is because it isn't commonplace
That, plus police are in a position of strong public trust. When a cop does wrong, people feel extra-betrayed (as well they should). That goes double when it's someone high-ranking, and triple when that person is or appears to be covering for his or her underlings' misbehavior. Police are held to a higher standard by the public; they should be held to that standard by law and practice, but often are not, which fuels discontent.
In addition, we never see any cops condemn poor behavior by other cops. And by "poor behavior" I mean tasing kids to death and rank corruption. I believe that 95% of cops are good people, but it would be a lot easier if PDs ever gave any impression that they knew it was possible for cops to screw up.
This sig is not the Zahir. Lucky for you.
"Why would calling someone gay be defamation (the root crime of libel and slander)?
Defamation has to generate a negative image of the person being defamed. Since there is nothing wrong with being gay there's no possibility of defamation."
That's why tribunals are presided by judges not mathematicians.
While what you say *should* be right, it is up the judge or juror to stablish what the intention and the impact of the case was. That's what the Roman ius 'dolo' covers.
"Being falsely outed as a dark-skinned individual doesn't seem to me to be defamation"
Good for you and I'd wish everybody to be like you. Sadly, that's not the case, which what makes possible to be defamation call "nigger" someone depending on circumnstances, even if he is black skinned.
If the liberty for which the founding fathers sacrificed their fortunes and gave their lives doesn't apply to the "campus Barney Franks", just who does it apply to? You? Don't make me laugh. You don't even care about your liberty, or mine. You're willing to give it away for what? So someone can't send you an insulting email? It's clear you have no idea of the value of liberty.
What an idiot.
Everyone should interpret the law. This is why we have consciences. When the law is unjust, it is not in the interest of justice to obey or enforce it.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
God man, just go to Thailand and get around a bit in an unregistered car there. Then come back (if you can) and tell us that registration and inspections don't increase safety!
lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
So does that now mean I can own any kind of weapon without bothering with a license? How about shooting at people but missing? Plotting for terrorist attacks that don't take place?
There is a good reason why fines aren't based entirely on actual damage, if they were then it would always be beneficial to break the rules as long as you get caught less than 100% of the time. If getting caught on a train without a ticket meant you had to buy a ticket at the normal price then it would never be worth buying a ticket.
Sometimes fines can be used to dissuade people from committing dangerous acts, sometimes they can't. A decent justice system will factor in the effectiveness of using a deterrent.
Finally, I don't see the reason for treating victimless crimes as a whole differently. Personally I would much rather see someone who doubled the speed limit past a school entrance at closing time and somehow didn't kill anyone get locked up than some stupid kid who thought it'd be funny to graffiti a wall.
The punishment should fit the crime. Speeding is "essentially" a thought crime; unless and until there is a collision, there is no victim (yes I understand that "people were put at risk"). Crimes without victims should be immediately removed from the books, to help improve the economy.
Speeding motorists kill more people, maim more people, and damage more property than all other criminals put together. Speeding motorists in Britain alone kill more people every single year than Al Quaeda have ever killed in any year. Speeding which does not result in a collision is not victimless; the right of children to play freely in the road, as was normal throughout history until the last fifty years, is infringed. The right of the elderly to walk safely to visit their friends or purchase their shopping, is infringed. The right of all citizens to use the public road as public space to be enjoyed, is infringed.
No-one has the right to drive a ton of metal at 60 miles per hour in a public place; it puts everyone at risk, and severely diminishes everyone's freedom and safety. The community grants revocable licences to people deemed mature enough and responsible enough to manage a motor vehicle safely. A 'three strikes and you're out' approach to speeding - three offences and you never drive on the public road again - seems to me entirely reasonable.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.