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."
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.
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.
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.........
Police don't come knocking on your door for slander. Lawyers do.
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
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.
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