Slashdot Mirror
Bicycle Thief Barred From Using Encryption
An anonymous reader writes "A teenager found in possession of a stolen bicycle was given probation, with a whole bunch of computer-related restrictions. He wasn't allowed to use social networks or instant messaging. He wasn't allowed to use a computer that had 'encryption, hacking, cracking, scanning, keystroke monitoring, security testing, steganography, Trojan or virus software.' The kid appealed, noting that the restrictions on social networking seemed overly broad, and restricting him from using a computer with a virus was difficult since viruses and trojans and the like tend to try to stay hidden, so he might not know. While the court overturned the restrictions on social networking, and changed the terms of computer restrictions to include the word 'knowingly,' it did keep the restriction on against using any computer with encryption software. Remember, this isn't someone convicted of malicious computer crimes, but of receiving a stolen bicycle. So why is perfectly reasonable encryption software not allowed? And what computer these days doesn't have encryption software?"
Some additional information worth introducing to the discussion:
While I detest the whole idea of this, I do think that somebody should edit the original post to mention he was in posession of a stolen motorcycle, not bicycle. Although motorcycles are similar to bicycles-- they both have two wheels--there is a difference.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
This doesn't change the issue at hand, but it is sloppy editing in the headline and summary.
Isn't the log-in page for most social networks HTTPS? Or is he only allowed to use Facebook's (ridiculously) non-encrypted log-in page?
does this mean that Microsoft has to open-source the windows code? This guy can't use a log in?
so much for any browser that supports ssl.
and any OS that stores its passwords in a cryptographic hash....
what's that leave?
How strange that US judges can order the most stupid things from people. Here, if you are convicted for something, you cvan get a fine, community labour or jailtime. When it's traffic related your license can be revoked in certain cases, and that's it. A judge ordering someone not to use a computer would be laughed out of court.
You don't use 128 bit encryption on YOUR bicycle?
He violated his probation - which means the court can throw whatever books it wants at him.
I'll bet that he was also restricted from possessing a firearm, even though weapons weren't involved. This isn't new.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
How could anyone possibly enforce these restrictions besides spying on him 24/7 which seems to be a bit draconian for a stolen bike crime.
Incidentally, the 4th condition 'not to use a computer for any purpose other than school related assignments' probably would have been sufficient to cover all the other conditions.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
...it does seem quite irrelevant to the offense at hand. But speaking from the gut, I think bicycle thieves ought to be beaten to death, preferably more than once, so I'd say he got off light.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
all the web browsers support https. what good is a computer without access to the internet?
He can use a Commodore 64. Or a Speccy. :)
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
So how does the punishment fit the crime? How is it even relevant? How is forbidding this kid from using an online bank (or anything else with https, or a physical network with a properly secured wireless connection) not excessive bail, or cruel, or unusual?
Take this on up the chain of justice you bike-thieving scoundrel. I'll fight to have you punished for your crime, but I'm fully in support of prohibiting our law from water-boarding you or forcing you to live in the last century. From a practical standpoint the water-boarding is probably less cruel - outside of the psych damage - it's over when it's done. The other prevents you from becoming a normally functioning member of modern society.
you don't use 128 encryption on YOUR bicycle?
Figures.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Visit one https:// URL and you have violated your probation!
Why not protest that this would prevent him from buying stuff online?
timothy, RTFA.
Poor kid, cannot use a cell phone. Cannot use a bank machine. Cannot use a bus or subway with automatic ticketing.
If you want to force the definition of "encryption" to character encoding there are going to be microwaves, refrigerators and washing machines he cant' use.
Perhaps this is judicially considered "security software", but how can it be reliably distinguished from the forbidden "encryption software"? This seems unconstitutionally vague.
he can't use browsers
-Woof woof woof!
I'd bet that he somehow used a computer to steal the motorcycle. The courts don't typically give out that kind of computer punishment unless a computer was used in the crime. Perhaps it was a craigslist scam or something?
Look at it this way: Violent offenders have their 2nd amendment rights taken away, and nobody seems to think that's a bad idea. Sex offenders in many states are barred from living in certain areas (near schools, playgrounds, daycares, etc), and nobody seems to think that's a bad idea.
And so, the upcoming tidal wave of nerd rage will be totally unjustified, because all of you basement dwellers will be shocked to think that your right to encrypt your porn might be taken away. Queue someone saying that "it's only a matter of time before the MPAA/BSA/etc. gets such injunctions placed on file sharers/software pirates/grandmas", or someone pretending that the Constitution was ever meant to protect criminals.
The perp from TFA is just that - a convicted criminal, and society is choosing to suspend certain of his rights.
The bottom line, here, is that criminals are offenders against society, and have, to an extent, forfeited their rights.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Bike thieves are the worst kind of scum. Restricting someone from encryption is just ignorant. I guess this kid shouldn't use an ATM, credit card, or any other electronic transaction. Not to mention he shouldn't work anywhere where they use email, a database that encrypted, or even a secure web page.
He wasn't allowed to use a computer that had 'encryption,
Want to log in to your baking site with ssl. Sorry kid.
15-year-old ward of the state with history of drug use on probation for shooting someone with a pellet gun found riding a dirt bike hotwired with no papers and bullshit excuse of buying it for cash from "some guy."
This seems to be a very troubled kid who will soon become a adult criminal.
It seems the story is spun to get us excited about taking away our encryption.
Can he use ATMs? Or does he have to get his money from a walk-up teller so the teller uses the encryption?
...and allow him to finish the rest of his sentence in jail or prison. If he's on probation that means he was convicted of the crime and therefore bail is not involved at all. If not being allowed to use a computer is cruel and unusual punishment, then my whole childhood was cruel and unusual. I guess he'll just have to learn to read books, talk to people, play board games, and play sports.
It was a motorcycle, not a bicycle.
And the juvenile has a history of drug use, violence, and other criminal activity.
So consider that when replying.
From what I read, this kid needs some one more positive in his everyday life. Also, this result is better then putting him in jail.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's so that if he steals another bike, he won't be able to hide it in an encrypted partition on his hard drive.
1) Bicycle != Motorcycle. 2) Poorly/not cited. 3) My first question was "what country was this in"? And you can't find that directly in the article. BAH HUMBUG.
It was a 50cc Honda motorcycle, tard.
what counts as a computer these days? Netbook? Smartphone? gaming console? blu-ray player? They all have encryption software. And can support chat.Does that mean he can't do any banking online?
Are you listening? We need you again.
Isn't there something in the constitution about unusual punishment? When the punishment does not fit the crime, I have to say that it is unusual.
Unless the crime involves computers, why the hell should the sentence involve them!?
It's tough to research this case based on the information given, so I suppose we'll all just have to guess; but I don't believe the judge just arbitrarily decided to put these restrictions on the kid if they were truly unrelated to the crime.
How did he arrange to receive the stolen motorcycle (which, btw, is not a bicycle; it's likely a lot more valuable and the crimes involved in stealing it were likely a lot more serious in nature)? I bet his end of the deal was brokered over the Internet.
Does that make the restrictions "reasonable"? Well, there's two sides to that. Any probation is still less restrictive than imprisonment, which would be a legitimate option. But if you argue that the court might not realize just how much restriction it's imposing, that may be so.
Either way, I fail to be outraged at the level TFA is trying to incite through its selective reporting of information on a topic where I can't research the missing details myself.
I have mod points today and would mod this whole article down... it's a complete waste of time.
I'd use one for whatever I wanted and let them check other other one.
The articles author asks incredulously whether that means that he can;t even encrypt his email.
Strange as it may seem, email encryption is not all that common amongst anyone except geeks, professionals in certain fields and some of the more tech-savvy criminals. I suspect that this kid is none of these. Preventing email encryption was probably the specific reason this was included in the first place.
Here's a bigger problem - go to facebook.com. Log in. Notice how you get directed to an encrypted webpage? So he's still not allowed to use facebook. Or even use jut about any web browser (I guess some of the older version of Mosaic or Lynx might have been pre-https)
It already starts bad when an editor doesn't know the difference between a bicycle and a motorcycle. Yes, the work bike is used to describe them both and the US is NOT alone in this (in Holland the term is "fiets" and this can be used for a motorcycle) BUT in both English in Dutch this is ONLY done if there is no possibility of confusion.
In this case there is.
Further more, there is NO such thing as being MERELY in possesion of stolen property. If you are found guilty it is because you are a criminal, typically because you stole it directly OR obtained it at an unlikely price. That is, if you buy a bike for 10 dollars, you are expected to know that means it is stolen. No court will convict you of being in possesion of stolen property if you can show that you couldn't have known, buy a 100 dollar value bike for 50 might be reasonable. Buying something you could reasonably suspect of being stolen is what fences do, which is illegal.
Then there is the case of the this "kid" having committed other offences. This is no "innocent" teen who just happened to think he got lucky on a deal.
Finally, when you are convicted and sentenced in court, a lot of the rights you assume were natural are taken from you. Criminals can have all sorts of sanctions imposed. From restrictions were they can go, to how far they can travel, from leaving the country, to have to report regurlary, to not drinking, not causing a further nuisance (probation), not talking to people, not talking to certain people (offence for all criminals released from jail after serving their sentence to associate with known felons) etc etc. And YES, the system DOES take account of new developments and the crime and the tools used in it.
A child rapist might be forbidden to come near childeren, but a criminal businessman can be forbidden from running a business. If you scam people over the phone, you can be forbidden from using one, just a drunk driver may not drive a car.
Now, slashdot editor, is it THAT hard to imagine that as criminals use the internet and encryption that they are then forbidden to use it?
Gosh, this sounds a lot like those cry stories where a person is banned from driving for being drunk and then claim they really need the car and is it fair to deprive them of said car... HELLO? Punishment is SUPPOSED to hurt. Probation is supposed to send the message, we are watching you. If you don't want more restriction, behave AND behave better then a NORMAL citizen who has NOT been convicted and sentenced.
Newsflash, criminal punishment is punishing criminals. OMG! The horrorz!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
So if his laptop joins a network that has wep or wpa encryption, he's in violation? What if he goes to a website that requires https? Or logs into any site that encrypts one's credentials?
I have to wonder if they really thought that through.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
So, if the terms of his "Get Out Of Jail Free" card were too onorous ... what were the alternatives?
Screw him, thieving bastige. Let him see how six months (or six years?) in jail for Grand Theft Larceny suits him.
Since basically every browser supports SSL/TLS for https: connections.
Computer Thief Barred From Using Handlebars
the 'legal system' wants an effort-free way to check up on his activities.
encryption only makes 'law enforcement's job harder. and so to ease their job, they tell the kid he can't communicate in private anymore.
I find this more criminal than ANY theft any kid could do.
as usual, our legal system is broken beyond belief. I know there is a lot of missing data here, but I cannot think of any other reason to inflict this does not jibe with the crime kind of punishment.
it has to be that they want an easy 'in' to his computer at any time and with no 'complications'.
seems wrong. I can see what they WANT, but just because they WANT it does not mean they should HAVE it. same with the kid, he WANTED the bike and used force to take it (we assume). the government is doing the same fucking thing! they WANT to see what he's doing at any time, and they FORCE him to communicate in the clear.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
So... what do bikes and PCs have to do with each other again?
So he can't put his computer inside a tomb. They didn't say anything about encipherment.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
For purposes of U.S. export controls, a hash function is considered encryption software. There's not a system in the world that provides a login capability that doesn't at least do hashing.
This is what happens when you have non-technical people making rules for the use of technology.
An Asimov story from The Winds Of Change:-
http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=conBlogPost.656
that doesn't have encryption software on it.
Or a cell phone for that matter.
And no ATMs for you. Oh and I guess you can't enter your pin into keypad at the supermarket, or at the bank teller you now have to use.
And don't even think of using that TV which supports HDCP. And step away from that Xbox.
At least he's only 15 and doesn't have to worry about whether they bothered putting any encryption into the voting machine this time.
Hopefully they defined computer more carefully than just "computer"...
The term "computer" is not clearly defined in law - or is it?
So is he banned from using and ATM?
Or perhaps even a vending machine that takes credit card?
Unfortunately it seems like the number of submissions that make it to Slashdot's front page is so low that some chaff is let through just to keep from only have one or two articles show up each day.
Putting moderation advice in your
Any site that uses SSL is encrypting the http traffic, every browser has encryption technology.
So that means he can not even browser the internet without violating the conditions of his probation.
that's what happen when you stole a hacker motorcycle, now everything that we do have your name on it
Bummer. I thought this story would be about a classic Oscar-nominated film being released without DRM.
Lose = not win
What mobile phone isn't a computer and doesn't use encryption to connect to a base station? So not mobile phone either...
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
And, dude, seriously? ... it's a bicycle, and you want to get on with the old-testament wrath, like branding someone's forehead or hacking off appendages?
I think you may need some perspective.
Perhaps you need perspective.
So "it's a bicycle", eh? What's that represent?
How much did it cost? How much labor went into earning that money? Suppose the thief had enslaved the owner and put her to hard labor for that amount of time? What would be an appropriate punishment for that? (Suppose the thief had done that to YOU. Would that change your estimate?)
But the value of something is normally higher than its price (or it would never have been bought). What is the actual value of the bicycle which was lost by the owner when it was stolen? Was it transportation to school? How many classes were missed? What will be the effect on the gradepoint? On the ability to get into a good college? On the future lifetime income? Was it transportation to work? What will be the effect on tardiness, job performance, paid hours? Will the owner lose the job? How much of her own free time will the owner lose by walking to work or using slower transport? How much extra cost to use public transit?
In the old west a horse was the car and the farm tractor. Stealing a horse could end up killing the owner and perhaps his family - by stranding in a hostile environment, crop failure, loss of access to markets for necessities or to medical help, etc. So horsetheft was a hanging offense. Similarly with cattle rustling. (Even today, cattle rustling is big business - and the rustlers often kill any chance witnesses, resulting in the deaths of kids riding out of the supervision of armed adults from time to time.)
Now loss a bicycle in an urban setting MIGHT not rate quite that level of penalty. But when assessing what punishment fits the crime you need to look at the actual costs to the victim. Dismissing it as "just a bicycle" or "just property that's (allegedly) easily replaced" doesn't cut it.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
So no online banking?
I'm in my right mind and I have the answer to everything!
So, technically speaking, he cannot use any compressed file formats (since compression even without DRM is a form of encryption), use any operating system that does not store passwords in plain text, and so on? Heck, cable set top boxes are computers and use encryption, and most cars today have anywhere from 3 to 20 on-board computers, many of which use encryption to prevent availability of diagnostic tools for use by owners so therefore even driving a car would require use of a computer which utilizes encryption technology. No cellphone, as all of them use encryption, unless you can find an analog phone that still works, and an analog carrier.
Have fun in DOS, kid, and enjoy your land line (which would probably have to be an old analog pulse/rotary dial phone if these restrictions are to be taken literally)!
Gotta love the politicians we chose to put in charge of our legal system. :-(
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think this is a natural consequence of the unfortunate but apparently pervasive attitude in the USA that if you've committed a crime, you're not a member of society anymore, and whatever restrictions usually would apply against treating you poorly don't apply anymore.
For example, hardly anyone in the USA seems to think it's a bad thing that convincted felons can't own firearms (2nd amendment nonwithstanding!), even those that were never involved in violent, much less gun-related crime. Hardly anyone seems to think it's bad that they can't vote. Hardly anyone seems to think that requiring sex offenders (genuine ones, not some guy who happened to pee in the bushes outside at night after a bar crawl) to sleep under bridges because they can't get closer than a mile to a school, or forcing them to walk up to their new neighbors and say "hi, I'm a sex offender" for the rest of their lifes whenever they move is a bad idea.
The reasoning always seems to be that "they had it coming", as if that justifies everything that could possibly be done to a person.
I think that's what's at work here, too. After all, if you adopt this mode of thought, what's wrong here? The kid is a criminal. He had it coming. Whether the punishment is related to the crime isn't even important; he's got no right to complain because he's a criminal.
Right?
So, I read the disposition, and the related articles. I don't get it. So the kid is on the downward trajectory. He's into drugs, stole a motorcycle, got in trouble for shooting someone with a pellet gun, and so on.
NONE OF THAT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH COMPUTERS/INTERNET/SOCIAL NETWORKS/CHILD PORN
And yet the court has the audacity to limit his use of computers/internet? I don't get it.
Seriously, if he's 'hacking' or whatever the term is these days and getting in trouble, sure I can dig that separating him from a computer isn't a bad idea, but give me a break. First, he's a 15yo kid. Second, he was on probation and got in trouble, that should tell the court their measures aren't working and they need to look at something else (which they did with the drug rehab thing). Third, he needs someone/something to give him a good kick in the pants, because he's going to end up in jail forever if he keeps this up. Finally, where the h*ll are the parents/guardians and so on that should be actively involved in rehabilitating this kid and getting him back on track.
All the worlds a stage, and I'm the guy running the lights...
Perhaps the reason the court didn't overturn the encryption restrictions is because the defendant didn't challenge those restrictions? The judgement in the linked-to article seems relatively clear (even if by omission) that the only restrictions challenged were the three restrictions (to use their lettering and wording) (A) on 'Use of Computer for Non-School-Related Purposes', (B) on 'Use of Instant Messaging or Social Networks', and (C) on 'Use of Computers Contaminated with Viruses or Unwanted Software'. If the defendant didn't request to have the restrictions on encryption (which are certainly there so that the juvenile justice system can track his communications) overturned and made no request for the total overthrow of his probation conditions, then I'm not sure the court even has standing to unilaterally throw out the encryption provision, and certainly it's little surprise that they wouldn't do so without being explicitly asked.
While on probation, one and one's property is subject to search. However, one is not required to give encryption keys. By banning him from using encryption while on probation, they prevent him from encrypting any records of any crimes he may commit.
At the time he was arrested, he was already on probation for drug related offenses. It is quite possible that there were encrypted files on his computer which would have resulted in a request for prohibiting encryption software.
not just the password part windows / Mac Mac / Linux let you encrypt folders as well.
The items in question are terms of probation. If J.J., the person who was convicted and sentenced, does not want to abide by the terms of the probation, he can always serve his time in jail.
The term encryption can have various meanings, but technically SSL encrypts information. To say that he is not allowed to use SSL is just inhumane.
It would be like ordering a burglar to never use "locking hardware," so he would have to leave his house, car, gym locker, bike, etc. unlocked at all times.
Is there any difference? Requiring someone to not use encryption opens them up to anyone who wants to hack anything they do online.
To be fair, the judge probably thought "encryption" only referred to deliberate encryption of personal communications. But it doesn't.
Haw!
Bike thieving bastards!
Anyone who steals a bike should be exterminated.
Bike theft, or anything related, is the only thing I would want to see capital punishment used for.
Fuck him.
I have had bicycle stolen from me twice when I did not have money for a replacement. Bicycle thieves are lower than the worms that crawl out from 30 meter pile of feces to eat out a puppies' eyes. They are vile creatures not worthy to be in the universe. They should not be allowed to use computers at all. They should be required to stomp worms all day in their bare feet!
Does SSL count? Because that is certinaly encryption. So pretty much any computer with a web browser is out.
What about a computer with wifi? WEP and WPA are encryption.
Enforcing a no-encryption rule is like forcing someone to remove all the locks from everything they own.
What, like having a friend get murdered? Or a woman you know getting raped? Or people you grew up with being molested? How about someone getting hospitalized because a bunch of bored kids decided swarming would be fun?
Who needs some fucking perspective here?
It's a bicycle, not a fucking hanging offense. Believe me, I have a set of hanging offenses.
Just watch me. I know what can't be easily replaced.
Fuck you.
No electronic voting.
No ATMs.
No efiling of taxes.
No online banking.
No web. (Name me a browser without built-in encryption)
No smartphone. (browser with https)
No iPad
I'm fairly sure that the judge didn't think this through very well.
Computer Thief Barred From Using Saddle
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
It's a bicycle, not a ... hanging offense. Believe me, I have a set of hanging offenses.
Never said stealing the bicycle WAS a hanging offense - or in a class with the other crimes you mentioned.
But dismissing it as "easily replaced property" isn't appropriate, either. Maybe YOUR wealth is such that the cost of a bicycle is trivial and you have cars in the garage so the opportunity cost from loss of the transport is negligible. But that isn't necessarily true for everyone.
Money, and the property it buys, is "crystalized labor". It represents a PIECE of the LIFE of its owner. THAT is what is stolen. How much is a day of your life worth? A month? A year?
"It's just property" is the cry of affluent eliteists for whom such a stolen object represents a drop in their financial bucket - along with criminals attempting to avoid the consequences of their crimes.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It's a moped. In my version of the Chain of Being, people who drive mopeds are somewhere down there between lawyers and bicycle thieves. ;-)
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
As far as I can tell, this means he can't use any computer that honors DRM, because DRM is implemented via cryptography.
An iPod that can play protected content from the iTunes Music Store or from Audible is a computer that uses encryption.
A reasonably modern set-top box that can decode HBO is a computer that uses encryption.
A Kindle that can display DRM-protected ebooks is a computer that uses encryption.
WTF?
Using a computer with encryption is different from *knowingly* using encryption. i.e visiting a https web site using SSL is a bit different to keeping a black book of crimes in a hidden TrueCrypt volume.
I think it's fair enough, given the clause of "knowingly".
I.O.U One Sig.
Obviously if you get all pedantic, this guy won't be able to use any cellphone (or even some wireless handsets) or any modern personal computer .. or a DVD player, or a Roku (because of the HDCP output) or perhaps even certain types of printer ink cartridges, or .. (it goes on and on).
The judge's intent was probably to ban secure encryption that works for its user. That is, any encryption applied to serve the user's interest (i.e. doesn't apply to HDCP) for which an adversary (actually, a very specific adversary: the government) can't trivially defeat. So that means the judge would probably be ok with him using SSL (provided he uses a "mainstream" CA) but not GPG. That's really all it comes down to: the judge wants to hold some power over this guy and make it hard for him to communicate securely. The judge probably doesn't actually give a damn if he watches movies from Netflix.
OTOH, an evil judge (assuming that's what we have here, as opposed to the far-more-likely sloppy or ignorant judge) could be setting him up. So, sure, this poses a theoretical risk but the thief probably ought to be worrying more about having a traffic accident or getting cancer.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Also, Notepad++ has a ROT13 menu option
"he, who has quotes in his signature, is a douche" - unknown.
If the brain is a biological computational engine and he decides to learn and speak only in pig-latin, will he be arrested? Time will tell.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
As many have stated, this was an appeal to remove restrictions the minor was unhappy with. Specifically he had issues with the following provisions of his probation:
/. and probably doesn't know how common encryption is.
A. Use of Computer for Non-School-Related Purposes
B. Use of Instant Messaging or Social Networks
C. Use of Computers Contaminated with Viruses or Unwanted Software
The important point is that this appeal did _NOT_ address his right to use encryption at all. The Judges involved in the appeal did as asked, they reviewed the limitations that were appealed only (see above). This does not say that the original Judge should have restricted use of encryption software to begin with, it just means the defendant did not specifically question his right to use encryption. One could argue that he in fact did argue based upon vagueness, but he didn't point out the word encryption, however as worded its insane to believe anyone with a technical background would agree to that.
My guess, the defendant, judges, or anyone involved probably doesn't read
At least they changed it to knowingly. What are the chances this kid knows that computers and encryption are so commonplace? Don't you think he'd put up a harder fight if he knew? Of course, if someone then comes and explains things to him, he's screwed.
Ill sell him a C64... as that's about all he can use.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The kid was on probation, broke the law and was given an option of more probation or servicing his sentence. I frankly don't care if his probation terms consisted of flapping his arms around a city park in a chicken suit or servicing trying to live off the proceeds of selling pork dogs in Tehran. It is an OPTION to him, a gift, an alternative to doing the proper sentence.
I don't give a crap about his lack of social networking nor his inability to use any computer. He's a criminal. And that he even appeals it is a good reason to not to give it the option and that the Appeals court even listened to it, is good enough reasons to impeach the judges.
Now if this guy had been wrongfully charged or something similar, my tone on this would be quite different.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I have a feeling the judge was not aware that cell phones are computers, and that all cell phones, and all major personal computer OS's like windows, linux, and Mac contain encryption software.
Hacking software? Well, that solidly covers any operating system with a shell or editor. Judge might as well have just banned him from having bowel movements for a year, because that shit is impossible.
and it's ridiculous how many people rattled off long posts without even noticing the relatively serious stuff the kid had done and innocuous nature of the restrictions as well as the fact that juvenile delinquents, due to their youthful immaturity, can be given special restrictions that can't be given to adults
The dieing breaths of a dieing superpower, Its decline is long and slow but falling it is.
How is forbidding this kid from using an online bank (or anything else with https, or a physical network with a properly secured wireless connection) not excessive bail, or cruel, or unusual?
Well, it's not excessive bail because it's not bail of any sort.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
I have mod points today and would mod this whole article down... it's a complete waste of time.
Not a complete waste...it's a platform for critiques like yours, as well as some choice +5 Funnies.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Certainly you can't get blood from a stone. In some cases the state won't bother jailing criminals because it's cost prohibitive. The problem becomes, how does society deter or punish crimes committed by those with nothing to lose? Georgian England (even the US prior to 1834) had debtor prisons. Back in the Old West the Sheriff would tell you to be out of town by dawn. Sometimes the local posse would just string you up.
The consensus of the public is that we now defer retribution and social control to our lawful means of coercion, the government. What the hell is the government doing to maintain order?
Can he still use that?
Okay, the restriction, cannot pass state lines. So what if he gets on an vehicle that goes across state lines as part of its route, that is okay then? NO. HE is a criminal who has been given restrictions. If those restrictions restrict him, well, that is the whole idea. Sucks then if he can't use the bus because it goers over the line on the way to its destination.
So the restrictions mean he can't use the web or at least parts of it. So? There most likely is a reason for it (could he have been using the internet to buy/sell stolen bikes?)
What next, an area restriction doesn't count when you really want to go there? A restriction on contacting someone only counts if you don't want to see that person? Jail doors are only locked if the person doesn't want to go out?
You (and frankly far to many others here) seem to think the court cares he can't order from amazon. They don't. I hope you are NEVER arrested, because you will be in for a hell of shock about how many rights you take for granted, you no longer have. That is the way the legal system works. I wish people would inform themselves, because right now 99% of calls for reform are done by people who have no idea and to an audience who thinks it is never going to happen to them and they don't even know what would happen to them, if it happened to them.
Either you think criminals should be punished and that means they can't do many things normal free people can or that criminals should go unpunished.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
There's no note in TFA as far as I can see about any part of the ruling forbidding him to leave the state of California, and it was a state court so it doesn't apply outside California, which means he simply has to leave California in order to keep using computers as he used to.
I'd suggest he do just that, followed by a salute somewhere public ridiculing the judge and the ruling. It's stupid and deserves to be treated as such.
This judgment sets an interesting precedent. Having clearly abandoned the principle that the punishment should fit the crime, a whole world of possibilities is opened up.
- car thieves could be barred from buying oranges
- merchant bankers could be made to whistle 'Dixie' in response to any question about leveraged buyouts
- prisoners could be offered the option of being tickled to reduce their sentences
- anyone caught speeding could be made to learn to play the bagpipes
Any other ideas?
A reasonable person should gladly accept as many restrictions that are not applicable to them, if it means the reduction in the restrictions that are.
In your example, a reasonable person would accurately identify the restriction on hot dogs as most problematic, and could try to swap it out for two other restrictions that are not applicable to them, i.e. ask the court to lift the ban on eating hot dogs and replace it with restriction on playing golf and owning race horses. The judge would probably think that those two restrictions are more severe (since he probably spends more time playing golf than eating hot dogs) and accept your trade.
IAAL, and I managed to have the judge reduce the fine imposed on my client in exchange for restricting his right to work in a managerial position for two years - for a guy, who is a janitor, I'd say it was a good deal.
Take a look at the Firehose, and you can mod the articles using the + and - buttons on the headline.
Punish too little or too much too often or too selectively, and the public will slowly lose its respect for those upholding the law, and even for the law itself.
Alas.