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:
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?
...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.
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.
Perhaps this is judicially considered "security software", but how can it be reliably distinguished from the forbidden "encryption software"? This seems unconstitutionally vague.
This is pretty standard. They know he can't help it, but this way if they later want to throw the book at him for something they can't necessarily prove, they just invoke this.
So people who commit computer crimes get no restrictions?
Its' not strange. The kid has a history of criminal acts, and the people he communicates with, online, encourage this behavior.
The judge is simple trying to remove him fro that situation. It's far better the putting him in prison.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Well, a lot of us also object to the idea that "inalienable rights" can be revoked just because you are a felon.
Although probation is something that sits in place of incarceration. It's not permanent. Restrictions during probation
are a bit different from being permanently dis-enfranched. That said, a guy needs to be able to make his way in the
world as it is even if he is scum.
As a matter of public policy, it makes no sense to deprive scum of the ability to legally fend for themselves. All this
does is just intentionally breed more crime.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
from reading the courts docs, it looks like he has a history of criminal behavior.
The last time I saw something like this, it was because people online where encouraging the criminal behavior. Speculation leads me to think the judge is just trying to remove the juvenile from the atmosphere. Of course, speculation is just that.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So anyone that does something knowingly illegal should be barred from basically touching a computer? Even if not in prison? Because I see no reason why this guy is a menace to or with computers and thus there should be no reason to restrict his use of computers.
I have mod points today and would mod this whole article down... it's a complete waste of time.
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.
AC wrote:
I think it's a bad idea. Anyone who has actually considered the consequences think it's a bad idea as well. Many people who live in the tiny areas where these laws concentrate all the sex offenders think it's a bad idea. Of course, most of them just think "can't we get them banned from here too?!" without caring where they go after that. The only people who think things like that are a good idea are people who lack the foresight to realize the consequences or who just don't care. The funny thing is that they're always called "unintended consequences" but you can always find someone who thought about it and tried to inform the people who made the decision about what would happen and was ignored.
So, yes, criminals may have forfeited some of their rights. They certainly have to in order to be locked up, but that doesn't mean it's rational to throw any restriction you want at them. They have to make sense and be fair. Yes, that's right, fair. Even criminals have a right to fair treatment. You can't simultaneously let them walk around and set up the rules so that just trying to live in what would be a non-criminal manner for other people sends them right back to jail. This kid is a minor, so he probably doesn't have to pay a lot of bills online, handle bank accounts, etc. (although he might). Most adults simply won't be able to get by in the modern world without making use of things that are forbidden to this kid.
This punishment sounds a lot like, "You are so grounded."
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
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"...
I would not consider being effectively banned from using any modern computer (or smartphone, etc.) a "minor" punishment. If that was not the judge's intent then the court clearly does not understand the implications of its own sentence. They even specifically lifted the ban on using social networks, but it is impossible to log in to most social networks without HTTPS, which requires encryption software.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
The last time I saw something like this, it was because people online where encouraging the criminal behavior.
So if they had been talking to him in real life the kid would have been banned from talking to anyone? Sorry but it is utterly ridiculous for a judge to be able to make up arbitrary rules like this. If the kid cannot be trusted in society then he should be removed from it for a period. Afterall if you don't trust him not to listen to people online telling him to break the law how can you possibly trust him not to ignore the arbitrary rules of one judge and go online anyway?
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.
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?
The judge has limited his educational and vocational possibilities with this order. His interaction with most nearly any electronic communication and/or device with access control is now barred. Poor education, no job. Hmm, I wonder what we'll find this kid end up doing for money...?
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once