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?"

Comments

need more input

[yagu]

well, the bulk of real information about the said thief in TFA says he "recieved a stolen motorcycle". This isn't much to go on and get a sense of how or why the sanctions were applied. Considering the dearth of underlying exposition, this article qualifies as a non sequitur.

Some additional information worth introducing to the discussion:

• "how" the thief received said stolen motorcycle
• "why" /. summary would describe motorcycle as "bicycle"
• "if" there were computer-related activity leading to discovery and tracking of said thief.
• etc.

Re:need more input

[shentino]

In this modern world I'd even go so far as to call it cruel and unusual punishment.

Seriously, unless they have something that establishes he used a computer in furtherance of a crime, they have no business cutting him off from the vast majority of society.

Well, rationally speaking...

[Angst Badger]

...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.

Re:Well, rationally speaking...

[JaredOfEuropa]

A thief does not deserve "whatever is coming to him". He deserves swift punishment befitting the crime. Punish too little or too much too often, and the public will slowly lose its respect for those upholding the law, and even for the law itself. That's why it is better to pronounce rational sentences, rather than let pity or anger get in the way too much.

Re:Well, rationally speaking...

[mlts]

I don't want bike thieves in jail. It wastes tax dollars having to give them room and board when there are tons of homeless people who would love a meal and a bunk somewhere.

I rather see bike thieves pay restitution to the victim, and then have to work for community services, such as IMBA, to keep trails maintained. Perhaps a project to get new fixtures out for people to lock their bikes to, or just a good old fashioned litter patrol on bike paths. Or perhaps deploy and keep clean Porta-Potties on bike commute routes.

Perhaps even teach some basic bike mechanics or other trade skills so they actually have something to offer an employer other than a mouth and an attitude. Even with an entry level job, they are paying taxes, and this is better than someone spending their lives watching TV 24/7 on the taxpayer dime.

Keep the jails and the prisons for the violent criminals and repeat offenders. The others can be put on a work crew and actually do something useful and not draining taxpayer dollars.

Re:Motorcycle

[geekoid]

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.

Re:The court order

[rotide]

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.

We need mod system for ARTICLES not just comments

[tomkost]

I have mod points today and would mod this whole article down... it's a complete waste of time.

Re:The court order

[steveg]

This punishment sounds a lot like, "You are so grounded."

Good luck finding a computer

[nedlohs]

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"...

Re:The court order

[JesseMcDonald]

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.

Re:Motorcycle

[Roger W Moore]

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?

[Zadaz]

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.

So he can't use DRM?

[DdJ]

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?