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

Judges are alowed to order strange things

[johanw]

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.

Re:need more input

[causality]

That was to cover my ass for those anal types that would point to a Commodore 64 in active use today and say it doesn't include encryption. They're still "common" in some circles. /shrug :p

I've found that "those anal types" are not worth accommodating. You could make a post with more disclaimers and clarifications than actual content and they'd still find something wrong with it. I deal with them a different way, myself. I let them do as they will because if I calmly explain why they are missing the point despite it being made obvious, they always make themselves look stupid and/or belligerent. They do that for themselves; it is not something I inflict on them. Trying to take them seriously and pre-emptively engaging them interferes with their process of making themselves look stupid.

I'll add that it isn't so much that they are "anal" or obsessed with detail. That's a means to an end only. The root of it is something harder to define that I call "playing the hostile audience". As in, they don't like what you said and that bothers them, especially if it really is the truth and the facts back it up so they can't just easily contradict it. So now they've got to justify their disdain and they do that by finding something wrong, however trivial, and playing that up as much as they can.

I believe this is mostly a subconscious process of bias. Had they possessed the skill of entertaining a notion even if they disagree with it, they'd appreciate that it may not be so trivial to refute. When these folks like something and it is what they want to hear, they are suddenly less concerned about the most trivial and meaningless edge cases that don't relate to the point being made. It's just a form of childishness that is the very opposite of dispassionate inquiry and a willingness to follow the facts wherever they may lead. Instead, what pleases and what offends is supreme and facts are cherry-picked to fit.

I call it childishness because it's a failure to recognize that there are things like truth that are bigger and more important than what they like and don't like. That's ultimately an unwise and self-defeating worldview that unfortunately, a lot of like-minded people are more than willing to (falsely) validate. It's no wonder that they will so readily make themselves look stupid if you don't get entangled with them.