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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hm, maybe not. I mistook a link to another story as a tag line. Where did this actually take place, I'm not finding it in the article.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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?
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.
More to the point every modern operating system encrypts and decrypts passwords to provide login authentication. Even if you aren't *using* a password, the capability remains in anything other than a heavily hacked up Linux or *BSD system (You'd have to remove pretty much the entire authentication system, which would in turn break things like gdm, so you'd have to remove that...). You couldn't even hope to remove the capability from a Windows or Mac system. So basically this kid can use a computer which has had a custom operating system hacked together for it, but is otherwise screwed.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
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.
...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
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.
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.
You're missing the point. Every modern operating system has encryption built in to its lowest levels. He can't use a *computer* as the restriction is written. What's step one to using a system? Logging in, right? And what happens to your password when you log in? It's encrypted with a one way algorithm and compared to a known hash. "Well, you say, simply turn off logins on on the computer he uses." After all, nearly every system allows it to be turned off, and just boots to a single user's desktop. Only problem is that the capability is still there. He's not barred from using encryption, he's barred from using a computer with encryption software installed. Which is pretty much every computer with any operating system written in the last 15 years.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
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.
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.
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.
DOS 3.3, Lynx
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.
nope my bicycle keeps a salted SHA512 hash of the code and compares the hashes to unlock...because you know hashing is not encryption
$ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
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)
Go directly to fail. Do not pass go. No operating system worth its salt encrypts or decrypts passwords. They use cryptographically strong one-way transformations instead. These are sometimes called hash or trap-door functions. Just about the last thing most OSes want when it comes to passwords is to be able to recover the password just from the bits stored on the disk. (Sometimes the hash function may be something that *used* to be cryptographically strong, but for which brute-force attacks are now feasible, but the general idea is the same.)
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.
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.
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."
One way encryption is still encryption
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
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.
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"...
One way encryption is still encryption
So is ROT26.
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
But the password "encryption" is lossy. If you still call that encryption, I'll introduce you to my nice encryption program:
It's strictly one-way and completely unbreakable.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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
Three words for you : Windows Protected Storage
It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
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
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.
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!
But can he use https?
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.
Decrypts passwords? I know early versions of Windows which did that, but no modern OS ever would decrypt a password. Instead, the OS will take the inputted password, encrypt that against a random number (salt) a number of times (1000 for TrueCrypt for example), then check if the result is the same as a stored value. If it matches, the user is authenticated. The stored value can never be turned back into the user's password, just like a vat full of zombie parts can't be put together into an undead army by a chainsaw running in reverse.
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
Figures...
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
One way encryption is still encryption
Perhaps, although when people [ab]use the term one-way encryption they pretty much always are referring to cryptographic hashing.
But the password "encryption" is lossy. If you still call that encryption, I'll introduce you to my nice encryption program:
It's strictly one-way and completely unbreakable.
...for the *nix implementation.
Microsoft managed to produce an insecure implementation of that same algorigthm in DOS 5.0, easily cracked with the included UNDELETE.EXE utility. It was super efficient and could crack just about any such recently encrypted file in less than a second!
just like a vat full of zombie parts can't be put together into an undead army by a chainsaw running in reverse.
That's odd, my chainsaw has a lever with a iconic depiction of zombie parts fusing together on one side. I wanted to know how it worked, seems there is a sliding gear on the other end, and that apparently makes the blade go the other way.
The sales guy said it could could have dangerous consequences, and that I should never use it. Now you've got me tempted to try it to see if it really works. All I need is a pile of zombie parts, anyone care to donate a few?
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
Ill sell him a C64... as that's about all he can use.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So, you're saying that simply asking the court to re-consider the terms of probation is automatic cause to not reconsider the terms of probation? Funny that you speak of Tehran, because that kind of thinking sounds like something we're used to hearing from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
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.
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
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.
Well, to be fair, it's not quite intentional. The a-holes who breed more crime always manage to think they're fighting crime and being "tough on crime"; they breed more crime by idiocy, not by intent.
"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
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.
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.
interesting coincedence? well in case you didn't understand fully this might help encryption is 2-way while hashing is only 1-way.
$ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
I was just remarking on the coincidence.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
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.