Bicycle Thief Barred From Using Encryption

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bicycle Thief Barred From Using Encryption

Posted by timothy on Thursday October 21, 2010 @05:40AM from the ssl-is-encryption dept.

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?"

32 of 449 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

need more input by yagu · 2010-10-21 05:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
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.
1. Re:need more input by geekoid · 2010-10-21 06:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You will note that this was a violation of probation. So it probably relates to a previous crime the we do not know.
  Was he using online contact to acquire drug contacts? to find pellet gun targets? To associated with people who encourage this behavior? Is he dealing with parent issues? It said he is a ward of the court. I'm not sure if that just means he was arrested, or if he is in foster care.
  My point being, there is a lot of information we just don't have. And seeing how he only wanted a loosening of their restrictions, it seems he knows why as well.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:need more input by jgagnon · 2010-10-21 06:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Also worthy to note: nearly every OS in common use today includes some sort of encryption software. Might as well bar someone from using a computer completely.
  
  --
  Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
3. Re:need more input by icebike · 2010-10-21 06:14 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It would also be useful to know where this took place. NYC? Rural Nebraska?
  Follow the link to the article.
  Oh, what was I thinking, this is slashdot.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
4. Re:need more input by Smallpond · 2010-10-21 06:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Received a stolen motorcycle, probably suggests the receiving was arranged on the internet.
  The court documents state that he only knew the seller as Skye (note the odd spelling, something you wouldn't know unless communication was in writing).
  The only documents you casually read were the Appeal, not the original court documents.
  The kid has a record as long as your arm.
  Probably in the the Receive stolen goods section of Craigslist.
5. Re:need more input by shadowfaxcrx · 2010-10-21 07:33 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  San Diego County, California. The kid said he bought the motorcycle from a guy named "Skye" for a few hundred bucks. Nothing in the court record shows anything about using a computer to arrange the sale, so I don't see why they would impose all the draconian restrictions on him other than an attempt at a legal-system version of "You're grounded, kid."
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/04513511498/court-rejects-probation-rules-on-teen-that-ban-him-from-using-social-networks-or-instant-messaging-programs.shtml
  Scroll down - you can see the appellate court decision at the bottom.
  
  --
  "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
6. Re:need more input by causality · 2010-10-21 08:30 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
7. Re:need more input by shentino · 2010-10-21 18:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
Motorcycle by Geoffrey.landis · 2010-10-21 05:43 · Score: 4, Informative

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
1. Re:Motorcycle by geekoid · 2010-10-21 06:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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 /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:Motorcycle by Roger+W+Moore · 2010-10-21 08:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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?
Judges are alowed to order strange things by johanw · 2010-10-21 05:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
Violated Probation by fliptw · 2010-10-21 05:47 · Score: 5, Informative

He violated his probation - which means the court can throw whatever books it wants at him.
Well, rationally speaking... by Angst+Badger · 2010-10-21 05:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

...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.
1. Re:Well, rationally speaking... by JaredOfEuropa · 2010-10-21 06:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
2. Re:Well, rationally speaking... by guyminuslife · 2010-10-21 06:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I had my bike stolen several years ago, after having forgotten to lock it up at night. At the time, it was my only means of transportation. It was a brand new bike, so I still had the serial number, and when the thief pawned it, the Austin PD flagged it in their database and I got it back.
  When I was picking it up at the police station, the cop who was filling out the report told me, "Look, we know who stole your bike. It was some homeless woman around town. You can press charges if you want, but personally I don't think it's worth it." Now, maybe it was saving him some paperwork on a misdemeanor larceny, but I tend to agree. I was angry about having the bike stolen, but I don't see the utility in it. You could fine her, but is she going to pay? And if she does, how will she pay---by stealing another bike? You could jail her for nonpayment of the fine, but that's not going to solve anything, either: spend some tax dollars on it, she'll get out quickly and be in roughly the same situation as before. It's just not worth it; there's no point.
  But that might just be me.
  
  --
  I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
3. Re:Well, rationally speaking... by russotto · 2010-10-21 07:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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?
  You have to admit, the punishments were effective. There are no bicycle thefts recorded in the Old Testament or any contemporaneous document.
4. Re:Well, rationally speaking... by mlts · 2010-10-21 07:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
And how did they define computer ? by RichMan · 2010-10-21 05:51 · Score: 3, Funny

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.
1. Re:And how did they define computer ? by boristdog · 2010-10-21 06:15 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Most cars are pretty much run by computer too.
  Kid will need a bicycle. Oh, wait...
The judge could just revoke his parole... by moronikos · 2010-10-21 06:00 · Score: 3, Informative

...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.
Well duh... by Arancaytar · 2010-10-21 06:05 · Score: 4, Funny

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.
Re:The court order by rotide · 2010-10-21 06:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by tomkost · 2010-10-21 06:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

I have mod points today and would mod this whole article down... it's a complete waste of time.
Re:The court order by steveg · 2010-10-21 06:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

--
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
In other news... by LowerTheBar · 2010-10-21 06:26 · Score: 5, Funny

Computer Thief Barred From Using Handlebars
no encryption is probably because by TheGratefulNet · 2010-10-21 06:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

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."
Good luck finding a computer by nedlohs · 2010-10-21 06:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by JesseMcDonald · 2010-10-21 06:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Re:The court order by Lobachevsky · 2010-10-21 08:01 · Score: 4, Funny

The judge must be a T-1000 sent here to prevent John Conner from becoming l33t.
Does SSL count? by Zadaz · 2010-10-21 08:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

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? by DdJ · 2010-10-21 09:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?