College Police Think Using Linux Is Suspicious Behavior 1079
FutureDomain writes "The Boston College Campus Police have seized the electronics of a computer science student for allegedly sending an email outing another student. The probable cause? The search warrant application states that he is 'a computer science major' and he uses 'two different operating systems for hiding his illegal activity. One is the regular B.C. operating system and the other is a black screen with white font which he uses prompt commands on.' The EFF is currently representing him."
He has an iPod (Score:0, Informative)
Self-hating fag.
Re:Rent-a-cops (Score:5, Informative)
Why should they have the right?
If I'm not mistaken, the Boston College Police Department consists of
Special State Police Officers [wikipedia.org].
That they were able to obtain a search warrant should be another indicator.
Re:Rent-a-cops (Score:3, Informative)
Campus police are not rent-a-cops. They are real police. Sadly.
Depends on your jurisdiction. On my campus, they have police powers, but only while on campus. Off-campus, they are regular citizens.
A few years back 3 campus cops drove a campus police car to a nearby off-campus doughnut shop. While there, they noticed a driver weaving down the road. Suspecting a DUI, they turned on their flashing lights & siren, pulled over the driver, determined that the driver was impaired, then called the regular city police.
The campus cops were reprimanded by management, because they were dressed like police officers, driving a police vehicle, and acting as police officers while they were just regular citizens (impersonating a police officer is a serious offence).
I dunno what happened to the DUI offender due to the illegal traffic stop.
Re:What is a regular "B.C. Operating System"? (Score:5, Informative)
It's a mix of Microsoft Vista and XP with support tools (apps).
Eg: http://www.bc.edu/offices/help/meta-elements/doc/articles/html/TR-mselearning.shtml
Re:Rent-a-cops (Score:2, Informative)
No, they are not. In fact, the point of campus police is specifically to insulate the students from the real police. In some cases, to keep the students out of the regular justice system (e.g. underage drinking. Academic sanctions might be preferred to hanging a criminal conviction around a student's neck for the rest of their life.) If the "campus" police are more severe than the real police, then they're really not doing their jobs. They're supposed to be more present, to catch shenanigans while they're still cheeky and no one needs to replace a few units of blood.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Informative)
It's not as scary if you read the application for search warrant [eff.org] instead of the slashdot headline. The detective who filed the application had interviewed the suspect's roommate, who said that, among other things, he had "observed [the suspect hacking] into the B.C. grading system that is used by professors to change grades for student," that he suspected the suspect of damaging his brand new computer, and that the suspect had posted a fake web site profile of the roommate. Other evidence, such as network reigstration information, supported the detective's belief that the suspect had engaged in at least some of the alleged activities.
The evidence needed to show plausible cause for a search warrant is very low, but it certainly isn't as low as merely using a Linux operating system. This search warrant is not evidence that the sky is falling.
Read the warrant: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf
Start with page 6 - if you want to get behind someone, this is not the person to do it. He's admitted to doing illegal activities in the past and his laundry list is quite long with multiple officers involved in the past and multiple witnesses being called to back up things up on different incidents.
Let's take a few sentences out of context and blow it up because its Linux. Gotta love an internet full of headline news...
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Informative)
I think the EFF does a lot of good things -- but their PR blurbs tend to leave out enough critical info that I am beginning to dismiss them out of hand.
Good call. The warrant affidavit [eff.org] goes into some detail about the alleged crimes. The informant is not anonymous and had provided credible information for other investigations. That is generally enough to meet the fairly low burden of probable cause.
Certainly, there's a lot there for a defense attorney to attack. For example, the person whose property was searched has allegedly played a prank on the informant. That goes to credibility at trial, though, not to whether the informant can provide evidence sufficient to make out probable cause.
Re:Boston College is private, right? (Score:2, Informative)
So.. campus cops can do whatever the hell they want then. Why is there even a story posted here?
Because it wasn't just campus cops involved, it was the Massachusetts State Police who participated in the search.
Warrant does not say 2 OSes -- Hacking (Score:4, Informative)
The excerpts EFF have posted do not say "he has two operating systems, and that's evidence that he's up to no good." Instead, the warrant says
Paraphrased, that says that somebody directly told the police that they observed the suspect doing illegal activities, and that the dual OSes are an aspect of those activities. That's almost, although not exactly, the inverse of what the summary and most of the commenters assume. And if I was going to be up to something I shouldn't be doing on a computer, if I wasn't going to have a dedicated computer for it, then I might limit those activities to a separate OS with separate filesystems.
Finally, as another commenter noted, warrants have to state with some particularity the objects to be searched and seized. EFF isn't giving us enough context for this part of the warrant, but it could be that the warrant is talking about a computer with two OSes just so the officers know which computer to seize, the propriety of the seizure having been established elsewhere.
Not saying that this warrant was proper, that this guy did anything, etc., but I am saying that the problems most people are complaining about, and that EFF is implying, aren't necessarily there.
Taken out of context. (Score:5, Informative)
This whole story is stupid. What's going on is that the search warrant request says that a witness has said the suspect uses two operating systems in his computer as a means of hiding his illegal activities. That's not a claim that having two operating systems is in itself suspicious. It's just a claim that this particular suspect, in this particular case is using a second operating system to conceal something.
Context, folks, context.
Re:sure it is (Score:4, Informative)
Never mind. I'm retracting.
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf [eff.org]
Bullshit title (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing in the facts say the use of Linux, in and of itself, was suspicious. Rather, it appears someone told the police the student was committing crimes and was hiding the evidence by use of dual-booting into Linux.
This is bullshit FUD.
Re:Warrant does not say 2 OSes -- Hacking (Score:3, Informative)
Let an alum tell you about BCPD (Score:5, Informative)
As an alumni of Boston College I can tell you that the BCPD are not what most people think of when they think of "Campus Police" - they are a bona fide division of the Newton Police Department (in which Boston College resides) and have all of the powers that a normal police officer does - on or off campus. Unfortunately, because of this private/public entanglement, I have seen the BCPD get away with *far more* than any police department would on other college campuses. I've seen people get burned on other campuses (Wesleyean, URI, UConn to name a few) , but nothing like what I have seen at BC. They are very aggressive and care little for your rights.
BC has a pretty Draconian administration - worse than any Jesuit school I have come across. They use the BCPD as a hanging threat - basically, you have to arbitrate any offense committed on campus according to BC's liking (aka, admitting your guilt) or else the case gets handed directly to the real, legal system with a fairly effortless transition, as their "Campus Police" really *are* police officers; their statements and actions transition to the Massachusetts court without a hiccup.
In other words, if you want to defend yourself, you have to go to court - any attempt to do so in the arbitration process is impossible. If you admit guilt, there are many cases where it is still considered a crime, and still gets put on your criminal record even after arbitration -although agreeing to resolve in arbitration absolves you of any sentencing because BC then decides what your punishment will be (which is of course the reason why the option is attractive). I have a friend of mine who tried to enter medical school and once was at a small party where people were smoking Marijuana. He was too afraid to defend himself in a court of law, so he admitted guilt, and in the end he had to explain his charge of possession of marijuana to every school he applied to (He got in eventually).
From what I understand, they also don't need a search warrant from BC for on-campus searches, because technically that space is privately owned by BC, not the college student, and the BCPD is always given tacit consent by the college. Computers and other containers are a different story however- I know a couple of people who got off the hook because the beer they had while they were underage was in their fridge (and hence a container, property of the student that would require a warrant in lieu of permission).
BC does more harm than good by playing Big Brother to all of the student body. BC even goes so far as to have "off-campus RA's", or RA's that "watch" specific buildings known to have lots of students - and they all have the BCPD on speed dial.
If it wasn't for the education, I would have transferred out after my freshman year. I hope this kid's lawyers are good.
the warrant states a crime (Score:5, Informative)
If anyone bothers to actually read the entire information they would notice that the warrant lays out grounds to believe that the accused has accessed school computer systems for the purpose of ALTERING GRADES.
If that isn't "unauthorized" I'm not sure what is.
As for the other charge of fraud, it isn't simply a matter of posting an article somewhere and saying 'so and so is gay'. its impersonating someone else and creating a gay profile for the purpose of defamation (which would be an unfair advantage). If someone pretends to be you, and misrepresents themself as you for the purpose of defaming you. This is the kind of misrepresentation that can amount to fraud.
The hacking does not relate to the profile, but rather altering student grades in a teachers computer system.
Nothing in the warrant says that the crime is "outing a gay person".
The officer does seem to make too much out of the fact that the accused apparently can use linux on his machine. but after you remove the sensational parts of the warrant, there is still definitely an allegation of a bona fide crime.
its unfortunate that cops think that judges are too stupid to follow a logical line of reasoning without dressing it up. But what do you expect when judges are elected and only people with strictly average IQ's can get hired as police.
its entirely possible the cop was awestruck by linux, but it doesn't matter because altering grades is clearly the kind of thing almost everyone thinks of as unauthorized access.
Re:Probable Cause? (Score:3, Informative)
This is more like if you were the only one in town that owned a rifle and someone was shot and killed with a rifle. Obviously the police would look at you as a suspect.
The kid is accused of several things, including harassment which network logs show was done by a computer running Ubuntu. Since there were literally only 3 people in the dorm running Ubuntu, and the accused was the only one who knew the victem, it made him a logical suspect. Further investigation into the logs showed that both computers used in the harassment were registered to the accused kid. Questioning the victim and aquantances of the accused led to allegations of hacking into the schools grading system as well as illegal filesharing.
This isn't just "OMG he uses Linux! Arrest him!" like the summary would lead you to believe.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Informative)
This search warrant is not evidence that the sky is falling.
Not in this case but news like this is becoming very commonplace.
If you are aware of the Missouri MIAC documents [stltoday.com] or the Virginia Terrorism threat assessment document [slashdot.org] then you know that law enforcement are basically being trained to think you are a possible terrorist unless you do nothing but sit at home and watch televison all day.
Re:"cops , IQ" (Score:5, Informative)
I can't get at TFA right now (EFF slashdotted?!) but I suggest you read the actual PDF of the justification to grant the search warrant. The detective's so-called credentials (after he left land management) include a page and a half of fluffed-up 1-hour cybercrime seminars.
Nothing to see here... (Score:3, Informative)
Read the document.
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf [eff.org]
There's probable-cause in there unrelated to linux and gay mailings.
Re:sure it is (Score:2, Informative)
Yup. Pages 6 and 7 of the search warrant application go into this quite clearly. For example:
Why the hell is the EFF on this case? Who the hell do they actually expect will believe what they're saying? How can they issue that press release with a straight face, when the supporting documents that they attach trivially disproves them? It's, like, as if the EFF was staffed by Slashdot editors!
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps it's simply ... true ? It would be quite an effective technique.
I "know someone" who uses a VM to play games at work. Works great. None of the managers knows how to mount the volume, or use rescue disks, and to boot up normally it requires a password. Many VM software comes with a convenient "boss key".
Re:sure it is (Score:4, Informative)
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Informative)
In case you missed the reference: Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back! [imdb.com]
*Second quote down
**probably a lot of profanity on that page
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Informative)
The concern isn't that he committed libel (crime) by sending out email to a list of people that outed the informant by linking him to a gay personal ad that he probably created (fraud). The problem is that he a suspect in several other crimes including a stolen laptop as detailed in the motion to quash:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/CalixteMemSupport.pdf [eff.org]
While there is probably quite a bit for the defense to attack in how this warrant was obtained, my biggest concern is how it was handled. I suspect the following description is more common than we would like to know:
"... seized, among other things, Mr. Calixte's cell phone, his iPod, computers, disks, and "postit" note on which Calixte was in the process of taking notes about the officers' actions during the search. Christopher left a Property Receipt with Mr. Calixte listing items seized during the search. (Kessel Decl. Ex. C.) The seized post-it note does not appear on that receipt."
That's the type of bullying that makes me sick.
Re:Warrant does not say 2 OSes -- Hacking (Score:3, Informative)
The sworn affidavit given by the detective seeking the warrant gives as evidence the MAC addresses of the computers connected to the network ports through which the acts in question were committed.
If the acts are criminal, then matching the MAC addresses used to commit them to the ones in the suspect's computer are pretty good evidence (although not flawless, due to MAC cloning and the possibility that someone else used his system) that the owner of the computer may have been involved.
I think the weak part of the warrant application is the assertion that crimes were committed by the roommate with whom the suspect was quarreling. The identification of the property to search and seize for evidence is pretty specific within the actual affidavit. The detective trusts the person informing him of the acts of the suspect, so in the officer's mind there is probable cause.
I'm not real sure what the issue here is. The EFF should put out an official letter of position on this, because from what I can tell they're arguing that circumstantial evidence supporting eyewitness accounts of crimes being committed are not grounds for a warrant.
nope- not bs (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/09/nyregion/metro-news-briefs-connecticut-judge-rules-that-police-can-bar-high-iq-scores.html [nytimes.com]
METRO NEWS BRIEFS: CONNECTICUT; Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS311US311&q=police+high+iq+discrimination&btnG=Search [google.com]
15,900 results
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Informative)
So, there was no written word before email??
They did have the equivalent of paper and pen back then. I think the printing press was in use near about then too when they wrote the laws on slander.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Informative)
email would be libel, for words in print, just like in a newspaper.
Slander is for spoken words.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Informative)
Re:sure it is (Score:2, Informative)
Most libel laws were written before the internet and make no accommodation for the internet. When the laws specifically stipulate the printed word, and given that the internet is not printed, libels laws do not cover the internet in most states I've seen. But what would I know? I only work for a newspaper and took two years of journalism classes.
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Informative)
That's not a Bachelor's degree, it's either an associates degree or a technical certification depending on the program and the amount of time spent in the program. You can, I will grant you, get a BA in criminal justice from the University of Phoenix, but that is an accredited university. Not a good one, but an accredited university.
Massachusetts Law (Score:3, Informative)
I graduated in 2001, so this MAY have changed, but back then, the law was:
Campus Police have municipal powers in buildings owned by the college/university. So that covered the buildings, but not the public roads. To get around this, the CPs were deputized by the County they were in as Sheriff Deputies, which gave them legal authority throughout the county, with a tacit agreement with the normal police to only use it on the campus, or related buildings (basically the Fraternity houses were privately owned, this gave them responsibility). During the city harassment of MIT fraternities (a pledge at one died, the licensing board started threatening licenses of all the independent houses over minor infractions, pretty much continued until 9/11 when people forgot about it), the MIT CPs had a problem...
The had municipal authority in dorms... they had Sheriff powers in Cambridge Fraternities as Middlesex Sheriff Deputies. But they couldn't do anything in the Boston fraternities. After heavy lobbying, they also were deputized in Suffolk County, so they could patrol there. As fraternity risk manager, this was a GREAT thing, because while the city was harassing us, the school nominally supported us (they did a poor job, but tried), so we'd call the CPs at the first sign of trouble, and usually Boston PD wouldn't bother us because the CPs were on the scene.
The utter irony... neither Middlesex County nor Suffolk County really exist anymore... they counties exist as regional designation, there is no county-level government, everything is either unified with the city or administered by the state. So while they were deputized as Sheriff's deputies, I'm pretty sure we didn't have a Sheriff or a Sheriff's department... all of Suffolk County Sheriff Deputies appeared to be CPs of Boston schools.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Informative)
Oh please (Score:5, Informative)
the real reason they have to dumb it down; yeah I have friends who are/were cops; is because of political correctness. Hell they had to reduce the physical requirements in some districts because the fatties sued.
The majority of cops (like 95% or more) are very good people. Just like any other industry you get a few bad apples who ruin it for everyone else. Just like any unionized shop they are practically forced to keep them. There are only so many desk jobs to go around to place truly bad ones in. You can get them if they do something truly illegal and get caught doing so. Still the reason why cop abuse stories hit the news so hard is because it isn't common place; well it might be more so in some areas but overall it isn't.
Don't go off thinking most of these are country bumpkins; don't confuse elected sheriffs with real cops either, some of those are real ego trippers.
The fact is most are just like the rest of your neighbors. The difference is they are in the public eye all the time. Many have college degrees, its required for advancement in some areas.
The standard people are applying here is the same thing the cops in the story are being doing... and who is being vilified for it?
Re:sure it is (Score:2, Informative)
Where is yours?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby_v._CompuServe [wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co [wikipedia.org]. In fact the Communications Decency Act had to be updated to provide ISPs with immunity from further libel suits based on the electronic postings of their users. Here's two other citations talking all about email and libel online: http://communications-media.lawyers.com/Email-Defamation.html [lawyers.com] & http://internet-law.lawyers.com/Libel-Online.html [lawyers.com] So it's pretty clear that libel covers electronic communications and email.
Re:when linux is outlawed..... (Score:2, Informative)
I know you meant it as a joke, but it may not be a joke for long.
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Informative)
Virtual Unix-Like Vexing Apparatus ?
Indeed, and they come with even less documentation too. Most of which is for an older version and is a few thousand years out of date.
Re:the warrant states a crime (Score:5, Informative)
Part of the cops reason for making a big deal out of Linux, is the DHCP lease logs. In addition to the MAC address, they record the OS and computer name. The OS is listed as "UNIX/LINUX Ubuntu", and the officer states there are only a couple students on the campus using Linux. Also the computer names match his.
It's just another way to tie the DHCP lease to this student, 3 pieces of matching information rather than just a MAC address.
Granted, every single one of those pieces of data can be changed or forged; change your MAC address and configure your DHCP client to report a different computer name/OS, and you could easily frame someone. This is probably the angle the EFF will take regarding this evidence in the trial.
Alternately, you could just configure your machine to use a static IP, which just happens to be the one currently assigned to your target.
As incriminating as these DHCP lease logs are, I would hate for them to be held up as conclusive proof of wrongdoing, given how easily they could be manipulated.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Informative)
So yes, it's sometimes possible for a true statement to be defamatory.
Do you have case law on this? Now, maybe you're in the U.K. or somewhere in Europe, but my understanding is, at least in the U.S., is that truth is an absolute defense. You can say anything about someone, no matter how malicious you use it, as long as it is true. Now, if you've got case law or some statute law to the contrary I'd love to hear about it. I think that the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell [wikipedia.org] would be instructive in this case. Hustler was sued because it ran a parody ad (marked as such) that said that Rev. Falwell admitted he had sex with his mother in an outhouse. The jury found for the magazine for libel (the ad was a parody so it was clear it wasn't him actually claiming what was said, therefore not libelous) but found for Falwell on emotional distress. The magazine appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled there was no defamation because no person could possibly believe it was true, and merely having your feelings hurt is not adequate to be compensable damages absent actual libel. So if something which is false and insulting about someone that cannot possibly be believed as true cannot be defaming, then declaring saying something which is true to be actionable would appear to be madness.
For all the lazies out there... (Score:4, Informative)
His assets weren't seized for the use of "scary voodoo operating systems". Oh, and for future reference, his name is Riccardo Calixte.
Application for the search warrant:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf [eff.org]
Here's a summary.
I) Why do we want his stuff?
a) we think it's been used to commit a crime
b) we think it contains evidence of said crime
II) What do we want to take?
a) anything that can hold data (PCs, peripherals, phone, etc)
b) documentation that may contain his passwords (computer manuals, post-its)
c) evidence of ownership over systems used in offenses at the time of offenses
III) Where are we gonna find his stuff?
a) his room.
IV) Why do we think we need to take his stuff?
a) his roommate said that Riccardo hacked into the university computers to change peoples grades
b) Riccardo was suspected of stealing a computer from the university previously
c) the roommate's computer started acting funny after getting into arguments with Riccardo
d) e-mails were sent out to the whole university saying that the roommate was gay
e) network administrative staff said that according to their records, Riccardo did it
f) Network Admin says: those e-mails came from their dorm, from a computer with the same name as one registered by Riccardo. additionally, a profile was posted on a gay dating site, screenshotted, and included in the e-mail. the only computer to visit said site within 5 days of the incident was Riccardo's. he accessed the site frequently 2 days prior to the e-mail.
It continues with more info as to why the originating officer is a good candidate to evaluate this stuff.
I think that's enough probably cause to warrant further investigation; but that's just me. I would encourage you all to actually read the thing, not just take my word for it, but hopefully this will quell some of the "omgz he wuz arestid fur uzing l1nuxz!!1" comments.
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Informative)
still should be a tort crime (civil), rather than a police matter. Regardless of whats said, can't go to college? Become a cop! You'll be a big man then.
Campus Police != Police. Anyone who's been on a college campus knows that. Real police wouldn't waste their time with someone's sob story about someone calling them names.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Informative)
Please people, I beg you. Wake up and see what's happening before this becomes more common.
OK, I'm awake and aware of the problem. Now what do I do?
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Informative)
Please tell me that someone else here actually read the full warrant.
I did, but then I read the motion [eff.org]. The warrant application has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
Re:Bullshit title (Score:3, Informative)
His use of Linux, in and of itself, was not the reason for the warrant or the suspicion. Whether it was pertinent to the investigation doesn't matter. The submission and the title imply that it was solely his use of Linux that brought him under suspision, which is not the case. The case is not about him using Linux, it is about what he may have done while using Linux.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Informative)
Considering all of THAT, data storage devices are practically MANDATORY for the warrant. And considering that iPods can, and frequently ARE, used as USB hard drives, they're fair game.
Also, we ARE talking about an iPod Touch, as mentioned in the second link in the
Link to the full warrant affidavit: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf [eff.org]
Re:Mod Parent Up..... (Score:3, Informative)
No, the accusation accuses him of hacking the grade server. Unless you think that accusation somehow doesn't deserve to be looked into then I don't see what the problem is.
Re:Oh please (Score:4, Informative)
What about judges who have convicted pot smokers, based strictly on the laws on the books (as they are intended to do)?
By the way, what recourse would you suggest for people involved in such cases?
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Informative)
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Informative)
Campus Police != Police. Anyone who's been on a college campus knows that.
Maybe at your school. At both my undergrad and graduate schools, however, the campus police departments are real police.
Re:sure it is (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Mod Parent Up..... (Score:4, Informative)
The student in question is accused of breaking into college systems to change grades and there is other evidence (DHCP logs) to suggest that he was behind these activities.
No, there's evidence that the computer used to send the email belongs to Riccardo. The thing is, the affidavit says what Riccardo allegedly did is illegal, but the EFF claims that sending that email is not illegal and thus not not probable cause for a search.
The conflict here is that whoever signed off on the warrant may have believed that sending said email is illegal, but the EFF has a chance to say prima facae that sending said email is not illegal.
The charge doesn't fit the crime, if any. It could be conceived that Riccardo may have misrepresented his identity online to send the email, but the affidavit as filed cites a different, inapplicable charge. Furthermore, if the plaintiff is not actually gay, Riccardo may have defamed or libeled the plaintiff, but the affidavit doesn't charge that. And actually isn't that a civil matter, so the cop should not have been involved?
Finally, if a plaintiff alleges that Riccardo illegally changed grades, then a search warrant must be drawn up for that charge, yes? So, that's a strike.
Besides, the DHCP logs mentioned in the affidavit don't have the correct dates to support allegations of illegal grade changing.
Re:sure it is (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just. Plain. Wrong. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Informative)
hyperbole doesn't help your argument
the number of accidents where excessive speed is a factor is variously quoted by the police at anywhere from 10-15% [theregister.co.uk]
total number of road deaths in GB in 2007 [statistics.gov.uk] was 2,946
so we can assume 300 of those are speed related
this compares with about 275 knife crime related deaths for the same period
or 8,724 alcohol-related deaths in 2007 [statistics.gov.uk]
even if you dispute the 13% figure and assume all road deaths are speed related, you may wish to see the number of drug related deaths for the same period
The total number of deaths related to drug poisoning in 2007 was 2,640 [statistics.gov.uk]
speeding may not be a very safe or desirable activity, but to suggest it is the most dangerous criminal activity is disingenuous at best
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Informative)
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Informative)
Not even close to true. Iraq had very strict regulation on civilian possession of small arms.
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Informative)
According to the EFF, he is being investigated for 'unauthorized access of a computer system'.
There is significant evidence for harassment of the former friend, but very little for the crime he is being investigated for. That's why the EFF has a problem with this.
Law enforcement is not supposed to use evidence for something they aren't pursuing as an excuse to get a warrant to investigate something else (a practice known as a fishing expedition). All they have for the crime they're actually pursuing (presumably the grade changing) is someone who says they saw him do it once.
I read TFA and the full warrant.