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."
Re:Rent-a-cops (Score:4, Insightful)
Probable Cause? (Score:2, Insightful)
In all honesty, my rifle, my 4096-bit encrypted hard drive, and the idea that I choose the best operating system or combination thereof that suits me as a consumer do nothing but support the idea that I am a law-abiding, dutiful citizen.
People fear what they don't understand.
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can get in trouble for writing an email saying that someone is gay?
Warrant was issued? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, I'd love to be able to read more info on this... without knowing all the evidence presented to get the warrant, it's a little silly to say that his use of multiple PCs and Linux was enough for the judge to have granted the warrant.
Most likely, the reason those items were brought up as evidence for the warrant is so that the warrant would cover the devices in question -- to justify action bigger than just reviewing his account history on the BC networks.
If he was a suspect for some other reason, wouldn't it make sense that the police would have reason to search his multiple devices?
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.
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
wssags3ssser (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
And I'm sure, before Linux, they were running other evil black-screened operating systems with blinking cursors.
You've gotta wonder if these cops ever made it to high school, let alone college.
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Insightful)
This would be funny except it's scary instead ...
Also, sad. F'r instance, http://images.google.com/images?q=windows+powershell&imgcolor=black&imgsz=med [google.com]
I will now translate "I hate what I fear, and I fear what I don't understand. Unfortunately I don't understand you, so now I'm going to take all your stuff and fish around with impunity until something is found with which to hang you."
Quick! Everyone! Panic! (Score:5, Insightful)
2. This was from a search warrant application. Not every cop is computer literate. This is worthy of a few snickers, not a front pager.
Re:So Very Painfully Humiliatingly Guilty (Score:0, Insightful)
This ... this evil operating system is what hackers use.
Meh. From the -1 Troll posts I read here, Linux is only used by homosexuals.
Oh, and eldavojohn is most certainly the droid I am looking for...
-
Re:"outing" a student? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not, if the person really is gay. Libel and Slander only apply if the person can prove he is not gay and the claim substantially damaged him in some way.
It's still a dick move, though.
Re:Quick! Everyone! Panic! (Score:5, Insightful)
2. This was from a search warrant application. Not every cop is computer literate. This is worthy of a few snickers, not a front pager.
If their job includes deciding who to go after based on what happens on teh intarweb, then they should be, or have access to someone who is. It's worthy of being a front pager because he isn't and no one stopped him on that basis.
1. This case involved a "crime" committed using a computer. I know personally if I was put in charge of investigating a computer crime, I would seize every piece of magnetic and writable optical media I could find in the suspect's possession. Doing less would be incompetence.
I think doing less (read: obtaining only items specified in the search warrant) would be more along the lines of "reasonable search and seizure", and anything more would be a violation of basic constitutional rights.
Was the other OS even Windows? (Score:3, Insightful)
One is the regular B.C. operating system and the other is a black screen with white font which he uses prompt commands on.
That could simply mean they saw him switching between X and a text console.
I hate how stupid the police can be.
Are these cops somehow related to ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... the cops that caused a city wide panic because they misunderstood a few funny lighted signs?
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
But the fact that it says he uses 2 operating systems to hide his activity
If they think dual-booting is "hiding illegal activity" I wonder what they'd think of full disk encryption?
Re:Probable Cause? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but having those things mean you have the ability to do things the government doesn't want you to do. The easiest way to prevent crime is to take away everyone's freedom.
Re:Very sadly, IMHO (Score:2, Insightful)
They so desperately want some crime to deal with, but there just isn't much other than the odd frat house kegger that gets out of control or the occasional parking ticket.
Over here, we get an email about someone getting mugged every couple weeks.
Anyways, "real" crime is dangerous. If you're up against murderers, you can get shot or stabbed. On the other hand, giving out parking tickets usually isn't life-threatening. Some cops might prefer not being in danger if they don't have to, since they're human after all.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
"cops , IQ" (Score:4, Insightful)
Google that, you'll find it is common practice in police departments to reject higher IQ candidates and dumb down the entrance exam requirements. It's a barely hidden scandal. You see a lot of dumb cops because there are a LOT of dumb cops, on purpose, by design. They want violence oriented, stupid, malleable, no questions asked goose stepping type "warfighter" order followers for their new world order agendas. Been obvious for around two decades and change now, since they went full speed ahead transforming local police departments into paramilitary goon squads. Not all of them, but sure as hell a shitload of them.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
Security [xkcd.com] is the title of this one.
Re:sure it is (Score:4, Insightful)
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
Please tell me that someone else here actually read the full warrant. The kid is accused of harassment, theft, and copyright infringement. His use of Linux is tied only to claims that he encrypts people's hard drives for them so that copyrighted material can't be easily scanned for (which, as far as I know, isn't illegal).
There is actually a pretty significant amount of evidence for these claims, especially the harassment claims. Two of the accused computer's were used (according to network logs) to send the harassing email. The only computer on the entire campus network to access the site used to set up the harassment was registered on the network as belonging to the accused. Is it enough to convict someone? Probably not by itself. Is it enough to get a warrant? I would say so.
Re:Read the warrant: (Score:3, Insightful)
past actions and mistakes should not automatically cause your loss of rights. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not have a "unless you've been a bad boy" clause.
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, is it any surprise campus security are afraid of Command Line Interface Terrorism?
Is this a tiny offshoot of the Linux Advocates Buying Internet Ads movement?
Re:Very sadly, IMHO (Score:1, Insightful)
Many large schools have very serious crime.
How can that be when they are "gun free" zones? Doesn't crime cease to exist within those zones?
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you can learn a lot of things from 24!
Today I learned that, by vectoring two aircraft so that their paths cross at some point, they will instantly be sucked into the same spot and explode outside the White House. Somehow they even managed to disable the onboard TCAS system, being a closed system thats quite impressive!
All this of course made possible by the "CPI device" that can bypass the one and only firewall that the whole US has to protect ALL its critical infrastructure.
It can also jam radio waves from hundreds of miles away between different aircraft, from hundreds of kilometers away. I think Jack Bauer is in for trouble this time!
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod Parent Up..... (Score:5, Insightful)
That affidavit link was pretty good. The people who are claiming this is all because he called someone else gay or uses Linux should read it before pontificating. 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.
Re:Warrant does not say 2 OSes -- Hacking (Score:3, Insightful)
> black screen with white font which he uses prompt commands on.
Alt-Enter in a cmd window will get you this in Windows...
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:sure it is (Score:4, Insightful)
When it's libelous or slanderous?
The warrant itself isn't nearly this stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Some of the info is superfluous, but the officer is only quoting what somebody else told him when he mentions "the regular BC operating system and the other [with a] black screen with white text".
The officer supports a lot of information with MAC addresses, University logs, comments from the University Director of IT, etc. One witness being technologically inept doesn't really matter. The officer, at least from my understanding of the affidavit, KNOWS what Ubuntu is. I suspect this witness' statement is there just to provide ancillary evidence that links the Ubuntu laptop as owned by the suspect being investigated.
I've seen a lot of stupid police actions, but this guy seems to be reasonably well-informed.
If I were in the position of a judge today, and I saw that warrant, I'd sign off on it. Please find & read the whole warrant.
*Once investigated by the campus police because I used the terminal on OS X, and the other student thought I hacked her laptop. Grrrrrrr.
Re:Rent-a-cops (Score:2, Insightful)
Been to a big state school, uh, ever? The "campus" police there are STATE COPS, who have more power and jurisdiction than the city police themselves. They're also better trained, and their hiring process is more rigorous.
Although I've never had any major run-ins with them myself, the campus police around here tend to be a lot more strict than the city cops. They also tend to be a lot meaner; playing pretend crime with a bunch of 20something children gives them an arrogance that the ghetto-patrolling city cops just can't match.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: so what ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, it must be true as it's in a warrant, just ask Julie Amero [wikipedia.org]
Re:sure it is (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple. I'd shoot you, write up the report, then move on.
Suspect became violent when questioned....
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Insightful)
>Simple. I'd shoot you, write up the report, then move on.
Right, a college campus police officer shoots a student who is in your custody, being investigated for some completely nonviolent civil question.
You wouldn't simply "move on."
It would end your career, starting with you being kicked out of your criminal justice program or whatever you're doing there.
Re:Probable Cause? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Come on now, I own a rifle, does that mean I shoot people? I have strong encryption on my hard drive, does that make me a terrorist?
The problem you have is that you expect the law and the legal system to be logical and based on verifiable facts. It's not. It's based on the law (that's an intentional circular reference).
A good friend of mine recently finished law school and described one of her first lectures. The professor read out, "The law says an apple is round, red, and firm." She then held up a red rubber ball and asked, "THIS is round, red, and firm. Is it an apple?"
Now, you and me, and most rational people would look at that rubber ball and say, "No, it's not an apple, it's a red rubber ball". However, we would be wrong. The professor then explained to the incredulous students that as far as the law was concerned, that it was indeed an apple because it met the legal definition of an apple. She followed that if they couldn't get their heads around that then they were probably pursuing the wrong profession.
You might believe, and rightfully so, that your use of Linux and disk encryption makes you a smart citizen. However, in the eyes of the law, you are also potentially a terrorist or criminal, and that's simply on the basis of someone in a position of authority making that judgment. The police, prosecuting attorneys, and judges all live in a world of cognitive dissonance where a red rubber ball is also an apple. These same people are empowered to imprison you or even take way your life. If that doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
The actual quote and 'other evidence' are courtesy of the student's roommate, with whom he apparently doesn't get along with and had attempted to turn him in previously as having a stolen college laptop.
Reading the actual warrent request is a hoot.
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf [eff.org]
Dream on, little dreamer, dream on. (Score:2, Insightful)
I take it you are not familiar with the incidents you describe.
Here in reality, no, the campus cop murdered an unarmed homeless guy in cold blood for "acting crazy" (he actually WAS crazy, although completely non-violent, as it turns out) and gets to not only keep his badge, but continue violently harming innocents.
The most bleakly humorous part was how the cop came to his murder trial (acquitted of course) proudly displaying a copy of Machiavelli's "The Prince" and mugging with it for passersby.
"The Prince is above the Law, because the Prince is the Law" -- Nicolo Machiavelli
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have actually read the request for the search warrant since I wrote this, and I now believe that the warrant was justified. What's more, I believe that this particular individual would be in trouble in any University in the nation. Besides evidence of harassment the warrant also showed credible evidence that this individual modified people's grades and dealt in stolen computer hardware (not to mention that he distributed copyrighted material illegally).
I don't know that there is enough evidence to convict the guy, but there's enough evidence to seize his computer equipment. The fact that he is a student at BC has essentially nothing to do with it.
Re:sure it is (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:sure it is (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right...although the courts have interpreted the burden of proof needed for probable cause to be so low that it could almost be called plausible cause. Of course, for seizing and holding onto equipment like this, the evidence showing probable cause should not be trivial. I think that's why the EFF supporting memorandum [eff.org] makes a big deal about the burden placed on the suspect given that he does not have access to his laptop, his cell phone, and other personal items.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
So? We'll blame the technology and not the human? Do you suggest that we'll treat any user of said technology as guilty until proved innocent?
Sorry if I failed to spot irony in your post.
Re:the warrant states a crime (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I'm pretty sure that defamation is only covered under tort law, and isn't actually a criminal offense where the police would need to get involved. Fraud on the other hand is a criminal offense, but I don't see any evidence from the warrant [eff.org] that would support a charge of fraud. The warrant states that he is being charged with "Obtaining computer services by fraud" [mass.gov], though it refers to an incorrect section. Note however that this law says "the words "commercial computer service" shall mean the use of computers, computer systems, computer programs or computer networks, or the access to or copying of the data, where such use, access or copying is offered by the proprietor or operator of the computer, system, program, network or data to others on a subscription or other basis for monetary consideration." Signing up for a social networking site under a fake name wouldn't qualify, in my layman's opinion. Going on for two pages about how it was likely that the defendent created the profile/website is, in my opinion, irrelevant.
The defendent is being charged with "Unauthorized access to computer systems" [mass.gov]. This could be the "altering grades" thing, but the case for this seems pretty weak prima facie. The only evidence presented is the testimony of the guy's roommate, i.e. the person that was "outed" by the fake website. There's one line in the warrant about how this roomate saw the defendent change grades. The roommate appears to be heavily biased against the defendent, and I'm not convinced we should take his word over the defendent's. Now, I'd be slightly more convinced if the officer had obtained some evidence from the university system that grades HAD been changed.
Re:Rent-a-cops (Score:4, Insightful)
I know everyone likes to make fun of rent-a-cops, mall cops, fake bacon, etc... but I have more respect for them than real cops. Private security is providing a service that's valuable to a property owner who's spending their own money instead of yours. If they assault someone, they can even be held accountable. I'll take private security over a pig any day.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
HOLY FUCKING SHIT I hate the many paraphrased forms of that quote. As soon as you take out the part about the liberty given up being essential, and the safety temporary, you end up with a wholly unreasonable statement.
We sacrifice inessential liberties for safety all the time. We are required to get our cars registered and inspected (in some states), our buildings inspected, and our restaurants must conform to code. All of these things restrict our freedom, but also help to keep us safe and healthy. Do the folks who conform to these codes, and expect others to conform as well, deserve some kind of punishment for their willingness to sacrifice liberty?
The spirit of Ben Franklin's quote was really that there are some very particular freedoms that should not be sacrificed. That one about being free from unreasonable search and seizure is just non-negotiable.
But those other freedoms, like the freedom of a local restaurant manager to keep a filthy kitchen and as a result give me diarrhea, I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice. So yeah, all those paraphrased versions of Ben Frank's quote have been said too much. They're overly broad, and they come from a place of blind, ideological patriotism. Sorry for the rant.
Re:Oh please (Score:4, Insightful)
The majority of cops (like 95% or more) are very good people
Anyone who has ever busted a pot smoker is not a very good person at all. "I was just doing my job" is no excuse.
Re:Boston College is private, right? (Score:1, Insightful)
Except the constitution does apply, regardless of what some overzealous administrator says. What they probably meant is that many of the rights outlined in the constitution are restricted by the college on the college's property.
A private school can punish you for standing up on their property and saying something that they don't like. They can kick you out if they want. You cannot, however, be arrested on a criminal charge for exercising your constitutional rights.
For instance, if you are standing in the middle of the quad, spouting out about how the school administration is a crowd of overzealous dolts, the school has every right to ask you to leave, expel you, and levy hefty fines on you. They can't bring you to court. If you refuse to leave, however, then you are trespassing. Now the campus police can arrest and detain you until they turn you over to the real police. They can press charges, bring you to court, and make your life miserable. It's a fine line, but worth noting.
As far as this case goes, you really have to read the warrant application to understand what is really going on. The alleged fact that the student was using Linux is more anecdotal to the case made for probable cause. Probable cause is established here by the report of what the police believe is a credible witness. The defense could challenge that point, as it seems the witness has plenty of reasons to lie, but the standard for probable cause is fairly low.
Many would argue that the warrant is too far-reaching, but I disagree. If you are to assume that probable cause is to be granted for one of the computers, then you are agreeing that the witness is giving credible information. If the witness is giving credible information, then it is likely that all electronic media in the student's possession is suspect in this crime, as it is all implicated.
Finally, it appears that this police officer is not very familiar with technical terminology. I would guess that he knows the difference between Windows and Linux, but that he wanted to write the disposition as he got it, which is a good thing. It is also clear that he knows how data are generally stored on electronic media and what that data might contain. He really should not need to know much more than that in order to get a warrant to search the computers. That said, once the case is over, the copies of the data that are irrelevant to the case should be destroyed.
It is easy to blame the criminal justice system and its agents when it comes to 21st-century crimes because they do tend to operate a few decades behind. That shouldn't give the criminals a pass to commit crimes that just confuse the courts with details. There was an allegation of serious fraud with motive, means, and opportunity. That should be investigated fully.
IANAL, btw...
Re:People are afraid of what they don't know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:sure it is (Score:2, Insightful)
So you think that a search warrant should be granted on the basis of non-substantiated rumor from someone who doesn't like you? OK, give me your name and address and I'll call the cops and tell them to get a search warrant based on the fact that you refuse to use a "normal" computer operating system and that it can therefore be used to cover up your illegal activity. Maybe I'll throw in the fact that I think you're a jerk as well just to give them a little more probable cause.
The whole reason for probable cause is so that J. Random Person can't just go up to the cops and say "so and so is doing something illegal - go search his house" without actually providing some evidence as to what he's doing AND that he's doing it in his house.
If you read the affidavit, and more importantly the supporting declarations, you'll see that there's a) absolutely no evidence of a crime committed (the 2 statutes listed refer to defrauding a commercial service, of which BC's listserv, yahoo, gmail and the gay website are not, and unauthorized access which sending an email to a listserv certainly isn't), and more importantly b) the "informant", who is also the purported victim, has absolutely no credibility in his statements above and beyond an assumption that he's no lying, and provides absolutely no corroborating details with which a third party can verify any of the accusations.
Now, I will agree with you that the search warrant had nothing to do with Linux specifically, but would you issue a search warrant to seize someone's computer's if the only issue was that "it used a black and white text console to enter commands"? I seem to recall a recent story where a teacher told someone who was distributing linux that what he was doing was illegal; just because she said it didn't mean it was true, and clearly that holds in this case as well.
The cop in question overstepped his authority when he swore that the information provided was sufficient to suspect that a crime was committed, and the magistrate who granted the warrant was derelict in her duties as a judge in making sure that the warrant application was sufficient to grant the warrant. If it turns out that the guy did commit a crime and there's legally obtained evidence to prove it, let him serve his time. But an illegal search and seizure is not a valid way of doing it.
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Insightful)
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=s2502008000 [ne.gov]
There is the Nebraska law on libel, which requires "publication", as I work for the major newspaper in Nebraska, I know from experience in dealing with our paper and website, that libels suits have only covered the printed word here.
I would have to say then that in accordance with your own personal experience that you have been fortunate enough not to stand accused of libel. However, that still does not change the fact that you are wrong.
From your own citation:
Publication of an allegedly libelous statement occurs when it is communicated to someone other than the person defamed. Vergara v. Lopez-Vasquez, 1 Neb. App. 1141, 510 N.W.2d 550 (1993).
It says neither that the libel must be run through a press nor on paper to be libel in the State of Nebraska. "Publication" results when the alleged libel is simply communicated to a third party. There is no apparent restraints as to the form and origin of the communication.
Re:sure it is (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the type of bullying that makes me sick.
This, plus the scare back when pranksters put Mooninite signs all over Boston and the overt racism that has plagued the city for so long, should disabuse Yankees from any feelings of moral or intellectual superiority over the South. You're just as stupid as we are...
Re:sure it is (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:sure it is (Score:1, Insightful)
But what would I know? I...took two years of journalism classes.
Absolutely nothing???
Re:sure it is (Score:2, Insightful)
One roommate getting back at another... (Score:3, Insightful)
... and using the police to do it! That is entirely what this story is about. Did anyone bother to go to EFF's Web site and examine the "Exhibit-A" PDF document from the case? It happens to be an actual copy of the Application for Search Warrant. You really should read it.
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf [eff.org]
The most enlightening part is the "Basis of Probable Cause" section, which states that the origin of the entire thing was "domestic issues" between Calixte and his (redacted) roommate. It then goes on to detail multiple allegations made by said roommate about Calixte and his criminal expertise with computers. The twit even blamed his own computer crashes on Calixte!
There's nothing to see here, folks. It's just one person getting back at another for real or perceived injustices, and the all-too-eager police being used as pawns (which of course they always are in every situation).
Re:sure it is (Score:1, Insightful)
But Benjamin Franklin was a nutcase.
Just because someone is old and dead doesn't mean they're right.
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Insightful)
I read the warrant affidavit and now I'm reading the motion to quash. It's clear that the warrant was all about throwing around a bunch of diverse and scary claims to form an amalgamation of danger and criminality, while sidestepping any kind of substantiation. The response is all about holding this to scrutiny, and it looks like they're ripping the police officer to shreds.
To be fair however, there are quite a few accusations mentioned in the warrant that understandably didn't make it to the EFF page or slashdot.
Just. Plain. Wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks EFF for being a liar. The police have probably cause to seize the computers, not because they are black with white font (zOMG!) but because a reliable named witness told them the student was engaged in changing grades for other students.
From the warrant application [eff.org]: "[The witness] advised Officer Eng that Mr. Calixte has changed grades for other students by accessing the Boston College computer system.... It should be noted that [the witness] is not only a named witness to these allegations but also a reliable witness in another investigation which he brought to our attention.... [The witness] reported to me that he has observed Mr. Calixte hack into the B.C. grading system that is used by professors to change grades for students...."
Also, emails were sent out from an anonymous Yahoo! account claiming that the witness (who is roommates with the suspect) was gay. The IP address of the client sending the Yahoo! message corresponded to a computer whose MAC address was registered to a computer whose computer name had only been used on the computer of one student at B.C. -- the suspect.
Clearly, there's probable cause enough here for a search warrant.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
HOLY FUCKING SHIT I hate the many paraphrased forms of that quote. As soon as you take out the part about the liberty given up being essential, and the safety temporary, you end up with a wholly unreasonable statement.
We sacrifice inessential liberties for safety all the time.
Benjamin Franklin considered all liberty to be essential. That's why he said "Essential liberty", not "Essential liberties". "Essential" modifies the concept of liberty itself, not certain particular instances of liberties. This was not an accidental word choice.
Also, I feel it is safe to say that Franklin considered all safety won through the sacrifice of liberty to be temporary.
He chose those words specifically so as to remind the reader that liberty is essential, and safety is temporary.
The spirit of Ben Franklin's quote was really that there are some very particular freedoms that should not be sacrificed. That one about being free from unreasonable search and seizure is just non-negotiable.
Actually the spirit of his quote is much closer to the paraphrasings than to your interpretation. He didn't mean it's okay to sacrifice "inessential" liberties any more than he meant that it's okay to sacrifice "essential" liberties if the safety you are gaining is permanent.
They're overly broad, and they come from a place of blind, ideological patriotism.
Benjamin Franklin was an ideological patriot. How sad that we'd try to revise history to make him anything else.
Re:Oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
Still the reason why cop abuse stories hit the news so hard is because it isn't commonplace
That, plus police are in a position of strong public trust. When a cop does wrong, people feel extra-betrayed (as well they should). That goes double when it's someone high-ranking, and triple when that person is or appears to be covering for his or her underlings' misbehavior. Police are held to a higher standard by the public; they should be held to that standard by law and practice, but often are not, which fuels discontent.
In addition, we never see any cops condemn poor behavior by other cops. And by "poor behavior" I mean tasing kids to death and rank corruption. I believe that 95% of cops are good people, but it would be a lot easier if PDs ever gave any impression that they knew it was possible for cops to screw up.
Re:this has and will (Score:3, Insightful)
Read the exhibit...
The actual exhibit shows, step by step, how the harassment was tracked to a pair of web mail accounts, tracked via server logs to a specific IP, tracked to a machine in the suspect's name, running Linux.
Linux is an embellishing detail but the actual accusation has nothing to do with "OMG, LINUX IS WEIRD!" and everything to do with... yep, guy's a douche and he used a Linux box to harass someone, here's step by step proof to demonstrate that.
Your case, if it's as simple as you make out, is totally different. As you describe it, you were falsely accused due to ignorance. He was proved almost certainly guilty by a very methodical approach where Linux was just one minor detail that's been overplayed in cheap headline grabbing summaries.
Re:sure it is (Score:4, Insightful)
"Why would calling someone gay be defamation (the root crime of libel and slander)?
Defamation has to generate a negative image of the person being defamed. Since there is nothing wrong with being gay there's no possibility of defamation."
That's why tribunals are presided by judges not mathematicians.
While what you say *should* be right, it is up the judge or juror to stablish what the intention and the impact of the case was. That's what the Roman ius 'dolo' covers.
"Being falsely outed as a dark-skinned individual doesn't seem to me to be defamation"
Good for you and I'd wish everybody to be like you. Sadly, that's not the case, which what makes possible to be defamation call "nigger" someone depending on circumnstances, even if he is black skinned.
Re:Oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
A cop interpreting the law is a tad more worrisome than some smoker getting busted.
Re:sure it is (Score:4, Insightful)
If the liberty for which the founding fathers sacrificed their fortunes and gave their lives doesn't apply to the "campus Barney Franks", just who does it apply to? You? Don't make me laugh. You don't even care about your liberty, or mine. You're willing to give it away for what? So someone can't send you an insulting email? It's clear you have no idea of the value of liberty.
What an idiot.
Re:Oh please (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone should interpret the law. This is why we have consciences. When the law is unjust, it is not in the interest of justice to obey or enforce it.
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Insightful)
If you can't come up with an argument without quoting trite, overused phrases from Bartlett's book of quotations, keep your trap shut.
It isn't my argument, so I don't care. Frankly after reading about this I'm not inclined to think it wasn't a completely legitimate, rights-abiding warrant.
But when someone tries to twist the words of Ben Franklin to suggest it's okay to trade some liberties for some safety, as long as they aren't those select few essential ones you know, then I've got a problem.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
God man, just go to Thailand and get around a bit in an unregistered car there. Then come back (if you can) and tell us that registration and inspections don't increase safety!
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that is a bit different than cracking your door and seize your electronics because you use Linux.
We also need to realize that the safety inspections might eventually save your (or my) life - that is where our rights end and other people rights and freedoms begin.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
So does that now mean I can own any kind of weapon without bothering with a license? How about shooting at people but missing? Plotting for terrorist attacks that don't take place?
There is a good reason why fines aren't based entirely on actual damage, if they were then it would always be beneficial to break the rules as long as you get caught less than 100% of the time. If getting caught on a train without a ticket meant you had to buy a ticket at the normal price then it would never be worth buying a ticket.
Sometimes fines can be used to dissuade people from committing dangerous acts, sometimes they can't. A decent justice system will factor in the effectiveness of using a deterrent.
Finally, I don't see the reason for treating victimless crimes as a whole differently. Personally I would much rather see someone who doubled the speed limit past a school entrance at closing time and somehow didn't kill anyone get locked up than some stupid kid who thought it'd be funny to graffiti a wall.
Re:sure it is (Score:4, Insightful)
The punishment should fit the crime. Speeding is "essentially" a thought crime; unless and until there is a collision, there is no victim (yes I understand that "people were put at risk"). Crimes without victims should be immediately removed from the books, to help improve the economy.
Speeding motorists kill more people, maim more people, and damage more property than all other criminals put together. Speeding motorists in Britain alone kill more people every single year than Al Quaeda have ever killed in any year. Speeding which does not result in a collision is not victimless; the right of children to play freely in the road, as was normal throughout history until the last fifty years, is infringed. The right of the elderly to walk safely to visit their friends or purchase their shopping, is infringed. The right of all citizens to use the public road as public space to be enjoyed, is infringed.
No-one has the right to drive a ton of metal at 60 miles per hour in a public place; it puts everyone at risk, and severely diminishes everyone's freedom and safety. The community grants revocable licences to people deemed mature enough and responsible enough to manage a motor vehicle safely. A 'three strikes and you're out' approach to speeding - three offences and you never drive on the public road again - seems to me entirely reasonable.
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Insightful)
And herein lies the confusion between cause and condition. Speed is rarely the cause for an accident. It is always a condition. The trick is, acting on causes has much better effects than acting on conditions.
You have a simplistic view, which I don't hope to change. Please take my opinion as a call for more information. Go read on best cases in death toll reductions in Europe (Portugal's IP5 road comes to mind). Hint: The action focus was not speed.
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when is sending an e-mail alleging someone else is gay a crime? At worst it's libel, which is a civil matter, not a crime...
And what does a cell phone (much less an iPod) have to do with the investigation of this "crime"? Nothing... It's just harassment.
Normally I'm all about giving police the benefit of the doubt, but that's when they're actually accusing someone of a CRIME.
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Insightful)
As a sane and law-abiding citizen, I want the gun in my hand when the shit hits the fan, thank you very much. I don't want the gun in the hands of the nut or the criminal--but since when has the nut or criminal obeyed the law?
And I'm not some right-winger either. I'm a liberal--a liberal who knows he can't trust the cops to either protect him from the nuts/criminals or to not abuse their power. Now of course, the cops and government don't want YOU to have a gun. If they're the only ones with them, they'll have *all* the power with absolutely nothing to check it.
Re:sure it is (Score:3, Insightful)