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."
sure it is (Score:5, Funny)
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Funny)
What's scary about it. The Police are merely guarding our rights and preventing any of those terrifying terrorist hacker nazi communist muslims from setting off a dirty bomb and infecting us with anthrax.
Don't you feel that giving up a few freedoms is worth the security that the Boston College Campus Police can give you in return?
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)
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:sure it is (Score:4, Insightful)
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:sure it is (Score:5, Interesting)
While not disagreeing with you, I do very much disagree with the way that we keep increasing "taxes" through other means, which are not directly called "taxes".
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.
(This got a little confusing; what I was getting at is speeding fines tend to be much higher than they really should be based on the amount of damage that the speeder actually caused (i.e., none); and one reason for the increase in speeding fines is to pay for other, completely unrelated, political agendas. Then it morphed into my response to the evening news that Mass has a huge shortfall to recover from, and will be raising taxes, pulling over people whose "speeding" is closer to "2 or 3 mph over the limit" instead of 10, reducing services and salaries (Deval Patrick said he'd even take a pay cut); my response was a simple three words: "legalize victimless crimes" -- remove the mafia incentive to buy and sell drugs and prostitutes, and we'll all be a lot better off, just as re-legalizing alcohol drastically reduced mafia influence back in the 1920s.)
But, since that doesn't support our prison economy, or the legislative drive to impose harsher and longer sentences (see article on the added "sophistication" charge of using a proxy), it'll never happen.
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: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: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: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: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:sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:sure it is (Score:4, Insightful)
When it's libelous or slanderous?
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: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:5, Insightful)
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Informative)
Re:sure it is (Score:4, Informative)
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Informative)
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: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.
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:sure it is (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the kind of thing that gun owners - especially licensed dealers - have put up with for years, from the BATFE.
Coming to America near you!
What's that you say? Just a gun nut talking?
http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/kmsb-20080229-famjc-gunsseized.b924092.html [fox11az.com]
Cavalry Arms, a store in AZ, was raided in Febuary of 2008. Their inventory was taken, along with their complete customer records, including backups. The pretense for the raid was "suspicious of violating federal firearms laws." Today, 14 months later, they have yet to be charged with a crime. Meanwhile, the items seized have been auctioned by the government, and they have not been reimbursed.
I could go on to show cases where ATF agents killed pets - in one case, stomping on a kitten on their way off the property - trashed citizens' houses and left the door busted in, and one case where the person being raided "committed suicide" - in a room that had already been searched for weapons, with an officer 5' away, and without getting gunshot residue on his hands.
Please people, I beg you. Wake up and see what's happening before this becomes more common.
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:5, Interesting)
Right now I have... 3 notebooks in my room, only one of which belongs to me. Even at college it wasn't uncommon for me to have someone else's notebook at any given time. So to say that that represents suspicion of criminal behavior is absurd, since he's described as being an expert in computers, and even works for the university's IT department. If he has no, or few computer skills, then it'd be suspicious.
And as for the changing of grades, I suspect that's largely false, since the university did not claim to have incurred any intrusions in their network, and surely a professor would have noticed this at some point or another if this were happening often. Their only evidence is hearsay (from the guy who he has a grudge with).
One a side note, I find it interesting that the warrant is very descriptive of the items which the police are allowed to take, yet describes a computer as "a CPU." Granted it says it's "not limited to this" and that it's for "all object which store data in any form," but when was the last time your scanner stored data? Or your processor for that matter (other than when it's handling data, that is, turned on). It's not like someone's going to store all their secrets in a processor register...
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:sure it is (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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:"cops , IQ" (Score:4, Funny)
"Been obvious for around two decades and change now"
Damn, how did Obama manage to pull that off?
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.
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
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: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:Oh please (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
As to intelligence, what you said. Police often appear to be dumber than they are, because often they're following carefully-designed and intensely-trained procedures. Particularly when gathering evidence, police are trained to do so carefully and pedantically in a Socratic way.
A good law enforcement officer usually should appear as dumb as a box of rocks. When handling routine matters, he or she is following a routine procedure in a standard way. When gathering evidence, this helps ensure that the chain of evidence is complete (and doesn't include unwarranted logical leaps or assumptions by the police), and helps avoid the police equivalent of researcher bias (leading a suspect or witness into saying what the cop wants to hear).
The smartest cops are the ones that appear to be stupid. Stupid cops try to act smart, joking with or about suspects, making "clever" threats, and so forth.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently becoming a campus cop was the only way they were going to make it to college.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Funny)
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Funny)
I think my roommate is a gay terrorist...
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Funny)
We might as well give up. The country is lost. If you can't beat 'em - join 'em.
Repeat after me:
Four legs good - two legs bad
Four legs good - two legs bad
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Funny)
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Funny)
"* This is a joke, and in no way represents an actual occurrence."
This is Slashdot, we know.
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:sure it is (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, is it any surprise campus security are afraid of Command Line Interface Terrorism?
Yes, actually it is surprising. Anybody who has ever seen 24 knows that terrorists and the Government both rely on a single GUI interface for everything from tracking motor vehicles to taking over nuclear power plants.
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, Funny)
God, Chuck Norris, and Vin Diesel are kicking back in a bar when suddenly God exclaims: "Look!"
God snaps his fingers and immediately a completely new universe is formed, spinning, before them.
Chuck Norris, not wanting to be out done, says "So what! Watch this!" and delivers a devastating round house kick that completely annihilates the new universe.
The two go back and forth for a good ten minutes, each repeating their trick, attempting to outdo the other, when Vin Diesel abruptly grows tired of it all and exclaims: "Will the two of you fuck nuts cut it out?"
"Damn, I'm beginning to wish I never created either of you."
Then Jack Bauer walks in.
Rocks fall, everyone dies.
Re:sure it is (Score:4, Funny)
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.
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:sure it is (Score:4, Funny)
I am the Command Line Interface Terrorism Master!!!
</JAY>
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Funny)
The C.L.I.T is not real [imdb.com].
Re:sure it is (Score:4, Informative)
Never mind. I'm retracting.
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf [eff.org]
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Funny)
Make no mistake, campus security has always been afraid of the C.L.I.T. and any C.L.I.T. based activities.
In fact, C.L.I.T. usage is on the rise in colleges around the globe, and there are rumors that even girls are starting to utilize the C.L.I.T.
Luckily, some campus security teams are starting to employ the Defense Intercept Command Kernel (D.I.C.K.) to keep C.L.I.T. in it's place.
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:sure it is (Score:5, Funny)
They'd hit him with a five dollar wrench over and over until he confessed his encryption crimes.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
Security [xkcd.com] is the title of this one.
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Funny)
Try that with me. I would have wrecked the keyfile device before they could get trough the door. Then even I could not give them a password.
And about hitting me until I confess things I did not do. Well, in such cases, I switch on some kind of "crazy mode". I hit myself, laugh at their faces, put off all my clothes, twitch crazily. All that shit. Until their inability to understand me would start to become plain fear, and they would send me off to some doctor. From there I would get out.
Also, If I could, I would take some weird pill that would make this an even better show.
Don't fuck with me. You don't know what I have seen in my life! I can rip your whole reality apart in seconds.
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:4, Funny)
Re:sure it is (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously, using command line is not "probable cause" for doing anything.
Yes it is, if you're giving commands to destroy public infrastructure. By the time he was arrested, the machine had already reported a broken pipe.
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]
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.
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:sure it is (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to mention the amount of damning evidence against the kid. They have DHCP leases of when the mass email went out to the school.
Roommate problems. One roommate sends out a mass-email to campus saying other roommate is 'gay' and coming out. It all sounds like a sophomoric prank using computers instead of posters, fliers, etc.
It also alleges that back when the roommates were 'friends' hacker dude put a second account on roommates computer while fixing it.
Half paranoia on some accounts, but for the most part most accusations sound plausible.
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:sure it is (Score:5, Interesting)
If all there were were uncorroborated accusations then that would be true. However some of the harrassment accusations are backed up by substantial corroborating evidence (presumably the mail system had a copy of the harassment mass e-mail, in addition to all the DHCP and proxy logs identified in the warrant request).
The accused sounds like he fits the profile of someone with an inferiority complex who bragged to his roommate about what he could accomplish to try to impress the other guy and gain acceptance. Then later, when things didn't work out, our antihero tried to demoralize the roommate into submission by anonymously accusing him of behaviour that (unfortunately due to widespread USA puritanical attitudes) would inflict significant social and emotional stress. This behaviour constitutes cyberbullying and there may be applicable statutes in Massachusetts. [state.ma.us]
All the other accusations of copyright infringement, unauthorized use of a computer system, and academic misconduct are just gravy. However, if they find something relevant to those accusations, it makes the roommate's testimony more credible at trial for having predicted it. It also makes it less likely that the defense could challenge the search warrant as a fishing expedition if the police discovered nothing on the harassment charge but something on the other accusations instead.
Now mind you, if the guy did what he was accused of and did it under Ubuntu with encrypted partition(s), I suspect it will be beyond Sgt. Murphy's ability to deal with it. Then again, so far the student's purported "cracker skills" sound more like script-kiddie level stuff; something that may have made him 1337 in a backwater high school, but hardly Legion of Doom stuff. If the kid thought "bootleg-laptop" was a smart name for a laptop and left DHCP and proxy log footprints while harassing someone else, he may not have been smart enough to use an encryption password that would resist a dictionary attack. Really, with a laptop, I'd think he would do some WARdriving outside campus to find an open hotspot and cover his tracks better. So if the laptop gets sent to the FBI for further analysis, they may have a chance to crack it.
Now if some judge fidns him guilty and winds up giving him 10 years for this (while Scooter Libby got his sentence commuted to a 2-year probation), or they find unauthorized copies of media that lead to an RIAA/MPAA demand for a $500,000 punitive fine, I'll get upset. But if he did do what he's accused of, then he's long overdue for a reality check.
Rent-a-cops (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Rent-a-cops (Score:4, Insightful)
Very sadly, IMHO (Score:5, Interesting)
True enough.
I was walking through the basement of our student union building many years ago. The building was mostly closed - we were at a gaming con and minimal stuff was open. I noticed the door to the game room was ajar. I went in and started playing video games with a few of my friends.
Turns out I tripped a silent alarm. About 15 minutes in, campus police busted in and threw us up against the wall at gunpoint. No kidding, I had a gun pressed against the base of my skull.
All that for 3 geeks who were playing video games.
We talked a bit with the cops afterwards. They bragged about how they had us "under surveillance" for over five minutes without any of us noticing. I pointed out that if that were true, did any of them notice the fact that we were *leaving* money there rather than taking it? Blank stares.
So IMHO, they're worse than regular cops. They're bored out of their minds - and have real guns. 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. I'd be bored to near-insanity too.
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.
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: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.
What is a regular "B.C. Operating System"? (Score:5, Interesting)
First time I ever heard that. Does Boston College suddenly come out with their own Linux Distro?
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:What is a regular "B.C. Operating System"? (Score:5, Funny)
errrmh...
So Very Painfully Humiliatingly Guilty (Score:5, Funny)
Prosecutor: Ladies & gentlemen of the jury, I have every intent to prove to you today that the defendant is not only guilty but that the warrant application that granted us the right to acquire evidence practically wrote itself! Now, I am going to outline the warning signs that were evident in the days leading up to this case. I want you to close your eyes for a second and imagine your warm and fuzzy graphical (that's geek speak for 'good') user interface of Windows XP--that all you good Christian patriots use. Ah, the field of green with a blue screen and your well known icons and start menu where everybody knows your name and system tray with your favorite purple gorilla and application bar
*pauses until he sees smiles cross the juries faces*
Prosecutor: Now, imagine that all that is taken away and you're left with the cold dark nothingness of space--like before God created the earth. The heavens and stars aren't even there. It's nothing! And there, blinking unendingly, with no remorse or care for anything good is an intimidating cursor after some letters and symbols that no American could decipher. And as you type things like "I want to order shoes on Amazon" it responds only with the cold harsh words of the devil telling you that ordering shoes on Amazon is not a valid command. And Clippy? Clippy is dead.
*takes a drink of water and smiles smugly as the jury begins to scowl*
Prosecutor: And this is what the defendant used to send that e-mail. This
Prosecutor: So you see, this warrant was basically granted from keystroke one after we found out that the defendant was using Linux--an operating system that encourages you to use a file sharing software to install it. The warrant is valid, I'm just asking you what else might have been done with Linux and its evil knowledge installed on that college student's head and computer. Your honor, I rest my case.
It's Worse Than They Make It Out (Score:5, Funny)
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can get in trouble for writing an email saying that someone is gay?
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
It's a violation of B.C.'s Friends of Gays [wikimedia.org] policy. Too many emails mass-sent proudly proclaiming their friends' sexuality clogs the network, so they have to stop it.
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.
Warrant was issued? (Score:4, Insightful)
This wouldn't have happened... (Score:4, Funny)
if he used the superior green-on-black coloring scheme. Using it shows a man with good taste and and high moral values.
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: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.
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?
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.
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.
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: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.
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.
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:"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:Boston College is private, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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:Probable Cause? (Score:5, Funny)
This is why I go to great lengths to prove I have nothing to hide...
Just doing my part to make the world a better place. Your welcome!
Re:People are afraid of what they don't know (Score:5, Insightful)