Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Bicycle Thief Barred From Using Encryption

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the ssl-is-encryption dept.

Encryption 449

An anonymous reader writes "A teenager found in possession of a stolen bicycle was given probation, with a whole bunch of computer-related restrictions. He wasn't allowed to use social networks or instant messaging. He wasn't allowed to use a computer that had 'encryption, hacking, cracking, scanning, keystroke monitoring, security testing, steganography, Trojan or virus software.' The kid appealed, noting that the restrictions on social networking seemed overly broad, and restricting him from using a computer with a virus was difficult since viruses and trojans and the like tend to try to stay hidden, so he might not know. While the court overturned the restrictions on social networking, and changed the terms of computer restrictions to include the word 'knowingly,' it did keep the restriction on against using any computer with encryption software. Remember, this isn't someone convicted of malicious computer crimes, but of receiving a stolen bicycle. So why is perfectly reasonable encryption software not allowed? And what computer these days doesn't have encryption software?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

need more input (5, Insightful)

yagu (721525) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976246)

well, the bulk of real information about the said thief in TFA says he "recieved a stolen motorcycle". This isn't much to go on and get a sense of how or why the sanctions were applied. Considering the dearth of underlying exposition, this article qualifies as a non sequitur.

Some additional information worth introducing to the discussion:

  • "how" the thief received said stolen motorcycle
  • "why" /. summary would describe motorcycle as "bicycle"
  • "if" there were computer-related activity leading to discovery and tracking of said thief.
  • etc.

Re:need more input (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33976322)

It would also be useful to know where this took place. NYC? Rural Nebraska?

Re:need more input (1)

yagu (721525) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976380)

yes, that would be sub-bullet one of many under "etc."... :-)

Re:need more input (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976898)

TFA includes a Scribd copy of the appeal. "State of California".

Re:need more input (4, Funny)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976960)

It would also be useful to know where this took place. NYC? Rural Nebraska?

Follow the link to the article.

Oh, what was I thinking, this is slashdot.

Re:need more input (2, Informative)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976360)

Reading the court document posted in TFA, there is no mention of the crime being related to or associated with a computer of any kind. There was mention of a pellet gun, some drug use, etc. No mention of a computer.

Re:need more input (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976664)

Is that the type of thing that would have to be in the court documents in order to have any effect on the punishment? If he had, for example, simply used facebook to see when a classmate of his with a nice motorcycle was going to be on vacation so he could steal it, that would normally be part of the court documents you mentioned?

(obviously IANAL)

Re:need more input (2, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976922)

Received a stolen motorcycle, probably suggests the receiving was arranged on the internet.

The court documents state that he only knew the seller as Skye (note the odd spelling, something you wouldn't know unless communication was in writing).

The only documents you casually read were the Appeal, not the original court documents.

The kid has a record as long as your arm.

Re:need more input (4, Funny)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 4 years ago | (#33977040)

Received a stolen motorcycle, probably suggests the receiving was arranged on the internet.

The court documents state that he only knew the seller as Skye (note the odd spelling, something you wouldn't know unless communication was in writing).

The only documents you casually read were the Appeal, not the original court documents.

The kid has a record as long as your arm.

Probably in the the Receive stolen goods section of Craigslist.

Re:need more input (3, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976932)

You will note that this was a violation of probation. So it probably relates to a previous crime the we do not know.

Was he using online contact to acquire drug contacts? to find pellet gun targets? To associated with people who encourage this behavior? Is he dealing with parent issues? It said he is a ward of the court. I'm not sure if that just means he was arrested, or if he is in foster care.

My point being, there is a lot of information we just don't have. And seeing how he only wanted a loosening of their restrictions, it seems he knows why as well.

Re:need more input (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33977090)

The court document in TFA says what he was on probation for: shooting a person with a pellet gun.

Re:need more input (2, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976440)

The way things are going, I believe it's only a matter of time before encryption is simply outlawed, excepting in-flight encryption where there's some provision for the government to listen in. Encryption makes totalitarian control slightly inconvenient. While the constitution prevents some of the easy anwsers that other countries have already used, we'll find some excuse like this - commit any crime (especially the crime of being a ferner) and lose the "privilege" of encryption forever.

Re:need more input (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976576)

The good news is that in this era of corporate influences over government - If the government pushes hard for crackdowns on encryption again, the banking industry will push back again and win.

Outlawing encryption would do serious damage to our already shaky economy. Eliminating confidence in encryption of financial transactions (especially browser SSL) would be VERY detrimental to commerce.

So regarding the TFA - Is he even banned from using an SSL-enabled browser for online commerce?

Re:need more input (3, Interesting)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976934)

Also worthy to note: nearly every OS in common use today includes some sort of encryption software. Might as well bar someone from using a computer completely.

Re:need more input (1)

mujadaddy (1238164) | more than 4 years ago | (#33977012)

Encryption makes totalitarian control slightly inconvenient.

Wow, nice. This should be sigged.

Re:need more input (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976494)

This isn't much to go on and get a sense of how or why the sanctions were applied. Considering the dearth of underlying exposition, this article qualifies as a non sequitur.

You are right, the article was lame without cites.
So I applied a little google-fu and came up with the ruling. [scribd.com]
I've never seen that preamble about "not for publication" before so I can't really say how long it will stay at that URL.

Re:need more input (1)

iiii (541004) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976972)

So it's in California, Superior Court of San Diego County. And he was nabbed "less than two weeks after his annual review on a prior offense of shooting a person with a pellet gun."

Re:need more input (1)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976536)

  • "why" /. summary would describe motorcycle as "bicycle"

To maintain the exemplary journalistic standards already displayed in the Google Tax story.

The court order (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33976572)

15-year-old ward of the state with history of drug use on probation for shooting someone with a pellet gun found riding a dirt bike hotwired with no papers and bullshit excuse of buying it for cash from "some guy."

This seems to be a very troubled kid who will soon become a adult criminal.

It seems the story is spun to get us excited about taking away our encryption.

Re:The court order (4, Insightful)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976958)

So anyone that does something knowingly illegal should be barred from basically touching a computer? Even if not in prison? Because I see no reason why this guy is a menace to or with computers and thus there should be no reason to restrict his use of computers.

Re:The court order (5, Insightful)

steveg (55825) | more than 4 years ago | (#33977102)

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

Motorcycle (4, Informative)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976258)

While I detest the whole idea of this, I do think that somebody should edit the original post to mention he was in posession of a stolen motorcycle, not bicycle. Although motorcycles are similar to bicycles-- they both have two wheels--there is a difference.

Re:Motorcycle (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976848)

from reading the courts docs, it looks like he has a history of criminal behavior.

The last time I saw something like this, it was because people online where encouraging the criminal behavior. Speculation leads me to think the judge is just trying to remove the juvenile from the atmosphere. Of course, speculation is just that.

Motorcycle not bicycle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33976274)

This doesn't change the issue at hand, but it is sloppy editing in the headline and summary.

He should be barred from being alive (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33976290)

I fucking hate bicycle theives. This piece of human garbage should be taken out of the gene pool.

Wait (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33976314)

Isn't the log-in page for most social networks HTTPS? Or is he only allowed to use Facebook's (ridiculously) non-encrypted log-in page?

So... (1, Interesting)

RLU486983 (1792220) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976316)

does this mean that Microsoft has to open-source the windows code? This guy can't use a log in?

wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33976326)

so much for any browser that supports ssl.

and any OS that stores its passwords in a cryptographic hash....

what's that leave?

Re:wow... (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976940)

DOS 3.3, Lynx

Judges are alowed to order strange things (5, Interesting)

johanw (1001493) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976348)

How strange that US judges can order the most stupid things from people. Here, if you are convicted for something, you cvan get a fine, community labour or jailtime. When it's traffic related your license can be revoked in certain cases, and that's it. A judge ordering someone not to use a computer would be laughed out of court.

Re:Judges are alowed to order strange things (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976774)

So people who commit computer crimes get no restrictions?

Its' not strange. The kid has a history of criminal acts, and the people he communicates with, online, encourage this behavior.

The judge is simple trying to remove him fro that situation. It's far better the putting him in prison.

Re:Judges are alowed to order strange things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33977084)

How strange that US judges can order the most stupid things from people.

I think we should get someone to ban all 18 and 19 year old girls from wearing bras.

That would be totally awesome.

Re:Judges are alowed to order strange things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33977196)

You obviously missed the movie Hackers. "Dood, your 14.4 baud is sooooooo fast! And check out the 256 colors! Woooowwwww."

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33976362)

You don't use 128 bit encryption on YOUR bicycle?

Re:What? (2, Funny)

bigrockpeltr (1752472) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976998)

nope my bicycle keeps a salted SHA512 hash of the code and compares the hashes to unlock...because you know hashing is not encryption

Violated Probation (5, Informative)

fliptw (560225) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976374)

He violated his probation - which means the court can throw whatever books it wants at him.

Other parts of the probation agreement? (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976382)

I'll bet that he was also restricted from possessing a firearm, even though weapons weren't involved. This isn't new.

Re:Other parts of the probation agreement? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976698)

...except there is no "criminal menace" associated with computing devices like there are with firearms.

The judge could have just as easily barred the kid from using French Knives and it would be equally senseless.

Unenforceable, not to mention ridiculous (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976386)

How could anyone possibly enforce these restrictions besides spying on him 24/7 which seems to be a bit draconian for a stolen bike crime.

Incidentally, the 4th condition 'not to use a computer for any purpose other than school related assignments' probably would have been sufficient to cover all the other conditions.

Re:Unenforceable, not to mention ridiculous (1)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976516)

Considering any modern OS ships with encryption software by default, it'll be almost impossible to use any computer at all. Any common web browser will support HTTPS, for example. Windows and OS-X boxes will have ssh support. Windows boxes ship with encrypted NTFS support, etc. One would have to use something like an old DOS machine to find one with absolutely no software that could be considered encryption software on it. Technically, even getting a new computer and using it for a few minutes to remove the software would violate the order. (and make the machine useless for most any sort of work.) Even MS Word supports some encryption related DRMy features.

Re:Unenforceable, not to mention ridiculous (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976598)

Login authentication on modern OSes use encryption. He's pretty much screwed.

Re:Unenforceable, not to mention ridiculous (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33976652)

This is pretty standard. They know he can't help it, but this way if they later want to throw the book at him for something they can't necessarily prove, they just invoke this.

Re:Unenforceable, not to mention ridiculous (1)

jittles (1613415) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976530)

I didn't RTFA but I'm guessing that he somehow used instant messaging of some kind to engage in the sale or purchase of the stolen property. Otherwise, what would be the point in limiting such activity?

Re:Unenforceable, not to mention ridiculous (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 4 years ago | (#33977162)

It is punishment. It is the judicial equivalent of 'you cut the hair off your sister's doll, no TV for you'. Considering he could have gotten jail time, it doesn't look so bad.

Well, rationally speaking... (5, Insightful)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976390)

...it does seem quite irrelevant to the offense at hand. But speaking from the gut, I think bicycle thieves ought to be beaten to death, preferably more than once, so I'd say he got off light.

Re:Well, rationally speaking... (4, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976866)

A thief does not deserve "whatever is coming to him". He deserves swift punishment befitting the crime. Punish too little or too much too often, and the public will slowly lose its respect for those upholding the law, and even for the law itself. That's why it is better to pronounce rational sentences, rather than let pity or anger get in the way too much.

Re:Well, rationally speaking... (-1, Troll)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#33977236)

I agree, they deserve swift punishment. How about a swift whack with a sword removing an appendage? Would that suffice? It would also be a warning to those that would follow after his footsteps. Or how about branding the forehead with "Thief"?

But of course the bleeding hearts want to rehabilitate (expensive, non-effective) criminals. We don't need to do that, we just need to enable their self preservation instincts, which is truly rehabilitative.

My daughter had her locked bicycle stolen from a high traffic location in broad daylight. The ONLY way this can happen is if the people stealing the bike weren't afraid of the consequences. How come the bleeding hearts never bleed for the victims, but always for the criminals?

Re:Well, rationally speaking... (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 4 years ago | (#33977068)

Got your bike stolen, didn't you?

No web browsers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33976392)

all the web browsers support https. what good is a computer without access to the internet?

Re:No web browsers (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976560)

More to the point every modern operating system encrypts and decrypts passwords to provide login authentication. Even if you aren't *using* a password, the capability remains in anything other than a heavily hacked up Linux or *BSD system (You'd have to remove pretty much the entire authentication system, which would in turn break things like gdm, so you'd have to remove that...). You couldn't even hope to remove the capability from a Windows or Mac system. So basically this kid can use a computer which has had a custom operating system hacked together for it, but is otherwise screwed.

Re:No web browsers (1)

Entrope (68843) | more than 4 years ago | (#33977050)

Go directly to fail. Do not pass go. No operating system worth its salt encrypts or decrypts passwords. They use cryptographically strong one-way transformations instead. These are sometimes called hash or trap-door functions. Just about the last thing most OSes want when it comes to passwords is to be able to recover the password just from the bits stored on the disk. (Sometimes the hash function may be something that *used* to be cryptographically strong, but for which brute-force attacks are now feasible, but the general idea is the same.)

Computer with no encryption (1)

psergiu (67614) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976402)

He can use a Commodore 64. Or a Speccy. :)

What happened to the 8th? (2, Insightful)

Defenestrar (1773808) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976406)

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

So how does the punishment fit the crime? How is it even relevant? How is forbidding this kid from using an online bank (or anything else with https, or a physical network with a properly secured wireless connection) not excessive bail, or cruel, or unusual?

Take this on up the chain of justice you bike-thieving scoundrel. I'll fight to have you punished for your crime, but I'm fully in support of prohibiting our law from water-boarding you or forcing you to live in the last century. From a practical standpoint the water-boarding is probably less cruel - outside of the psych damage - it's over when it's done. The other prevents you from becoming a normally functioning member of modern society.

The judge could just revoke his parole... (3, Informative)

moronikos (595352) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976656)

...and allow him to finish the rest of his sentence in jail or prison. If he's on probation that means he was convicted of the crime and therefore bail is not involved at all. If not being allowed to use a computer is cruel and unusual punishment, then my whole childhood was cruel and unusual. I guess he'll just have to learn to read books, talk to people, play board games, and play sports.

Re:What happened to the 8th? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976704)

What happened to reading up on something before replying and looking like an idiot?

Re:What happened to the 8th? (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976858)

Cruel and unusual punishment? Come one - given the choice of probation while limiting your computer usage (NOT prohibiting it) or spending a year in prison, you think the *former* would be worse?

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33976412)

you don't use 128 encryption on YOUR bicycle?

Australia (0, Offtopic)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976416)

Figures.

Re:Australia (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976484)

Hm, maybe not. I mistook a link to another story as a tag line. Where did this actually take place, I'm not finding it in the article.

https://? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33976430)

Visit one https:// URL and you have violated your probation!

One thing perhaps overlooked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33976448)

Why not protest that this would prevent him from buying stuff online?

Motorcycle (1)

Andrewkov (140579) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976470)

timothy, RTFA.

And how did they define computer ? (3, Funny)

RichMan (8097) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976474)

Poor kid, cannot use a cell phone. Cannot use a bank machine. Cannot use a bus or subway with automatic ticketing.

If you want to force the definition of "encryption" to character encoding there are going to be microwaves, refrigerators and washing machines he cant' use.

Re:And how did they define computer ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33976954)

I would think he couldn't use any computer with a modern web browser due to SSL. Thus I think the overturn of the social networking is a moot point as he would already be banned from using it.

It seems like it would be awfully hard for him to get a job. Granted he's a teenager and I only read the article not the actual terms of the probation, but it still seems awfully harsh.

Re:And how did they define computer ? (5, Funny)

boristdog (133725) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976980)

Most cars are pretty much run by computer too.

Kid will need a bicycle. Oh, wait...

Re:And how did they define computer ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33977086)

He probably can't use the courts system either, or ride in police cars, or live in prison.

Maybe https:// isn't "knowingly" using crypto? (2, Insightful)

redelm (54142) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976482)

Perhaps ignorance is bliss -- it sure seems so for the Judiciary. Every browser I know (except lynx and links) has encryption software to handle https:/// [https] links. Most banks and reputable business require it.

Perhaps this is judicially considered "security software", but how can it be reliably distinguished from the forbidden "encryption software"? This seems unconstitutionally vague.

Re:Maybe https:// isn't "knowingly" using crypto? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#33977168)

Lynx has supported https for years.

httpS (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976514)

he can't use browsers

Re:httpS (1)

bigrockpeltr (1752472) | more than 4 years ago | (#33977132)

browsers? is that a fancy word for netcat? but he cant use cell phones

I'd bet... (1)

xmarkd400x (1120317) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976520)

I'd bet that he somehow used a computer to steal the motorcycle. The courts don't typically give out that kind of computer punishment unless a computer was used in the crime. Perhaps it was a craigslist scam or something?

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33976524)

Look at it this way: Violent offenders have their 2nd amendment rights taken away, and nobody seems to think that's a bad idea. Sex offenders in many states are barred from living in certain areas (near schools, playgrounds, daycares, etc), and nobody seems to think that's a bad idea.

And so, the upcoming tidal wave of nerd rage will be totally unjustified, because all of you basement dwellers will be shocked to think that your right to encrypt your porn might be taken away. Queue someone saying that "it's only a matter of time before the MPAA/BSA/etc. gets such injunctions placed on file sharers/software pirates/grandmas", or someone pretending that the Constitution was ever meant to protect criminals.

The perp from TFA is just that - a convicted criminal, and society is choosing to suspend certain of his rights.

The bottom line, here, is that criminals are offenders against society, and have, to an extent, forfeited their rights.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable to me. (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976780)

Well, a lot of us also object to the idea that "inalienable rights" can be revoked just because you are a felon.

Although probation is something that sits in place of incarceration. It's not permanent. Restrictions during probation
are a bit different from being permanently dis-enfranched. That said, a guy needs to be able to make his way in the
world as it is even if he is scum.

As a matter of public policy, it makes no sense to deprive scum of the ability to legally fend for themselves. All this
does is just intentionally breed more crime.

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable to me. (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976792)

You're missing the point. Every modern operating system has encryption built in to its lowest levels. He can't use a *computer* as the restriction is written. What's step one to using a system? Logging in, right? And what happens to your password when you log in? It's encrypted with a one way algorithm and compared to a known hash. "Well, you say, simply turn off logins on on the computer he uses." After all, nearly every system allows it to be turned off, and just boots to a single user's desktop. Only problem is that the capability is still there. He's not barred from using encryption, he's barred from using a computer with encryption software installed. Which is pretty much every computer with any operating system written in the last 15 years.

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable to me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33977206)

It's encrypted with a one way algorithm and compared to a known hash.

That's not encryption. Encryption can be decrypted. One way algorithms cannot.

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable to me. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33977088)

AC wrote:

Sex offenders in many states are barred from living in certain areas (near schools, playgrounds, daycares, etc), and nobody seems to think that's a bad idea.

I think it's a bad idea. Anyone who has actually considered the consequences think it's a bad idea as well. Many people who live in the tiny areas where these laws concentrate all the sex offenders think it's a bad idea. Of course, most of them just think "can't we get them banned from here too?!" without caring where they go after that. The only people who think things like that are a good idea are people who lack the foresight to realize the consequences or who just don't care. The funny thing is that they're always called "unintended consequences" but you can always find someone who thought about it and tried to inform the people who made the decision about what would happen and was ignored.

So, yes, criminals may have forfeited some of their rights. They certainly have to in order to be locked up, but that doesn't mean it's rational to throw any restriction you want at them. They have to make sense and be fair. Yes, that's right, fair. Even criminals have a right to fair treatment. You can't simultaneously let them walk around and set up the rules so that just trying to live in what would be a non-criminal manner for other people sends them right back to jail. This kid is a minor, so he probably doesn't have to pay a lot of bills online, handle bank accounts, etc. (although he might). Most adults simply won't be able to get by in the modern world without making use of things that are forbidden to this kid.

No pity (1)

Quato (132194) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976528)

Bike thieves are the worst kind of scum. Restricting someone from encryption is just ignorant. I guess this kid shouldn't use an ATM, credit card, or any other electronic transaction. Not to mention he shouldn't work anywhere where they use email, a database that encrypted, or even a secure web page.

no encryption (1)

jeoeoeoeorb (874917) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976538)

He wasn't allowed to use a computer that had 'encryption,

Want to log in to your baking site with ssl. Sorry kid.

Re:no encryption (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33976714)

Want to log in to your baking site with ssl. Sorry kid.

Yeah, you wouldn't want anyone intercepting your recipe for sourdough, best not to go to any baking sites at all :)

Re:no encryption (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976758)

He wasn't allowed to use a computer that had 'encryption,

Want to log in to your baking site with ssl. Sorry kid.

Fortunately he can still post to Slashdot.

Re:no encryption (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 4 years ago | (#33977042)

Not with a browser that supports SSL. Someone should compile him an open source browser that has encryption removed.

ATMs??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33976628)

Can he use ATMs? Or does he have to get his money from a walk-up teller so the teller uses the encryption?

Headline is WRONG (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976662)

It was a motorcycle, not a bicycle.

And the juvenile has a history of drug use, violence, and other criminal activity.

So consider that when replying.

From what I read, this kid needs some one more positive in his everyday life. Also, this result is better then putting him in jail.

Well duh... (4, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976786)

It's so that if he steals another bike, he won't be able to hide it in an encrypted partition on his hard drive.

Sweet jesus (1)

Xacid (560407) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976800)

1) Bicycle != Motorcycle. 2) Poorly/not cited. 3) My first question was "what country was this in"? And you can't find that directly in the article. BAH HUMBUG.

bicycle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33976820)

It was a 50cc Honda motorcycle, tard.

what counts as a computer these days? Netbook? Smartphone? gaming console? blu-ray player? They all have encryption software. And can support chat.Does that mean he can't do any banking online?

HELLO??? ACLU??? (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976830)

Are you listening? We need you again.

Isn't there a law against this? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976832)

Isn't there something in the constitution about unusual punishment? When the punishment does not fit the crime, I have to say that it is unusual.

That's stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33976872)

Unless the crime involves computers, why the hell should the sentence involve them!?

I'll go out on a limb here... (1)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976910)

It's tough to research this case based on the information given, so I suppose we'll all just have to guess; but I don't believe the judge just arbitrarily decided to put these restrictions on the kid if they were truly unrelated to the crime.

How did he arrange to receive the stolen motorcycle (which, btw, is not a bicycle; it's likely a lot more valuable and the crimes involved in stealing it were likely a lot more serious in nature)? I bet his end of the deal was brokered over the Internet.

Does that make the restrictions "reasonable"? Well, there's two sides to that. Any probation is still less restrictive than imprisonment, which would be a legitimate option. But if you argue that the court might not realize just how much restriction it's imposing, that may be so.

Either way, I fail to be outraged at the level TFA is trying to incite through its selective reporting of information on a topic where I can't research the missing details myself.

Re:I'll go out on a limb here... (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#33977082)

How did he arrange to receive the stolen motorcycle

He didn't, not really. He was found riding a dirt bike which had obviously been hotwired. He said "Oh, didn't noticed that, I bought it from some guy". I.E. he stole it, but they can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no "some guy", but at least can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew it was stolen (no key, hotwired).

We need mod system for ARTICLES not just comments (5, Insightful)

tomkost (944194) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976966)

I have mod points today and would mod this whole article down... it's a complete waste of time.

Time to get more than one computer. (1)

orsty3001 (1377575) | more than 4 years ago | (#33976996)

I'd use one for whatever I wanted and let them check other other one.

Encrypting email!? (2, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#33977034)

The articles author asks incredulously whether that means that he can;t even encrypt his email.

Strange as it may seem, email encryption is not all that common amongst anyone except geeks, professionals in certain fields and some of the more tech-savvy criminals. I suspect that this kid is none of these. Preventing email encryption was probably the specific reason this was included in the first place.

Here's a bigger problem - go to facebook.com. Log in. Notice how you get directed to an encrypted webpage? So he's still not allowed to use facebook. Or even use jut about any web browser (I guess some of the older version of Mosaic or Lynx might have been pre-https)

Typical slashdot crap (2, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#33977054)

It already starts bad when an editor doesn't know the difference between a bicycle and a motorcycle. Yes, the work bike is used to describe them both and the US is NOT alone in this (in Holland the term is "fiets" and this can be used for a motorcycle) BUT in both English in Dutch this is ONLY done if there is no possibility of confusion.

In this case there is.

Further more, there is NO such thing as being MERELY in possesion of stolen property. If you are found guilty it is because you are a criminal, typically because you stole it directly OR obtained it at an unlikely price. That is, if you buy a bike for 10 dollars, you are expected to know that means it is stolen. No court will convict you of being in possesion of stolen property if you can show that you couldn't have known, buy a 100 dollar value bike for 50 might be reasonable. Buying something you could reasonably suspect of being stolen is what fences do, which is illegal.

Then there is the case of the this "kid" having committed other offences. This is no "innocent" teen who just happened to think he got lucky on a deal.

Finally, when you are convicted and sentenced in court, a lot of the rights you assume were natural are taken from you. Criminals can have all sorts of sanctions imposed. From restrictions were they can go, to how far they can travel, from leaving the country, to have to report regurlary, to not drinking, not causing a further nuisance (probation), not talking to people, not talking to certain people (offence for all criminals released from jail after serving their sentence to associate with known felons) etc etc. And YES, the system DOES take account of new developments and the crime and the tools used in it.

A child rapist might be forbidden to come near childeren, but a criminal businessman can be forbidden from running a business. If you scam people over the phone, you can be forbidden from using one, just a drunk driver may not drive a car.

Now, slashdot editor, is it THAT hard to imagine that as criminals use the internet and encryption that they are then forbidden to use it?

Gosh, this sounds a lot like those cry stories where a person is banned from driving for being drunk and then claim they really need the car and is it fair to deprive them of said car... HELLO? Punishment is SUPPOSED to hurt. Probation is supposed to send the message, we are watching you. If you don't want more restriction, behave AND behave better then a NORMAL citizen who has NOT been convicted and sentenced.

Newsflash, criminal punishment is punishing criminals. OMG! The horrorz!

I wonder if WPA counts as encryption? (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 4 years ago | (#33977076)

So if his laptop joins a network that has wep or wpa encryption, he's in violation? What if he goes to a website that requires https? Or logs into any site that encrypts one's credentials?

I have to wonder if they really thought that through.

There ARE Alternatives to Probation (1)

Toad-san (64810) | more than 4 years ago | (#33977108)

So, if the terms of his "Get Out Of Jail Free" card were too onorous ... what were the alternatives?

Screw him, thieving bastige. Let him see how six months (or six years?) in jail for Grand Theft Larceny suits him.

So, he can't use a browser (1)

MattW (97290) | more than 4 years ago | (#33977170)

Since basically every browser supports SSL/TLS for https: connections.

In other news... (5, Funny)

LowerTheBar (1741458) | more than 4 years ago | (#33977186)

Computer Thief Barred From Using Handlebars
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?