[ale] [OT] Linux apparently illegal in MA

[Kenneth Ratliff]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Apr 19, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Robert Reese~ wrote:
> My guess is you didn't read the link I attached in the post nor any  
> of the
> documents on the site relating to the issue.

I've read the EFF's sensationalism, yes. They're pretty good at  
quoting out of context.

>> If it said instead 'Linux
>> misuse apparently illegal in MA', the public's reaction would have
>> been more like 'well, duh'.
>
> Read the docs.  Nowhere does claim MISUSE of Linux as a basis for  
> the warrant.
> However, the very fact that he had Linux on his machine was cited as  
> probable
> cause for the warrant.

The fact that he was dual booting into a second OS to hide his  
activities was cited as probable cause for the warrant, along with  
testimony from what the police regard as a reliable witness, and from  
(albeit flimsy) support evidence from the college's Director of  
Security. The warrant application is hardly a master piece. Section 4c  
is absolutely laughable. Section 4d is not, and if at all true, the  
accused deserves to have his hide nailed to the wall.

I have read the docs, and it's been blown out of proportion,  
especially within the Linux community. This is an issue of two folks  
who apparently can't seem to get along, and one guy who's willing to  
snitch his roommate out to the cops.

Bottom line - I'm not willing to go to bat for a guy who's apparently  
not that innocent. Based simply on what I've seen so far, it's my  
opinion that the accused is a douchebag, and that the roommate is a  
big baby. Welcome to the real world, people don't always agree or play  
fair.

>> if I'm going to get angry about
>> something, I voice it where it might actually make a difference
>
> Surely you are not suggesting this post and resulting thread cannot  
> make a
> difference.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to give that impression.

Of course I would never suggest such a thing!

I'll state it point blank and without any ambiguity - the impotent  
venting about the misuse of authority on an atlanta based linux list  
will not make a difference. The EFF already has this covered, and any  
lawyer worth their salt can call an expert capable of ripping apart  
the technical aspects of the accusations.

If the accused actually manages to get convicted based on the fact  
that he was using Linux, I'll get fairly incensed myself, though it  
won't be here. However, if the civilian expert that the police wants  
doing forensics on the computers can turn up proof the accused did  
indeed send out a mass email posing as his roommate saying 'Hey guys,  
I'm guy!' along with generating a profile on a website to back up that  
assertion, I want them to nail his hide to the wall. Whether the guy  
is guilty or not actually makes a difference to me.

> You'll see that I went ahead and removed the [OT] tag, as I've made  
> it quite
> clear this is certainly within the scope and breadth of the list's  
> topic.

Indeed. Thankfully, I can filter based on subject headers as well.  
Please respect my wish not to have this conversation forced upon me by  
circumventing my perfectly reasonable steps to have it automatically  
canned, ok?

Seriously, I've had to deal with this issue in more than a few places,  
and in every case, the rage has been misdirected. If I wanted to deal  
with impotent eAngst, I'd reactivate my WoW account and go back to  
reading those forums. I expect this place to be a bastion of sanity  
and reason. This is the kind of thing I expect from the ACLU, not a  
bunch of guys who gather to talk about Linux.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAknrCBYACgkQXzanDlV0VY6XIwCdEGuwNopj+83jRpfIvS38CHFr
KWIAoPmeaSNaKvL1BJL1XOOtyUkqb50H
=yc2P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----