[ale] [Fwd: Pirate Banned from Using Linux]

[Jeff Lightner]

I'm guessing if putting someone in jail isn't "considered an
unreasonable restriction on freedom" then telling someone where they can
shop wouldn't be either.   It's not as if they randomly picked this guy
up and said "hey you have to use Windows now".   He was restricted for
pirating based on the subject.   

This guy got off lucky at that - there was a previous hacker that was
prohibited from ever touching any computer again.

-----Original Message-----
From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of
To: ale at ale.org
Michael B. Trausch
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 11:52 AM
To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
Subject: Re: [ale] [Fwd: Pirate Banned from Using Linux]

Watson, Keith R., on 08/27/2007 08:49 AM said:
> Let's see if I understand this correctly.
> 
> 1. A man breaks the law and violates the public trust.
> 
> 2. The man will suffer penalties for breaking the law.
> 
> 3. Since his law breaking involved computers he should not be trusted
> with them at all as he's already proven himself untrustworthy.
> 

Sort of.  But do we tell shoplifters that they cannot use Kroger again,
they must now use Wal*Mart because Wal*Mart has better security and can
keep an eye on them?  Would saying "We will pick your stores for you" be
considered an unreasonable restriction on freedom?  I should think so,
just like being told that if you use Ubuntu, you will go back to jail.

>
> 4. Society exercises mercy so rather than cut him off completely from
> computers they let him use one but only under certain conditions.
> 

I might be wrong, but the conditions as written were that he submit to
monitoring.  So, why don't they let him use the OS that he wants, and
monitor him upstream?  I mean, it's the government.  They can put
another machine on the node, or subpoena the ISP to retain and give to
them all the data, or whatever.  Why they would rely on software,
running on top of Windows, is beyond me.  That has to be one of the most
unreliable ways to monitor someone I know of.

>
> 5. Granted it seems ironic that society then requires use of a product
> they have labeled as monopolistic but hey, society is made up of those
> notoriously illogical beings called people.
> 
> 6. My recommendation is don't break the law in the first place or Bad
> Stuff (TM) will happen to you.
> 

Yeah, well, while that is true, the punishment should fit the crime.
And, since using Ubuntu is not a crime, I don't see how one can legally
and lawfully be told that they are not permitted to use it.  Of course
the man must surrender to monitoring.  But, he should not be forced to
use a horrid and insecure system system just to be monitored.  To me,
monitoring is enough punishment.  Forced zero privacy for any time is
not something that I could deal with well.

	-- Mike

-- 
Michael B. Trausch              Internet Mail & Jabber: mike at trausch.us
Phone:  (404) 592-5746 x1                        http://www.trausch.us/
Mobile: (678) 522-7934            VoIP: 6453 at sip.trausch.us, 861384 at fwd