[ale] Linux apparently illegal in MA

[Michael B. Trausch]

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 19:02:23 -0400
Kenneth Ratliff <lists at noctum.net> wrote:

> After reading the warrant application, all I can say is... what the  
> hell are you guys so upset about? 

 * The fact that the officer apparently has an agenda against the
   accused, having previously tried and failed to get anything to stick
   against him, and is using the complaints of the roommate of the
   accused to work this agenda.
 * The fact that the officer is using apparently unsubstantiated
   information from a disgrunted roommate to claim probable cause (if
   there is anything backing up the roommate's claims, they certainly
   aren't present there, and I should think that would be required to
   establish probable cause).
 * The fact that neither the BCPD officer who filed the application, nor
   the MA State Police officer who was consulted appear to have any
   knowledge regarding computing systems despite being "experts" in
   "cyber crime".
 * The fact that all of this was somehow enough to convince an
   Assistant Clerk of the Court (who actually signed the warrant) to
   grant the seizure of the equipment, including all sorts of
   irrelevant things like an Ubuntu CD and the accused's mobile phone
   and MP3 player.

Those all stuck out plain as day to me, having read the application a
few times.

> The media outlets that have reported this have *vastly*
> sensationalized it. The warrant application is being very descriptive
> of what they're looking for, and I'm sure that's probably required
> for the evidence to be admissible. I mean, for god sakes, they
> describe in detail the front door of the dwelling they were going to
> enter, it's not really surprising that they're descriptive of the
> imagery of the computers in use.

And that has _nothing_ to do with establishing probable cause.  That
warrant could be very easily modified to describe my apartment
complex's entrance and every square foot of my apartment in grotesque
detail, and with otherwise minor modifications, there could be probable
cause for taking my computer, my girlfriends' computers, our cell
phones, my one girlfriend's corporate workstation, my printer, my
desk phone, my PS3, my DVR, the few hundred CDs and DVDs that I have
with data on them, my SD cards, and probably my switches and such,
too.

After all, I frequently have computers that aren't mine which I fix,
have multiple operating systems on my computer, and am quite capable of
committing the offenses listed in that document---I'd be willing to
wager that just about anyone on this list is capable of doing the
same.  That doesn't mean that any of us would actually do so.

So, what you're saying is that all someone would have to do is point
an accusation at me---or any of us on this list, even---and voilà,
that's probable cause?  I don't think so.  If that's all that's required
to steal my things from my apartment---because that's exactly what it
would be, theft, whether blessed by an Assistant Clerk or not---there
is something _horribly_, unspeakably wrong with our legal system.

> This is not a case of someone being singled out and harassed by the  
> judicial system just because they're using Linux. This is a case of  
> someone who's been accused of doing some naughty stuff, with enough  
> evidence (as well as testimony from someone the authorities regard
> as a reliable witness) for a judge to sign a warrant.

The fact that _these_ authorities have already proved themselves to be
incompetent, and the fact that they would say that a disgruntled
roommate to the accused is a "reliable witness", is quite distressing
to me.  The officer even noted that he's tried to get the accused for
things in the past, and failed.  This _screams_ of harassment by law
enforcement.  Maybe you'd think differently if you'd ever been harassed
by an officer?

> C'mon guys, do you really mean to imply that bad guys don't use
> Linux to? Or is there just nothing else to be incensed about?

Nobody said that bad guys don't use Linux.  Nobody said that everyone
that uses Linux is a good guy.

However, the axioms which are present and defined in the warrant
application state (very generally) that:

 * Using multiple operating systems is evidence of hiding data from
   authorities.
 * Using encryption is the same.
 * Using filesystems other than FAT is the same.
 * "... [users may] protect their computer systems in an attempt to
   hide their activities and prevent the collection of evidence
   against them."

Right.  So as long as the data that I have on my workstation is
legitimate, I shouldn't encrypt it or anything, so that I can get my
equipment back quicker after the police search it without justification
and read all my client's data?  I don't think so.

There is also the recent FBI raid which is much of the same stuff; they
took all of the computers in a data center recently, putting lots of
people out of business, without any reason to believe that those people
that they put out of business had anything to do with what they were
investigating.  And when businesses who weren't (yet, maybe still
aren't yet) dead asked for their data back so that they could resume
operations, the FBI said, "We won't give you your equipment back, but
you can send us blank drives and we'll give you a copy of your data."
They also said that they no longer had any reason to believe that the
company was involved in their investigation... something isn't right
there.

We live in a very terrifying environment when one can write a search
warrant that contains no real indication that there is probable cause
for anything, and yet it can be approved such that every single digital
item in one's possession can be taken away by the government for search.

Maybe you're right, though.  What is there to get angry about?  We
already live in a non-free state, we must not be missing much... or
maybe it's "free enough," and since this isn't happening to _us_ (at
the moment), we shouldn't bother ourselves with it...

	--- Mike

-- 
The purpose of software engineering is to control complexity, not to
create it.
                            --- Pamela Zave
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20090418/e1979718/attachment-0001.bin