Judge Says Boston Student's Laptop Was Seized Illegally 190
You may remember a case we discussed this April in which a Boston College student's computers and other electronics were seized after he allegedly sent an email outing another student as gay. The search warrant made sure to note the student's ever-so-suspicious use of "two different operating systems," one of which was "a black screen with a white font which he uses prompt commands on." Now, the EFF reports that a Massachusetts judge has thrown out the search warrant and declared the search and seizure illegal. Quoting: "In her order Thursday, Justice Margot Botsford rejected the Commonwealth's theory that sending a hoax email might be unlawful under a Massachusetts computer crime statute barring the 'unauthorized access' to a computer, concluding that there could be no violation of what was only a 'hypothetical internet use policy.' Thursday's decision now stands as the highest state court opinion to reject the dangerous theory that terms of service violations constitute computer 'hacking' crimes. Justice Botsford further found that details offered by police as corroboration of other alleged offenses were insufficient and did not establish probable cause for the search." The court order (PDF) is available for viewing, and the EFF has broken down the significant arguments against the Commonwealth's claims.
FInally someone has a clue (Score:5, Insightful)
Now when does he get his equipment back? What happens when they hand him a box of busted parts and walk away? (Like Steve Jackson Games)
It is great that we have this victory for our rights. But how do we keep the police from doing it over and over again? The out of control police need oversight to make sure they don't do this again!
Is he gonna get compensated? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is he gonna get compensated? (Score:5, Insightful)
Compensation for what? In the modern Western world, quaint notions of property rights and due process have been deprecated in favor of civil forfeiture, eminent domain for transfer to other private parties, stare decisis, and political connections.
You can't really own property anymore so much as lease it from the government for a yearly fee. (If you disagree with this viewpoint, try not paying your property taxes: then you'll find out who the real owner is.) Therefore, since the government owns all your stuff anyway, they have no need to compensate you for damages, since the government only damaged their own stuff.
</snark>
Re:FInally someone has a clue (Score:1, Insightful)
Rights? I think they are more like privileges. They revoked his privilege when they seized his laptop out of sheer ignorance, and restored it after admitting they were wrong, nothing new here ;)
It's like George Carlin once said, rights aren't rights if they can be taken away from you at any time they wish.
Now I wonder what would've happened if he resisted the seizure and told them he's keeping his laptop and explained he didn't do anything wrong.
Re:FInally someone has a clue (Score:5, Insightful)
He can more than likely proceeded civil claims against against the constabulary there. The thing is its up to him to do that and it may prove costly. If he wins he can probably stick the police department with reasonable court costs as well but he will never get his time back.
The moral of the story here folks is that are justice system is an adversarial one at all levels. You should never never cooperate unless you feel it is in YOUR near term; best interest to do so. Its never a good idea to help law enforcement simply out of some concept of civic responsibility you will only find yourself on the wrong end of it for your trouble. They have long forgotten (systemically not always individually there are plenty of good cops out there) their job is to serve and protect the people. They now mostly exist to serve government and its all controlling pervasive aims.
Re:Retaliation (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that a higher court struck it down is proof of "the system works" and there is no case unless you can prove maliciousness on behalf of the judge (alone or in collusion with the police). Maliciousness *solely* on the part of the police would never fly since the judge signed off on the warrant.
Re:FInally someone has a clue (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as I am aware very few people actually ever get seized equipment back (or if they do, it's not in working order), even when nothing infringing was found on it, or the seizure was deemed illegal, etc.
Sadly there are no checks and balances in the system. If the police had to issue the equipment back in original working order, proof that all analyses had been eradicated, provide compensation for the lost time and presumably the replacement computer the student had to buy and publish an apology in the wide-spread media, then maybe they would stop and think before acting, or at least have a more measured response.
Re:FInally someone has a clue (Score:4, Insightful)
Now I wonder what would've happened if he resisted the seizure and told them he's keeping his laptop and explained he didn't do anything wrong.
They would have taken it anyway and arrested him for obstruction of justice. That charge would not have been thrown out, regardless of whether or not the court order was later found to be illegal.
You don't get to pick and choose which court orders you respect, you have to challenge them in a proper forum.
Re:FInally someone has a clue (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, well if it's the way it is then I guess we can stop caring. It's OK everyone, he said it's the way it is. Or, how about we make it the way it should be?
Re:FInally someone has a clue (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the point of your post? GP says 'the police need oversight because they screw people' and then you come in and say 'the police doesn't need oversight because they screw people and get away with it'.
How does that even make sense?
Re:Is he gonna get compensated? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's an excellent point. Has anyone tallied how often Jack Bauer ("the hero") demonstrates that it's ok to use torture, and even murder (shoot and kill a prisoner right in the CTU boardroom) if it's for his cause?
Re:Need Massachusetts tags (Score:2, Insightful)
The tax they increased was a sales tax, a regressive tax. (Meaning those with the least ability to pay are affected the most.) Plus, last I checked, Massachusetts was a rather small state and fairly close to New Hampshire, with no sales tax, and Connecticut and Vermont, with lower sales taxes.
So, to help with a reduced overall consumer spending, Massachusetts decided to force business into neighboring states because it's cheaper there. Brilliant!
Also, I hate to break it to you, but in November us citizens voted overwhelmingly *AGAINST* [boston.com] a tax decrease.
Thanks to a giant disinformation campaign - including statements from the governor that repealing the income tax would change Massachusetts into Darfur. You also forget to mention that before that, the ballot measure nearly passed in 2004 - which is why there was a giant disinformation campaign in 2008)
extensive crews to salt / deice during the winter, road and pothole repair folks to avoid soil creep issues, ..... ect?
I find that statement hilarious because New Hampshire has no personal income tax - and yet their roads are kept in far better condition and their snow removal is far superior to Massachusetts. Why do you need high taxes for that, again?
Re:FInally someone has a clue (Score:3, Insightful)
either way the person should have just sued for slander/liable/defamation.... the cops should have known the matter was not theirs to deal with.
Re:Is he gonna get compensated? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is he gonna get compensated? (Score:3, Insightful)
...and send you to die in a war you don't believe in against your will...
*looks around*
We USians haven't had a conscript army since Vietnam. Perhaps you were talking about another country?
Re:Retaliation (Score:2, Insightful)
The police are acted in good faith, because they assumed the judge would act in good faith, at the same time the judge was acting in good faith because he assumed the police were acting in good faith? How do you ever get a mis-deed out of that set of conditions?
Somebody screwed up, an innocent man had his stuff seized for no good reason (being a linux user of all things). I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that there should be no repercussions for those involved. The police weren't competent to handle the matter and the judge wasn't competent to issue the warrant. Someone needs to be held accountable for the damaged they caused, "I didn't mean to hurt anyone" is a weak excuse for a common man, but no way in hell should that fly for those that are supposed to be trained in law enforcement.
Re:FInally someone has a clue (Score:3, Insightful)
DarkOx,
I hope you never have to report a crime (like a stolen car) because I would expect you to NEVER call the police even should you need them.
Yeah, that's the rub, isn't it. You giveth, and you taketh away. Never, unless it is convenient to. What kind of absolute is that?
Re:FInally someone has a clue (Score:3, Insightful)
The lost time thing won't fly, period. People aren't even compensated for time spent in a jail cell! Forget about compensation for lost computer time, or anything remotely similar for automobiles, apartments, homes, tools and equipment.
But, yes, the automobile, apartment, tools, equipment, AND COMPUTERS should be returned in working order. If not, the state SHOULD BE LIABLE.
Most definitely.
Re:FInally someone has a clue (Score:5, Insightful)
BUT, there's legal assumptions as long as there's reason to believe the warrant's valid.
IE You challenge it in court, not on site.
Same with false arrest - sure, the arrest can be ruled illegal later, along with various penalties and payments, but you're still going to be screwed if you resist arrest.
I think it's along the 'two wrongs don't make a right', and that you don't want people resisting arrest/warrants left and right on the basis that they're invalid - before their invalidity is proved in court.
Heck, this ruling is still subject to appeal - overruling at higher courts is still possible.