Discussion about search warrant for BC Ubuntu user's computers

[MaindotC]

Boston College Campus Police: "Using Prompt Commands" May Be a Sign of Criminal Activity

http://is.gd/soKR


On Friday, EFF and the law firm of Fish and Richardson filed an emergency motion to quash [pdf] and for the return of seized property on behalf of a Boston College computer science student whose computers, cell phone, and other property were seized as part of an investigation into who sent an e-mail to a school mailing list identifying another student as gay. The problem? Not only is there no indication that any crime was committed, the investigating officer argued that the computer expertise of the student itself supported a finding of probable cause to seize the student's property.

*****OMITTED*****

Should Boston College Linux users be looking over their shoulders?

In his application, the investigating officer asked that he be permitted to seize the student's computers and other personal effects because they might yield evidence of the crimes of "Obtaining computer services by Fraud or Misrepresentation" and "Unauthorized access to a computer system." Aside from the remarkable overreach by campus and state police in trying to paint a student as suspicious in part because he can navigate a non-Windows computer environment, nothing cited in the warrant application could possibly constitute the cited criminal offenses. There are no assertions that a commercial (i.e. for pay) commercial service was defrauded, a necessary element of any "Obtaining computer services by Fraud or Misrepresentation" allegation. Similarly, the investigating officer doesn't explain how sending an e-mail to a campus mailing list might constitute "unauthorized access to a computer system."

During its March 30th search, police seized (among other things) the computer science major's computers, storage drives, cell phone, iPod Touch, flash drives, digital camera, and Ubuntu Linux CD. None of these items have been returned. He has been suspended from his job pending the investigation. His personal documents and information are in the hands of the state police who continue to examine it without probable cause, searching for evidence to support unsupportable criminal allegations.

Next up? An emergency court hearing as soon as the court will hear us in which we will ask that the search warrant be voided and the student's property returned. Stay tuned...

I know this happened earlier today but I searched the forums and didn't see anyone talking aboot it so I thought I'd let ya know. This is hilarious and I hope the police officer and the judge that signed off on the warrant enjoy being the laughing stock of the IT headlines.

[Jimmynemo2]

Holy smokes, thats scary. I mean, I want people to think of me as tech savvy, but thinking that tech savvy is equal to tech evil?? Where'd the leap come from?

[chucky chuckaluck]

so much for the reforms of vatican II.

[Svensk023]

ohhh ignorance.

reminds me of my friend's mom back in highschool.
I tracked some dead maple leaves into the house once and she accused me of dropping "marijuana" in her living room. yup...

[lloyd_b]

Please leave the sensationalism on Slashdot where it belongs :)

If you read the actual warrant, the person is accused of tapping into the school computer system, and altering grades, among other things.

The warrant is based on the testimony of the accused's (former?) roommate. The business of his using a command line system is just fluff thrown in by a clueless cop.

Whether or not the roommate's accusations were enough for a warrant is a matter for a court to decide. But please don't think for a second that the warrant was issued solely because he used a command line system...

Lloyd B.

[MikeTheC]

I don't know how much further we can go with this conversation without tripping over the line into "political discussion", so I'll keep this short, brief, and clean:

We are crossing some very, very dangerous lines in this country, lines that we ought not to have ever gotten anywhere near, let alone crossed. It is likely and probable that we will continue to see an escalated number (and possibly degree) of such violations of civil rights and other due-process violations. It is an ugly, ugly road we're heading down. Before we can "take back our country" we first need to take back and get a good, firm grip on ourselves.

If nothing else, things may soon get to a point where it will be almost impossible to discuss anything on such a messageboard as UbuntuForums without it falling over into what would traditionally be defined as "political discussion". I can only tell you I hope this doesn't happen.

Boston, eh? Hrmph. And here I thought Mass was supposed to be some haven for "civil rights". I guess the rules are changing.

Can we keep up?

[Jimmynemo2]

And lloyd wins. I failed to read the whole article, and thus, just became "that guy" I cant stand.

Stupid people commenting on stuff they didnt even read. I'm sorry, I'll go hide in a closet for the night to punish myself.

[Svensk023]

And lloyd wins. I failed to read the whole article, and thus, just became "that guy" I cant stand.

Stupid people commenting on stuff they didnt even read. I'm sorry, I'll go hide in a closet for the night to punish myself.

well I don't hold it against you man <3
and same goes for you OP

that article probably would have caused me to jump the gun too

[CraigPaleo]

I'd be counter-suing for lost wages and then some. A computer science major working on computers and being seen with different laptops and using a command line constitutes probable cause? Oh, how unusual is that?

[gn2]

If you read the full text of the warrant application properly, there's nothing in it that would suggest that the officer who applied for the warrant has done anything in the slightest bit wrong.
He has simply outlined what he has been told and submitted it for the consideration of the court.

[CraigPaleo]

Where are you all finding this full text link? I must be blind tonight.

[Jimmynemo2]

First post, short link. You'll see it.

[gn2]

Where are you all finding this full text link? I must be blind tonight.

Here it is
(http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf)

[MaindotC]

Well, I disagree with those of you who are saying the warrant actually contains sustinence but I respect your opinions.

Jimmy's first post brings up a good point that I think is echoed in the ietf's highlighted text of the warrant. The first rule of IT is you do not talk about IT. On my campus there is usually a rogue dhcp server popping up twice a semester and us in the Network Administration program are always immediately questioned, not those with infected windows machines running who knows what.

[gn2]

Well, I disagree with those of you who are saying the warrant actually contains sustinence but I respect your opinions.

The warrant application contains evidence from witnesses, the officer hasn't just conjured it all up out of his imagination.
Remember that "probable cause" isn't the same as "proof".
Which is why the equipment was seized, to see if examining it would yield further evidence.
Had the equipment been seized without any warrant, it would be understandable that the owner would have reason to complain.

[CraigPaleo]

Here it is
(http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf)

Oh, thanks. He may be guilty of other things but I really don't think he committed the libel. He would have been smart enough to cover his I.P.

[gn2]

Oh, thanks. He may be guilty of other things but I really don't think he committed the libel. He would have been smart enough to cover his I.P.

In which case if he's innocent he would have nothing to fear from having his equipment inspected.....

[mips]

so much for the reforms of vatican II.

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A

[dmizer]

From reading the warrant, using Ubuntu and Linux were incidental in the accusation. The warrant is to obtain property purportedly used to commit a crime. The fact that the accused was using Ubuntu/Linux was merely listed as something used to narrow down the list of potential subjects, to link the accused to the crime, and to justify obtaining that specific computer.

The crime itself could have been perpetrated on any OS. Including (but apparently not limited to):
Changing grades for other students
Jailbreaking cellphones
Illegally downloaded movies
Stolen property
"Illegal internet use"
Wares
Slander or libel (not specific in the warrant)

[grss1982]

Boston College Campus Police: "Using Prompt Commands" May Be a Sign of Criminal Activity

^^ :lolflag:

So because I love using CLI in my work does that mean I'm a criminal? :lolflag:

[Dieseler]

A sign of criminal behavior.
I don't post here a lot guys and I'm not trying to stir crap.
I do however as a Ubuntu user appreciate the work that the open source community puts in to its operating systems and software projects and feel this is something you all should be aware of.
I also appreciate all of the help I have received from these forums in troubleshooting my system.
Thanks.
Ubuntu is mentioned in the article.
http://www.infowars.com/cops-think-linux-use-may-be-sign-of-criminal-behavior/

[SuperSonic4]

Cops can think what they like, they still have to prove it

[swoll1980]

My son thinks the tooth fairy puts money under his pillow...

[Dieseler]

Cops can think what they like, they still have to prove it

Aye, such it was in the good old days, I'm not so sure anymore.
Anyway, like I said, I have no intent to stir anything up or argue as I am in no position scholastically to do so. Use the info as you will.

[Methuselah]

Yes, this was posted ... foolish cops!
Or maybe they know linux users are immune to the _NSAKEY backdoor and figure it's because we have something to hide. ;)

[timcredible]

if that's real, then i suppose the cops should arrest everyone with an iphone since it's a linux computer (if you don't think so, jailbreak it and look at the filesystem), or everyone with a macintosh (yep, linux and bsd), or an ipod touch, or a ps3. guess there's plenty of stupid people in the world.

[MaxIBoy]

Cops can think what they like, they still have to prove it+1


It's true that cops can put you in the tank overnight for any random reason they want (including "his shirt doesn't match his socks,") but you would not be convicted of anything, and you would be let go pretty much right away. In addition, there's the opportunity to file suit for damage to your reputation.

[jowilkin]

The press has run away with this story. Read the actual warrant used. Linux was merely mentioned, there was plenty of other evidence which was actually used to justify the search. Linux was merely mentioned as a sign that the person was computer literate. It was not used as grounds for the search.

[mp3_freak_721]

Cops can think what they like, they still have to prove it

I agree. And since when does being able to use the Linux command line make you a criminal?

[Godly]

Ftp!!

[jespdj]

if that's real, then i suppose the cops should arrest everyone with an iphone since it's a linux computer (if you don't think so, jailbreak it and look at the filesystem), or everyone with a macintosh (yep, linux and bsd), or an ipod touch, or a ps3. guess there's plenty of stupid people in the world.
Mac OS X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X) (the version that runs on a Mac laptop or desktop computer and the version that runs on the iPhone and other Apple devices) is not Linux. It is a Unix-like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix-like) operating system and that's why it has a similar file system as Linux (which is also a Unix-like operating system), but it is not Linux, nor derived from Linux.

[stchman]

A sign of criminal behavior.
I don't post here a lot guys and I'm not trying to stir crap.
I do however as a Ubuntu user appreciate the work that the open source community puts in to its operating systems and software projects and feel this is something you all should be aware of.
I also appreciate all of the help I have received from these forums in troubleshooting my system.
Thanks.
Ubuntu is mentioned in the article.
http://www.infowars.com/cops-think-linux-use-may-be-sign-of-criminal-behavior/

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. This has to be some M$ propaganda.

[Therion]

My son thinks the tooth fairy puts money under his pillow...

Not after my last email he doesn't.

He also knows the truth about the goldfish you flushed and that there's no such thing as "Puppy Heaven"...

[Cybie257]

+1


It's true that cops can put you in the tank overnight for any random reason they want (including "his shirt doesn't match his socks,") but you would not be convicted of anything, and you would be let go pretty much right away. In addition, there's the opportunity to file suit for damage to your reputation.

No such things as Innocent until proven guilty these days. It's all about being guilty until proven innocent. America has lost it's true values and meaning. Anyways... Don't wanna get a political thing going here. :)

_-Cybie

[Cybie257]

Ftp!!

Being a computer geek, you could have fun with that. If they ever try to hassle you for displaying that, you just tell them it's for transferring files and really make them feel stupid. :lolflag:

-Cybie

[olskar]

I started reading the link, I have a graduation in criminology after all, thinking it was a new interesting theory but..yeah.. *sigh*

[gn2]

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. This has to be some M$ propaganda.

Not Microsoft propaganda, just sensationalist and sloppy journalism.

This story was already debated in the Cafe earlier today: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1126083

[Vunutus]

This story has been so distorted. When I read it initially the way EFF spun the situation, it sounded like somebody committed various small computer crimes and they seized some CS major's equipment just because he was using Linux and that is therefor mysterious. Obviously, if that was the case, everyone here at a Linux forum would be in agreement that this is ridiculous.

The actual warrant does speak of Linux in an ignorant way (I think it was refereed to as "some kind of black screen with white text where he used prompt commands"), but somewhere in the lengthy warrant request lies legitimate reasons for seizing his computers (admittedly taking his phone and ipod and such was a bit much).

As I understand it, this is how things happened:

1. The Linux using student supposedly hacked into the school's computers to change some grades
2. Linux using student's roommate found out and reported him to the school
3. Linux using student send email to school newsgroup spreading rumor that said roommate is gay

Now, the Linux using student's lawyers are spinning it that his electronics were seized because he sent the email, when in reality the warrant was issued mainly based on grounds of the student changing grades (which is obviously valid grounds for a warrant).

[WatchingThePain]

Typical, anything new and they think "it be Devils Work".
What next, I suppose all Linux users become Outlaws.
Burned at the Stake?.

(p.s Only Joking)

[days_of_ruin]

Not after my last email he doesn't.

He also knows the truth about the goldfish you flushed and that there's no such thing as "Puppy Heaven"...

:-$

[NightwishFan]

Have you been to puppy heaven? Can you confirm it's nonexistence? ):P

They have a right to think that when they try to spy on me and they can't make heads or tails of my encryption setup. I finally let them in one day and they find my collection of Trance, and they arrest me and take me to court. I laugh like Yagami Light when they realize that all of it is from Jamendo...

True story. No, no it isn't but you get the point.

[swoll1980]

Not after my last email he doesn't.

He also knows the truth about the goldfish you flushed and that there's no such thing as "Puppy Heaven"...

You ruthless ******* :mad:

Add: Wow!! Some of the things that word filter wont let you say are ridiculous.

[NightwishFan]

Swoll you nearly surpass my post count.. Yet I have a handicap. We shall see who will win in the end! (Completely ignores the fact we have no such competition)

[aktiwers]

Does the name Alex Jones not ring a bell?
If its the Alex Jones I know, I would not take this too seriously

[lisati]

Swoll you nearly surpass my post count.. Yet I have a handicap. We shall see who will win in the end! (Completely ignores the fact we have no such competition)

I'm disappointed in not having such a competition. I must Google the art of getting re-appointed.):P

[dragos240]

'The other is a black screen with white font on it for typing his commands.' they obviously are completely oblivious to what linux is, and the fact that they said a 'normal Boston collage computer' seems to say that the person who wrote it knows barely anything about operating systems.

[I-75]

Typical, anything new and they think "it be Devils Work".
What next, I suppose all Linux users become Outlaws.
Burned at the Stake?.

(p.s Only Joking)


Well...there IS a Podcast named Linux Outlaws....

http://www.linuxoutlaws.com/

[Sef]

Vunutus

This story has been so distorted. When I read it initially the way EFF spun the situation, it sounded like somebody committed various small computer crimes and they seized some CS major's equipment just because he was using Linux and that is therefor mysterious. Obviously, if that was the case, everyone here at a Linux forum would be in agreement that this is ridiculous.

The actual warrant does speak of Linux in an ignorant way (I think it was refereed to as "some kind of black screen with white text where he used prompt commands"), but somewhere in the lengthy warrant request lies legitimate reasons for seizing his computers (admittedly taking his phone and ipod and such was a bit much).

As I understand it, this is how things happened:

1. The Linux using student supposedly hacked into the school's computers to change some grades
2. Linux using student's roommate found out and reported him to the school
3. Linux using student send email to school newsgroup spreading rumor that said roommate is gay

Now, the Linux using student's lawyers are spinning it that his electronics were seized because he sent the email, when in reality the warrant was issued mainly based on grounds of the student changing grades (which is obviously valid grounds for a warrant).

Glad you posted that. I was going to until I saw you had. I agree with you that part was poorly worded, but for the rest of it, the dectective has done his job correctly.

[Ticketoride]

Cops Think Linux Use May be Sign of Criminal Behavior
And if ya torrent down a copy of Vista you are not?:o

[haemulon]

This has nothing to do with Linux.

That they described the systems they wanted to seize is just part of the warrant.

Someone had accused the man of illegal hacking activities (changing grades) so he accused someone else of being gay.

Sounds like a sloppy investigation, and a bunch of opportunists trying to spin it into some story about Linux and cops and gay sex and hackers and.... wait until the movie

[WatchingThePain]

Oh well, I told you guys not to wear Goth clothes.
Maybe Linux users could carry an id badge so as not to startle the elderly.
And when practising Linux be considerate of others.
Imagine the harm you could do if a Windows user were to accidently see you using the command line.

Linux is free of cost and keeps people off the streets. If more people were at home using Linux the crime rate would probably drop.
People without money who want to buy Windows are more likely to commit a crime, due to peer pressure from knowing that all their friends have Windows.

[overdrank]

Threads merged

[Johnsie]

This story has been manipulated by people who want to pretend that Linux is a victim here. The reason behind the warrant aren't that he was using a terminal. The user is suspected of using his computer to change grades and post offensive rumours about people. The technical staff at the college provided information linking him to the acts in the form of DHCP logs to the staff. The cop is simply requesting to take the computer so that A COMPUTER FORENSICS EXPERT can look on the machine.

The suspect is also a suspect in another ongoing laptop theft investigation.

I don't think the police have done anything wrong here. They have specialists who are going to look at the computers to find out if a crime has been committed. There is no reason for the person writing the warrant to be a tech expert.

[lloyd_b]

This story has been manipulated by people who want to pretend that Linux is a victim here. The reason behind the warrant aren't that he was using a terminal. The user is suspected of using his computer to change grades and post offensive rumours about people. The technical staff at the college provided information linking him to the acts in the form of DHCP logs to the staff. The cop is simply requesting to take the computer so that A COMPUTER FORENSICS EXPERT can look on the machine.

The suspect is also a suspect in another ongoing laptop theft investigation.

I don't think the police have done anything wrong here. They have specialists who are going to look at the computers to find out if a crime has been committed. There is no reason for the person writing the warrant to be a tech expert.

I agree that this story has been heavily spun. But at the core, the EFF has a valid issue with the warrant. There is NO technical evidence that the accused ever committed a crime. The only technical evidence is that he posted a message to a listserver that his former roommate is "gay and coming out of the closet". Which is not a criminal act (libel/slander are *civil* matters).

Now take into account that the only testimony that a crime has even been committed comes from that same former roommate. Not exactly an unbiased witness...

The EFF is challenging the warrant based on this - it's based on the testimony of a single person, who has a reason to hold a grudge against the accused. Without this testimony, the police have no evidence that the accused has committed *any* crime, let alone the specific crimes the warrant lists.

A warrant should not be issued because someone makes an accusation. The police need one of two things to support the testimony - either independent testimony/evidence that's consistent with the accusation, or a reasonable believe that the accuser has no reason to lie. Neither of these is present in this case.

Lloyd B.

[schauerlich]

A warrant should not be issued because someone makes an accusation. The police need one of two things to support the testimony - either independent testimony/evidence that's consistent with the accusation, or a reasonable believe that the accuser has no reason to lie. Neither of these is present in this case.

Lloyd B.

All you need is probable cause for a warrant, which the witness's testimony provided.

[lloyd_b]

All you need is probable cause for a warrant, which the witness's testimony provided.

That is the point under contention. The testimony of just any person does not constitute probable cause. Case law says that the person must be *credible* in order for his/her testimony to be deemed sufficient by itself (with other evidence/testimony in support, then the standard is lower).

In this case, the person whose testimony is the sole basis of the warrant has a reason to hold a grudge against the accused.

The accused's lawyer (from the EFF) is arguing that the police and judge should not have accepted the testimony as credible.

Lloyd B.

[gn2]

That is the point under contention. The testimony of just any person does not constitute probable cause. Case law says that the person must be *credible* in order for his/her testimony to be deemed sufficient by itself (with other evidence/testimony in support, then the standard is lower).

In this case, the person whose testimony is the sole basis of the warrant has a reason to hold a grudge against the accused.

The accused's lawyer (from the EFF) is arguing that the police and judge should not have accepted the testimony as credible.

Lloyd B.

The accused's lawyer has perhaps missed the same thing that you missed, which is on page 6 of the warrant application.
The Boston College Director of Security traced the e-mails directly to the accused.
Probable cause for seizure of the accused's equipment is therefore most definitely not solely based on the testimony of the complainant.

[dmizer]

The accused's lawyer has perhaps missed the same thing that you missed, which is on page 6 of the warrant application.
The Boston College Director of Security traced the e-mails directly to the accused.

Also mentioned in the warrant is that very few Linux users are on campus, and none other than the accused were logged in at the time the emails were sent. In this case, Linux's obscurity actually made it easier to point a finger.

A few other things were also mentioned, including that the accused is already accused of other computer related crimes.

Unfortunately because the lawyers are putting a "BC thinks Linux is bad" spin on it, I suspect that other colleges will start being leery of allowing it on their campus.

[lloyd_b]

The accused's lawyer has perhaps missed the same thing that you missed, which is on page 6 of the warrant application.
The Boston College Director of Security traced the e-mails directly to the accused.
Probable cause for seizure of the accused's equipment is therefore most definitely not solely based on the testimony of the complainant.
No, you're missing the same thing as the judge that signed the warrant - Yes, there is evidence that the accused sent an email claiming that the former roommate is gay and coming out of the closet. Now explain to me how that constitutes a *criminal* act...

The crimes listed on the warrant application are "Obtaining Computer Services by Fraud or Misrepresentation" and "Unauthorized access to a Computer System".

At most, there is a case for slander/libel (I'm not sure which would apply to an email). But that is a *civil* matter, and the police have no business involving themselves...

Lloyd B.

[gn2]

I suspect that other colleges will start being leery of allowing it on their campus.

I'm not fully up to speed with US legislation, but I reckon that removing a citizen's freedom of choice would not sit too well.
That's all that can be said on that topic as it would very quickly start to stray towards political discussion.

[aysiu]

I've retitled the thread to Discussion about search warrant for BC Ubuntu user's computers, as that is a far less sensationalist and more accurate thread title.

The warrant was not issued for the student using the command-line or for using Linux. Read the warrant, not the "article" about it, and you'll see that.

[CraigPaleo]

*Never mind.

[gn2]

Yes, there is evidence that the accused sent an email claiming that the former roommate is gay and coming out of the closet. Now explain to me how that constitutes a *criminal* act...

Certainly, here you go (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-10037.html).
However as far as such legislation is concerned, the USA might take a while to catch up with us more enlightened Europeans. ;)

EDIT: as to the issue of credibility of the complainant, I would suggest that he is credible, by virtue of the fact that one of the allegations made was substantiated by the Director of Security's findings.
Unless he can be deemed credible for one accusation but not credible for the others, one of which is hacking into the college computer system to alter grades.
Is it legal to access the college computer without authorisation and alter grades?

[wsonar]

I can't even read infowar's without getting stired up....

[MaindotC]

Certainly, here you go (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-10037.html).

gn2 COME ON - the article you linked cites "suffered years of abuse and insinuation from colleagues", not an email from a student on a college campus. And this remark:


However as far as such legislation is concerned, the USA might take a while to catch up with us more enlightened Europeans. ;)

is really unfair whether you put a smiley face after it or not. I made a similar remark and was given a 10 point infraction and I think it's unfair of you to do the same.

I'm not, and I don't think anyone else is, questioning the legitimacy of the warrant but it's disconcerting that such items would be included like "oh he's an expert in his field so therefore he's a suspect" or "the B. C. operating system" when it's probably a windows operating system (and therefore that part of the warrant should be thrown out for lack of accuracy) or this accusation that "he uses two different operating systems to hide his activities". That's absolute garbage and I'm sick and tired of police making seizures or arrests when they don't have a clue what they're doing. Arresting people in the parking lot of Starbucks because they're using the open, unsecure wifi, the note posted a while ago about a student at my campus arrested by university police for downloading of copyrighted material because he just happen to get the same IP address via DHCP that was left from when the student who WAS downloading closed his laptop (which I noticed was taken down), or here we have someone declaring the student sent the email simply because they traced his DCHP logs (because, you know, it's impossible to spoof that information) and his roommate has a disposition.

Take the bs out of the warrant and you have a very, very skimpy warrant application and the EFF winning a lawsuit and an officer who has been improperly trained that may very well lose his job, or even the judge that signed off on the warrant. This will all come out as the investigation proceeds but I wish you would consider the improper moves that have been made to implicate this kid working in the IT department.

EDIT: as to the issue of credibility of the complainant, I would suggest that he is credible, by virtue of the fact that one of the allegations made was substantiated by the Director of Security's findings.
Unless he can be deemed credible for one accusation but not credible for the others, one of which is hacking into the college computer system to alter grades.
Is it legal to access the college computer without authorisation and alter grades?[/QUOTE]

[gn2]

~ I'm not, and I don't think anyone else is, questioning the legitimacy of the warrant ~

lloyd_b is, as are the accused's lawyers.

[lloyd_b]

I'm not, and I don't think anyone else is, questioning the legitimacy of the warrant but it's disconcerting that such items would be included like "oh he's an expert in his field so therefore he's a suspect" or "the B. C. operating system" when it's probably a windows operating system (and therefore that part of the warrant should be thrown out for lack of accuracy) or this accusation that "he uses two different operating systems to hide his activities". That's absolute garbage and I'm sick and tired of police making seizures or arrests when they don't have a clue what they're doing. Arresting people in the parking lot of Starbucks because they're using the open, unsecure wifi, the note posted a while ago about a student at my campus arrested by university police for downloading of copyrighted material because he just happen to get the same IP address via DHCP that was left from when the student who WAS downloading closed his laptop (which I noticed was taken down), or here we have someone declaring the student sent the email simply because they traced his DCHP logs (because, you know, it's impossible to spoof that information) and his roommate has a disposition.

Take the bs out of the warrant and you have a very, very skimpy warrant application and the EFF winning a lawsuit and an officer who has been improperly trained that may very well lose his job, or even the judge that signed off on the warrant. This will all come out as the investigation proceeds but I wish you would consider the improper moves that have been made to implicate this kid working in the IT department.

EDIT: as to the issue of credibility of the complainant, I would suggest that he is credible, by virtue of the fact that one of the allegations made was substantiated by the Director of Security's findings.
Unless he can be deemed credible for one accusation but not credible for the others, one of which is hacking into the college computer system to alter grades.
Is it legal to access the college computer without authorisation and alter grades?

I *do* question the validity of the warrant.

As to the credibility of the former roommate - nowhere in the warrant application does it say that the former roommate originally alleged that the accused sent the email in question. That information was determined by technical people from BC's IT department.

So here's the sequence of events: The two individuals have a falling out (reasons unknown). The accused sends an email claiming that the former roommate is gay and coming out of the closet. The IT people at BC track the email in question (it *is* a violation of college rules - grounds for expulsion, possibly, but not a criminal act). They are, as far as can be told by the warrant application, the first people to claim that the accused sent the email.

At this point, the sequence of events isn't clear. The warrant application says that the IT administrator contacted the detective, but why would he contact the detective over something that isn't a crime? The ordering of the warrant application implies that the police were *already* involved with the former roommate at this time, and that he had already testified to a list of crimes that he claims the accused committed. But there was and is no evidence supporting *his* testimony.

Finally, consider the things that the accuser is claiming:
1. The accused unlawfully accessed BC's computer system to change grades: When did this happen, whose grade was changed, etc? Is that accusation enough to believe that a crime was actually committed?

2. The accused has a "reputation" as a hacker: is that a crime?

3. The accused routinely appears with other laptops, which he claims to be field testing for the college, or fixing for other students. The cop then adds that the accused is a suspect in the theft of a laptop: note that it never claims that the specific laptop that the cop suspects the accused of stealing was observed in his possession. Also note that "theft of a laptop" is NOT one of the crimes which the warrant application actually accuses the accused. This one is purely character assassination...

4. The accused jailbreaks cellphones: a crime? The implied accusation that the phones in question were stolen is more character assassination.

5. The former roommates computer started crashing after his problems with the accused, but experts are unable to determine why: why did this bad thing happen? So-and-so must be a witch - let's burn him...

A warrant application is required to establish 2 things. First is that a crime has been committed - based solely on the former roommate's accusations. Second, that there is a reasonable probability of finding evidence of the crime at a specific location - without establishing that a crime has been committed, how can you have a reasonable probability of finding evidence regarding it?

This case sounds suspiciously like the detective has a "gut feeling" that the accused is guilty of *something*, and is using the former roommate's testimony as an excuse to go on a fishing expedition. I won't say the warrant is unquestionably bogus, but I do believe there is good reason to question it.

Lloyd B.

[mkvnmtr]

I really don't have an opinion on the student or the warrant. If I wasn't there I can't be sure of the information. The thing we all need to learn from this is that nothing on our computers is safe no matter what security we use. If you get cross wise with a police force they can seize your equipment and keep it until they want to give it back. I for one don't have anything on my machines that would be anything bet boring to search through. Not even a credit card number. If someone wishes to sieze my equipment or even break in they are more than welcome. I will even give them the passwords. The computer and internet are not the place for anything I wish to keep secure.

[gn2]

~ A warrant application is required to establish 2 things. First is that a crime has been committed ~

I thought that's what a trial established?

[lloyd_b]

I thought that's what a trial established?
Not exactly. For a warrant to be issued, there has to be probable cause for the authorities to believe that a crime was committed. It doesn't require undeniable evidence, but it has to be something more than unsupported allegations of a non-credible witness.

Once the police have enough evidence, then the prosecutor will seek an indictment, at which time he has to establish that there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, and probable cause to believe that the crime was committed by a particular person.

The primary function of a trial is determine the guilt of a particular defendant for that particular crime.

The defense may choose to use a "but no crime has been committed" theory, though (for instance, if there's no body, the defense can try to convince the jury that the "victim" is still alive).

Lloyd B.

[gn2]

For a warrant to be issued, there has to be probable cause for the authorities to believe that a crime was committed.

Surely that the warrant was granted would tend to suggest that the court was satisfied that "probable cause" exists.

Obviously opinions differ, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

[lloyd_b]

Surely that the warrant was granted would tend to suggest that the court was satisfied that "probable cause" exists.

Obviously opinions differ, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Agreed - for one thing, we don't have all of the information, so anything *we* decide would be mostly speculation.

FYI: Here's a link (http://www.eff.org/cases/re-matter-search-warrant-boston-college) to the actual motion to quash the warrant. Read the "Memorandum in support of motion" - it explains, in great detail, what the EFF's lawyers think was wrong with the warrant.

Lloyd B.

[renzokuken]

didnt you lot read the warning on the Ubuntu CD


"Be warned, using GNU/Linux will instantly make you a cracker/hacker/scriptkiddy"

[Gizenshya]

I'd be counter-suing for lost wages and then some. A computer science major working on computers and being seen with different laptops and using a command line constitutes probable cause? Oh, how unusual is that?

Sue who? The officer got a warrant. Now, if he hadn't gotten a warrant, or he continued after a warrant was denied, then maybe. All warrants have to be signed by a judge, and since there WAS a warrant,a judge did sign it. Due process was followed. Suppressing any evidence found is the only thing he can do from this point.

It's like when people are arrested for crimes. Situation: a defendant is held for 6 months during the trial (I know, I know, but for the sake of explanation).

What happens if he is found guilty, and the punishment is 11 month, 29 days? They generally subtract time served from the 11 29, and they serve the remainder.

What happens if he is found innocent? He is released, and not reimbursed for anything. What happens if he is later found guilty of a crime where the punishment is 5 months? Even though he has served 6 months for a crime he did not commit, he must serve an additional 6 months for this crime.

This is an injustice IMO. But there are lots of problems with our legal system. Nobody wants to address them, though. Tradition ftmfw? who knows

FYI, though, if he is found guilty, and later fund innocent by appeal of new evidence, he can be reimbursed.

[darthchaosofrspw]

A sign of criminal behavior.
I don't post here a lot guys and I'm not trying to stir crap.
I do however as a Ubuntu user appreciate the work that the open source community puts in to its operating systems and software projects and feel this is something you all should be aware of.
I also appreciate all of the help I have received from these forums in troubleshooting my system.
Thanks.
Ubuntu is mentioned in the article.
http://www.infowars.com/cops-think-linux-use-may-be-sign-of-criminal-behavior/

I have to admit I frequently read Infowars.com, but the Infowars article was sensationalized in such a way that it makes the reader think the student's use of Ubuntu was the problem. In about half of the news articles on Infowars which are taken from mainstream media sources, the Infowars.com editors focus on one issue of the article and sensationalize it in such a way that their talking point is the talking point of the actual article when the actual article has more than what Infowars.com lets on.

[Vitamin-Carrot]

Meh - If he is the person who narrow mindedly sent an e-mail in regards to someone elses sexual orientation he really brought it on him self

[ooobuntooo]

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/boston-college-prompt-commands-are-suspicious

[Invincible23]

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/boston-college-prompt-commands-are-suspicious

Result of ignorant investigators educated by Hollywood showing kids hacking military sites using command prompt.

Soon investigators will arrest anyone using a brown themed OS.