Judge convicts dude to dump Linux and use Windows



  • <FONT color=#0000ff>http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-admin-monitored-by-us-government-forced-to-dump-linux/</FONT>

    I'm more worried about the privacy violation in place there, but WTF? Forcing him to use Windows because their governamental spyware only runs on it? Why don't they pay someone to develop a version for Linux as well?



  • Not a big deal - just run Ubuntu in VMWare Player (or similar) on Windows. Everyone happy.



  • Yeah, but there's more to that. What got me going ROFL is that they want him to use Windows because they want to install some spyware on his machine (his internet activity is to be monitored). Said spyware has no version for Linux.

    If I were Ballmer or Gates I'd try to have the court decide for some alternative solution. It's pratically saying "we made some malware to run in your machine, and therefore we need you to use some OS which is known for its security issues". That's negative propaganda against Windows.



  • Surely a better solution, would be to have some monitoring device external to his own computer to report on his Internet usage?



  • [quote user="Renan "C#" Sousa"]

    Yeah, but there's more to that. What got me going ROFL is that they want him to use Windows because they want to install some spyware on his machine (his internet activity is to be monitored). Said spyware has no version for Linux.

    If I were Ballmer or Gates I'd try to have the court decide for some alternative solution. It's pratically saying "we made some malware to run in your machine, and therefore we need you to use some OS which is known for its security issues". That's negative propaganda against Windows.

    [/quote]

     

    it would be easy to write A program for linux that does the same thing.  The hard part is usually getting it on there. 



  • Using Windows is kinda like a prison, but you only get shanked metaphorically.



  • I'm with Alan from comment #15 over there:

    @Alan said:

    Give me a break, pop another HD in the machine and set up a dual boot. It’s your own fault that you need to face the “hardships”.

    It seems that people that have no compunctions about breaking the law scream the loudest when they have to pay for the crime.

    Put on some Big Boy pants, Sk0t.



  • Now this is just a guess, but i would think that by trying to circumvent the net-monitoring app, he would probably break some kind of law. So vmware & dualboot would be risky.

    Personally i think he should convince the judge that he has the knowledge to circumvent the application, and it would be much harder for him to avoid some hardware based solution. Then point to some firewall/filter/net monitoring router/gateway producing company. And perhaps even ask for a representative of such company to explain that a software approach is to likely to fail, and there hardware based solution is much better.

    everyone wins, well except for microsoft; But who cares they sell enough copies of there software as it is. 



  • This crap again?

    The guy broke the law and was punished. He can use Windows, or he could use nothing at all. Or he could go back to prison, which was his other option. Nobody is forcing this person to use Windows. It is only mandated that if he DOES want to use the Internet, he must be monitored.

     Why doesn't the government pay somebody to write a Linux version? For one thing, I don't want my fucking tax money going toward development of a program which allows a CONVICTED CRIMINAL to use the operating system he finds most convenient.

     The real WTF is why everybody thinks this is somehow a violation of his rights. The judge could have simply thrown him in the slammer instead. And then what would you complain about?

     



  • Yeah. A few years ago this guy would not have been allowed to use a computer at all.

     Then again, if I were him, I would borrow someone's Windows disc, install the spyware during the 30 days that Windows lets you use it without registering, then uninstall Windows and reinstall Linux. Our government would never know, because they don't pay any attention, unless someone rats you out.
     



  • @smxlong said:

    This crap again?

    The guy broke the law and was punished. He can use Windows, or he could use nothing at all. Or he could go back to prison, which was his other option. Nobody is forcing this person to use Windows. It is only mandated that if he DOES want to use the Internet, he must be monitored.

     Why doesn't the government pay somebody to write a Linux version? For one thing, I don't want my fucking tax money going toward development of a program which allows a CONVICTED CRIMINAL to use the operating system he finds most convenient.

     The real WTF is why everybody thinks this is somehow a violation of his rights. The judge could have simply thrown him in the slammer instead. And then what would you complain about?
     

    Perhaps our views differ too greatly to talk about this, but why would a convicted criminal not be allowed to use the operating system he likes? surely the justice system cares not beyond the point that he is to be monitored. And while there might not be a law stating that any person should be able to use the operating system he so desires, simply refusing him the option does strike me as a bit unfair.

    Even a convicted criminal is still just as much a citizen as any other, and should be able to make the same choices as any other, unless reasonably determined to be dangerous or tempting for that person. He should be free to choose a operating system he desires, and as i said the justice system will probably not care much for this, but the fact they only have software that runs on windows. Which is exactly the point he should be talking about to the justice system and legislation. 

    As a government organ, i would think they should strive to be able to provide service to any citizen, no matter what OS he runs. The fact that the service in this instance is a punishment makes no difference at all.
    The fact that they would be using your "hard earned" "honest sweat on the brow" tax money for it, is a non-issue. They have set goals, and a budget to reach those goals. The fact that one tenth of a cent of that money, was once yours matters not. You don't set there goals, and you don't allocate that money. You simply pay taxes because you also are a citizen.


     



  • Where would they draw the line at what OS to not support?  Should they also support all the different versions of the selected OSs?  Like the others have said; they should just use an external device and be done with it.  I don't see what his big deal with it is.  If he really wants to go online without installing Windows at home he can just go to an internet cafe or use a web enabled mobile phone.  He can still use his current home system, he just isn't allowed online with it without the software they said.  I didn't mean he should dual boot to circumvent their monitoring system.  He could easily setup a partition that both systems could see and use that to move files between the two.  Then when he wants to go online and check his mail and porn sites he uses the Windows system, when he wants to do whatever else he loads up his current OS.  I wonder if they revoked his internet access in prison?

     

    Edit: that guy doesn't pay taxes anyway unless it comes out of his unemployment benefits which he doesn't seem in any rush to get off of.



  • @smxlong said:

    The real WTF is why everybody thinks this is somehow a violation of his rights. The judge could have simply thrown him in the slammer instead. And then what would you complain about?

     

    Well, to be fair, cruel and unusual punishment is not allowed. If that doesn't accurately describe Windows, I don't know what does. :)



  • Why doesn't the government pay somebody to write a Linux version? For one thing, I don't want my fucking tax money going toward development of a program which allows a CONVICTED CRIMINAL to use the operating system he finds most convenient.

    If he was allowed out of the house but the government wanted to track his movements with a device fitted to his car, and he owned a Ford but the government device only fitted Chevys, would you think it was reasonable to demand that he buy a Chevy? Wait, don't stop reading - this isn't the usual car analogy.

    I have no problems with the government monitoring the online activities of convicted criminals. Seems perfectly reasonable: you get caught pirating movies (abusing your privacy online for personal gain), you forfeit the right to privacy online. Fine.

    The problem is their entire approach -- that they're trying to do this at the computer level in the first place, where he could trivially bypass the checks just by using a LiveCD, and probably get away with it too. But all his online activity goes through his ISP, so why the hell don't they (a) ban him from using encrypted protocols, and (b) get his ISP to forward logs of all his online activity to them? It takes away a whole load of problems. As it stands, they're basically going to have to get his ISP to monitor his activities anyway or they won't know if he [i]is[/i] using a LiveCD, so either the "punishment" is hopelessly insecure, or this whole Windows software thing is just a waste of everyone's time.

    To return to the car analogy, this is like trying to track someone's movements by fitting a device to his car, when they should be putting it on his ankle instead: no problem if he's got a different make of car, and it stops him just taking the bus instead. You shouldn't be saying "he's a criminal, they could have banned him from driving altogether, it's reasonable to say that if he wants to drive then he should get a Chevy" -- you should be saying "why the hell are they wasting money on car tracking devices in the first place?"

    In short, the government has ALREADY wasted your fucking tax money by paying someone to write Windows tracking software in the first place, when all ISPs already keep suitable logs that contain all the information they could possibly want.

    The real WTF is why everybody thinks this is somehow a violation of his rights. The judge could have simply thrown him in the slammer instead.

    Yeah, or just had him summarily executed. But I like to think we live in a free society governed by the rule of law, where one principle of justice is that punishments are proportionate to their crimes. He's already done his time in jail, and now the remainder of his punishment is the forfeiture of his online privacy. Which is just and proper -- the only problem is how it's being implemented, which is stupid.



  • @Tann San said:

    I'm with Alan from comment #15 over there:

    @Alan said:

    Give me a break, pop another HD in the machine and set up a dual boot. It’s your own fault that you need to face the “hardships”.

    It seems that people that have no compunctions about breaking the law scream the loudest when they have to pay for the crime.

    Put on some Big Boy pants, Sk0t.


    You are aware that you can't boot both operation systems at the same time, are you? 



  • yes, I described what I meant in more detail a few posts up.  I think there's probably more to the story than we're hearing since everyone is just going off what Sc0t himself has said...



  • @stratos said:

    Personally i think he should convince the judge that he has the knowledge to circumvent the application, and it would be much harder for him to avoid some hardware based solution.

    The problem with the hardware based solution is that it only captures network traffic and won't know what to do with any encrypted data.  With the software solution, they can see what's actually on his monitor.
     



  • @Iago said:

    As it stands, they're basically going to have to get his ISP to monitor his activities anyway or they won't know if he [i]is[/i] using a LiveCD, so either the "punishment" is hopelessly insecure, or this whole Windows software thing is just a waste of everyone's time.

    Reality check: this is a government that we're talking about. This will not be done because it's secure, or because it's just, or because it will reduce crime. This will be done because the company that wrote the Windows software made a substantial campaign contribution. If they weren't trying to give money to that company, they'd just stick him on regular probation and not worry about monitoring him at all. Probationers are not normally monitored beyond having somebody call their employer every so often to make sure that they're still showing up, and there is no particular reason for that to change - if they needed monitoring, they'd be in jail.

    As with most things involving technology and governments, it's not supposed to work. It's just supposed to move money.



  • Whats wrong with it is he is being forced to buy a COMMERCIAL PRODUCT to use his computer. If someone was forced to use Linux, a free bit of software then you do the crime, you pay the price would  apply. Not so here. One option is that the windows license is provided with the software.

    Not to mention that the whole monitoring Idea is broken.



  • @smxlong said:

    This crap again?

    The guy broke the law and was punished. He can use Windows, or he could use nothing at all. Or he could go back to prison, which was his other option. Nobody is forcing this person to use Windows. It is only mandated that if he DOES want to use the Internet, he must be monitored.

     Why doesn't the government pay somebody to write a Linux version? For one thing, I don't want my fucking tax money going toward development of a program which allows a CONVICTED CRIMINAL to use the operating system he finds most convenient.

     The real WTF is why everybody thinks this is somehow a violation of his rights. The judge could have simply thrown him in the slammer instead. And then what would you complain about?

     

    So to apply your logic to an analogy:

    You are convicted of drunk driving, after serving your sentence and getting your driver's license back, you now need a brethalyzer in your car before it'll start.  However, the breathalyzer machine wasn't designed for your 1986 Civic, it only works on 2008 Nissan Maximas  So your only choice is to either shell out tens of thousands of dollars for a brand new car, or not drive at all.  By your reasoning, it would be OK that he doesn't drive, and therefore doesn't go to work and lives off of welfare (read your tax dollars) for the next several years until the condition is lifted.  Or, they could make a universal one that probably costs more initially, but he can still go to work in his 1986 Civic now.

    (if this seems like a stretch to you, think of it this way; same situation as in TFA, except the guy is a software programmer that telecommutes.  he is required to run some type of linux as his company is 100% non-windows.  If he's forced to use Windows to get on the internet, he can no longer code for this company and therefore, can no longer work.)



  • In that situation, if he had installed Windows, he could just run Linux in a virtual machine enviroment like VM Ware and do his coding/testing there.  Sure if his application was web based he might be in a squeeze but I think since it would have to go through Windows from VM Ware it wouldn't technically be breaking his agreement to use the monitoring software.  On the one hand I can see how it sucks that they are forcing him to use an OS he doesn't want to use if he wants to go online but on the other hand he sounds like a whinny loser who doesn't want to accept responsibility for what he did, he could of been told he had to stay in jail for the time he's under surveillance instead of just having this minor inconvenience.  It isn't affecting his job since he's openly admitted that he doesn't have one.  He's also said he reckons it will affect any jobs he does apply for which I think is bull depending on what he's looking at doing, I mean he might find it hard getting a job at LucasArts...



  • The main problem I see is that they're FORCING him to PAY MONEY to use Windows if he wants to use the internet, like his sentence permits.  Is it lawful to say "Defendant is permitted to use the internet, provided he pays Microsoft $300"?  Hardly.



  • @ebs2002 said:

    The main problem I see is that they're FORCING him to PAY MONEY to use Windows if he wants to use the internet, like his sentence permits.  Is it lawful to say "Defendant is permitted to use the internet, provided he pays Microsoft $300"?  Hardly.

    Since this one single user is not likely to shift the market balance between Windows and Linux, I have no problem with that. The few bucks for Windows (assuming he doesn't already have it)... well, it won't make MS much richer and for the guy, it's just part of his punishment. That's ok for me, as long as it isn't Vista. (I oppose inhumane punishments)


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.