Prompt commands "may indicate criminal activity"





  • @GarethNelson said:

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

     

    This was on Slashdot (News: College Police Think Using Linux Is Suspicious Behavior), but I'll let you get away with it this time... Considering what a big WTF it is, we should post it in as many places as possible.

    As far as I can see, the issue was that they got a warrant for the fact that he was using something as obscure as Linux to possibly do illegal activities. In his room, they found central processing units, dvd-roms, optical cameras, thumb drives, hardware, operating systems, application program disks, software, manuals, etc. So now, just because you own something that might store data, you are suspicious of illegal activities? I can't believe they've found operating systems, application programs and software in the same fucking room! This is outrageous, what could he possibly do with all three? And why does he have a thumb drive? To hack the FBI's website, that's why! I'm telling you, Windows may be for losers, Mac may be for fags but Linux is clearly for "hackers." We should all stop using the CLI, because, unless you have a decent GUI, it's completely useless in everyday life. Why would you use something so obscure instead of paying those poor software writers for their work? You are clearly hiding something...

    I wonder what my company is hiding. We're working on Macs, we have some Windows machines and we're developing Linux software. Spreading our activities over so many operating systems is an indication that we're trying to hide something.



  • Techdirt picked this one up too. One can only hope that the investigating officer is more computer-literate than the guy who wrote the warrant...


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @rohypnol said:

    As far as I can see, the issue was that they got a warrant for the fact that he was using something as obscure as Linux to possibly do illegal activities.
    Further reading suggests he was allegedly performing illegal activities, and he was using Linux to obscure them. A tad different to how some of this is being reported/spun:

    http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198771&cid=27579683

    The story the EFF is putting forward is actually incomplete and VERY
    misleading. The guy is being accused of a LOT of things; changing
    students grades, "jail breaking cell phones" (since when is THAT a
    crime?), massive copyright infringement, and harassment, to which the
    e-mail in question is related.


    Considering all of THAT, data storage devices are practically
    MANDATORY for the warrant. And considering that iPods can, and
    frequently ARE, used as USB hard drives, they're fair game.



    Also, we ARE talking about an iPod Touch, as mentioned in the second link in the

    <nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. story.


    Link to the full warrant affidavit: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf

     



  • @PJH said:

    As far as I can see, the issue was that they got a warrant for the fact that he was using something as obscure as Linux to possibly do illegal activities.[
     

    Yes. The story linked to is idiotic. If you actually read the affidavit, it gives quite a few clear and reasonable explanations for why the property was being seized and investigated, completely separate from the article's sensationalized claims.

    The parts the article harps on sound silly, (and they read even sillier in the document), but they actually have no relation to what this guy is being charged with. Like, at all.

    If they're able to find evidence on the equipment they seized for some of the things they're accusing this guy of, he's going to be in quite a bit of trouble.Even if they don't, they already have reasonable proof he was responsible for what amounts to defamation and fraud, so he probably won't come off clear on this one nomatter what the outcome of the investigation.



  •  Why does the second half of the affidavit look like a resume?  Is that normal?



  • If you look at the end, you can see sections where the officer describes how to undelete files from a FAT filesystem and trace internet usage in the IE temporary items.  He's going to be quite confused when he encounters an ext3 filesystem and no IE on linux.



  • Wouldn't he be just as confused if he were to encounter an NTFS filesystem and Firefox on Windows?

    More to the point, though, thumb drives usually use FAT, so it's not surprising to hear he describes how to recover deleted files from a FAT filesystem.



  •  Whod've guessed, a misrepresented half truth of a sourced article on slashdot dedicated to allowing a bunch of high strung script kiddies laugh at a guy who didn't bloody specify 100% correctly in the exact technical terms what he was talking about like he's the biggest idiot on Earth.

     Slashdot is a joke.  It's a website where nerds can circle jerk each other over how smart they all are and laugh at people who don't have 18 hours a day to burn recompiling linux kernels and beating off to Paris Hilton photos.



  • @Master Chief said:

    Slashdot is a joke.  It's a website where nerds can circle jerk each other over how smart they all are and laugh at people who don't have 18 hours a day to burn recompiling linux kernels and beating off to Paris Hilton photos.

     

    Welcome to TDWTF!



  • @rohypnol said:

    Welcome to TDWTF!

     

    Definitely not the impression I've gotten after reading this site for well over 2 years.



  • @PJH said:

    @rohypnol said:

    As far as I can see, the issue was that they got a warrant for the fact that he was using something as obscure as Linux to possibly do illegal activities.
    Further reading suggests he was allegedly performing illegal activities, and he was using Linux to obscure them. A tad different to how some of this is being reported/spun:

    http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198771&cid=27579683

    The story the EFF is putting forward is actually incomplete and VERY misleading. The guy is being accused of a LOT of things; changing students grades, "jail breaking cell phones" (since when is THAT a crime?), massive copyright infringement, and harassment, to which the e-mail in question is related.

    Considering all of THAT, data storage devices are practically MANDATORY for the warrant. And considering that iPods can, and frequently ARE, used as USB hard drives, they're fair game.

    Also, we ARE talking about an iPod Touch, as mentioned in the second link in the

    /. story.

    Link to the full warrant affidavit: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf

     

    I read the entire warrant affidavit and it is ridiculous. It purports (indireectly) that creating a profile on a website in the name of another student is evidence of obtaining use of computer services by fraud or misrepresentation. However, it only presents evidence that the accused accessed the website hosting the profile and sent the email. It also asserts that the computer used to access the web site was the only one in that "dorm" (presumably refers to the entire building) to do so. They did not obtain records from the site hosting the profile to demonstrate that the accused actually created it.

    The other crime of unauthorized access to a computer system (changing students grades -- no evidence of this, causing roomates computer to "crash" -- no evidence of this only suspiscion, jailbreaking iPods that are "possibly" stolen -- no evidence of theft) is not supported by the affidavit except by statement that the accused uses a linux console to "hack".

    It also states that he illegally downloads content from the internet and "fixes" computers to hide evidence of this illegal activity. While concealing evidence of a crime is illegal, the affidavit makes no such acusation (and really can't because there's no evidence of it).

    The only thing the warrant supports is that the accused's roommate doesn't like him.

    Why the warrant was unfounded



  • @Anon Ymous said:

    It also asserts that the computer used to access the web site was the only one in that "dorm" (presumably refers to the entire building) to do so. They did not obtain records from the site hosting the profile to demonstrate that the accused actually created it.

     

    This is the stupidest sentense that I have read in a long time.  How would the hosting site EVER be able to do this?  It's not like they can get a picture or video of the accused walking into the store creating the transaction.  This doesn't make the affidavit rediculous.  The computer, and possivly other electronic equipment, was used in the purportration of a crime, so they got an affidavit to retreive them in order to better determine what happened.  It's called "collecting evidence".  

    @Anon Ymous said:

    The other crime of unauthorized access to a computer system
    (changing students grades -- no evidence of this, causing roomates
    computer to "crash" -- no evidence of this only suspiscion,
    jailbreaking iPods that are "possibly" stolen -- no evidence of theft)
    is not supported by the affidavit except by statement that the accused
    uses a linux console to "hack".


    I thought you said that you read the affidavit?  It clearely states other evidence in there supporting the possibility of stolen equipment from various sources stating that they would see him frequently with equipment that did not belong to him.  One such piece of equipment was stolen and the suspected was seen with an identical piece. 

    @Anon Ymous said:

    The only thing the warrant supports is that the accused's roommate doesn't like him.

    Why the warrant was unfounded

    No, it outlines quite a few things in there that indicate suspicious activity.  The computer (mac address and computer name) were identified as belonging to the suspect.  While they didn't have evidence at the time proving that the suspect was indeed the one behind the keyboard at the time, they do know that the computer was used to create the fake account and that it was used to distribute the email anouncing such.  

     



  • @amischiefr said:

    This is the stupidest sentense that I have read in a long time.  How would the hosting site EVER be able to do this?  It's not like they can get a picture or video of the accused walking into the store creating the transaction.  This doesn't make the affidavit rediculous.  The computer, and possivly other electronic equipment, was used in the purportration of a crime, so they got an affidavit to retreive them in order to better determine what happened.  It's called "collecting evidence".

    The police have information identifying the accused's computer and times at which he accessed the site. The site presumably has records pertaining to when the account was created and the computer that created it. Accessing a profile is not a crime and sending an email is not a crime. There is no evidence that he actually created the profile, nor does the creation of the profile support the crimes he is accused of committing. Therefore there is no evidence that the computer was used to commit a crime. It is a violation of the US law to conduct a search or seize property without evidence that was used to commit a crime. 

    @amischiefr said:

    I thought you said that you read the affidavit?  It clearely states other evidence in there supporting the possibility of stolen equipment from various sources stating that they would see him frequently with equipment that did not belong to him.  One such piece of equipment was stolen and the suspected was seen with an identical piece.

    It cites a single source, the witness that the police interviewed. The affidavit contains nothing to corroborate the claims, no proof of the witnesses expertise in the area, nothing to support the witnesses credibility, as required by law. Seeing someone with something that does not belong to him is not evidence of a crime nor grounds for a warrant unless the witness knows or has good reason to believe it is stolen. The affidavit provides no evidence or probable cause to believe that anything in the accused's possession was stolen. To support a warrant this information must be included in the affidavit, as a matter of law. Further, even if it were true, the warrant does not state larceny or possession of stolen property among the crimes he is suspected of committing. The police can not seize his property for this unless it is specifically identified in the affidavit as a matter of law. 

    @amischiefr said:

    No, it outlines quite a few things in there that indicate suspicious activity.  The computer (mac address and computer name) were identified as belonging to the suspect.  While they didn't have evidence at the time proving that the suspect was indeed the one behind the keyboard at the time, they do know that the computer was used to create the fake account and that it was used to distribute the email anouncing such. 

    Suspicious activity is not evidence of a crime. There is no evidence that the account is not legitimate, only evidence that his computer was used to view the account. Further, even if there were a security video demonstrating beyond all doubt that he created a fake account, then sent the email, neither is in violation of the two statutes he is "suspected" of violating. As a matter of law, to support a warrant the specific offenses (i.e. statutes being violated) must be named and supporting evidence of those offenses must be supplied. The only statute that has a matching accusation has no supporting evidence. If the police intend to charge the accused with unauthorized access in connection with changing students' grades and desire a warrant to support it, then they would need evidence that the accused did in fact access the computer system in a manner not consistent with his work activity for the school's IT department.

     The affidavit provides no evidence of a crime and nothing to connect the accused to a crime, so it's completely baseless.

     

    P.S. It's not illegal to be in possession of cracked software for jailbroken iPods. If the possessor never entered into a license agreement with the software publisher through the purchase of a software license (or obtaining a free usage license), then he can not be in violation of that agreement. Posessing "illegally downloaded" movies or, for that matter, downloading them, is not illegal. The DMCA clearly defines copyright infringement on digital works. In order to infringe, one must distribute the unauthorized copy. Neither obtaining, nor doing so with the intent to distribute it are in violation of the DMCA. Jailbreaking iPods and iPhones is not a crime either, as the accused entered into no agreement not to do so with the manufacturer of the device, nor the service provider. The owner of the divices may be in breach of a contract with the service provider, but that is a civil, not criminal matter.



  • @Anon Ymous said:

    The police have information identifying the accused's computer and times at which he accessed the site. The site presumably has records pertaining to when the account was created and the computer that created it. Accessing a profile is not a crime and sending an email is not a crime. There is no evidence that he actually created the profile, nor does the creation of the profile support the crimes he is accused of committing. Therefore there is no evidence that the computer was used to commit a crime. It is a violation of the US law to conduct a search or seize property without evidence that was used to commit a crime. 

     

    Please show me the laws that confirm your statements.  All they need to prove is that they have a "reason" to believe that the device was used to commit a crime.  The "evidence" is ON the computer that they need to seize.  People are convicted all the time based on circumstancial evidence, or evidence that leads one to believe the person committed the crime.  People are convicted of murder without having a picture of themselves committing the act, and without their fingerprints on the bloody knife.  In this case they have circumstancial evidence and are investigating into the matter. 

    @Anon Ymous said:

    It cites a single source, the witness that the police interviewed. The affidavit contains nothing to corroborate the claims, no proof of the witnesses expertise in the area, nothing to support the witnesses credibility, as required by law. Seeing someone with something that does not belong to him is not evidence of a crime nor grounds for a warrant unless the witness knows or has good reason to believe it is stolen.


    So what you are saying is that if a woman is raped her being able to point out the guy who did it isn't enough cause to investigate?  Does she need a photo of the crime in the act?  Maybe three witnesses that sat and watched the act with a bag of popcorn?  Or maybe does she have to be an expert on being raped?  I see where you are going with this, you can't go around arresting everybody based on "he said, she said."  However, in circumstances such as this one you cannot collect the evidence without the computer.  The amount of evidence required is up to the judge granting the search warrent, and this one decided that they had enough.

    @Anon Ymous said:

    The affidavit provides no evidence or probable cause to believe that anything in the accused's possession was stolen. To support a warrant this information must be included in the affidavit, as a matter of law. Further, even if it were true, the warrant does not state larceny or possession of stolen property among the crimes he is suspected of committing. The police can not seize his property for this unless it is specifically identified in the affidavit as a matter of law. 

    I don't know the exact laws up there so I cannot say what the state constitution says about what a detective must have on an affidavit in order for it to be valid.  I will go ahead and make an assumption that you are not a lawyer in the area and probably don't know either, but I'll give you this one.

    @Anon Ymous said:

    The affidavit provides no evidence of a crime and nothing to connect the accused to a crime, so it's completely baseless.


    The "proof" that connects the accused to the crime is that it is his computer.  This is the same basis as when you are pulled over by the police and you have a kilo in your back seat.  You can say it isn't yours all day, but guess what: You are going to jail for it. Look, you are argueing that they need to have all this evidence in order to seize his property and bring charges on him.  The fact of the matter is the evidence, if there is any, lies on his computer.  

    @Anon Ymous said:

    P.S. It's not illegal to be in possession of cracked software for jailbroken iPods. If the possessor never entered into a license agreement with the software publisher through the purchase of a software license (or obtaining a free usage license), then he can not be in violation of that agreement. Posessing "illegally downloaded" movies or, for that matter, downloading them, is not illegal. The DMCA clearly defines copyright infringement on digital works. In order to infringe, one must distribute the unauthorized copy. Neither obtaining, nor doing so with the intent to distribute it are in violation of the DMCA. Jailbreaking iPods and iPhones is not a crime either, as the accused entered into no agreement not to do so with the manufacturer of the device, nor the service provider. The owner of the divices may be in breach of a contract with the service provider, but that is a civil, not criminal matter.

    At least we agree on one thing.

     



  • The link at the end of my first post (from the motion to quash the warrant) identifies what is and isn't valid grounds for a warrant and why the warrant is baseless.

    The problem in this case is there isn't any evidence that a crime was committed, only speculation. The complaintant is not the victim of any of the purported crimes, so simply accusing his roommate of a crime does not demonstrate that a crime occurred. If he's saying that the accused accessed his computer without permission, then the police would still have to verify that the computer was in fact accessed in a manner consistent with the acusation before obtaining a warrant.

    If the accused supposedly accessed students' grades, evidence that the grades were accessed implicating the accused would need to exist.

    I'm pretty confident the warrant will be successfully quashed. If the police provided evidence of a crime in the affidavit, the warrant might stand a chance. No, I'm not a lawyer.



  • @Anon Ymous said:

    The problem in this case is there isn't any evidence that a crime was committed, only speculation.
     

    The point which you're missing is that in order to confirm (or crush) the speculation the computer needs to be search. Thus the police may, and has, obtained a search warrant.

    Similarly, if someone gets shot and the police know someone has a gun like the one that was used and that someone had a conflict with the victim the police may usually search the suspected his home (the jugde decides), even though there is only speculation on the guilt of the suspect.



  • @dtech said:

    Similarly, if someone gets shot and the police know someone has a gun like the one that was used and that someone had a conflict with the victim the police may usually search the suspected his home (the jugde decides), even though there is only speculation on the guilt of the suspect.

    Even in this case the affidavit would still have to (a) identify a specific crime (i.e. the statute that outlaws shooting someone), (b) evidence that the crime occurred (bullet wound, ricochet marks, victim's statement, corroborating witnesses), (c) something to connect the suspect to the crime (has access to a weapon and known conflict with victim). The affidavit would also have to specify what they were looking for (weapon / munitions), how it was related to the crime, and where they expect to find it.

    In the referenced case, the affidavit (a) identifies 2 statutes, (b) provides no evidence either of the referenced statutes were ever violated by the accused, (c) the accused can't be linked to the crime one didn't occur. The information on the equipment being seized is meaningless because the affidavit only demonstrates that it was used to perform perfectly legal actions.

    If I called a police officer right now and told him I witnessed you committing a crime via your computer, that doesn't give him an automatic right to seize your computer in order to obtain evidence against you.



  • @Anon Ymous said:

    If I called a police officer right now and told him I witnessed you committing a crime via your computer, that doesn't give him an automatic right to seize your computer in order to obtain evidence against you.

    They have more than simply the statement from the "victim", including (but not limited to) logs proving he accessed the site and sent the email.

    While I can't affirm that he did commit any crimes or that he will surely be found guilty for anything, I am much more inclined to trust the legal authority of a few police offers, a couple lawyers, and a judge (all putting their professional integrity (and potentially even their careers) on the line), than some guy on the internets. Furthermore, you're going against the general consensus even here, which doesn't bolster my confidence in your arguments, even if I happened to agree with them. Which I don't. 

    You have the burden of proof here, and I'm not sure you've met it.

     



  • @mann_jess said:

    They have more than simply the statement from the "victim", including (but not limited to) logs proving he accessed the site and sent the email.

    Neither accessing the site, nor sending the email (both of which his lawyer has conceded to) constitute a crime. Creating a fake profile (which was not conceded) still doesn't constitute a crime, at least not under the statutes on the affidavit. (Fraud requires an attempt to gain something of monetary value.) The full text of the statutes is given in the motion to quash which is linked in this thread. Without a crime there's no basis for a warrant.

    @mann_jess said:

    While I can't affirm that he did commit any crimes or that he will surely be found guilty for anything, I am much more inclined to trust the legal authority of a few police offers, a couple lawyers, and a judge (all putting their professional integrity (and potentially even their careers) on the line), than some guy on the internets. Furthermore, you're going against the general consensus even here, which doesn't bolster my confidence in your arguments, even if I happened to agree with them. Which I don't.
     

    I would normally be right in line with you, but in this case it is clear that the officer misrepresented the information that he had (deliberately, or more likely by his own ignorance). The district attorney's office and the judge rely on the expertise of the officer in investigating computer crimes.

    In the almost 3 weeks the police have had the accused's computers and other hardware, they have not charged him with a crime. The acts in the affidavit that would actually constitute crimes (changing grades, tampering with the roommate's computer) are not supported. There's nothing to indicate grades were ever changed and there's no information about an analysis of the roommate's PC to determine if its problems were caused by tampering.

    How can the police have cause to believe the accused possesses evidence of a crime without even reasonable suspicion that a crime even occurred? If this warrant really is legitimate, then the standards for obtaining warrants are ridiculously low. I have some friends in law enforcement. I'm going to talk to them about it and see what they think.



  • 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 decision: http://www.eff.org/files/SJCcalixteorder.pdf . Note pages 6 and 7 more or less agree with what I've said.



  • @Anon Ymous said:

    The decision: http://www.eff.org/files/SJCcalixteorder.pdf . Note pages 6 and 7 more or less agree with what I've said.

    Right.  Because God knows activist judges are very knowledgeable of technical matters and always make the right decisions.  And what the fuck does "hypothetical internet use policy" even mean?  From what I can tell, this whole case is completely screwed up anyway.  This never should have been a criminal matter but the defendant should have been assraped in civil court for violating the ToS.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    This never should have been a criminal matter but the defendant should have been assraped in civil court for violating the ToS.
    I still can't believe that assrape is listed as the penalty for violating the TOS. Not even Verizon has stooped that low.



  • @bstorer said:

    I still can't believe that assrape is listed as the penalty for violating the TOS. Not even Verizon has stooped that low.



    I'm currently drafting a document for Alex suggesting we implement this policy. Can someone help me work out the legal parts on what quantity of lube would be adequate to protect a user's civil rights?



  • @dhromed said:

    @bstorer said:

    I still can't believe that assrape is listed as the penalty for violating the TOS. Not even Verizon has stooped that low.



    I'm currently drafting a document for Alex suggesting we implement this policy.
    God I hope this presentation will be in PowerPoint and full of related clip art.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Anon Ymous said:

    The decision: http://www.eff.org/files/SJCcalixteorder.pdf . Note pages 6 and 7 more or less agree with what I've said.

    Right.  Because God knows activist judges are very knowledgeable of technical matters and always make the right decisions.  And what the fuck does "hypothetical internet use policy" even mean?  From what I can tell, this whole case is completely screwed up anyway.  This never should have been a criminal matter but the defendant should have been assraped in civil court for violating the ToS.

     

    You didn't read the prosecution's argument in support of the warrant affidavit. They argued that the school probably had an internet use policy and the student might have violated it. The argument was puled out of the lawyer's ass and the judge called him out on it.



  • @Anon Ymous said:

    You didn't read the prosecution's argument in support of the warrant affidavit.

    Of course not.  Because I don't give a shit about some meaningless case that doesn't involve me in any way whatsoever.  The question is: why do you?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Anon Ymous said:

    You didn't read the prosecution's argument in support of the warrant affidavit.

    Of course not.  Because I don't give a shit about some meaningless case that doesn't involve me except for determining what the law really means in my state of residence.  The question is: why do you?

    FTFY.



  • @tgape said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @Anon Ymous said:

    You didn't read the prosecution's argument in support of the warrant affidavit.

    Of course not.  Because I don't give a shit about some meaningless case that doesn't involve me except for determining what the law really means in my state of residence.  The question is: why do you?

    FTFY.

    Right.  Like I give a damn about some obscure point of law that has no impact on me.  Maybe if I was a college student planning on harassing my fellow students over their orientation with fraudulent emails, I might care.  Seeing as I am not, I don't care.



  •  It's not very hard to imagine such a law being used to prosecute any sort of fraudulent, rude, or harassing e-mail.  Assuming that a law (created due to a particular narrow circumstance) cannot be twisted to apply to broader contexts is idiocy.  (Or, perhaps I should say, "assuming the law will never apply to you" is TRWTF...)



  • @Heron said:

    It's not very hard to imagine such a law being used to prosecute any sort of fraudulent, rude, or harassing e-mail.  Assuming that a law (created due to a particular narrow circumstance) cannot be twisted to apply to broader contexts is idiocy.  (Or, perhaps I should say, "assuming the law will never apply to you" is TRWTF...)


    If I was sending fraudulent or harassing emails that might be a problem.  Being rude is never going to be illegal, dipshit.  I do think fraudulent or harassing emails should be illegal, but even if I didn't why would I care about a single minor case?  There are thousands of cases taking place across the US every day and the law is constantly changing as a result.  I don't sit around and worry about them all if they don't affect me directly and aren't ever likely to.  I'm far more concerned about the legal issues that do impact me, such as the massive spending the Federal government is currently undertaking as well as the unprecedented interference in private enterprise and the resulting destruction of wealth both will cause.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Being rude is never going to be illegal, dipshit.
    You were saying? It's even worse by telephone or computer. But at least I can say God does not exist without having to spend a year in jail, unlike you.

     

    <sarcasm>God I love our legal system, don't you?</sarcasm>



  • @Heron said:

    It's not very hard to imagine such a law being used to prosecute any sort of fraudulent, rude, or harassing message of any sort, in any form - even encrypted - so long as it is intercepted and decoded by someone sufficiently litigious to sue over it.  Assuming that a law (created due to a particular narrow circumstance) cannot be twisted to apply to broader contexts is idiocy.  (Or, perhaps I should say, "assuming the law will never apply to you" is TRWTF...)

    FTFY.  Of course, in order for it to apply to ones forum postings, the plaintiff needs to tie the defendant to the post.  And, thanks to the thousands of hours the RIAA has donated1 to the cause, that's a fairly high barrier these days.

    1 *Somebody* has to be the plaintiff for these stupid cases, or they don't establish precedent.  While the RIAA hasn't ponied up the cash to take any of these cases all the way home, they have ponied up the cash to have many of these issues examined in near ideal circumstances for it to generate a decent ruling (that is, with evidence so bad, in some cases, that one sometimes wonders if the defense attorney was really necessary.  (Yes, the defense attorney was necessary.  While the judge may understand the case, the judge can't actually *dismiss* motions without someone to move for a dismiss - and people without legal backgrounds don't generally understand that or know how to file a motion to dismiss.)



  • @TwelveBaud said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Being rude is never going to be illegal, dipshit.
    You were saying? It's even worse by telephone or computer. But at least I can say God does not exist without having to spend a year in jail, unlike you.

     

    <sarcasm>God I love our legal system, don't you?</sarcasm>

    None of that is enforceable, though, so why should I care?


Log in to reply
 

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