BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
'I had a meeting with my probation officer today, and he told me that he has to install monitoring software onto my PC. No big deal to me, that is part of my sentence. However, their software doesn't support GNU/Linux (Which is what I use). So, he told me that if I want to use a computer, I would have to use an OS that the software can be installed on.'" (Thanks to Ludo Stellingwerff).
Posted Aug 24, 2007 18:35 UTC (Fri)
by mrshiny (guest, #4266)
[Link] (8 responses)
In this case the criminal is allowed to use a computer, and the Internet, under the condition that he uses monitoring software which implies using windows. He is not being forced to never use Linux. He is not being forced to use Windows. He is being allowed to use the Internet on a monitored Windows computer. The restriction is that he can not use just any OS on the Internet.
Even if the government offered cross-platform monitoring software, how many platforms would they have to support?
Frankly he's lucky he's allowed to use the Internet at all. But I must admit I'm confused as to why the government doesn't use a hardware solution to this rather than a software solution.
Posted Aug 24, 2007 19:19 UTC (Fri)
by peace (guest, #10016)
[Link] (4 responses)
Being forced to use Windows is not part of the ruling, yet the technical implementation of the restrictions on Internet use add this additional penalty. So now, first of all, he needs to go buy Windows most likely when there is a perfectly acceptable free alternative.
"Windows, the choice of criminals. The criminals only choice."
Posted Aug 24, 2007 22:22 UTC (Fri)
by ajross (guest, #4563)
[Link] (1 responses)
The citizen in question is being punished for a crime, and
the platform restriction is part of that punishment (really a side
effect). I just don't follow your logic here. Does that mean that
people being held in jails need free and unrestricted access to
television and internet during their stay also? Should we be forced
to install every possible OS in the computer labs in our prisons?
Of all social causes for which one might want to crusade, "platform
independent felons" is among the weirdest...
(That said, I think there is a reasonable case to be made
that the punishment here is excessive for the crime. Distributing
movies on the internet is almost never prosecuted. This one was only
because the movie in question was "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith" and
the distribution happened before the theatrical release.)
Posted Aug 25, 2007 17:33 UTC (Sat)
by zotz (guest, #26117)
[Link]
Actually, it goes to the government not forcing any citizens to do business with a particular company...
What they could easily do is develop monitoring software for linux and deploy it via a live CD. Then no one being "punished" would have to buy anything from anyone.
If this was the only place the government did such things, the objection you raise would hold more weight with me. From what I gather, this is not an isolated deal.
I know they do such things in my country and I seriously dislike such dealings.
al the best,
drew
Posted Aug 25, 2007 5:54 UTC (Sat)
by mrshiny (guest, #4266)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 25, 2007 17:22 UTC (Sat)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link]
Posted Aug 27, 2007 2:48 UTC (Mon)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link]
For one thing, we are talking about a convicted criminal who is on probation. When you're on probation, the government limits some of your rights.
Indeed. The traditional, and extremely accurate, prisoners' characterisation of probation is "serving time on the streets". It is, literally, an optional way for qualifying convictees to serve some or all of their prison time without being actually behind bars. As such, it is not forced on people, and certainly was not in Mr. McCausland's case, either. If he didn't like his probation officer's conditions for Internet usage, he has the option to (1) eschew Internet usage until the end of his prison sentence, (2) eschew computer usage until the end of his prison sentence, or (3) eschew probation as not to his taste, and spend the rest of his sentence in a cell.
I don't know why so many computerists cannot seem to comprehend what "probation" means. It's not really a difficult concept.
Rick Moen
Posted Aug 31, 2007 12:44 UTC (Fri)
by kirkengaard (guest, #15022)
[Link] (1 responses)
Blue-sky, why not have the government run an ISP? Mandate his IP address, and monitor with less on-site hardware.
Posted Aug 31, 2007 15:30 UTC (Fri)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link]
Posted Aug 24, 2007 18:44 UTC (Fri)
by CyberDog (guest, #29668)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 25, 2007 1:15 UTC (Sat)
by pmilne (guest, #34533)
[Link]
Would be interesting to know how well thought out the process is.
Posted Aug 24, 2007 18:54 UTC (Fri)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (1 responses)
"The government punishes a convicted criminal by forcing him to run Windows!
This should be on every Linux site! :-)
PS: I have no sympathy for the guy on probation. If he breaks the law, he deserves to have to run Windoze. However, I bet the so-called "tracking software" would be trivial to hack -- it seems to me to be a pretty dumb idea.
Posted Aug 24, 2007 20:01 UTC (Fri)
by dwheeler (guest, #1216)
[Link]
To be fair, any monitoring software that requires the operating system's cooperation is probably really bad. Maybe a better way to implement monitoring software would be to use a proxy, and require the browser to give the proxy the encryption/private keys or the proxy wouldn't allow encryption to go through. That'd be less dependent on the specific browser, and the government could then harden and protect the proxy (maybe make it remote).
This item reminds me of Thomas Alva Edison's work to fight alternating current (AC), as he preferred DC; Edison patented AC-based electric chairs, and encouraged their use. :-). It didn't work in the long run (we use AC today) in that case, but dramatizing a competing technology's downsides is obviously an old approach.
Posted Aug 24, 2007 21:43 UTC (Fri)
by dfsmith (guest, #20302)
[Link]
Posted Aug 24, 2007 22:12 UTC (Fri)
by dark (guest, #8483)
[Link]
Posted Aug 25, 2007 3:46 UTC (Sat)
by ludo (guest, #5052)
[Link] (2 responses)
There is much to be said for free motion picture distribution, but that choice must be made by the copyright holders. (the movie industry) Linux can only be free if copyrights are upheld, treasured.
The freedom given by Linux can easily be abused:( And this is but one example of such abuse.
Posted Aug 26, 2007 17:31 UTC (Sun)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link]
Posted Aug 26, 2007 21:27 UTC (Sun)
by intgr (subscriber, #39733)
[Link]
Posted Aug 25, 2007 4:51 UTC (Sat)
by orospakr (guest, #40684)
[Link] (15 responses)
Copyright infringement is *not* theft. It may still be wrong (that is a different discussion), but regardless it remains a fundamentally different concept.
Posted Aug 25, 2007 11:57 UTC (Sat)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (8 responses)
It should be a civil lawsuit ideally with misdomeanor at worst. Being forced into bankruptcy, having your assists seized, and spending a couple months in jail probably fits the worst possible effect of copyright infringement on another person (say.. putting them out of business by reselling their own content at a lower price).
Felony is completely out of porportion. He can't vote, he can't own a firearm, he can't be in the army, he will have a nearly impossible time finding good employment, and lots of other negative things.
With a felony the punishment just isn't fines and time spent in jail, it has a permanent impact on the rest of your life. You become less then a full citizen, you lose rights.
(Now this is fine and dandy.. if somebody is a murderer or violent criminal then I am happy if they don't ever get to vote or own a gun. It's not only punishment, but it's protecting society from a known threat which is as, if not more, important)
If I was involved in this case I would be contacting everybody I can in attempt to get the punishment over-turned as cruel and unusual punishment. Sure the congress has rights to set punishments and such, but a felony for this sort of thing is cruel since it's way out of porportion. It's like putting somebody in jail for 20 years for vandalism. It's not right.
Posted Aug 25, 2007 17:43 UTC (Sat)
by arcticwolf (guest, #8341)
[Link] (7 responses)
if somebody is a murderer or violent criminal then I am happy if they don't ever get to vote or own a gun. It's not only punishment, but it's protecting society from a known threat which is as, if not more, important I've never understood the reasoning behind this, so maybe you can explain this to me: how exactly is denying someone - no matter whether it's a murderer, a thief, an embezzler or any other convicted felon - the right to vote "protecting society" from harm (or even threats)? I can understand why you might not want certain people to own guns anymore, but exactly how does denying someone one of the most fundamental rights in a democracy by disenfranchising them protect that society from harm? (I mean... what could he possibly do? Vote for Nader?)
Posted Aug 26, 2007 8:08 UTC (Sun)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (6 responses)
I think the idea of remove the ability of a person that is known to be violent or criminal to make public policy choices is a sound one.
Think about it.. If a person is capable of raping and or murdering somebody during a botched robbery or something like that. Do you realy need them to help you pick your next leader?
Giving somebody the ability to make a vote isn't about making them feel valuable, or making somebody feel like they have a voice. It's about having real impact.
In my mind there is no real difference between removing the right to bare arms and the right to vote. Both are absolutely fundamental to maintaining a free society. I wouldn't call them equivelent... depending on what paticular time in history you care to examine either owning a gun or having a vote is vastly more important.
Remember, both are fundamental.
Removal of a citizen's rights in any way should only be something that is done in a extreme cases. That's why felonies should be special cases. Only when a person is a real threat to a society is when these actions should be taken. Felonies for petty theft, or copyright infringement, or drug use, or any other number of things people are put in jail for are a travesity of justice, IMO.
Posted Aug 26, 2007 20:33 UTC (Sun)
by Los__D (guest, #15263)
[Link] (4 responses)
The right to bear arms is about as fundamental to maintaining a free society as the right to kill.
No sane country has that "right".
Posted Aug 26, 2007 21:04 UTC (Sun)
by zlynx (guest, #2285)
[Link] (3 responses)
To be free in the face of opposition, every free person has to be willing to kill and die for their rights. Otherwise, the oppressor will take those rights away.
The legal system is just a prettied up way of doing this. Every law and every judge's decision comes down to a police officer willing to kill to enforce it.
When the government itself becomes the oppressor, the people have the right to rise up in revolution and overthrow it by force. The American Declaration of Independence says so.
This is a lot easier to do with weapons.
Posted Aug 26, 2007 21:36 UTC (Sun)
by jaclu (guest, #7280)
[Link] (2 responses)
This is a lot easier to do with weapons."
This just doesn't make sense...
Regardless if you now have the right to bear arms, the day that the government becomes an oppressor and you would need this law, that right most propably would be withdrawn. So such a peacetime law is pointless in that it wouldn't make any difference the day it actually would be needed.
If we look to the rest of the world, typically if law and order breaks down in a society, people don't seem to have problem finding weapons when and if they think they need then to do a revolution.
So peacetime weapon-regulating laws doesn't seem to prevent rebellions during a crises.
Posted Aug 27, 2007 13:35 UTC (Mon)
by forthy (guest, #1525)
[Link] (1 responses)
Two things, first on arms: When the government becomes the oppressor,
the first thing they do is to make sure that they have so much more
powerful arms than every revolutioner. Remember, the USA is not only a
country that started through a violent revolution, it also is a country
with one of the most violent civil wars in history. The actual result is that in the USA, revolutions are nearly
impossible with any sort of violence. If you act violently, you'll be
blown to dust. The only choice left is a peaceful revolution. Don't tell
me that sometimes it needs violence to get rid of a dictator - this sort
of violence rarely comes from the inside, because in the inside, the
oppressive forces are much easier to build up than the counter-forces.
You may be able to convince the army that your president is a dictator,
but then, there's no need to have a right to bear arms for everybody. There's no evidence-based support for the theory the US constitution
builds up. There has been no violent revolution in the US apart from the
founding one, and the founding fathers had build up an illegal army,
anyway - no need to have a "right" for that. On the other side, the
chance to being shot increases tenfold just by owning a gun. The other thing is to prevent "convicted felons" to vote. There's no
similar counterpart in Europe. There's a good reason to not have that,
and it's also part of the liberty idea. If the state makes something
criminal which is quite popular, and not perceived as a criminal action
by a significant amount of the population, like sharing files on
BitTorrent or smoking gras, excluding that part of the population from
voting means that this behavior will be criminalized forever, and a
significant population will be excluded from voting. Parties will think
about which behavior to make illegal to gain 2 or 3 percent more votes.
This is completely independent of the effect of the action on the public
(you can argue that file sharing is bad or that THC is a dangerous
substance, but it's not objectively worse than driving a Hummer, which is
dangerous for the ecosystem - BTW: outlawing big SUVs and making their
drivers convicted felons would be quite a nice idea for the
Democrats ;-).
Posted Aug 31, 2007 17:22 UTC (Fri)
by cdmiller (guest, #2813)
[Link]
Yeah,
Look at all those Swiss folks getting shot all the time with a gun in every household. Include some support for your blanket statements... What are the chances of getting shot in general?
I believe you are correct that the first steps towards tyranny are the government systematically attempting to control arms among the citizenry and disarm it's populace.
Posted Aug 28, 2007 13:48 UTC (Tue)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Why? Because otherwise it introduces a huge disenfranchised section into society which can then be attacked by politicians looking for cheap votes *without fear of consequences* (well, there will still be some, because the families of felons can still vote, but fewer than there would otherwise be).
Banning people from voting even once their sentence is discharged, as some US states do, is grossly unethical; but even banning people from voting while they are in prison is very dangerous, because then interest groups which have it in their interest to increase imprisonment rates can do so without as much opposition. (Again, see the US and the effect of prison guards' unions.)
Everyone of sound mind should be able to vote. Legislators, lawyers, people with unpleasant jobs or disfiguring diseases, the bankrupt, criminals, child molestors, murderers. Everyone. (In fact I'd consider that the voting age should be adjusted such that if you can be convicted of a crime, you should be allowed to vote. This would change the voting age to 10 in the UK, for instance.)
Posted Aug 25, 2007 22:56 UTC (Sat)
by barbara (guest, #3014)
[Link]
This is Hollywood in action. All this over uploading the latest Star
Anyhow, thanks to the Hollywood moguls and the RIAA types, this fellow is
Posted Aug 27, 2007 2:57 UTC (Mon)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link] (4 responses)
I should point out that this "conviction" was made under the new US "DMCA" Copyright Act. This made certain forms of copyright infringement *criminal*, instead of a civil issue someone can sue for.
Indeed, the Hollywood studio's purchasing of criminal treatment for (some) copyright violation is a disgrace, makes a mockery of the USA's legal principles, and deserves to be overturned or repealed with maximal speed.
Separately, the notion that a felon on probation is entitled to software freedoms remains foolish, because the notion of software freedoms while one is serving a prison sentence is foolish.
Rick Moen
Posted Aug 27, 2007 18:37 UTC (Mon)
by szoth (guest, #14825)
[Link] (3 responses)
Is the notion that the felon in question should be free from regular beatings at the hands of his probation officer also foolish? Who are _you_ to say what rights this person should have?
Posted Aug 28, 2007 7:47 UTC (Tue)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link] (2 responses)
Is the notion that the felon in question should be free from regular beatings at the hands of his probation officer also foolish?
Oh, how delightful; a claim of a slippery slope where none is present! I love those. Thank you for the contribution, "szoth". You're much too kind, sir/madam.
For your next trick, I'm hoping you'll be explaining how permitting Internet access only with approved monitoring software qualifies as "cruel and unusual punishment" within the meaning of the 8th Amendment. That would be fun.
Who are _you_ to say what rights this person should have?
I'd be basically any person at all accurately describing the legal context of being a convict who's currently serving a sentence. Thanks for playing!
Rick Moen
Posted Aug 30, 2007 5:21 UTC (Thu)
by madhatter (subscriber, #4665)
[Link]
The second discussion's pointless. Mr. Moen, I *know* the US government has the actual power to act as it is (since it's doing it), and I'm fairly sure it's not acting _ultra vires_ when it does so (or sk0t's lawyers would certainly have pointed it out already). I freely accept these points as successfully made. Neither has any bearing on the discussion of whether it is *moral* or *constructive* that the government should so act.
So, I beg you, don't keep conflating the arguments - since yours is won, and the other is therefore more interesting, at least to me.
Posted Aug 30, 2007 18:25 UTC (Thu)
by lysse (guest, #3190)
[Link]
Inappropriately contemptuous dismissals of valid points are also delightful, although they are neither polite nor respectful, and only indirectly informative.
As far as I'm aware, under probation the only freedoms taken away from a person are the ones a judge says should be taken away; arbitrary freedoms should not be removed simply because "well, if you don't like it, you can always go back to prison". This particular example skirts the line - there are perfectly good monitoring solutions available for Linux, I'm sure; and *if* the only reason he's being forced to switch OS is government ignorance, that pretty much qualifies as an arbitrary restriction upon his freedoms.
Which is quite contrary to the rule of law, no matter how minor. And once the rule of law no longer binds authority - well, indiscriminate beatings are just a whim and a justification away.
We gather that you believe the action can be justified as consequential. But the point is far less obvious than you think it is; and only a fool ridicules those who disagree with him.
I think this story is being blown a little out of proportion. For one thing, we are talking about a convicted criminal who is on probation. When you're on probation, the government limits some of your rights. It's part of the punishment for the crime.BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
DOJ: "It runs on Windows, Linux, and Mac OSX"
Criminal: "Oh, I run FreeBSD"
DOJ: "Oh, we have a FreeBSD version too"
Criminal: "I use OS/2"
DOJ: "We can dig out an old version of the OS/2 code"
Criminal: "I use QNX"
etc
The problem is that this is just another example of how blind the government is to the responsibilities it has to it's citizens regarding open and free access to and use of information. The solution would be to do this at the router and not have restrictions on OS at all. What if the only software this guy wanted to use, or needed to use was on Linux or Mac? (Luckily you can get BitTorrent on Windows).BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
The problem is that this is just another example of how
blind the government is to the responsibilities it has to it's
citizens regarding open and free access to and use of
information.
[Of all social causes for which one might want to crusade, "platform independent felons" is among the weirdest...]BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
"Windows, the choice of criminals. The criminals only choice."
Actually in this case the criminal's choice is Linux, but he's being denied that choice for Internet access.
What if the only software this guy wanted to use, or needed to use was on Linux or Mac? (Luckily you can get BitTorrent on Windows).
What if the only software he wanted to use was AtheOS? Must the government develop software for that OS? As I mentioned in my original comment, a hardware solution may be sufficient (but it may not; it's possible the DOJ software relies on keylogging or who knows what) but should the government be forced to develop this hardware if they don't have it already? Who pays for all of this?
Sometimes, once you're convicted of a crime, you have to deal with the consequences.
This dangerous "criminal" recklessly uploaded Star Wars: Episode III onto the internet hours before the theatrical release, allowing the distribution of dangerous bits to ravenous BitTorrent addicts and endangering the living of the needy George Lucas. In fact the movie lost hundreds of millions because of his actions. He has to pay for it! Windows is not enough punishment, I'd say give the sucker OS/2 Warp.
Crime in perspective
mrshiny wrote:
BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
rick@linuxmafia.com
How many networking 'black boxes' do we have out there anyways? Low interface requirements, just power and RJ-45/RJ-11. Bypassing it is a problem, but install it at the NID like a tap, and you've got complete home traffic monitoring. Complete OS independence, too. If the government is going to require traffic monitoring of an invasive and thorough sort, that would qualify without being overkill.Hardware solution best idea
Sounds reasonable, but what do you do about SSL connections, open HTTP proxies, and TOR?Hardware solution best idea
"Dual Boot"?BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
This begs the question of how the monitoring works. Presumably to avoid tampering the computer case would need to be locked or sealed, the BIOS set to stop any boots other than C drive, and the BIOS admin password set. The OS would similarly need to be locked down similar to that in a corporate environment.BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
Great Linux marketing
Perhaps the subtitle should be "Linux so secure from external monitoring that government required Windows to be used instead" :-). Ah, the possibilities are endless (grin). Very amusing.
Great Linux marketing
Does it run under Wine? (Xen/VMware?)BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
I wonder if he can legally even use Windows. I'd guess that the terms of
his probation also limit him from having certain kinds of software on his
computer. And if he installs Windows, then Microsoft will claim the right
to install anything on his computer that they feel like, without asking
him or even telling him -- that's part of the EULA, last time I looked.
Even if the EULA has no legal force, Microsoft will certainly act as if it
does. So the terms of his probation require him to take this risk of
violating the terms of his probation. Catch-22?
Conflicting instructions
Besides the total lack of technical expertise of all involved governmental stakeholder, I noticed this news item for a rather different reason:Abuse of freedom.
It's an example of someone that uses Linux for the 'free beer' aspect, not for the 'freedom' aspect. This person has done us a very ill favor.
Much more likely, this guy uses Linux because of its technological superiority, just like many other of us. The free beer aspect probably doesn't mean much to a person who is a member of a cracker group.
Abuse of freedom.
> someone that uses Linux for the 'free beer' aspect, not for the 'freedom' aspectAbuse of freedom.
Oh give me a break. Are you saying that a BitTorrent tracker ex-administrator has to use Linux because he cannot find a pirated ("free as in beer") copy of Windows? Even though he could acquire Star Wars: Episode III before its official release.
Firstly, to all the shills who have been claiming "don't do the crime if you can't do the time", I should point out that this "conviction" was made under the new US "DMCA" Copyright Act. This made certain forms of copyright infringement *criminal*, instead of a civil issue someone can sue for. All this guy did was share some data he had access to (in this case, a copy of a Star Wars movie), and yet he was subjected to violent treatment, namely unwilling confinement and invasion of privacy. Not only that, but he is now branded as a convicted felon, making him virtually unemployable in his own country. Where is the sense of proportion here?BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
Yep. BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
Because the person has obviously bad judgement and is quite corrupted. BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
"In my mind there is no real difference between removing the right to bare arms and the right to vote. Both are absolutely fundamental to maintaining a free society."BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
It works like this.BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
"When the government itself becomes the oppressor, the people have the right to rise up in revolution and overthrow it by force. The American Declaration of Independence says so.BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
"On the other side, the chance to being shot increases tenfold just by owning a gun."BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
I consider that *every* adult not insane should be given the right to vote. If you are of sound mind, you should be permitted to contribute to the selection of your next leader.BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
<I should point out that this "conviction" was made under the new BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
US "DMCA" Copyright Act. This made certain forms of copyright infringement
*criminal*, instead of a civil issue someone can sue for.>
Wars movie hours before opening in theatres. Shameful. This is the main
reason I no longer contribute to their coffers by going to Hollywood
movies. The other reason is that so many of their movies are rubbish and
a waste of time.
now a convicted felon which means that he will have trouble getting
another job, he'll no longer be able to vote (since he lives in the
U.S.). Why they have this restriction on voting has always struck me as
being very peculiar. In my country (Canada) people with criminals records
can vote and also can vote while in prison. They've done their time (or
are in the process of doing it) -- don't further punish them by denying
them access to participating in our democracy.
orospakr wrote:
BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
rick@linuxmafia.com
"Separately, the notion that a felon on probation is entitled to software freedoms remains foolish, because the notion of software freedoms while one is serving a prison sentence is foolish."BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
szoth wrote:
BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
rick@linuxmafia.com
There seem to be two arguments happening at once. One camp is discussing whether the government *should* do what it's doing, the other (primarily Mr. Moen) is discussing whether it *can* do what it's doing.BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)
> Oh, how delightful; a claim of a slippery slope where none is present! I love those.BitTorrent Admin Monitored by US Government, Forced to Dump Linux (TorrentFreak)