U.S. gestapo seizes students computers...

[CorSec]

If you are in the military, you have no rights. Period. Anyone who thinks differently is an idiot and therefore undeserving of my sympathy.

Employees of the DoD do have rights, however they are severly limited.

[data_link]

If you are in the military, you have no rights. Period. Anyone who thinks differently is an idiot and therefore undeserving of my sympathy.

Employees of the DoD do have rights, however they are severly limited.

That's true, in the same sense that women in Afghanistan (pre-war) had rights, but they were just severely limited.

[Nova Andromeda]

Yes we DO do Random Searches for Illegle Programs/Data, When I first joined up out of School thats what I DID

--Then I don't see the need to confiscate computers solely for the purpose of looking for copy written material since it falls under the rules of use you are applying to this situation. It doesn't make any damn sense! I guess one could chalk this up to military idiocy...

If you are in the military, you have no rights.

--While this view isn't expressed by everyone who posted in this thread it does highlight the general additude toward military personel. This concept and ones like it are disgraceful. To treat people who go to die for you in some foreign land like slaves is barbaric. The reason military personel's rights must be restricted is to prevent infiltration/corruption of the military and thereby military disfunction. However, the rights taken from military personel are greater than need be. The curtailment of rights should be minimized to those rights which interfer with preventing infiltration/corruption of sufficient degree to harm military function. If those computers have access to sensitive material or are solely for the purpose of doing some task it would make sense to forbid personel from altering the software. However, the personel should not be made to pay for it in that case since it is gov. property and can't be used for personal purposes. Searches and seizers of poperty to enforce laws that have no effect on military readiness and are not enforced upon the general public are wrong (because you have restricted military personel rights uncessarily and inquitably). This includes "Illegle Downloading on US Armed Forces Bandwidth ..." unless it clogs a necessary network. It also includes prosecution of military personel on copy right infingment when that law is never enforced upon the public and it was only through the necessary curtailment of military personel rights that the information was obtained in the first place.

[data_link]

Yes we DO do Random Searches for Illegle Programs/Data, When I first joined up out of School thats what I DID

--Then I don't see the need to confiscate computers solely for the purpose of looking for copy written material since it falls under the rules of use you are applying to this situation. It doesn't make any damn sense! I guess one could chalk this up to military idiocy...

If you are in the military, you have no rights.

--While this view isn't expressed by everyone who posted in this thread it does highlight the general additude toward military personel. This concept and ones like it are disgraceful. To treat people who go to die for you in some foreign land like slaves is barbaric. The reason military personel's rights must be restricted is to prevent infiltration/corruption of the military and thereby military disfunction. However, the rights taken from military personel are greater than need be. The curtailment of rights should be minimized to those rights which interfer with preventing infiltration/corruption of sufficient degree to harm military function. If those computers have access to sensitive material or are solely for the purpose of doing some task it would make sense to forbid personel from altering the software. However, the personel should not be made to pay for it in that case since it is gov. property and can't be used for personal purposes. Searches and seizers of poperty to enforce laws that have no effect on military readiness and are not enforced upon the general public are wrong (because you have restricted military personel rights uncessarily and inquitably). This includes "Illegle Downloading on US Armed Forces Bandwidth ..." unless it clogs a necessary network. It also includes prosecution of military personel on copy right infingment when that law is never enforced upon the public and it was only through the necessary curtailment of military personel rights that the information was obtained in the first place.

True enough. In no instance should human rights be limited byond what is absolutely nessecary. However, given that no one forced these people to be in the military, I find it hard to have symapthy for them. After all, they should have read the contract before signing themselves into virtual slavery. But that's just me...

[Stormbringer]

Yes we DO do Random Searches for Illegle Programs/Data, When I first joined up out of School thats what I DID

--Then I don't see the need to confiscate computers solely for the purpose of looking for copy written material since it falls under the rules of use you are applying to this situation. It doesn't make any damn sense! I guess one could chalk this up to military idiocy...

Of course having cadets downloading anything they want. A clever hacker could slip a program in without the knowing it. And by illegal Mr. Bean means any unauthorized programs, I believe.

Besides, they have the right to enforce the laws on their system and their computers.

If you are in the military, you have no rights.

--While this view isn't expressed by everyone who posted in this thread it does highlight the general additude toward military personel. This concept and ones like it are disgraceful. To treat people who go to die for you in some foreign land like slaves is barbaric. *snip*

Is it too much to expect them to obey regulations and the law? Only those that broke rules and laws got nailed.

[Nova Andromeda]

Is it too much to expect them to obey regulations and the law? Only those that broke rules and laws got nailed.

--It is unfair to use information gathered for one purpose (via the abridgment of standard rights) for some other unrelated purpose. This type of action almost always leads to abuse of power (since you are basically using an excuse to do something generally considered wrong).

[Stormbringer]

Is it too much to expect them to obey regulations and the law? Only those that broke rules and laws got nailed.

--It is unfair to use information gathered for one purpose (via the abridgment of standard rights) for some other unrelated purpose. This type of action almost always leads to abuse of power (since you are basically using an excuse to do something generally considered wrong).

And what makes you think that they didn't check for illegal music and videos as well? Why can't they check both at the same?

You case holds as much water a strainer.

[Nova Andromeda]

And what makes you think that they didn't check for illegal music and videos as well? Why can't they check both at the same?

You case holds as much water a strainer.

--This is the last time I'm going to explain this. The reason they are allowed to abridge those cadets' rights is to protect the functionality of our military not to enforce unrelated civil laws. Allowing them to enforce civil laws by abridging normal civil liberties and using military security as the excuse is wrong. It analogous to spying on Martin Luther King using the National Security excuse. This type of thing leads to destructive abuses of power and must be avoided.

[Stormbringer]

And what makes you think that they didn't check for illegal music and videos as well? Why can't they check both at the same?

You case holds as much water a strainer.

--This is the last time I'm going to explain this. The reason they are allowed to abridge those cadets' rights is to protect the functionality of our military not to enforce unrelated civil laws. Allowing them to enforce civil laws by abridging normal civil liberties and using military security as the excuse is wrong. It analogous to spying on Martin Luther King using the National Security excuse. This type of thing leads to destructive abuses of power and must be avoided.

They didn't they simply enforced the law! What the hell is your malfunction? Maybe they did them at the same time but it's not illegal or evil to monitor those laptops for illegal files.

And that's one hell of a slippery slope fallacy you've constructed. Charge 29.95 to get in and you've a goddamned kiddie park!

[Sonnenburg]

And what makes you think that they didn't check for illegal music and videos as well? Why can't they check both at the same?

You case holds as much water a strainer.

--This is the last time I'm going to explain this. The reason they are allowed to abridge those cadets' rights is to protect the functionality of our military not to enforce unrelated civil laws. Allowing them to enforce civil laws by abridging normal civil liberties and using military security as the excuse is wrong. It analogous to spying on Martin Luther King using the National Security excuse. This type of thing leads to destructive abuses of power and must be avoided.

So let's say that instead of a laptop it's an apartment and instead of mp3s it's stolen stereos. If a cop hear's someone screaming for help inside (and no one will open the door) and kicks the door in without a warrant, and sees the stolen stereos and arrests those suspected of doing the stealing, would you say that he is misusing the probable cause exception to search and seizure?

[Stormbringer]

And what makes you think that they didn't check for illegal music and videos as well? Why can't they check both at the same?

You case holds as much water a strainer.

--This is the last time I'm going to explain this. The reason they are allowed to abridge those cadets' rights is to protect the functionality of our military not to enforce unrelated civil laws. Allowing them to enforce civil laws by abridging normal civil liberties and using military security as the excuse is wrong. It analogous to spying on Martin Luther King using the National Security excuse. This type of thing leads to destructive abuses of power and must be avoided.

So let's say that instead of a laptop it's an apartment and instead of mp3s it's stolen stereos. If a cop hear's someone screaming for help inside (and no one will open the door) and kicks the door in without a warrant, and sees the stolen stereos and arrests those suspected of doing the stealing, would you say that he is misusing the probable cause exception to search and seizure?

Chuck, in that case actually that would be illegal. It's not covered by the probable cause. You can go back and get a search warrant and go back,(although you can do that while he's being held in jail on the other charge).

And there have been Supreme Court cases that hold up the principle.

[Mr Bean]

*Snip Long winded discussion about rights and how dare the goverment limit them

Look Nova as I laied out before, Prehaps I'll requote them to get you to understand your basic problem

1.When you joined the Armed Forces you agree to praticly no Privacy and you and your possesions can be searched at any time for any reason(Inculding "Cause I felt like it)

2. Armed Forces Computers are Forbbiden from Being Modified/New Software added, Without WRITTEN Permssion from you CO(Until your out of schooling at least)

3. To recive a Computer on Rent, Plan(What this sounds like) you must first sign a contract and read the Armed Forces Reg's for Computer use inculding the Do not Do list and here you are informed of the Written permission thing agian

4.In school all Cadets before touching a Keyboard have to sign said agreement and agree not to break any rules

5. Illegle Downloading on US Armed Forces Bandwidth is one of those Rules

6.So is Downloading and Modifing US Goverment Property

7. They broke both of said rules

Look, When I was a Cadet I could have spent a week scrubbing tolets if they found PONG on my freken computers let alone acutal illegle software


Your missing the basic point that ANY modification of ANY kind, Be it downloading installing ANY SOFTWARE or even changing the fucking background is NOT ALLOWED, Predicbly the Ruetors story glosses over that fact but that is the basic laws on which Computer use is Governed in the Armed Services and THAT is somthing you can not deny

[Nova Andromeda]

Your missing the basic point that ANY modification of ANY kind, Be it downloading installing ANY SOFTWARE or even changing the fucking background is NOT ALLOWED, Predicbly the Ruetors story glosses over that fact but that is the basic laws on which Computer use is Governed in the Armed Services and THAT is somthing you can not deny

--Well let us look at the story shall we: "Officials at the U.S. Naval Academy have seized the computers of nearly 100 students in a search for bootlegged music and movies ..." "Naval Academy administrators seized the desktop computers last Thursday while students were in class ..." " Students at the Annapolis academy receive a computer when they enter school and pay it off gradually over their four years."
-What I get out of this is that the students are given a desktop computer for PERSONAL use, they own those computers, and those computers were seized for the sole purpose of looking for copy written material. It doesn't suggest anything about these computers being used for military functions other than general education of the students (i.e., access to google, microsoft office, etc.). Now you may be right about the details of who owns the computer and what they are used for, but the story doesn't suggest that you are and until you provide some hard evidence I'm not going to take your word for it.

... it's not illegal or evil to monitor those laptops for illegal files.

And that's one hell of a slippery slope fallacy you've constructed. Charge 29.95 to get in and you've a goddamned kiddie park!

--The above response to Mr Bean is my response to your assuption that it is not wrong to "monitor those laptops for illegal files." All you have to do is apply your response to Sonnenburg's situation to the above situation. Instead you are assumming Mr Bean is correct about who owns those computers and what they are used for. The idea that I've constructed a slippery slope fallacy just plain dumb. It is not unreasonable to think the abuse of power would stop with just that incident unless such abuses of power are generally opposed. You do realize the FBI DID use such abuses of power to try and undermine Martin Luther King don't you?

[Yogi]

Military people don't have any rights. They're not supposed to be really humans, but soldiers who will follow any order given (unfortunatly, that's required for a functioning military). People who join up should be aware of this fact, and if not, they tell it to you. That's why I'm keeping away from the Army.

[Knife]

Military people don't have any rights. They're not supposed to be really humans, but soldiers who will follow any order given (unfortunatly, that's required for a functioning military). People who join up should be aware of this fact, and if not, they tell it to you. That's why I'm keeping away from the Army.

First off, military people are incouraged to think for themselve but when it comes time for action, one follows order. There is not time to hold a committe with rounds coming down range but durring planning sessions, any and all input is incouraged. The idea of a drone with a gun is obsolete and dumb.

All personel in the military have rights expressly spelled out in the UCMJ. Most of these rights corospond with the rights we civilian know and love, but there are some differences. Anyone joining the military either enlisted or in the officer corps has these rights spelled out to them repeatedly both before and after signing their contract. Durring and through out their term of service these rights are constantly reiterated, and a list is posted at every CO's office I have ever seen.

If these morons did not know the rules and regs on the computors not the mention their rights to privacy under the UCMJ, then I have no sympathy for them, and I highly question their ability to be officers in the Navy. Also, the curtailed rights under the UCMJ are not expressly for curtailing the ability of enemy infiltrations and such. Alot of it is to maintain disipline in a large group of individuals, wich is one of the major things that happens durring primary training weather it be bootcamp or the academy.

[Dargos]

I would put a 99.5% chance that the cadets signed a "TERMS of USE" contract with the Navel Acadamy when they recieved the computers, and somewhere in that contract it states that "Use of the computer authorizes the govermental servailance" and that the computers remain goverment property until succesful graduation from the Acadamy.


Besides that, the cadets stay on campus correct? The internet is provided by the government correct? Well guess what.. useing governmental provided internet to down load or view porn/games/music/or any unoffical programs is a FEDERAL OFFENSE!!!! Anyone who works for the government should know that..and I'm sure the cadets knew it too.

[Sonnenburg]

So let's say that instead of a laptop it's an apartment and instead of mp3s it's stolen stereos. If a cop hear's someone screaming for help inside (and no one will open the door) and kicks the door in without a warrant, and sees the stolen stereos and arrests those suspected of doing the stealing, would you say that he is misusing the probable cause exception to search and seizure?

Chuck, in that case actually that would be illegal. It's not covered by the probable cause. You can go back and get a search warrant and go back,(although you can do that while he's being held in jail on the other charge).

And there have been Supreme Court cases that hold up the principle.

I disagree, based on the fact that I've seen every episode of Law & Order at least twice.

Seriously though, can you point me to a place that verifies this, because this is what I had thought was the case. For example, if a cop pulled me over and smelled marijuana, he can use probable cause to search for it. And if he finds, say, an illeagal firearm instead he can still run me in for that. If that's not the case, can you point me somewhere that shows this?

[BrYaN19kc]

I work in our campus computer center. I've been there for nearly four years. I do know that everyone who receives access to the campus network signs and AUP when they register for the account, which is usually at registration. Although MP3's are not directly mentioned, it does clearly state that downloading of copyrighted matierial is prohibited with loss of privledges to expulsion being the punishment. Also, on computers we loan out to students and faculty it goes further to list storage on univeristy owned equipment. Actually, screwing with a computer on loan from the university will get you into trouble faster than downloading a few MP3's or some porn. Since I've been here, the only enforcement I have seen is over people returned damaged computers.

I will say, that the bandwidth provided to students in the dorms and on campus does get bogged down with a lot of downloading and I do know that the head of our computer department is looking into stronger enforcement of downloading copyrighted material.

All I know is that I have my own computers and my own internet service. It's just safer knowing that I don't have to worry about the AUP of my univeristy.

[BrYaN19kc]

BTW: The article does mention that the cadets were given the computers and would be paying them off during their stay at the academy. That would anger me because if I was paying on the unit I would consider it my personal property. BUT! I also make payments on my car and I even though I consider it mine, it really belongs to Ford Motor Credit and I must follow their terms until I pay it off and receive the title. HMMMM!

I do support the fact that students do not pay for access to our network, they really should either follow the AUP or get their Internet access somewhere else.

[data_link]

This is a side issue but:

Does anyone else find prohibiting the "downloading of copyrighted material" somewhat rediculous? Given that there is an implicit copyright on all material not explicitly granted to the public domain, that essentially means you aren't allowed to download anything. Further, since veiwing a web page requires downloading it's contents to your computer, this means that you are not allowed to veiw web pages. Interpreted literally (the only acceptable interpretation for legal documents), the AUP essentially forbids you from browsing the web.

[Cthulhu-chan]

YAY! Ban the intarweb! It is the tool of communism/terrorism/Satan!