Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

High-Tech Burglars May Get Longer Sentences In Louisiana

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the mapquest-probation dept.

Crime 197

Hugh Pickens writes "Burglars and terrorists should be careful not to use Google Maps if they plan on committing crimes in the state of Louisiana. Nola reports that a bill approved 89-0 by the Louisiana House will require that judges impose an additional minimum sentence of at least 10 years on terrorist acts if the crime is committed with the aid of an Internet-generated 'virtual map.' The bill, already approved by the Louisiana Senate, defines a 'virtual street-level map' as one that is available on the Internet and can generate the location or picture of a home or building by entering the address of the structure or an individual's name on a website. If the map is used in the commission of a crime like burglary, the bill calls for the addition of at least one year in jail (PDF) to be added to the burglary sentence. The House measure is now being sent back to the Senate for approval of clarifying amendments made by a House committee."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why? (5, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32379882)

What the hell difference does it make whether someone used Google maps?

Re:Why? (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32379938)

All I can think of is the use of Google Maps (or the like) shows overt premeditation. but even that reasoning is a bit shaky.

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32379996)

My thoughts exactly. Shaky, though? No, I think the word you seek is circumstantial.

If I get caught with a map that shows the block where the house is that I robbed, it's not quite the same as if I have that, a less detailed map, with driving instructions on it, and a more detailed one with "X marks the spot" to be hit.

Double-ewe Tea Eff (2, Insightful)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380620)

I'm genuinely baffled as to what reasoning could have been offered for this. "It's too easy if they use digital maps, so it's cheating"? To turn it around, if the criminal had to work harder to pick a house to burglarize he or she should get a discount on how much jail time he or she will have to serve?

I'm with other commenters who are basically suggesting this is just a way of creating a "bonus crime" with which to arbitrarily keep people imprisoned longer, but obviously that's probably not how it was actually sold in public.

Anybody have any links to an official explanation for this?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380106)

Terrorism is by-definition premeditated

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Paranatural (661514) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380112)

No shit. The only thing they want is to keep people in jail longer, without having to prove as much. Proving premeditation is hard, and just because you looked up someone's address doesn't automatically make it premeditation. This makes them 'hard on crime' that the conservatives down here get such hard dicks for. I hate my state sometimes.

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380274)

Proving premeditation is hard, and just because you looked up someone's address doesn't automatically make it premeditation.

It would be kind of hard to claim a robbery was a crime of opportunity (e.g. not premeditated) if the robber was found to have a map to the house, a picture of the front door, a satellite view of the surrounding neighborhood, and pictures of the inside (from Zillow, Redfin, etc.).

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32379962)

Because you typically don't get voted out of office for being "tough on crime". Who wouldn't want "took bold action to protect your homes and families from the cyber-criminal menace" on their CV?

Re:Why? (1, Troll)

show me altoids (1183399) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380186)

In Louisiana, they use the term "Resume." Nobody in this country knows what a "CV" is.

Re:Why? (2, Funny)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381108)

It's an additional minimum of one year in jail if you have a CV while committing a crime.

Re:Why? (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381710)

Because a CV is for academics and is too lengthy for most jobs. Unless you really mean a resume that some retard calls a CV.

Not just ignorant, iggerunt. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32379974)

You are assuming there is logic, when no logic exists.

All the people with intelligence moved out of Louisiana a long time ago.

Re:Not just ignorant, iggerunt. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380284)

Bullshit. I have a PhD in Kicking Nigger Ass, and I'm living the dream here.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 4 years ago | (#32379994)

Because it scares the old and technology illiterate people we call politicians. Half the supreme court doesn't know the difference between a pager and a cell phone.

Re:Why? (4, Funny)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380798)

Which one of them only half understands?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380978)

Obviously, Anthony Kennedy.

Re:Why? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32381590)

All of them.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380002)

Well, arguably it demonstrates premeditation; in reality it's probably going to be used rather like existing "extras", to bump up the sentence when desired. For example, it's perfectly legal to carry a crowbar or screwdriver in public. Use one while burgling a house or stealing a car, and suddenly you have "going equipped" added to the charge list.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381510)

There's been this trend for the last few decades of pulling all decision making for sentencing away from judges. Some people had become concerned that some judges are "soft on crime", "liberal", or other un-American adjectives. Rather than allow these pinko freedom-hating judges to actually do their jobs, laws were passed that tied their hands and set minimum sentencing rules (not merely guidelines). Since every right thinking person knows that longer sentences are a good thing as it keeps those ex-cons away from our neighborhoods and country clubs, it stands to reason that making up more and more ways to tack on longer sentences is a patriotic thing for our legislators to do. Or something like that.

Re:Why? (1)

Neoncow (802085) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381586)

But don't we already have laws/processes that allow that sort of sentence scaling?

Re:Why? (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380012)

What the hell difference does it make whether someone used Google maps?

I was wondering the same thing -- it's like it's more illegal to use publicly available information in the commission of a crime.

Neither link seems to indicate why this is. It just strike me as a rather arbitrary law.

Re:Why? (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380234)

What the hell difference does it make whether someone used Google maps?

Precisely, it's a hell of a difference. And another two years will a burglar get for using a plastic electric screwdriver instead of a good old proper wood-and-iron screwdriver. The you screw around, the more you get screwed.

Re:Why? (2)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380406)

like others said, using a digital map is somewhat substantial evidence that the crime was premeditated. However, how is this any different from buying a map at the gas station and using that as a reference? If this statute includes other Internet-based applications like Facebook or Foursquare (possibly popular in New Orleans or Baton Rouge), how is targeting a person through those channels any worse than doing extensive, off-line research like criminals did in the "good old days?" I guess it makes amateur robberies a little easier/rewarding, but 10 years?!

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380584)

This is primarily aimed at 'abuse' of street view to case neighborhoods. Use of overhead satellite imagery, while less effective is also targeted for similar reasons.

SWIM's experiences with casing wealthy neighborhoods is that, especially considering his/her lack of inconspicuous clothing, skin colour, and/or vehicle (or whatever else is required to fit into said neighborhood), the casing can actually be more likely to generate calls to police/heat/residents with firearms than the actual robbery (the actually robbery being well planned thanks to the casing).

The use of street view, more than showing premeditation, shows sophistication, reduces the chances of being caught, thus reducing the risk of this action, and therefore the attractiveness of robberies as a whole. This law attempts to compensate by increasing SWIM's potential sentence, thus increasing risk, and decreasing attractiveness of this mode of robbery.

I'm reminded of a Cypherpunks list discussion (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32379908)

I'm reminded of a Cypherpunks list discussion on this, except that criminals would get a charge of using/possessing cryptography while committing a crime.

Will this deter crime via newer methods? Doubt it.

Who actually profits from this: Same old people, defense lawyers, the private prison industry with a huge lobby behind it and the fact that anyone who stands in their way gets painted as soft on crime.

Re:I'm reminded of a Cypherpunks list discussion (2)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380478)

I don't buy that the prison industry conspiracy is to blame. It's the legislators that are idiotic enough to believe what the lobbyists are telling them, and too entrenched in politics to challenge senior lawmakers. I don't think my language is too strong here; nothing short of idiocy can describe the kind of new technology-related laws coming out of state legislatures. You'd think that a basic level of intelligence would be found among the most powerful people in the state.. I would genuinely rather have a random sampling of math majors at my university run my state because I know at least they can reason logically.

Re:I'm reminded of a Cypherpunks list discussion (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380772)

It's the legislators that are idiotic enough to believe what the lobbyists are telling them

You'd be amazed what they can believe for the right amount of money.

Reinstall (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32379952)

Too many idiots. Cleaning up would take longer than a clean reinstall.

Knee-jerk, as usual (5, Insightful)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32379954)

The "high tech" map doesn't make the crime worse. It just serves as circumstantial evidence that it was premeditated. The harsher sentence should be imposed because the crime was planned, not because high tech was used.

Here's why the proposed law is bad:

1. It's way too specific. Why internet-generated maps? What about instructions to make burglary tools or improvised weapons?

2. If the use of "high tech" makes the punishment worse, is that not a condemnation of "high tech" itself? That would be a bad thing.

No, the thing that makes the crime worse is the premeditation, and the use of high-tech just offers evidence of this.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380048)

I just want to know how the hell they intend to prove that someone used an online map. Unenforceable laws are a royal waste of public funds.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (3, Informative)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380290)

how the hell they intend to prove that someone used an online map

1. Catch burglar.
2. Search burglar's home.
3. Seize burglar's computer.
4. Read browser history.
5. ???
6. Profit!

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380548)

jgagnon you are too stupid to be here. please leave. kthxbai

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (1)

jmcvetta (153563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380570)

They'll just ask Google, and Google will tell them.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380746)

Except, of course, if the burglar did the research from a library or other public computer. Or from a friend's house, or... etc. etc. etc.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (1)

jmcvetta (153563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381354)

Good point.. so long as he didn't check his gmail while he was at the library.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (3, Insightful)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380082)

So, this means Criminals should just use a Rand-McNally book instead, and shave a year off their potential sentence. Good law.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380624)

Criminals are using maps now?!?!?! We need to ban all maps!

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380230)

They're trying to dumb down the internet... Next they'll charge Google with aiding and abetting, and make them remove the maps altogether..

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (2, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380452)

I think that's actually the sentiment that motivates them. Some people and politicians are worried about Google Street View being used to commit crimes, and since it's not clear there's any defensible way they could go after Street View itself, they hit on the other possibility: go after the people who use it to commit crimes. But of course, that leads to the nonsensical law we have here, where committing the same crimes without Street View is somehow better.

My guess is the reasoning is: Street View makes it easier to commit crimes, which is bad, so some law should cover this. The law in question does nothing to address the root problem, but hey, gotta pass something.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (4, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380236)

Er, burglary is always premeditated.

There's no way to accidentally burgle someone's house, or do it in a fit of passion, or in self-defense.

This law is no more or less a stupid abuse of legislative power than the classic example of passing a law saying that Pi is 3.0 instead of 3.14159...

it's a clear demonstration that plural voting is no way to prove validity.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380564)

Er, burglary is always premeditated.

What are you basing that assertion on? Every time I see someone use "always" like that, I'm forced to conclude the person is speaking out of their ass and over-stating their case.

There's no way to accidentally burgle someone's house, or do it in a fit of passion, or in self-defense.

What about on a whim? What about a crime of opportunity? How much of a time-lapse between the decision and the act defines "pre-meditation"? 30 seconds? An hour? Tell us, oh great legal scholar. I've seen people commit crimes literally on the spur of the moment because they're purely impulse driven people.

Seriouly, the propensity for Slashdotters to make sweeping categorical claims about what is "true" is a little lame. It makes the critical reasoning detectors start chiming.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381594)

Save your crticisms for the fucking stupid legislators who thought up this stupid law. By they way, did you notice that this
is a broadening of the use of premeditation to cover burglary. I can only find references to premeditated MURDER, which, by the way, can be as short as mere seconds in some instances.

Do your own research before you start bashing someone else, AC.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (1)

Velodra (1443121) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380568)

What if you're just walking home one night and you notice a house with a window open and something valuable inside, so you decide to climb in the window and grab a few things? Not that I agree with the law, but there is a difference between what I described and carefully planning the burglary in advance.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380828)

What if that house was my ex-lover's new lover's house and I tripped and fell through the window because he was beating me senseless in the street and some stuff happened to fall into my pockets? Then I have accidental burgled someone's house in a defensive fit of passion.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381326)

but there is a difference between what I described and carefully planning the burglary in advance.

Not really. The idea the parent was making is that you can use accidents, or losing control of yourself, or acting on instinct as part of your defense.

You can't say "it felt natural" to burgle. If thats your defense, you won't last long.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (1)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380578)

burglary is always premeditated. There's no way to accidentally burgle someone's house, or do it in a fit of passion, or in self-defense.

NO way?

"hey, look at that house... they left their back door open... hey look, a purse sitting on the table... hey look, various loose electronics."

there are different laws dealing with crimes of "opportunity" that would apply to my example... i'm not sure why you think "accidentally" could apply, or where you got the idea that accidents imply a lack of premeditation.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (1)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380686)

Up to no good Teen #1: "Hey! We're near John's house. He is gone for the weekend. Let's steal his bike."

Up to no good Teen #2: "Yeah! Lets!"

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381552)

Commission of a crime while being a teenager, +1 year to the sentence. The sooner these up to no good teens stop being teens, the better!

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381538)

Yes, but what if the crime was pre-premeditated?

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (3, Insightful)

dcollins (135727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380332)

"The 'high tech' map doesn't make the crime worse. It just serves as circumstantial evidence that it was premeditated. The harsher sentence should be imposed because the crime was planned, not because high tech was used."

"Premeditated" is an adjective only used when talking about murder, and used to distinguish different types of said act (as opposed to a crime of inflamed passion, for example). It is not used when talking about other types of crime.

Seriously -- How do you perform burglary without planning it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premeditated

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (1)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380988)

So, we need to add premeditation as a qualifier to other crimes, or perhaps, more fitting would be the degree of premeditation.

Deciding to rob a house one happens to come across with little security is a bit different than spending some time casing a joint, researching the security system, and using mapping software to plan a getaway route.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32381290)

Seriously -- How do you perform burglary without planning it?

Walking down the street to the corner shop to buy beer and as I pass a house I can see that the front door is open so I rush in, see a laptop on the table, grab it and run out with it.

That was burglary. It was also totally a crime of opportunity with no premeditation at all.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381708)

Actually, it doesn't provide any evidence at all that it was premeditated. It merely provides evidence that going to that particular location was premeditated, not that the person intended to commit a crime while there.

  • A dirtbag uses Google Maps to find a club because there's a party there. While at the party, he notices that they have a bunch of expensive electronics and have no security system. He waits until everyone has gone home, breaks in, steals stuff, and leaves
  • A dirtbag is in town visiting for the week. He uses Google Maps to locate the home of an old friend, who turns out not to be home. He breaks into the house and steals stuff.
  • A dirtbag uses Google Maps to find an electronics store. While there, he notices that they have only one sales associate and that their back door has no security cameras near it. He calls a friend to distract the salesperson while he walks out the back door carrying a pile of Blu-Ray players.

Notice that none of these crimes were premeditated. They are all crimes of opportunity. Yet in every case, the criminal found the place using Google Maps. It's harder to come up with good excuses if we're talking about the address of a residence, but even that might be possible if we're talking about a residence where there's a party, an open house, a recital, etc., assuming that the crime was committed on the same day.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (1)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380716)

1. It's way too specific. Why internet-generated maps? What about instructions to make burglary tools or improvised weapons?

I seem to recall some concern raised somewhere about Google Streetview, the point being I suppose that it's a good way to scout the area, pick out an upscale house with poor security, etc. It may be an effort to deal with that without singling out Google.

2. If the use of "high tech" makes the punishment worse, is that not a condemnation of "high tech" itself? That would be a bad thing.

Well, I'm not saying it applies particularly well in this case, but in general "value of burglary = reward - (probably of being caught)*(punishment)" To deter crime you want 'value of burglary' to be zero or negative. Using high tech/clever solutions reduces the probability of being caught, so if you want to deter smart criminals without being blanketly draconian, you increase the severity of punishment when technology and planning are involved.

The Act itself, not HOW it's done? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32379976)

Shouldn't the punishment for the act itself be enough and that how they did it shouldn't matter?

If a thief bypasses a lock with some new fangled lock picking device, should they get more time than someone who bypassed a lock with lockpicks or a screwdriver?
If someone kills another person with a hand gun, should they get more time than if they killed the same person with a knife (all other circumstances being the same)?

That doesn't make any sense to me.
It's WHAT THEY DID that matters, now HOW they did it.

Re:The Act itself, not HOW it's done? (1)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380766)

i've never been arrested... how come when i buy guns i have to wait for background checks, but i can buy all the knives i want cash and carry?

That doesn't make any sense to me.

Re:The Act itself, not HOW it's done? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32381470)

Don't worry -- they're gonna close that loophole soon enough.

Waste of time. (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380050)

Don't these idiots have other things to do? Something about an oil spill?

Re:Waste of time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380140)

Well it's not the only thing they're doing!

Re:Waste of time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380182)

There was an oil spill in Louisiana?

looks like the sales of paper maps will go up (1)

youn (1516637) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380058)

time to invest in shares of a paper map maker I guess ;)

Re:looks like the sales of paper maps will go up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32381456)

No, The real high tech burglars use online maps on the cellphones with GPS.

Burglar?
There is an app for that :)

There should be a market now for an iPhone App that shows real time location of police cars
Profit!!!!

sounds like (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380192)

sounds like some old politicians finally got around to seeing the remake of the Italian job. When they saw the crews 'hacker' they wet themselves and decided Google maps was evil since it obviously shows real time traffic from web cams and allows your to manipulate stop lights.

Re:sounds like (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380258)

...seeing the remake of the Italian job.

That's enough to make anyone a little cranky.

Re:sounds like (1)

MagicM (85041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380420)

They remade The Italian Job? WTF? That's a classic, man! Is there nothing sacred in this world anymore? I'm so tired of good movies being remade to squeeze out a little extra cash without needing to make up an original plot.

Whatever. I wonder who they got to play Mark Wahlberg's part...

a-la-carte crime (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380200)

I can see a long list of what will add time to your prison time.
 
Use a:
phone: 10 points
gun: 30 points
Google Maps: 15 points
wire cutters: 10 points
etc.
 
Just what we need...

Re:a-la-carte crime (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381368)

Wait, what? Is this a sentencing guideline or a particularly disturbing crime game achievements system?

There's nothing new here (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381550)

I can see a long list of what will add time to your prison time.


Use a:
phone: 10 points
gun: 30 points

That is how the system works now.

It is the way it has always worked.

The old-time judge and jury may not have been keeping a scorecard.

But they were always free to distinguish between the amateur and the pro. To consider evidence of premeditation. The reality - or the potential - for a violent escalation of the crime.

Tech extends the criminal's reach. It makes his job easier. Criminal prosecution for wire fraud is as old as the telegraph.

And another fifteen years... (5, Funny)

Wiarumas (919682) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380214)

And another fifteen years tacked on if the criminal tweets about it.

Re:And another fifteen years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380720)

Yes. For the post-meditation.

Re:And another fifteen years... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381400)

No. Thats not sufficient enough. Bring back the death penalty.

Longer fine if car used for getaway, not horse (2, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380334)

We must not let ourselves be terrorized by these new masters of high technology! Further fines levied against kidnappers who make ransom demands by phone rather than letters cut and pasted together with words from magazines.

I have an idea (4, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380386)

Can we also give longer sentences to criminals who rip us off with exotic investment instruments instead of good old-fashioned grifts and cons?

just you wait (1)

rtjohn (672608) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380366)

if you think this is bad wait until they tack on another 15 years for wearing white after labor day while in the commision of a crime.

So Microsoft abets crime? Hm... (1)

droopus (33472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380392)

So that would indicate to me that Microsoft [microsoft.com] produces abetting [uslegal.com] technology. Shit, I can see in my own windows on a Bing bird's eye view w/Silverlight.

This, to me, is the same as guys who put up these. [linkbase.org] Nah, providing the tools is ok, just don't actually use them right?

Grand jury time!

Re:So Microsoft abets crime? Hm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32381146)

So that would indicate to me that you're a dumb bitch. Shit, I can see how stupid you are.

This, to me, is the same as the kinds of dumb asses who try to explain away their stupidity on the actions of others.

Grand jury time!

If only coming off like a dumb ass while trying to act like a smart ass was a capital crime.

Gary Coleman says... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380402)

Linux is for faggots.

Re:Gary Coleman says... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380518)

Gary Coleman just died.

Re:Gary Coleman says... (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380854)

"Gary Coleman just died."

What you talkin' about Willis???

Re:Gary Coleman says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380866)

really appropriate...
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/article/815669--gary-coleman-42-child-star-of-diff-rent-strokes?bn=1

What about the iPhone (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380438)

I say add 20 years for the iPhone and 18 for the Android phones. Those extra 2 years the iPhone user gets will help pay for the remainder of their ATT contract.

Hell we can make a grocery list:
Laptop: 20 years.
Smart phone: 15 years
PDA: 5 years on probation and $200 gift certificate to buy a smart phone.
iPad: iLIFE!

If you've ever looked at 4chan add 7 years for bad behavior.

I mean why stop at just one when we can tack on all kinds of useless, unconstitutional, soon to be struck down by the courts nonsense.

Re:What about the iPhone (1)

jmcvetta (153563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380842)

I mean why stop at just one when we can tack on all kinds of useless,

yes

unconstitutional,

quote possibly

soon to be struck down by the courts

alas, probably not.

nonsense

Here's A High-Tech Criminal In Louisiana: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380458)

BP (a.k.a. BRITISH Petroleum) [google.com] .

Yours In Ufa,
Kilgore Trout

High Tech? (1)

Manos_Of_Fate (1092793) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380464)

Since when did using Google maps qualify someone as "high-tech"?

Re:High Tech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380540)

Apparently you're unfamiliar with the caliber of the average Louisiana resident. They make Texans look smart and religiously tolerant.

And if you use a GPS device, they hang you. (eom) (2, Informative)

Punk CPA (1075871) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380472)

EOM means end of message. Don't read this.

No one ever got thrown out of office for this crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380510)

Why not add a year for using a mechanical contrivance that speeds locomotion as well?

How about another year for using a device made of fabric stitched together in a way that improves ability to carry more ill gotten loot?

One hell of a speeding ticket... (1)

jpiratefish (1690054) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380586)

Does this mean, if I use Google Maps on my iPhone to choose what way home to drive from work, with traffic view, and I get a speeding ticket, am I'm gonna get 10 years for going 55 in a 45?

Re:One hell of a speeding ticket... (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381356)

Not unless speeding is now considered an act of terrorism.

This FP forh gNAA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380698)

its readers 4nd [goat.cx]

Probably one of the few that is not against... (1)

Zen-Mind (699854) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380748)

Although the approach they took seems stupid, I think it somehow makes sense in a way that it might discourage some to try. Technology and science can be used in bad ways, most people know that; to us it's common sense, but to us so in civility (as in not robing/attacking people). Therefore I assume they make "dumb laws" for dumb people that could probably be dissuaded by such measures. What were they supposed to do? Ban the technology? Make every piece of tech go through some comity to see if can be used for wrongdoing? Assume people are wise and smart? To me technology is a privilege, not a right and abusing a privilege should be punished.

Re:Probably one of the few that is not against... (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#32380938)

We'd better start issue jail time to people for using the phonebook too, I hear it's got people's addresses and shit in there. Who knows what kind of criminal acts they might be able to accomplish with that kind of information that would otherwise be impossible.

Also, I heard the other day that you can use a camera to take pictures of things and pictures are a more accurate representation of something than your memory - that's just asking for someone to use them to commit a crime.

Re:Probably one of the few that is not against... (1)

Zen-Mind (699854) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381094)

If used to commit a crime, why not?

People seem to find unbelievable to punish someone based on how he committed a crime, but this has been around for ages. Doesn't the justice system have different punishment for aggressions committed with bare hands, a knife or a gun...

Re:Probably one of the few that is not against... (1)

Manos_Of_Fate (1092793) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381288)

In your example, the punishment is worse because using a weapon makes the crime worse. Which would you rather be assaulted by, a guy with a knife or a guy with no weapon? Now ask yourself, which would you rather be burglarized by, the guy with a paper map, or the one who used Google maps? Can you honestly say it would make any difference to you? If not, why should it make a difference in the sentencing?

Re:Probably one of the few that is not against... (1)

Zen-Mind (699854) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381658)

The assault was a bad example because is probably hurt more with a weapon, but how about robbery? Why is there an "armed robbery" or even "aggravated robbery"?

I just feel something should be done otherwise criminal life just keep getting better and better without much to counterbalance.

Re:Probably one of the few that is not against... (1)

jmcvetta (153563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381128)

Oh please, google map is not some privilege of citizenship. Anyone in the world is welcome -- in fact, they are eagerly invited -- by Google to use the service. Google makes this public service freely available to everyone in hopes they can make money selling advertising. If a burglar eats at McDonald's shortly before committing his crime, has he abused his "privilege" of using fast food technology? Where does it stop?

Very few, if any, criminals will be dissuaded by this law. The additional year of punishment must be discounted by the quite low probability of being caught -- and balanced against the utility of good information (provided by sources like Google map) in avoiding detection & capture. The primary effects of this measure are to a) cast the Law as a whole into even greater disrepute among knowledgeable people, owing to the arbitrariness and injustice of the statute; and b) gain some idiot politician a little additional support among his idiot constituents.

Re:Probably one of the few that is not against... (1)

Zen-Mind (699854) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381508)

I actually never said anything about citizenship, I simply meant that being born and raised in an advanced society is a privilege that should not be abused.

As for the risk factor (additional year of punishment vs low probability of being caught + ...), I have to agree that there is so little chance of getting cough in the first place, it might not change a thing. However, doing nothing to discourage the use use of a tool while that tool can provide an advantage would tip the balance the other way (reduce the "risk" even more).

As I said in another reply, why isn't anyone questioning "armed robbery" over simple "robbery"?

Re:Probably one of the few that is not against... (1)

jmcvetta (153563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32381702)

why isn't anyone questioning "armed robbery" over simple "robbery"?

Interesting question. I'm not sure I see any good reason that armed robbery is worse than simple robbery. Someone might argue that an armed robber is more likely to injure his victim than an un-armed robber -- but in the absence of actual data indicating that, I have my doubts. A man with a gun can rob me just by brandishing his weapon -- whereas an unarmed man who wants to rob me, will probably have to kick my ass in a fistfight. Much more likely for me to get injured by the latter than the former.

Sentenced to oil and feathers in Louisiana! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32380800)

Sentenced to oil and feathers in Louisiana!

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32381416)

Lets do away with imprisoning them all together for a first offence,How about a good flogging so they think twice about the crime.second time they are caught same punishment.Third time hang them they are too damn stupid to learn from their mistakes.End of the story

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?