****************************************************************************
                  >C O M P U T E R   U N D E R G R O U N D<
                                >D I G E S T<
              ***  Volume 2, Issue #2.01 (Aug 31, 1990)   **
  ****************************************************************************
 
MODERATORS:   Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer  (TK0JUT2@NIU.bitnet)
ARCHIVISTS:   Bob Krause / Alex Smith
USENET readers can currently receive CuD as alt.society.cu-digest.
 
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views.  CuD material may be reprinted as long as the source is
cited.  It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be
reprinted, unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit
reasoned articles relating to the Computer Underground.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the
            views of the moderators. Contributors assume all responsibility
            for assuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright
            protections.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
CONTENTS:
File 1: Moderators' Corner
File 2: Proposed changees in Computer Abuse Act (S.2476)
File 3: CPSR Seeks FBI data on Bulletin Board Monitoring
File 4: Computers, Social Responsibility, and Political Action
File 5: Another experience with the SS
File 6: CU in the News
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
********************************************************************
***  CuD #2.01, File 1 of 6: Moderator's corner                  ***
********************************************************************
 
Date:      August 31, 1990
From:      Moderators
Subject:   Moderators' Corner
 
++++++++++
In this file:
  1) ERRATA (National Computer Security Conference)
  2) LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICY OF "FORFEITURE DEALS"
 
++++++++++++++++++
Errata: National Computer Security Conference
++++++++++++++++++
 
In CuD 2.00, a typo occured indicating that "Dorothy Denning will present
my paper on computer hackers." This *should have read* that Dorothy Denning
will present *her* paper on computer hackers. We regret the error, even
though it could have padded our vitas.
 
++++++++++++++++++++
Law Enforcement Forfeiture "Deals"
++++++++++++++++++++
 
 
The recent crackdowns by law enforcement on computer hackers raise serious
questions about Constitutional protections in investigations.  One of the
most troublesome practices is that of confiscating all computer and in some
cases non-computer equipment, including printers, telephone answering
machines, cassette tapes, books, personal papers, and other articles
totally unrelated to the alleged offense. Some of the victims of
confiscations have neither been indicted nor are under suspicion for
wrong-doing. Others alleged to have infringed on the law have lost material
unrelated to the offense of which they are suspected.
 
A troublesome practice seems to be emerging from the confiscations.  The
victims are offered a  "deal" in which they must choose between having
their equipment forfeited in exchange either for a guilty plea or the
dropping of charges and suffering only a material loss, or fighting the
charges and, even if innocent, running the risk of lengthy delays in the
return of the equipment. For those whose livelihood is invested in the lost
articles, this is not a pleasant choice.  The costs of fighting charges,
especially if one is innocent (and we still have a judicial system
supposedly based on presumptive innocence), can far exceed the value of the
equipment.  Even if all charges are dropped in exchange for forfeiture, the
result is punishment without trial.  Law enforcement officials may argue
that the choice is voluntary, but such a choice is coercive, and a coercive
choice is not a voluntary choice.
 
The irony of this new version of "Let's Make a Deal" is that those
entrusted to protect the Constitution seem to be hell-bent on subverting
it. The Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments guarantee protection of
property against unreasonable seizure, and due process protections,
including a trial.  It seems that the "forfeiture deals" are justice at its
worst, and the due process model of justice embodied by Constitution
principles has broken down. Agents seem to be trying cases in the media
with hyperbole, disinformation, and distortion, and are abusing their power
and status to punish by forfeiture what they cannot punish in court.  It's
a no-win situation for victims, but even worse, it erodes respect for law
and law enforcement by creating a new form of social control by police that
has historically been the domain of the courts. To my mind, the forfeiture
practice is an abuse of law and perhaps even borders on lawlessness.
 
Jim Thomas
 
********************************************************************
                           >> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
 

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253 12yrs+