------------------------------ From: pmccurdy@CUP.PORTAL.COM Subject: Some Thoughts on Government Actions Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 07:36:12 PST ******************************************************************** *** CuD #3.06: File 6 of 6: Some Thoughts on Gov't Actions *** ******************************************************************** In CuD 2.15, the moderators ask "What is the relationship between law enforcement and the media?" Later, they state "One of our goals is to expand their literacy." I have combined (and slightly modified) these two ideas and arrived at the central theme of this article. THE NATURE OF THE BEAST We of the CU tend to see our cyberworld as an extension of the real world. Even the terminology in use among computer folks supports this. By merely sitting at your system and striking keys or manipulating your rodent, you can "enter" another system, "take" or "move" files and programs. Beyond the way we picture these things and the terminology we use, the courts have enacted laws (at all levels of government) that give a legal basis to the idea that the whole of a computer file is more than merely the sum of its individual electronic bits. Let's look at this idea from another angle. No one will dispute that an author should be able to copyright a book or that an inventor should be able to patent a widget. But what is a program (or text file) other than a new means of representing the author's printed word or the work of a clever inventor? So, aside from a few subtle issues (thoughtfully discoursed by the likes of Dark Adept, Offer Inbar, David Daniels, et al), we all agree on the need for laws that protect electronic property and privacy just as we have laws that protect personal property and privacy. THE ABUSES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES (LEAs) As a self-styled libertarian, it makes me sick to read about the continued abuses perpetrated by overzealous LEAs upon the members of the computing community. I am an optimist at heart and I find it hard to believe that the people who work in these LEAs are as vindictive, or at least as ignorant, as they at first glance appear. As ever more reports of their abuses mount, however, I find it hard to maintain a positive attitude. No reader of this journal needs to be reminded of all the LEA abuses of the last few years. Two acts, however, stand out in my mind as worth recounting. The first involves the seizure of, among many other things of questionable use to an investigation, a laser printer at Steve Jackson Games. The reason given buy the US Secret Service (SS) for its confiscation was that it had RAM. One of two things must be true here. Either the agents serving the warrant were so ignorant of computer technology that they believed that printer RAM could be used in illegal activities (in which case they shouldn't have been working on this type of case), or the seizure of the printer was committed as a punitive act against the EMPLOYER of a SUSPECTED perpetrator of a criminal act. If the latter is the case, and I believe it is, then it is an utterly reprehensible (and possibly illegal) act. The second act that stands out in my mind is the use by the SS of a paid, volunteer informant in the E911 case. The details about the exact nature of how the SS used this informant are not yet clear. From what is currently known, however (see CuD 3.02), it appears that the SS's use of this miscreant borders very closely on entrapment. I won't even get myself started commenting on the kind of detestable SLIME that would *volunteer* to due this kind of work. AN EXAMINATION OF WHAT MOTIVATES LEA'S To say that LEAs have been overzealous in their investigations of computer crime is a gross understatement. It won't do us any good merely to point fingers at the first "bad guy" we see; identifying the culprit won't solve the problem. We need to look beyond the immediate problem; we need to look at the underlying causes of the problem if we are to discover what we can do to improve the situation. LEAs are run by Directors who sit in Washington fighting for funds with which to run their organizations. Inasmuch, they are heavily influenced by politicians on Capitol Hill who are, in turn, primarily influenced by public opinion. Now, on the subject of computer crime (among many others), the public is predominantly influenced by the media. Therein lies the problem. The media have seldom shied away from writing about a subject, even when the facts are slim or when their understanding of an issue is nil. This becomes painfully apparent when you read articles about computer crime, viruses, hackers, etc. Until last year, I worked in security, concentrating on computer security. I considered it a professional responsibility to read every article I could find on topics relating to computer security. With few exceptions, these articles merely rehashed material from previous articles, perpetuated misconceptions, and consistently fed the public hysteria that computer hackers were hell-bent on destroying Western Civilization. I am reminded of a line from the movie Ghostbusters. After informing the group that it would be "bad" to cross the beams on their nuclear accelerators, Egon is asked to define "bad." "Imagine every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light" he explains, "and all life as we know it ceasing to exist." It is in just such a manner that the media portrays the issue of computer crime. So that is the scenario: A uninformed media has whipped an ignorant public into a frenzy. The public puts pressure on politicians (who are genetically incapable of accepting responsibility) who, in turn, pressure LEAs for results. LEAs, no more computer literate than the media or public, react by seeking immediate results. Civil rights are trodden upon. THE CRUX OF THE MATTER The underlying theme in the scenario that I have described is ignorance or a lack of even a minimal amount of computer literacy. The media, the public, and the LEAs are all ignorant of the technologies, as well as the associated social issues, relevant to this matter. These social issues in particular can only be truly appreciated and understood by those with a level of computer literacy that is plainly absent in most of the parties to this problem. I have now stretched the blame for this problem from the LEAs, to politicians, and on to the media and public. But the responsibility for the problem does not entirely end there. A good argument can be made that we in the computing community, too, must take a measure of responsibility. For too long we have been content to live in our own little piece of cyberspace, enjoying the blinding pace of advances in computing technologies, and ignoring the problems and issues that accompanied these technologies. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and watch. These issues are real, they affect us all, and we must all work to solve them. WHAT WE CAN DO So what can we, as individuals, do to help solve this problem? If you accept the premise that a lack of computer literacy (including the related social issues) is the underlying problem, then the answer is clear. It is incumbent upon us to educate the uneducated. In summing up his article in CUD 2.15, Dark Adept enjoined us to help out the EFF, fight for our rights using only legal means, not to hack security but to build public access systems, and to expose the truth every chance we get. I couldn't agree with him more. In his excellent book "The Cuckoo's Egg", Cliff Stoll makes the point that the mere *impression* of computer crime endangers the thin veil of trust upon which most networks are built. We cannot be content with merely maintaining current networks, we need to encourage creation of more and larger networks. We must lead exemplary electronic lives; we cannot tolerate criminal activity or any other activity that puts at risk our access to information networks. Beyond this, however, we must strive to educate all others involved with this issue: the media, the public, and the government. "But that's everyone!", you say? That's right. We have to do our best to raise everyone's level of computer literacy to the point where the average Joe (or Jane) on the street would experience the same level of disgust as the rest of us at acts such as the seizure of a laser printer. IN SUMMARY So there it is. We must continue to discuss these issues (hats off to CUD), keep our electronic delvings legal, and educate the world. The first two are easy. Educating the world will be the real challenge. To once again quote Dark Adept, "The only way to conclusively affect the existence of the underground is to affect society." ******************************************************************** ------------------------------ **END OF CuD #3.06** ********************************************************************