------------------------------

From:  Jim Thomas
Subject: "Hollywood Hacker" Info Wanted
Date: March 11, 1991

********************************************************************
***  CuD #3.08: File 3 of 6: "Hollywood Hacker" Info Wanted      ***
********************************************************************

About a year ago, if memory serves, a reporter dubbed the "Hollywood
Hacker" made the news when the Secret Service and Los Angeles police raided
his home with a television crew present.  I think his name was Stuart
Goldman.  My recollection of the facts is rather cloudy, but I have seen
little follow-up on this case, and it hasn't been mentioned among the
"abuses" of the raids of that period.

The gist of the case, I think, was roughly this: The "Hollywood Hacker" was
a freelance  investigative reporter for Fox who was accused of accessing
computers while investigating a story. He was raided in a media-event
atmosphere, the story made a few tabloids and the Fox News for a day or
two, and then was forgotten.

Has anybody been following this? Were there indictments? Did the case go to
trial? Will it go to trial? Is this still a federal case, or did they turn
it over to local agencies? The issues the case raises seem critically
important for the CU, and it seems surprising, if this broad summary is
reasonably correct, that there has not been more information of follow-up
on it.  For example, what are the implications for freedom of the press in
applying computer abuse laws (and in California, if prosecuted under state
law, some of the law is rather Draconian)?  If a reporter was working on
other stories and the info was confiscated, was this information ever
returned? If there were tv cameras present, why? The SS and most local
police are usually quite reticent about such things, so this kind of
action, if it occured, seems rather odd.

If anybody has any information (indictments, affidavits, news articles,
tapes of the original broadcasts or other documents), perhaps you could
send them over. Because the principle was a reporter, and because--if
memory serves--it was labelled hacking and wasn't--the implications may be
important.  Like the cases of Ripco, Steve Jackson, Craig Neidorf, and
others, there may be issues here that, if unaddressed, will create bad-law
and legitimize increasing (and unnecessary) controls of the government over
Constitutional protections for ALL computer hobbyists.

********************************************************************
                           >> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************