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

From: Jim Thomas / CuD
Subject: Hollywood Hacker, Part Deuce
Date: March 26, 1991

********************************************************************
***  CuD #3.10--File 2 of 5: The Hollywood Hacker, Part II       ***
********************************************************************

In CuD 3.09, we raised the case of Stuart Goldman, dubbed "The
Hollywood Hacker." Judging from media accounts and legal documents, we
identified a few disturbing questions about the case, including the
typical over-zealous law enforcement reaction and the possibility of a
set-up. We suggested that Goldman hardly appears to be a hacker, but
rather an investigative journalist who allegedly used somebody else's
access code to gather material on an expose of sleaze-tv shows. The
story received far more attention in the Los Angeles media than it did
in the Chicago Tribune or New York Times, but the issues involved will
not disappear.

The LA Times (Sept 4, 1990: A-1) argued that the case appears to be "a
saga befitting supermarket tabloid newspapers--a battle of an
influential television network versus a self-proclaimed muckraker."
According to numerous Los Angeles papers and magazines, Goldman's
credentials as a journalist and writer are well-established.  LA Media
indicate he worked as a freelance writer for "Current Affair" and
"Inside Addition," and was working for a freelance tv segment for
"Inside Edition" at the time of the arrest.  He reportedly had worked
as a music critic at the Los Angeles Times and had a column in the
L.A. Reader for two years.  In a radio talk show in Los Angeles,
Goldman indicated that he was working on a book called "Snitch," an
expose of tabloid journalism. The program's host raised the
possibility that the manuscript-in-progress might be seen by some as a
post-arrest attempt to add attempt to add credibility to his
investigatory claims, and Goldman alluded to the pre-arrest work done
on the book, adding that "it's hard to fabricate three hundred typed
pages which are circulating to publishers."

There is no evidence that Goldman was a hacker by any stretch of the
term. After a telephone conversation with Goldman, it appeared that
his computer skills were limited to text editing and some modeming.
Judging from all available public information, it appears that the Fox
Network hyped this case for motives yet to be determined. The original
federal arrest warrant stated that the charge was "Unauthorized access
and access in excess of authority into a federal interest computer
with intent to defraud" under 18 s. 1030(a)(4). The Federal charges
were dropped almost immediately. This, in our mind, suggests that
there was not a sufficient case against him to warrant federal
prosecution, because we have seen to many similar cases in which
federal charges have been pursued on creatively-defined grounds.

Although valuable equipment and resources were confiscated, it appears
that Goldman was not as unfortunate as some others have been.
Nonetheless, he lost his computer, disks on which his works in
progress were stored, and other material that would be difficult to
replace. Although the search warrant appeared to limit the removal of
property related only to "A Current Affair," it seems that, as in
other cases, the phrase "related only to" took on a rather broad
meaning.

Even those who oppose "hacking" should be concerned with this case.
We repeat that the issue is not guilt or innocence, or whether Goldman
(or any other suspect) is as sympathetic as a 17 year old college
student. As Bob Izenberg notes in his commentary on the busts of
photographers (File 1, above), the issue is the manner in which raids
occur, the broad definitions of what is seized, the creative use of
indictments, the possible inflation of charges and "losses," and the
tendency to hold on to equipment of suspects, and the possibility that
prosecutors are looking for test cases that increase the punitive
nature of the consequences for all involved. Justice is more than
catching crooks, is also is processessing defendants in a way that
does not subvert confidence in the justice system.

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