Computer underground Digest Sun Nov 3, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 77 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu) News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest CONTENTS, #8.77 (Sun, Nov 3, 1996) File 1--Class Action Notice in CCC BBS lawsuit File 2--Excerpts from the CCC BBS Lawsuit File 3--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ApPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 12:18:00 -0400 From: Pete Kennedy Subject: File 1--Class Action Notice in CCC BBS lawsuit Editors -- I would appreciate it if you could include the following notice in an upcoming edition of CUD. I believe this lawsuit is the first of its kind -- a class action brought by users of a 5,500-user BBS against the government officials who seized it in a pornography raid on June 16, 1995. The Judge (at our suggestion) has ordered that notice be distributed electronically, as there are some 500 plus non-subscribers whose mail was seized from the BBS Internet gateway. We have modelled this lawsuit after the Steve Jackson Games lawsuit which I participated in back in 1993, but expanded it to a class action on behalf of all users of the system. -------------------------------------------------------------- Peter D. Kennedy George Donaldson & Ford, L.L.P. pkennedy@gdf.com 114 West 7th Street, Suite 1000 (512) 495-1416 (voice) Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 499-0094 (fax) http://www.gdf.com -------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT TO: All persons who, on June 16, 1995, were users, subscribers, or customers of the Cincinnati Computer Connection electronic bulletin board service, and all persons whose private electronic communications were resident on the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS when it was seized by the Defendants, but not including the actual provider of that electronic bulletin board service or any law enforcement agencies or personnel investigating that electronic bulletin board service. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a lawsuit has been filed in this court that may affect your legal rights. This case has been certified by the Court as a class action. A class action is a lawsuit in which one or more persons can sue on behalf of other persons in the same or similar situation. If you are a person who falls within the group of persons described above, you are a member of the class that the named Plaintiffs represent. The Court has ruled that the named Plaintiffs, Steven Guest, Denise Kelley, Ben Kelley, Nelda Sturgill, Deborah Cummings, Randy Bowling and Richard Kramer, may bring this lawsuit on behalf of all those persons described in the group above. YOU ARE NOT BEING SUED. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU ATTEND COURT, HIRE A LAWYER, OR PAY ANY OF THE COSTS OF THIS LAWSUIT. IF YOU CHOOSE, HOWEVER, YOU MAY HIRE YOUR OWN LAWYER, AND, IF YOU DO SO, YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING YOUR LAWYER'S FEES. AS A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING MATTERS: 1. On December 5, 1995, the individual Plaintiffs, Steven Guest, Denise Kelley, Ben Kelly, Nelda Sturgill, Deborah Cummings, Randy Bowling and Richard Kramer, sought certification of this lawsuit as a class action, against the following Defendants: Simon L. Leis, Jr., Hamilton County (Ohio) Sheriff's Department, Hamilton County (Ohio) Regional Electronics Computer Intelligence Task Force, Dale Menkhaus, David Ausdenmoore, and James Nerlinger. 2. The named Plaintiffs have brought this action not only on their own behalf, but on behalf of all the following group of persons ("the Class"): All persons who, on June 16, 1995, were users, subscribers, or customers of the Cincinnati Computer Connection electronic bulletin board service, and all persons whose private electronic communications were resident on the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS when it was seized by the Defendants, but not including the actual provider of that electronic bulletin board service or any law enforcement agencies or personnel investigating that electronic bulletin board service. 3. The named Plaintiffs generally allege that the Defendants' seizure, on June 16, 1995, of the Cincinnati Computer Connection electronic bulletin board system violated the civil rights of the subscribers and users of that system. This lawsuit has been filed, alleging that the Defendants' seizure and retention of the contents of the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, the First Amendment Privacy Protection Act of 1980, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and Ohio law. 4. The Defendants have denied the Plaintiffs' allegations. YOU ARE ADVISED THAT IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, and that if you do not wish to be considered a member of this class and represented by the above-named Plaintiffs, you may be excluded from this lawsuit by notifying the Court in this cause in writing of that wish, within 60 days of the date of this Notice. If you wish exclusion, you should send written correspondence notifying the Court of your wish to be excluded from the lawsuit to: Kenneth J. Murphy Office of the District Clerk United States District Court Southern District of Ohio 100 E. Fifth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 583-4210 Re: Guest, et al., v. Leis, et al., No. C-1-95-673; U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division If you are excluded from the class, you will not receive payment from any settlement or judgment entered in this lawsuit. You will not be bound by the terms of any settlement or judgment entered in this lawsuit, and you will be free to pursue any legal rights you may have on your own behalf. YOU ARE FURTHER ADVISED THAT IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS and you do not elect to be excluded from the class, under Ohio and federal law: 1. You will be bound by the terms of the judgment in this cause, whether such judgment is favorable or not. 2. You may be subjected to a cross complaint or some other affirmative action by the Defendants. 3. Although this action is pending, the Defendants are not prevented in any way from exercising all remedies available to them by contract or law. 4. The named Plaintiffs and the Class in this lawsuit are represented by: Scott T. Greenwood Greenwood & Associates 2301 Carew Tower 441 Vine Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 684-0101 (phone) (513) 684-0077 (fax) stgrnwd@iac.net (internet) Peter D. Kennedy George, Donaldson & Ford, L.L.P. 114 W. 7th Street, Suite 1000 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 495-1400 (phone) (512) 499-0094 (fax) pkennedy@gdf.com (internet) 5. You may contact the attorneys for the Plaintiffs listed above for further information concerning this action. 6. Be aware that the Court, by initially certifying this lawsuit as a class action, has not expressed any option as to the merits of this lawsuit. SIGNED this 10th day of September, 1996. _____________/S/____________________ JACK SHERMAN JR., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 12:18:00 -0400 From: Pete Kennedy Subject: File 2--Excerpts from the CCC BBS Lawsuit ((MODTERATORS' NOTE: Following are some excerpts from the complaint by Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS Lawsuit against law enforcement officials. The full text can be found at: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/docs/cccsuit)) -1- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION STEVEN GUEST, 1513 Denny Drive:CIVIL ACTION NO. C-1-95-673 Amelia, Ohio 45102 Judge Weber and Magistrate Judge Sherman DENISE B. KELLEY, 2814 Topview Place Cincinnati, Ohio 45251 and BEN S. KELLEY, 2814 Topview Place Cincinnati, Ohio 45251 and NELDA STURGILL, 5629 Homer Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45212 and DEBORAH CUMMINGS, 912 Ravine Drive Villa Hills, Kentucky 41017 and RANDY BOWLING, P.O. Box 13425 Hamilton, Ohio 45013 and CLASS ACTION RICHARD E. KRAMER,:SECOND AMENDED 998 Highland Avenue:COMPLAINT Hamilton, Ohio 45013:(JURY DEMAND ENDORSED and HEREON) all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. SIMON L. LEIS, JR., Hamilton County Justice Center 1000 Sycamore Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 and Hamilton County Sheriff's Department, Hamilton County Justice Center 1000 Sycamore Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 and Hamilton County Regional ELECTRONIC Computer INTELLIGENCE Task Force, Hamilton County Justice Center 1000 Sycamore Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 and Dale MenkHaus, Hamilton County Justice Center 1000 Sycamore Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 and DAVID L. AUSDENMOORE, Hamilton County Justice Center 1000 Sycamore Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 and JAMES NERLINGER, Hamilton County Justice Center 1000 Sycamore Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Defendants. I. INTRODUCTION 1.The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and the thousands of subscribers to the Cincinnati Computer Connection electronic bulletin board system, in order to redress the violation of their civil rights by Hamilton County Sheriff Simon L. Leis, Jr. and the other Defendants. 2.On June 16, 1995, the Hamilton County Regional Electronic Computer Intelligence Task Force (the "Task Force") raided at least five electronic bulletin board systems in the Cincinnati area, in a search for allegedly obscene materials. 3.During these raids, the Task Force seized the entire computer network comprising the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS, a computer bulletin board service with thousands of subscribers in Southern Ohio, Northern Kentucky, and beyond. Robert Emerson owns and operates the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS. The target of the raid was some 45 computer image files allegedly stored on the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS. According to the search warrant, the Task Force already had obtained copies of these image files from the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS. 4.In pursuit of these 45 image files, the Sheriff and Task Force raided and seized the entire bulletin board system. In the process, Sheriff Leis and his Task Force seized the private electronic mail and communications of thousands of entirely innocent subscribers, they shut down an active, thriving, electronic community of average citizens, and they denied thousands of people access to their friends, neighbors, and business associates. 5.The named Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and the thousands of subscribers to the Cincinnati Computer Connection and all those whose electronic communications were seized and intercepted during the raid, in order to remedy this violation of their civil rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Ohio Constitution, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. ' 2510 et seq. and ' 2701 et seq.), the First Amendment Privacy Protection Act of 1980 ( 42 U.S.C. ' 2000aa et seq.), and Ohio common law. II. JURISDICTION 6.This action seeks to enforce rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States and is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '' 1983 and 1985. Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. '' 1331 and 1343(3). The substantive federal claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ''1983 and 1985, 18 U.S.C. ''2707 and 2520, and 42 U.S.C. ' 2000aa-7. Declaratory relief is sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ''2201-2202. Authority to hear the pendent state claims is conferred by the Court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. '1367. This action does not raise novel or complex issues of state law, and the state law claims do not predominate over the federal law claims. 7.Venue is proper in the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, under 28 U.S.C. '1391(b), because at least one Defendant resides in this District and Division and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within this District and Division. III. PARTIES A.PLAINTIFFS 8.PLAINTIFF STEVEN GUEST is a thirty-two year old resident of Clermont County, Ohio. Mr. Guest is a computer consultant who uses the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS to send and receive electronic communications, to conduct his consulting business, to exchange files with his business partners, to access shareware, and otherwise to engage in expressive and associational activity. 9.PLAINTIFF DENISE KELLEY is a sixty-nine year old resident of Hamilton County, Ohio. She is employed by the Hamilton County Department of Human Services as an investigation coordinator and serves as the chief union steward for AFSCME Local 1768. Mrs. Kelley, mother of three and grandmother of seven, uses the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS for political discussion, to download shareware files, to play some games, to send and receive electronic mail communications across the Internet, to "chat" with users, to write stories in an on-line conference, and otherwise to engage in expressive and associational activity. 10.PLAINTIFF BEN S. KELLEY is Mrs. Kelley's husband, a seventy-six year old retired machinist who resides in Hamilton County, Ohio. Mr. Kelley, father of three and grandfather of seven, uses the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS to send and receive electronic communications, play games, to read the discussions going on in various conferences, and otherwise to engage in expressive and associational activity. 11.PLAINTIFF NELDA STURGILL is a registered nurse in a local hospital who resides in Hamilton County. In her thirties, Ms. Sturgill uses the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS to send and receive electronic communications across the Internet, to access shareware programs, to keep abreast of information through the use of the Usenet newsgroups, and otherwise to engage in expressive and associational activity. Ms. Sturgill particularly participates in the health-related conferences newsgroups, and has exchanged recipes and ideas with people from Australia, England and the United States. 12.PLAINTIFF DEBORAH CUMMINGS is a resident of Kenton County, Kentucky. Ms. Cummings uses the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS to send and receive electronic communications, to conduct her business, and to otherwise engage in expressive and associational activity. 13.PLAINTIFF RANDY BOWLING is a resident of Butler County, Ohio. Mr. Bowling suffers from a head injury that makes speaking very difficult. Mr. Bowling uses the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS to send and receive electronic communications, to supplement his limited ability to speak, and to discuss his head injury and therapy, and to engage in the majority of his expressive and associational activity. Mr. Bowling also uses the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS to facilitate his current study of computer systems. 14.PLAINTIFF RICHARD KRAMER is a retired insurance agent who resides in Butler County, Ohio. Mr. Kramer, who uses a wheelchair, uses the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS to send and receive electronic communications, to supplement his sometimes restricted access to more traditional fora for expressive and associational activity, to access file-management and utility shareware, and to study computer systems. 15.Each named Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States. 16.At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs were users of the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS. Class Action Allegations 17.The named Plaintiffs are proper representatives of a class within the meaning of Rule 23(a) and 23(b) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 18.The members of the class are so numerous that the joinder of all of them is impractical. Upon information and belief, the class consists of at least several thousand persons. The exact size of the class is unknown because the Defendants have seized and failed to return the computer and/or documentary records needed to determine the exact number and identity of the class members. 19.The members of the class should be readily identifiable from records seized by the Defendants. 20.There are questions of law and fact common to the class; their class claims predominate over any individual claims. Each class member shares the same federal and state constitutional protections of their right to speak, publish and associate. Each class member shares the same federal and state constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Each class member shares the same federal and state rights protecting the privacy of their electronic communications and subscriber records. 21.The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. All class members suffered a similar violation of their common rights when the Defendants seized and shut down the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS, and, upon information and belief, reviewed their private electronic communications and subscriber records. As alleged in greater detail above, the Plaintiffs' uses of the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS typify the uses of the class members generally. 22.The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. As of June 16, 1995, each named Plaintiff was a user of the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS. The named Plaintiffs are represented by counsel experienced in litigating federal and state civil rights lawsuits, including class actions, and who are familiar with the technology involved and experienced in litigating computer communications cases. The representative Plaintiffs know of no conflict of interest among class mem.bers. Plaintiffs will vigorously prosecute this action. 23.The class consists of all persons who, on June 16, 1995, were users, subscribers, or customers of the Cincinnati Computer Connection electronic bulletin board service, and all persons whose private electronic communications were resident on the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS when it was seized by the Defendants, but not including the actual provider of that electronic bulletin board service. 24.Plaintiffs do not propose class notice at this time, but belief that class certification and notice can and should be achieved promptly. B.DEFENDANTS 25.Defendant Simon L. Leis, Jr., is and was at all relevant times the Sheriff of Hamilton County, Ohio. For the constitutional and common law claims, Defendant Leis is sued in his official capacity with respect to the declaratory and injunctive relief sought herein, and in his individual capacity with respect to the request for damages and attorney's fees in this action. For the federal statutory claims, Defendant Leis is sued in his individual and official capacities. 26.Defendant Hamilton County Sheriff's Department is a sheriff's department organized under the laws of the State of Ohio. 27.Defendant Hamilton County Regional ELECTRONIC Computer INTELLIGENCE Task Force was at all relevant times a division of the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department purportedly organized to develop and use special skills and expertise in investigating suspected computer crimes. 28.Defendant Dale MenkHaus is and was at all relevant times the Commander and /or a member of the Regional Electronic Computer Intelligence Task Force. For the constitutional and common law claims, Defendant Menkhaus is sued in his official capacity with respect to the declaratory and injunctive relief sought herein, and in his individual capacity with respect to the request for damages and attorney's fees in this action. For the federal statutory claims, Defendant Menkhaus is sued in his individual and official capacities. 29.Defendant DAVID L. AUSDENMOORE is and was at all times referred to herein a member of the Regional Electronic Computer Intelligence Task Force. For the constitutional and common law claims, Defendant Ausdenmoore is sued in his official capacity with respect to the declaratory and injunctive relief sought herein, and in his individual capacity with respect to the request for damages and attorney's fees in this action. For the federal statutory claims, Defendant Ausdenmoore is sued in his individual and official capacities. 30.Defendant JAMES NERLINGER is and was at all times referred to herein a member of the Regional Electronic Computer Intelligence Task Force. For the constitutional and common law claims, Defendant Nerlinger is sued in his official capacity with respect to the declaratory and injunctive relief sought herein, and in his individual capacity with respect to the request for damages and attorney's fees in this action. For the federal statutory claims, Defendant Nerlinger is sued in his individual and official capacities. 31.At all times relevant herein, each named individual Defendant was acting under color of state law. 32.At all times relevant herein, Defendants, and each of them, separately and in concert, acted under color of state law. At all times relevant herein, Defendants, and each of them, separately and in concert, engaged in the illegal and unconstitutional conduct described herein and deprived Plaintiffs of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to Plaintiffs by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of the State of Ohio. IV. FACTS A.The Cincinnati Computer Connection Community. 33.On June 16, 1995, and for many years before that, the Cincinnati Computer Connection ("CCC") was a thriving community. The bulletin board system ("BBS") provided a forum for its users to speak and publish privately and publicly, to debate, to associate and recreate, and to exchange ideas and information. On June 16, 1995, the faces of the CCC subscribers were the faces of Greater Cincinnati -- working men and women, retirees, mothers, fathers, grandparents and children, Republicans, Democrats and Independents. The CCC community even included subscribers from around the United States and overseas. 34.Many of the subscribers to the CCC BBS have made personal acquaintances through the bulletin board community. Subscribers have held dinner get-togethers to meet personally, to socialize, and to discuss matters of interest to the BBS community. These meetings were organized by the subscribers by using the BBS itself. 35.On June 16, 1995, the CCC community included thousands of users and subscribers. Because the CCC computers and subscriber records remain in the hands of the Defendants, the exact number remains unknown. 36.At all relevant times, the CCC BBS affected and operated in the stream of interstate commerce. B.The Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS. 37.Each user or subscriber to the CCC BBS selected a private password, which secured the privacy of his or her account. The subscriber contacted the CCC BBS by using his or her personal computer, a modem, and a phone line. The user's computer would call the CCC BBS over a phone line, and after "logging in" by using the confidential password, the user was given access to the CCC BBS. Once connected to the BBS, the subscriber could do a whole range of things, including: i.Private electronic mail or "e-mail." 38.The CCC BBS provided subscribers the ability to send and receive private electronic communications, typically known as e-mail. A subscriber could compose private electronic messages either before "logging on" to the CCC, or while connected to the bulletin board system. Just like First Class mail, e-mail messages are addressed to a specific person, and are confidential. 39.E-mail was sent and received in two manners on the CCC BBS. E-mail exchanged between persons who had accounts on the CCC BBS was sent within the many conference areas on the BBS (see below). If the sender designated a conference message "confidential," the message remained inaccessible to any user except the designated recipient. The CCC BBS also provided an "Internet mail gateway." This feature allowed subscribers to send and receive confidential electronic communications from persons who did not have an account on the CCC BBS, but who had an Internet address. This Internet mail gateway allowed the users of the CCC BBS to send confidential electronic communications to, and receive them from, tens of millions of persons around the world. 40.This e-mail was not readily accessible to the public. The users of the CCC BBS, and those who sent electronic mail to the CCC BBS from the Internet, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in those communications. 41.When Defendant Leis and the other Defendants seized the CCC BBS, they seized all of the private electronic communications contained on the system, and cut off the subscribers' ability to send and receive e-mail. ii.Conference areas. 42.In addition to e-mail, the Cincinnati Computer Connection provided its subscribers access to thousands of "conferences." These conferences, like the sections of a library, are the main organizational units of the BBS. Each conference area had a name and a topic. For example, the CCC BBS had conference areas dedicated to writers, game players, and computer professionals. When a subscriber accessed the bulletin board system, he or she could "enter" an conference area. Once in a conference area, the subscriber could read all the public messages posted by other visitors to the conference, post public reply messages or begin new public discussions on new topics. The user could also send and receive private electronic communications within the conference. The CCC BBS provided literally thousands of conferences for its users, including: a.Local conference areas. 43.These conferences were unique to the CCC BBS, and included discussions and debates on topics ranging from local and national politics to sports and computers. These conferences were the heart of the local CCC community interaction. b.Private local conference areas. 44.The CCC BBS also provided conference areas that were restricted to particular users. These restricted conference areas were used by subscribers for confidential business purposes, including exchanging confidential information. c.BBS network conferences. 45.On June 16, 1995, the CCC BBS also provided to its users "feeds" from networks of similar dial-up bulletin board systems. These networks provided dozens of additional conference areas, and allowed the users of the CCC BBS to engage in discussion on topics with users of a whole network of BBSs beyond the subscribers to the CCC BBS. d.Usenet newsgroups. 46.The CCC BBS also received, via satellite feed, thousands of additional conferences from an Internet network known as Usenet. Usenet is essentially a bulletin board system for the Internet. Usenet is organized into thousands of separate "newsgroups" where people from all around the world can engage in discussion and debate on a huge variety of topics, ranging from computer science, philosophy, and law to pop music. The CCC subscribers could read and participate in these newsgroups. 47.When Defendant Leis and the other Defendants seized the CCC BBS, they seized all of the contents of all of these thousands of conference areas, and denied the subscribers to the CCC any access to the conferences. iii.Live "chat." 48. The Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS also featured live chat "channels." Similar to CB radio channels, the "chat" function allowed subscribers to converse in "real time" with other subscribers who were logged into the BBS. One subscriber could invite another person to chat, and the two subscribers could exchange confidential messages by typing them in sequence to each other. 49.When Defendant Leis and the other Defendants seized the CCC BBS, they shut down any chat taking place on the board and seized any captured chat file sessions. iv.Games. 50.The game areas on the CCC were very popular. Subscribers could play a variety of on-line games against the computer or against other subscribers. Some "games" were more like interactive creative writing, with different users of the BBS taking on personas and interacting with each other in a fictional world. 51.The Defendants' seizure of the bulletin board system of course included seizure of all the games, and cut off the subscribers' access to the games. v.File transfer. 52.The CCC BBS offered its subscribers the ability to "upload" computer files from their home computer to the bulletin board system, and to "download" computer files from the bulletin board to their home computers. Computer files can consist of anything from computer programs and other software, to the text of written material (such as this Complaint), to picture files and sound files. The CCC BBS had an enormous library of computer files for its users to access and use. The Defendants seized this entire library of thousands of computer files when they seized the 45 allegedly obscene images they were after. vi.The restricted adult file area. 53.Among the thousands of conferences on the CCC, there was a single conference area dedicated to adult-oriented computer image files. Access to this area was extremely limited. In order to gain access to this conference, a subscriber was required to verify his age and identity in person to the CCC system operator, Mr. Emerson. After verifying the subscriber's age, Emerson would configure that user's account to give that subscriber access to the adult file area. Only after a subscriber's age and identity was verified, and the subscriber's account given access to the adult file area, would the existence of the adult file area even appear on the user's screen when logged in to the CCC. The "menu" of choices available to a subscriber who had not been verified and given access would not even show that an adult file area existed. 54.Even for those with access to the restricted adult file area, the adult image files could not be viewed "on-line." In order to view a file, a subscriber with access would have to log onto the BBS, enter the restricted adult area, designate a file for downloading, download that file to the user's home computer, log off the system, and then run a separate computer program on the home computer that interprets the image and displays it on the user's home computer screen. 55.The restricted adult file area comprised a very small percentage of the material on the CCC BBS -- no more than 3%, and upon information and belief far less than that. The number of users with access to this area was also very small -- no more than 3% of the subscribers, and upon information and belief far less than that. Many, if not most, of the CCC subscribers had no idea that an adult file area even existed. 56.Compared to the Cincinnati Computer Connection as a whole, the adult file area was like a tiny, locked, and largely unknown private room within a huge, bustling convention center. C.Defendants Obtain A Search Warrant And Go Trolling for Computer Porn. 57.On or about June 15, 1995, the Defendants applied to the Municipal Court of Clermont Count for a search warrant for the premises containing the CCC BBS computers. Municipal Court Judge James A. Shriver signed the search warrant at 11:30 p.m. that evening. Upon information and belief, Judge Shriver had never reviewed an application for the search or for the seizure of an electronic communication system such as the CCC BBS, and had never issued a search warrant for such a system. The search warrant itself listed 45 particular image files, by name and description, that were the target of the search. 58.The Defendants obtained an order sealing from public scrutiny the search warrant affidavit that allegedly justified their application for the search warrant. Plaintiffs have now obtained a copy of the single affidavit that was used to support the application for search warrant. 59.The warrant filed in support of the application for search warrant was signed by David L. Ausdenmoore. The affidavit was false and/or misleading in at least the following respects: a)The affidavit failed to inform Judge Shriver that the CCC BBS was a forum for speech, publication and associated protected by the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Ohio Constitution; b)The affidavit failed to inform Judge Shriver that the Defendants intended to shut down that protected forum, and seize all the publications on that forum; c)The affidavit failed to inform Judge Shriver that the CCC BBS contained thousands of private electronic communications to and from the subscribers of the CCC BBS protected from unauthorized interception, seizure and disclosure by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986; d)The affidavit failed to inform Judge Shriver that the Defendants intended to shut down this protected electronic communications system; e)The affidavit failed to inform Judge Shriver that the Defendants intended to seize, intercept and read these protected, private communications; f)The affidavit failed to inform Judge Shriver that the Defendants had no probable cause to believe that these private communications were relevant to the investigation of any criminal activity, let alone the criminal activity alleged in the Affidavit; g)The affidavit failed to inform Judge Shriver that the Defendants had no probable cause to believe that the public communications contained on the system of the Plaintiffs were related to any criminal activity, let alone the criminal activity alleged in the Affidavit; h)The affidavit failed to inform Judge Shriver that far less intrusive means of searching for the allegedly offending material were readily available to the Defendants, means that would not have involved the seizure of either the private electronic messages of the Plaintiffs or their publicly posted messages; i)The affidavit falsely stated and/or implied that the allegedly obscene material on the CCC BBS was "concealed in violation of law," when, according to the Affidavit itself, the Defendants had already obtained copies of the images by accessing the CCC BBS themselves; and j)The affidavit falsely stated that the images sought to be seized by the Defendants were downloaded from the CCC BBS "as a regular user of the BBS," falsely implying that all users of the BBS had access to these images, rather than a very small number of users. D.Defendants Shut Down the Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS and Indiscriminately Seize Everything On It. 60.On June 16, 1995, purportedly acting under the authority of the search warrant signed by Judge Shriver, the Defendants seized the entire CCC BBS. The Defendants made no effort to limit their seizure to materials or information related to the alleged offense under investigation; rather, they seized the entire system, shutting it down completely. If not for a significant personal financial commitment by Mr. Emerson after the raid, the CCC BBS would have been permanently shut down. 61.The Defendants made no effort to return to the Plaintiffs or any other user of the CCC BBS their private electronic communications, or to assure that such communications reach their intended recipients. Upon information and belief, the Defendants have already, or have every intention to, read the private electronic communications of the CCC BBS subscribers. 62.The Defendants made no effort to limit the scope of their seizure. Prior to the raid, the Defendants knew the exact file names of the computer image files they were searching for. In fact, the Defendants had already obtained those files prior to the raid. The Defendants consciously chose not to use means at their disposal that would have allowed for a limited search and seizure of evidence relevant to the alleged offense. The Defendants consciously refused to use narrower means of obtaining their investigative objectives that would have protected the privacy of the subscribers' communications and the integrity of their forum. 63.The Defendants knew, or should have known, that the CCC BBS was a forum for protected speech, publication and communication. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that the CCC BBS contained materials being published electronically that were protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Ohio Constitution, and the Privacy Protection Act. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that the BBS contained the private electronic communications of its users, and that such communications were not readily accessible to the public. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that the users of the CCC BBS had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their electronic communications. 64.Reasonable law enforcement officers in the position of the Defendants, with the information available to the Defendants, would have known that the CCC BBS was a forum for speech, publication and communication protected by the First Amendment and the Ohio Constitution, and that the electronic communications on the CCC BBS were protected by the Fourth Amendment, the Ohio Constitution and federal statutory law from search and seizure and interception unless the officers had probable cause to believe that those communications were relevant to the law enforcement inquiry. 65.The raid on the home of Bob Emerson, the seizure of the entire CCC BBS system, and the examination and review of the contents of that system, were conducted under the direction of Defendant Leis, who is the policymaker for the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department, and/or pursuant to a policy or custom authorized, permitted and tolerated by Defendants Leis, Hamilton County Sheriff's Department, and the Task Force to, among other things: a)indiscriminately seize and shut down entire electronic bulletin board systems without legal authority or probable cause; b)seize and intercept public and private electronic communications and other private information of persons without legal authorization or probable cause; c)deny innocent persons access to their public and private electronic communications, without legal authorization or probable cause; d)apply for and obtain search warrants purportedly authorizing the seizure of computers, without informing the issuing magistrate or judge that the computer system operates an electronic communication system, contains public and private communications unrelated to the investigation, and that seizure of the system will result in the seizure and interception of electronic communications and the complete shutting down of an electronic communication system; e)apply for and obtain search warrants purportedly authorizing the seizure of computers operating electronic communications systems, without informing the issuing magistrate or judge that the computers contain communications protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Ohio statutory and constitutional law; f)exceed the authorization of search warrants in the seizure and examination of seized BBSs; g)seize and examine BBSs and computer systems in order to search for evidence of suspected crimes without legal authorization or probable cause; h)conduct searches and seizures outside the territorial jurisdiction of Hamilton County without legal authority; i)seize and shut down BBSs in order to prevent further publication and distribution of materials presumptively protected by the federal and state constitutions, without any adversarial determination of the legality of such materials; and j)knowingly fail and refuse to conduct investigations into suspected computer crimes without intercepting, seizing, or denying access to, the private and public communications and private information of innocent citizens. 66.The Class Members' injuries and deprivation of constitutional, statutory and common law rights were proximately caused by Defendants Leis, Hamilton County Sheriff's Department, and the Task Force's failure to adequately train their officers in the proper manner of conducting investigations of alleged computer crime, so that such investigations would be made without the violation of innocent persons' rights, and such failure to train amounted to a deliberate indifference to the Class Members' constitutional, statutory and common law rights. ((The full text of the suit can be obtained at: law enforcement officials. The full text can be found at: ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 3--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996) Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS. The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line) Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (860)-585-9638. CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown) In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893 UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/CuD ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/ 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 for non-profit as long as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and they should be contacted for reprint permission. 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 computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #8.77 ************************************