Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: asuvax!gtephx!mothra!bakerj@ncar.ucar.edu (Jon Baker)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: PT's Moment of Fame
Message-ID: <10153@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 26 Jul 90 16:26:30 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: gte
Lines: 67
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 519, Message 1 of 13


In article <9995@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon)
writes:

> bla bla bla
> Now, for the moment, forget about the chilling effect on all of us
> die-hard telecom nerds. Consider instead the question: "Why is
> electronic communications treated in such an unwarranted manner by the
> government and law enforcement?"
> If photography turned me on, much of my conscious life would be spent
> around cameras and photographic equipment, as well as any

nudge, nudge, *wink* *wink*

> But those interested in
> computers and telephony are looked upon as sinister beings. Any
> digging for information is viewed as preparatory to an attack on the
> system. And heaven forbid that a telecompunerd would actually use the
> technology related to his interests to learn more more about it.
> For some reason, information on a computer disk is more sensitive,
> valuable, dangerous, and proprietary than the exact same information
> in a dusty book on a library shelf. Why is that? And now for a really
> scary question: What makes the information in Phrack more "criminal"
> than the information in the Digest? Wait until the Keystone Kops
> discovers THIS international ring of telephone hackers. Where are they
> going to store all the computers they seize that have Digest messages
> on them?

Don't be paranoid!  This is new ground for the SS (Secret Service,
that is), and at this time they don't where the legal boundaries are.
They don't know what they can and can't do.

In the LOD case, they have deliberately over-stepped the bounds of
legally acceptable behavior.  The courts will review the case, and the
actions of the SS, and decide what is and isn't legal for both the
accused and accuser.  In so doing, they will have established legal
precedent governing the rights of the accused, in the context of
electronic media, to guide the SS in all future investigations.  Thus,
if the legal boundaries are reasonably drawn, we should never again
see this sort of abuse, in this context.

I consider this to be the best course of action for the SS.  It is
best to draw the legal boundaries up front, rather than dance around
the line for the next 50 years, never sure of where it is.  Do you
expect them to behave 'approriately' from the very beginning?  What is
'appropriate'?  Everyone has their own opinion.  But, only one opinion
counts : the courts'.  In our judicial system, the SS can not just ask
any ol' judge what they're allowed to do.  They have to force a case
to the courts, in order to force a decision.

This may be the same reason for the 'LOD Defense Fund' - I doubt their
motives are altruistic.  Rather, it is in their best interest, as
well, to know the legal bounds that govern or affect their industry.
They want to see equal force applied in both directions on the case,
in the hope of having the legal lines drawn fairly and equitably.

However, my sympathies to all those caught up in the LOD affair.  They
didn't volunteer to be the litmus test, but had it thrust upon them.

> IMHO, the Neidorf case could very well be a major turning point in the
> future of the freedom of electronic communications. We should all be
> watching this one very closely.

IMHO?  Since when are your opinions humble?  Anyway, I'm sure it will
be a major precedent-setter.

JB