Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!olivea!orc!inews!iwarp.intel.com!gargoyle!igloo!learn
From: learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill HMRP Vajk)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: "Bad" backups
Message-ID: <3014@igloo.scum.com>
Date: 11 Nov 90 20:47:05 GMT
References: <NgVes1w163w@dogface>
Organization: Igloo, Public access Unix, Northbrook IL
Lines: 91

In article <NgVes1w163w@dogface>, bei@dogface writes:

> I'd like to take an informal straw poll, based upon this hypothetical
> situation.  A computer that you have responsibility for had a file on it
> that contained fraudulently obtained information, perhaps credit card
> numbers of celebrities or public officials.  The file has been removed,
> but you know that it's on regular backups that were made of that computer,
> going as far back as six months.  These backups represent protection against
> disaster for you and the computer's users.  Do you save the backups, knowing
> that the illegal file is on them?  Or do you erase or destroy the backups,
> and possibly leave yourself in the lurch if they are needed?

This is apparently a subject in need of an open discussion and is probably
nore in keeping with the charter of this newsgroup then some of the other
nonsense we've been seeing of late.

If one reviews the strategies employed by government agencies of late in
cracking down on this evil called 'computer crime' one can easily develop
a well based paranoia against ever being in posession of anything which 
might be construed as being illegal. This, of course, might be the intention
of the enforcement agencies, but the entire business of surpression of
possibly normal activities because of overzealous government activities
is an important issue.

From several publically available reports on the subject of the jolnet
confiscation, originally the system administrator was co-operative in
submitting to authorities some information which came through his system.
At some later time, when the case file moved from the bottom of someone's 
to-do pile to the top, they claimed they could not locate the particulars, 
and did the sysadmin have another copy ? The answer was "yes" and he provided 
it, at which point the question apparently arose why did he retain a copy, 
what was his interest, and he himself became a subject of investigation, 
equipment confiscation, the whole 9 yards. In fact, representatives of one of 
the agencies appeared to interview him at his job one day. Not nice at all to 
someone who had been trying to help.

This story is now many months old. As yet, no charges have been brought
against the system administrator of jolnet. And there has been no word
on the disposition of his equipment.

One needs to recognize that in the outgrowth of the jolnet investigation 
there are only two cases which have apparently achieved at least the earliest 
stages of realistic resolution. Craig went to trial and the case was droped by 
the government in the first week. The Steve Jackson Games confiscation also
has been partially resolved, some of the equipment has been returned damaged. 
Both these people, who should have had nothing to fear from the law enforcement
agencies of this democracy, fell victims to the overzealous nature of the
employees, OUR employees, of the government. In Craig's case, his cost went into
6 figures. In the case of Steve Jackson Games, the best one can hope to 
determine is the cost to repair/replace equipment damaged while in the posession
of our servants, those who have sworn an oath to serve and protect us.

It is not likely that the real damages to SJG can be ascertained. What segment 
of the potential marketplace, fearing future intercession by a federal agency, 
will elect to forego purchasing any games associated with a firm whose 
business records potentially might bring goverment agents to their doorstep ?

The included article mentions saving old backups "to prevent disaster."

Unfortunately, the way things have been going, it has become a case of
the less one has, they safer they are.

In order to add a little historical relevance to this discussion, I trot out
my copy of _The Age of Atilla_, University of Michigan Press, ISBN 0-472-
06111-9.

"Among the Synthians, said he, men are accustomed to live at easy after a war,
each enjoying what he has, causing little or no trouble and not being troubled.
Among the Romans, however, men are easily destroyed in war, in the first
place because they put their hopes of safety in others, since on account of
their tyrants all men are not allowed to use arms. For those who do use them
the cowardice of their generals, who cannot support the conduct of war, is
more perilous. In peace, moreover, experiences are more grevious than the
evils or wars, on account of the very heavy taxes and the wrongs suffered 
at the hands of wicked men, since the laws are not imposed on all. If the
transgressor happens to be of the monied class, it is not likely that he
pays the penalty for his wrongdoing; if he is poor and ignorant of how to
handle the business, he endures the penalty according to the law - if he
does not depart life before his trial. For the course of these cases is long
protracted, and a great deal of money is is expended on them. Probably the 
most grevious suffering of all is to obtain the rights of law for pay. No
one will even grant a court to a wronged man unless he lays aside some money
for the judge and his attendants."

"My interlocutor wept and said that the laws were excellent and the 
constitution of the Romans fair, but the rulers were ruining it by not
taking the thought for it like their predecessors."

Bill Vajk

gargoyle!igloo!learn