Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!world!eff!mnemonic
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: "Bad" backups
Message-ID: <1990Dec12.162746.1411@eff.org>
Date: 12 Dec 90 16:27:46 GMT
References: <1990Dec08.171628.10447@digibd.com> <1990Dec9.155404.4847@eff.org> <1990Dec11.164524.1860@digibd.com>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Lines: 94

In article <1990Dec11.164524.1860@digibd.com> merlyn@digibd.com (Brian
Westley :
>In article <1990Dec9.155404.4847@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike
Godwin) write:
>>Not only will law-enforcement officers regard your suggestions
>>(not yours in particular, but similar suggestions by others)
>    [ keep everything in RAM -ed]
>>as legitimizing no-knock searches, but this already has been the 
>>case. See, e.g., McEwan and Conly's articles on computer crime.
>
>I'd say you should be protesting THEM, then.

Well, actually, I am working to see that their recommendations
are not followed. But it undercuts my efforts every time some
clever person advocates boobytrapping his data to prevent searches.

>Do you also feel that people who only let cops into their homes with a
>search warrant "legitimize", say, helicopter searches?

*I* haven't said that anything legitimizes anything. Please
read more carefully.

>However, I refuse to accept that (1) "legitimizes" (2), OR keeping
>data in RAM "legitimizes" no-knock searches, OR private citizens
>shooting armed people breaking into their homes "legitimizes" raking
>homes with machine-gun fire before executing a no-knock search.

I refuse to accept it too. But you seem to have confused my
views with those of the law-enforcement computer-crime 'experts'
I have referred to in previous postings.

>If you think keeping data in RAM should be illegal, fine.

Huh? I have never said I thought this should be illegal.
But if you make it a habit to keep data in RAM in
order to thwart searches, and then proudly announce
your intention to do so, you are inviting no-knock searches.

>Right now it's legal.  If you are scared of people performing LEGAL
ACTS
>because the state might not like it, or I shouldn't be advocating
same,
>too bad.

Sigh. Comments like this make me despair. I never said any
such thing, and you should apologize for implying that I did.

It does not take great subtlety on your part to distinguish
between my statements about how the law operates and my
statements about how the law *should* operate, does it? You
consistently confuse the two sets of statements in your postings.

It is not legal to obstruct justice. See, e.g., 18 USC 1505. Otherwise
legal activity becomes illegal when you're doing it in order to 
thwart an investigation that is part of a "pending proceeding."

>I did not advocate that anyone break the law, just keep their
sensitive
>data "fragile".

If you think you are about to be searched, and you do this in order
to impede the search, you may be charged with obstructing justice.

>Am I prohibited from laying shag rugs since the cops may
>pick up a static charge and zap my computer as they walk over to seize
it?

No. Unless you thought you were about to be searched and did this
in order to impede the search.

>Do I have to have "watch your head" signs so the cops don't hurt
themselves
>as they trash^H^H^H^H^Hsearch my house?

No.

>Merlyn LeRoy (backed-up)
>Don't write anything down.
>Keep everything in RAM.
>Question Authority.
>Obfuscate C.

Learn the law before you start advising people about it.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 |"If the doors of perception were cleansed
mnemonic@eff.org            | every thing would appear to man as it is,
Electronic Frontier         | infinite."
Foundation                  |                 --Blake