Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!intelhf!ichips!inews!iwarp.intel.com!gargoyle!learn
From: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William  Vajk )
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Getting molested by the S.S.
Message-ID: <1333@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>
Date: 7 Mar 91 05:41:40 GMT
References: <1991Feb26.103206.806@ulkyvx.bitnet>
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization
Lines: 79

In article <103206.806@ulkyvx.bitnet> kpjone01@ulkyvx.bitnet (Kevin) writes:

>3.) Since all the documents were sealed, they don't have a clue as to what 
>    they can do anyways.

>One of the best was when I spoke with Dr. Ripco and he noted that it would 
>cost more to take legal action to get his stuff back than if he just went out
>and purchased everything brand new.

>I guess that's justice fer ya.

Not true. The Ripco affidavits (plural of two) were sealed for a time period,
but we (Glen Roberts and Bill Vajk) dug them up in the Federal Courthouse at
Chicago and provided Bruce and Sheldon Zenner each a copy. The warrants were 
issued by Magistrate Balog on 7 May 1990 (the day before he retired) and then 
sealed for 90 days.

It is important to note that the Ripco warrants weren't ordinary search
warrants, part of an investigation to uncover or prove crime, but were
seizure warrants claiming that the equipment is subject to forefeiture
to the United States by complaining of violations of 18 USC 1343, 1030, 
1029, 1962, & 371. The textual claims include "illegal trafficking in 
access codes, computer passwords, and wire fraud."

Further, there are some serious questions concerning the validity of the
warrant application, in particular the use by the US Secret Service of a
paid "Confidential Informant" who not only operated a sting BBS in Phoenix
Arizona but also himself, according to the affidavit, posted authorization
codes for alternative LD carriers provided by the carriers to the Secret
Service for that purpose. I find it interesting that the affidavit does not
mention whether or not any of those codes were ever used or not, and whether
or not subsequent investigations were thus triggered.

Once more there arises a question regarding the legality of posessing
information. It used to be that in this country posessing or transferring
information to another was legal for all information (aside from classified
military documents.) It was misuse (for fun & profit) which was illegal. Not
only that, but one actually had to be caught in the act. Today, the mere
accusation by law enforcement officials of having information with a
potential for misuse have become reasonable cause to trigger seizure of your
property. This reverses the intention of the framers of our Constitution
to require the Government to prove beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt
that a crime was committed before punishment takes place. Now the citizen
can be punished first, be required to prove that he shouldn't be punished
at all, and then perhaps his property will be restored (see the Steve Jackson
Games case for the condition of the restored property.)

Actually, on reviewing the text of the affidavits themselves, one is lead to
believe that they were originally prepared as an ordinary search warrant, and
that subsequent to their creation a decision was made to apply for seizure
instead.

We have seen claims by some folks they intend field constitutional challenges
on the electronic frontier by pursuing legal remedy. Given the amount of 
information easily available to them, the number of possible cases to undertake
challenging government activities, and their lack of obvious activity in such 
regards, one wonders whether or not Karl Denninger might have been right after 
all in his assessment. Indeed, I am within a fraction of an inch of eating 
crow (not my usual fare) in this regard.

I could be wrong, but I have seen nothing noteworthy of a progress report. I
have seen a lot of high profile marketing activity. But the only possible 
results from such efforts will be an eventual trickle-down reminiscent of 
Reaganistic promises; too little and too late.

I note that the claims were made by folks quite successful in business. These 
are folks who are well organized and are achievers......they know what they 
are doing, and they are doing just what it is they wish to do. There's no 
space for criticizing their activities, nor the lack of apparent results.
But there is some room for criticizing the fact that they seem to have
changed lanes without bothering to tell anyone else on the frontier to stop
looking for their help.

There's a lot of meat in the Ripco case. It most likely will be cheaper for
Bruce to buy new equipment than to challenge the seizure. But in the long
run, not presenting the legal challenge can cost us all even more. And it
might already have begun happening.

Bill Vajk