Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!intelhf!ichips!iwarp.intel.com!gargoyle!learn From: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Amendments Message-ID: <1497@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> Date: 23 Apr 91 05:00:34 GMT References: <1492@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization Lines: 67 In article Scott Stanton writes: >In article <1492@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> William Vajk writes: >You are overlooking the simple fact that it is human beings who make >these laws, and that the laws are therefore subject to just as much >error as their interpretation. Certainly the elimination of errors is a >laudable, but unattainable goal. Given that laws are not perfect, I >would rather they were applied with an eye to the circumstances. It >is the spirit, not the letter, of the law that I want upheld. It is the letter which is prosecuted (in most instances) and we hope by the time we have reached the end, the spirit will have been used as a sieve. Nonetheless, Hayek's description is apt, even when the government is in error. It easily costs a small fortune to defend against almost any charges brought to bear. > You and I have both used the term "tool" as regards computers. >There are plenty of precedents before WW2 for tools that don't modify >materials. The abacus and the sliderule come to mind most readily. Actually, they have both been classed as "devices", both historically as well as now. And I note that in documents, the U. S. Government also tends to term a computer a "device." I expect our carelessness in nomenclature clouds some issues. > As I've written before, one of the mose widely used tools for committing > fraud is a wrench. I have yet to hear of the US Government seizing > a mechanic's toolchest as "implements of crime." >This is probably because the wrench would not provide any information >relevant to the prosecution of the case. Seizure of a mechanic's wrenches just isn't good enough press. Cars, money, unknown contents of safety deposit boxes, apartment buildings, and computers all seem to be good press. >If the wrench were used to kill someone, it probably would be seized. In the case of Dr. Ripco, one computer was the offender. They determined to take all computing equipment in any way connected. It was enough they were in the same part of the room, and connected to the same power strip, although not interconnected in any other way. Could that have been overzealous agents who made an "honest mistake" ???? No. They took along Sgt. Abigail Abrahams of the Illinois State Police as well as court authorized "experts" Jerry Dalton and John Hickey from AT&T's corporate security division. >In the case of fraud committed with the computer, there is certainly >reason for the law enforcement officers to suspect that the contents >of the computer might be useful in the prosecution of the case. What >we need to do is define what constitutes valid evidence in such cases. >Is a copy of the relevant data sufficient? If so, then taking the entire >computer would certainly constitute an over broad seizure. In the case of Craig Neidorf, the University of Mo. computers were examined, not seized. In the same series of cases, jolnet was seized as well as equipment from Len Rose. Given the ability of Law Enforcement to secure information from machines such as those at the Univ. of Mo. it should be equally as possible to gather information from other machines; the smaller the quicker. Overly broad searches are standard operating proceedure these days. More will be forthcoming on this issue over time. Bill Vajk