Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!sl4r7 From: sl4r7@cc.usu.edu Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Our unfair legal system. Message-ID: <1991Jun18.210956.48146@cc.usu.edu> Date: 18 Jun 91 21:09:56 MDT References: <1991Jun18.184312.22347@news.cs.indiana.edu> Organization: Utah State University Lines: 50 In article <1991Jun18.184312.22347@news.cs.indiana.edu>, Keenan Royle writes: > > Of the 5 cases that came out operation sundevil (that I know of) 1 was dropped > when it went to trial (costing $100K). The other 4 (Rose and Riggs and > company) ended in a guilty plea. > > From what I understand of the Rose case and the Bellsouth 911 case the > evidence (and how it was aquired) was pretty shakey. They all may have > had a good chance at being found not guilty (or having the cases droppped) > if they had had the money (and the will) to fight a protracted battle. > > My point is that it costs a lot of money to be found innocent and > free legal defence is often sub-standard. Does this seem fair? > Isn't this simular to the legal cases surrounding patents? > It seems that if you have the most money you win. And against > individual defendants in a criminal case the government always > has more money. I think it would be better to say that the side with the most knowledge won. The government --well, not the government, Bellsouth and the others-- knew _much_ more about how computers work. Because of this, their lawyers were more able to present a solid case. Most public defenders and most lawyers have little or no knowledge of computers. Because of this, they don't know what they can use to knock down the government's case. In most criminal cases the defense lawyers are well versed in the tactics they can use to cast doubt on the government's case. In computer cases, however, the lawyers are on new ground (most have never had a computer case). If the government has experts on their side and the defense has little experience with the case, it will be much easier for the government to prove their case because the defense simply won't know how to defend against computer crime charges. If the defense had the same kind of expertise, they would do a much better job. This can be seen in how fast the case against Neidorf fell apart when the EFF gave a little help. From what I've seen, public defenders are substandard because they are underpaid and overworked, but so are DA's and other prosecution attornys. The defense may have a slight advantage because they only need to show _reasonable doubt_ about the government's case. What we need to do is to make sure that the courts understand computers when they deal with computer cases. It would also help if the general public could understand computers better. At least then they might be able to spot sensationalist crap in the media about hackers. Oh well, something to think about while I climb down off the soapbox. Chau- TAT