brian@sdcsvax.UUCP (Brian Kantor) (05/22/84)
xbug
The latest in the law vs. computers battle rolls on....
Oh great, now we have to stand over our systems with a bullwhip 24 hours
a day.... Sigh.
---------- forwarded ----------
From: CSTROM@Simtel20.ARPA
Subject: BBS Confiscation
To: INFO-MICRO@Brl-Aos.ARPA
Cc: INFO-CPM@Brl-Aos.ARPA, CSTROM@Simtel20.ARPA
I think the following message retrieved from Compuserve deserves
widespread circulation; no further explanation needed:
---
#: 91655 Sec. 0 - Communications
Sb: Important warning! 20-May-84 00:48:44
Fm: - tom tcimpidis 70250,323
To: all
On May 16 I was served with a search warrant and my system seized because of a
message that allegedly had been left, unknown to me, on one of the public
boards. This was done by the L.A.P.D. under direction of a complaint by Pacific
telephone. All Sysop's should be warned that under present law (or at least the
present interpetation) they are now responsible for ALL information that is
left or exchanged on their system and that ANY illegal or even questionable
activities, messages or even public outpourings are their direct legal
responsibility and that they will be held directly accountable regardless of
wether or not they knew of it, used it, and regardless of any other
circumstances! Yes, it is unjust. Yes, it is legally questionable. But it, for
the moment, seems to be enforcable and is being "actively pursued" as a felony.
Tom Tcimpidis - Sysop of The MOG-UR's HBBS (366-1238). Mailing: P.O. Box 5236,
Mission Hills, CA 91345.
I would appreciate it if this message was spread to as many systems as
possible so that the word may be spread to the greatest number of Sysops. 1984
may, indeed, be here...
----piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (05/22/84)
<...>
Of course it's absolutely ridiculous that a sysop could ever be held
responsible for messages EXCHANGED on his (his??) system! What's the
relation between US laws and common sense? None, judging to this case.
(Wasn't someone speaking about the relation between the Constitution
and reality...?).
--
Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam
...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!pietdgary@ecsvax.UUCP (05/23/84)
Seems to me we ought to reserve judgment on this until we've heard some
more details. So far I've heard one side of the story, and an incomplete
one at that.
I'm reminded that several years ago there was a trial of a woman prisoner for
killing a guard. She claimed the guard had attacked her. The curious thing
was how so many people lined up on both sides of the issue, and each side had
a completely different version of the 'facts' in the case.
So I'm inclined to wait until I have a bettter idea what really happened
before I reach a decision, purely for the self--protective motive of not
looking like a ninny down the pike.
D Gary Grady
Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706
(919) 684-4146
USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgaryperelgut@utcsrgv.UUCP (Stephen Perelgut) (05/23/84)
<If this bug was obscene, would we hear it?>
Does this decision mean that, if I send an obscene
postcard through the mail and a postal worker sees
it, then the entire U.S. Postal System can be seized.
(Or is it already seized - up!)
--
Stephen Perelgut
Computer Systems Research Group University of Toronto
Usenet: {linus, ihnp4, allegra, decvax, floyd}!utcsrgv!perelgut
CSNET: perelgut@Torontotac@teldata.UUCP () (05/24/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice)
In reference to the LAPD seizure of a BB system for a remark placed there
by another person, I wonder if they have seized the local subway system for
the graffiti left on the walls?
From the Soapbox of
Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac}
A Radical A Day Keeps The Government At Bay.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are those of everyone who
matters, but not necessarily anyone you know, and most certainly not
my employers!jpm@bnl.UUCP (John McNamee) (05/24/84)
{Eat it!}
As a user of the BBS that got taken down and a Sysop myself
let me offer a few comments....
Tom's board has 10 sections on it. One of the sections
is called "Underground" and at times there have been MCI,
Sprint, etc. codes posted there. I am not sure if Tom
deleted these or not. This section was also used for
software trading and recently hosted a big debate over
whether it is Ok to break into computer systems (it ended
in a draw). The point of all this is that there was a place
on Tom's BBS called "Underground" where illegal activities
were discussed and MCI/Sprint/etc. numbers were exchanged.
The underground was by no means the main feature of the
BBS and other sections had a larger message volume.
I run one BBS and co-sysop another. Messages related to
phreaking or piracy are deleted as soon as I see them. The
catch is that I might not see a message for over 24 hours
during which time the police might come on and see the
message.
The police need the ability to take down a BBS devoted to
phreaking. They should not take down a system like mine
because one or two messages happen to be left and I don't
zap them immediately. Tom's system lies in the middle. He
has an "underground" section, but that isn't the main
purpose of his BBS. I think the proper thing to do would
have been to ask him to remove the section.
--
John McNamee ..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl!jpm
jpm@Bnl.Arparh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (05/26/84)
How would any of you people feel if (somehow, it doesn't matter how it happened...) the superuser password for your system appeared on one of these BBoards (along with dial-in numbers)? We still have a rash of children with TRaSh-80's calling up our DEC-20 trying to break in (fortunately, it's a little tougher than most people could manage). This started about January when some of our phone numbers appeared on a TRaSh-80 BBoard that someone locally was running. If someone had managed to crack our system, they couldn't have done too much damage, just made a few people who were taking courses lose work, you know, little trivial things like that (extreme sarcasm mode). Yeah, yeah, I know, we should make our system breakin proof. Well, it practically is, but I think it's just a bit annoying that these little BBoards can be used to spread information that probably shouldn't be spread. Also, how would you like it if on one of them your home address and the type of lock on your front door (including techniques for breaking same) appeared? Someone should be held responsible for the BBoard.... -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh
ntt@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) (05/29/84)
Randwulf (mit-eddie!rh) writes:
... how would you like it if on
one of them your home address and the type of lock on your front
door (including techniques for breaking same) appeared? Someone
should be held responsible for the BBoard....
I say, someone should be held responsible for the ITEM ... the person who
posted it, of course. However, I suppose many of them allow anonymous
posting (I haven't used one myself). In that case it does seem fair to
make the BB administrator responsible since it was their decision to allow it.
Mark Bradermsc@qubix.UUCP (Mark Callow) (05/31/84)
From rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins)
> Someone should be held responsible for the BBoard....
Sure! Just like someone should be held responsible for all the information
that passes through the mail and over the phone lines every day :-). They
are equally good ways of spreading your dialup phone numbers or the type
of lock on your front door. In fact the information from the BBS *is*
distributed over the phone line.
Do *you* want to be responsible for everything that passes through your
system on usenet every day?
--
From the TARDIS of Mark Callow
msc@qubix.UUCP, decwrl!qubix!msc@Berkeley.ARPA
...{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!qubix!msc, ...{ittvax,amd70}!qubix!msc
"I'm a citizen of the Universe, and a gentleman to boot!"snafu@ihuxi.UUCP (Dave Wallis) (05/31/84)
I suspect that the reason the cbb was confiscated was not that
information such as phone credit card numbers were posted, but rather
that the sa knew that the questionable data was being posted and
blessed its existence. The fact that there was a newsgroup titled
"underground" indicates that the sa condoned the newsgroup and the
information contained in it.
I seriously doubt that a system would be confiscated in the event that
similar data appeared and the sa made every effort to
delete that type of posting and remove newsgroups created for that
purpose. Obviously the Post Office and US Mail service have a similar
problem, but have never been the subject of siezure. By allowing the
"underground" newsgroup to exist, the sa is probably guilty of
conspiracy to commit any crimes discussed in the newsgroup, just as
anyone who fails to report knowledge of a crime can be prosecuted for
conspiracy in the crime.
I don't really like the idea that an sa is responsible for anything
done with the computer, but he should be responsible enough to prevent
the computer from being used for questionable activities when the
intent is clear.
--
Dave Wallis
ihnp4!ihuxi!snafu
AT&T Technologies, Inc.
(312) 979-5894hart@cp1.UUCP (06/01/84)
No, but you just may spend some time behind bars.
--
======================================================================
signed: Rod Hart (wa3mez)
Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co.
Bell Atlantic Inc.
Silver Spring, Md.
gamma!cp1!hart - umcp-cs!cp1!hart - aplvax!cp1!hart
======================================================================hart@cp1.UUCP (06/02/84)
>"Do *you* want to be responsible for everything >that passes through your system on usenet every >day?" That statement is real dangerous! My superiors would pull the plug in a minute if they thought the majority of the usenet participants felt that way. I think it best to let UNC take care of their own problems. Remember, there are people reading this stuff and making assumptions about the value of usenet. -- ====================================================================== signed: Rod Hart (wa3mez) Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. Bell Atlantic Inc. Silver Spring, Md. gamma!cp1!hart - umcp-cs!cp1!hart - aplvax!cp1!hart ======================================================================
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (06/02/84)
Randwulf (mit-eddie!rh) writes:
... how would you like it if on
one of them your home address and the type of lock on your front
door (including techniques for breaking same) appeared? Someone
should be held responsible for the BBoard....
And what if your home address and type of lock on your lock on your
front door appeared on one of MIT's physical bulletin boards? Should
MIT be responsible? Foo! Perhaps the US government should be
responsible for allowing freedom of speech. Isn't the First Ammendment
just so annoying!
--
-Doug Alan
mit-eddie!nessus
Nessus@MIT-MC
"What does 'I' mean"?
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (06/03/84)
I do not have any knowledge of this situation other than what has been
posted to the net, but I would like to clear up a miconception which
has floated around through many postings.
It appears likely that the system was "confiscated" not as some form of
punishment by the LAPD but because the system and its records (and
having the entire system may be the only way the LAPD can be sure it
can reproduce the records) will ne required as evidence against the
person who left the "AT&T calling card number" on the system.
Alternatively, it may be needed as part of the investigation, so that
the police can determine who left the information.
This is quite different from "confiscating" as a form of punishment to
the system administrator, and has quite different legal implications.
If someone steals your tape recorder, and the police recover it, they
might keep the tape recorder as evidence for the trial, and only return
it after the trial. No-one suggests you've committed a crime. It's the
same principle.
(lrf, V nz n ynjlre)
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
dave at Toronto (CSnet)
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davekarn@mouton.UUCP (06/05/84)
Here's an interesting legal question related to the seizing of information as evidence: Suppose I encrypt my "evidence of wrongdoing" with a "secure" cryptosystem and commit the key to memory. The police seize my files and demand to have the key. Can I refuse to reveal it under the 5th amendment? Suppose I claim that I forgot it? Phil
mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (06/11/84)
Recently, Gary Oliver asked a question of whether the phone company was also a member of the conspiracy. Gary considered the BBS to be a store of information to be transmitted later to a third party. Gary also won- dered if there was only a difference of degree of storage and latency. Under the Model Penal Code, a conspirator is one who, with another person, agrees to engage in illegal conduct (whether it be unlawful means or an unlawful result). It would take a far stretch of the imagination to think that the phone company actually agreed to do an illegal act here.
go@orstcs.UUCP (06/23/84)
[ just in case ] If one considers the BBS to be a store of information to be transmitted later to a third party or parties, then isn't the Phone Company also a party to the conspiracy? I realize this stretches things a bit, but it would seem to me that the operator of the BBS was providing a service (free and uncontrolled, though it may be) that is similar to that offered by the Phone Company: a means to transmit information. The difference seems to be the degree of storage and latency. Gary Oliver