jrc@ritcv.UUCP (James R Carbin) (10/21/83)
Just spoke with my mother in Schenectady, N.Y. and she told me that the local evening news had an item about the F.B.I. confiscating a computer from a S.U.N.Y. at Albany student. Seems that he is suspected of improper access to other computer systems. No formal charges have been announced. This report is second hand, and perhaps someone in the Albany area can fill in the details, but at least it is gratifying to know that at least there is one less (alleged) culprit and that at least some attention is being given this problem. I wonder what magnitude should be utilized (i.e. 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 etc.) to count the number of not yet identified snoopers. (How's that word for keeping me out of the controversy over the word "hacker?") as ever, j.r. {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!jrc
jj@rabbit.UUCP (10/21/83)
I've seen a couple of articles about snoopers/crashers/what-have-you being caught. It seems that the FBI's method is to confiscate the computers that these people are using. A question: What is the justification for confiscating someone's computer? It seems to me that, if a person was found not guilty, then the act of confiscation would be in fact an act of grand larceny, so that the FBI would be on thin ice. I am aware that there is precident for confiscating equipment used in the commission of a crime, but I do not see how equipment can be confiscated before conviction, as the crime is not, strictly speaking, a crime, until the person is convicted. Comments? -- O o From the pyrolagnic keyboard of ~ rabbit!jj -v-v- \^_^/ (pyrolagnic- from pyro<=>fire and lagnic<=>eating.)
ignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (Dave Ihnat, Chicago, IL) (10/22/83)
Well, well. Between the cries of approval from those who think the scum should be broken on the rack, and those of anguish from those who envision how bleak their life would be without *their* home computer if it wes taken, I haven't seen any reference to an issue which scares the piss out of me. (No reference so far--I'm sure there are other messages in the pipeline) The FBI broke into the homes at the ungodly hour of sunrise; reports say that in the case where they broke the window and pounded in, the agent actually said something to the effect of "hold it--FBI. That computer's mine!". DAMMIT---these are POLICE STATE tactics! I don't care if they have warrants or not; by the laws in a police state, the goons are carrying out their 'duties' in a legal manner when they haul the victim out of bed at two A.M. The excuse the FBI used was that they wanted the arrests to be carried out in the most impressive manner possible. Well, I DON'T LIKE IT! You bloody well can knock on the door and serve a warrant at a decent hour, like a real law enforcer, and not storm my house like a jack-booted trooper. I positively *hate* to write letters. But you'd damn well better believe that I'm writing letters about this one. Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz
moctem@scbhq.UUCP (10/26/83)
In response to why confiscate? ... My best guess is that it will be held as evidence, in the trial. Much like any other arrest where say for instance a gun or knife or any object was used in the perpetration of the alleged crime. It probably is a case of CYA .... Tom ...} sb1!scbhq!moctem