mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com (System Administrator) (07/15/90)
I applaud the creation of the foundations and societies to ensure that first ammendment rights are extended to the world of telecommunication by computer. However, I am concerned at the new orgainizations rush to apparently support what might have been criminal intent in the two cases they are embracing. Attempts to break into computer systems, whether they are local bulletin boards, commercial computer systems or government computer systems should not be condoned. The fact that first ammendment rights may not have been accorded to those involved in such activities clouds the issue and leads the general population to think that the organizations supporting the accused in these two cases is a radical group, rather than one trying to improve the whole lot of those who are involved in computer communications. It is appalling that the "government" can seize computer equipment and software at the mere suspicion of criminal intent; just as it is appalling at the number of mistaken break-ins into homes of suspected drug dealers, but we should not over react to these two cases, just as we should not over react to the break-ins. Rather, we should concentrate on improving the legal system that authorizes such moves to be sure that adequate cause exists to seize property prior to its taking place. If it proves out in court that the two cases involved were indeed criminally conceived, then I support in retroaction the seizures that took place; in effect they stopped that criminal activity. If, however, the charges are proven wrong, then a closer look at the process that led up to those actions is required. I would have felt better if the early actions of these new organizations were legislatively involved rather than concentrating on these two specific criminal cases. [Standing by for flames, but hoping for intellegent discussion....] ______________________________________________________________________________ Mike Ungerman |Proline:mikeu@pro-magic Pro-Magic BBS: 407-366-0156 |uucp:crash!pnet01!pro-magic!mikeu 300/1200/2400/9600 Baud 24hrs |arpa:crash!pnet01!pro-magic!mikeu@nosc.mil Apple Tree of Central Florida, Inc |Internet:mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com Orlando, Florida|Voice:407-366-0060|Compuserve:71326,31 Prodigy: JSNP58A ______________________________________________________________________________ Mike Ungerman |Proline:mikeu@pro-magic Pro-Magic BBS: 407-366-0156 |uucp:crash!pnet01!pro-magic!mikeu 300/1200/2400/9600 Baud 24hrs |arpa:crash!pnet01!pro-magic!mikeu@nosc.mil Apple Tree of Central Florida, Inc |Internet:mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com Orlando, Florida|Voice:407-366-0060|Compuserve:71326,31 Prodigy: JSNP58A
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (07/16/90)
From: mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com (System Administrator) >If it proves out in court that the two cases involved were indeed criminally >conceived, then I support in retroaction the seizures that took place; in >effect they stopped that criminal activity. If, however, the charges are >proven wrong, then a closer look at the process that led up to those actions >is required. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the United States legal system and its constitution. You can't retroactively decide that the means were justified because, in the end, a conviction was obtained. In fact, quite the opposite. At the very least, by allowing law enforcement agencies to violate rights and procedures you greatly enhance the likelihood that any evidence obtained will not be admissible and the convictions impossible, even if justified. The basic reason why, besides the obvious dictums not to harrass honest citizens, that so much procedure is put into place over searches, evidence etc. goes like this: The govt has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in creating and running law enforcement agencies, detectives, courts, judges, forensic labs, etc etc. All funded to gather evidence in criminal matters. The individual has virtually nothing at his or her disposal to defend him or herself, comparatively. So the courts have decided that the least an individual citizen deserves is that these well-funded organizations be able to do is get it right, follow due process and rules of evidence etc. If they don't, then in general sympathies weigh heavily towards the individual and cases are often thrown out of court, etc. In the end all that is being demanded is that the policing agencies follow their own rules. Either the rules are sufficient for them to do their job, or they should ask the courts to amend the rules. Violating the rules is not an option, no matter how worthy the cause. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
lumsdon@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Lumsdon) (07/17/90)
In article <BZS.90Jul15154016@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: Barry Shein writes in disagreement with mikeu. >From: mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com (System Administrator) >>If it proves out in court that the two cases involved were indeed criminally >>conceived, then I support in retroaction the seizures that took place; in >>effect they stopped that criminal activity. If, however, the charges are >>proven wrong, then a closer look at the process that led up to those actions >>is required. Many years ago, The Founding Fathers wrote certain protections for citizens (protecting them from The State) into our constitution and amendments to our constitution. Citizens of the USA are protected from unreasonable search and seizure (or siezure). The law, law enforcement agencies, and the court system are struggling to incorporate new, electronic forms of access, new, electronic forms of property, and new, electronic forms of tresspassing & theft into old laws and precedents. I believe that this new Foundation chose 2 cases where it likely that law enforcement agencies overstepped the rights of citizens, and are working to define the rights of citizens, and defend the rights of citizens, with respect to new technology. I think that this new Foundation is working to strengthen our legal system. I don't think they give the appearance of supporting criminal activity. Our court systems works when opposing sides present their viewpoints energetically and in an adversarial manner, and judge and/or jury make decisions. Our legal system does not work when law enforcement or prosecution misleads the judicial branch, or when the judicial branch works hand in glove with the enforcement branch. I am willing to 'go easy' on alleged criminals in order to prevent the latter from happening. -------------------------- Esther Lumsdon -------------------------------- lumsdon@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil lumsdon@dtrc.dt.navy.mil lumsdon%dtrc.navy.mil@uunet.uu.net "Wherever you go, there you are" -Buckaroo Bonzai