sl4r7@cc.usu.edu (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.184312.22347@news.cs.indiana.edu>, Keenan Royle <royle@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> 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
royle@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Keenan Royle) (06/19/91)
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. Just a thought.
max@cellar.UUCP (Maxwell Smart) (06/19/91)
royle@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Keenan Royle) writes: > 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? There's a legal joke: "No one is guilty until they're broke!" I think that's just about what you're trying to say? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I think; therefore, I can't be a Socialist." max@cellar.uucp - Public BBS and optional net access 215-336-9503 HST/V32bis ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (06/20/91)
In article <aBks41w164w@cellar.UUCP> max@cellar.UUCP (Maxwell Smart) writes: > >There's a legal joke: "No one is guilty until they're broke!" Tell it to Michael Milken. -- Mike Godwin, | To see a world in a grain of sand mnemonic@eff.org | And heaven in a wild flower (617) 864-1550 | Hold infinity in the palm of your hand EFF, Cambridge, MA | And eternity in an hour
wcs) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun18.210956.48146@cc.usu.edu> sl4r7@cc.usu.edu writes: } In article <1991Jun18.184312.22347@news.cs.indiana.edu>, Keenan Royle <royle@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> writes: } > 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. } 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. ..... } 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 I strongly disagree - any competent "hacker" knows far more about computers than most of the government people involved in these cases, not that all the accused computer people have been real hackers, and you can EDUCATE your own lawyer in the important issues IF you've got the time and money. (You generally CAN'T educate PDs much - if you don't have the money for a heavy-duty big nasty pro-active lawyer, you're in major trouble.) For example, if the government had known what they were doing, they wouldn't have used the "explaining how Kermit works" issue as either part of their case or excuse for seizure, unless they were deliberately, rabidly malicious. } From what I've seen, public defenders are substandard because they are } underpaid and overworked, but so are DA's and other prosecution attornys. Public defenders also have minimal incentive to win, because they're paid by the state to preserve the appearance of justice, unlike private lawyers who are paid to win. In particular, you need a lawyer who will take a LOT of initiative to figure out what the bad guys are up to and what approaches they're planning. PDs have guaranteed pay, and a real incentive to get guilty pleas and plea bargains. Also, they tend to be people who couldn't get better-paying lawyer jobs - except for a few idealists, they're generally NOT the cream of the crop. } 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 Definitely - it's also a major issue in intellectual-property cases such as software patents and copyrights, where the judge is being called on to decide technical issues he really doesn't understand, as well as criminal cases where the judge and jury have to decide the applicability of pre-computer laws in a computer environment. Unfortunately, in criminal cases, if the jury doesn't really understand the technical issues involved, it's highly influenced by perceived intent - in cracker cases, this usually isn't good, and the Government is good at making people sound EEEVILLLL. -- Pray for peace; Bill # Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ # No, that's covered by the Drug Exception to the Fourth Amendment. # You can read it here in the fine print.