kpjone01@ulkyvx.bitnet (02/26/91)
From what I have heard from some of the people that have been raided by the SS,
they are generally afraid to take any legal action because of 3 reasons:
1.) They don't know EXACTLY what they are getting raided for so they don't know
what the S.S. will dig up on them. He/She does not want the S.S. to get
any more big ideas on what THEY think is right/wrong.
2.) It costs too much in the end and they are better off keeping quiet so they
don't get molested any more. The people I have spoken with don't think
they have any chance of getting the equipment back anyways.
3.) Since all the documents were sealed, they don't have a clue as to what they
can do anyways.
One of the best was when I spoke with Dr. Ripco and he noted that it would cost
more to take legal action to get his stuff back than if he just went out and
purchased everything brand new.
I guess that's justice fer ya.
Kevin
Internet UK05744@UKPR.UKY.EDUlearn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) (03/07/91)
In article <103206.806@ulkyvx.bitnet> kpjone01@ulkyvx.bitnet (Kevin) writes: >3.) Since all the documents were sealed, they don't have a clue as to what > they can do anyways. >One of the best was when I spoke with Dr. Ripco and he noted that it would >cost more to take legal action to get his stuff back than if he just went out >and purchased everything brand new. >I guess that's justice fer ya. Not true. The Ripco affidavits (plural of two) were sealed for a time period, but we (Glen Roberts and Bill Vajk) dug them up in the Federal Courthouse at Chicago and provided Bruce and Sheldon Zenner each a copy. The warrants were issued by Magistrate Balog on 7 May 1990 (the day before he retired) and then sealed for 90 days. It is important to note that the Ripco warrants weren't ordinary search warrants, part of an investigation to uncover or prove crime, but were seizure warrants claiming that the equipment is subject to forefeiture to the United States by complaining of violations of 18 USC 1343, 1030, 1029, 1962, & 371. The textual claims include "illegal trafficking in access codes, computer passwords, and wire fraud." Further, there are some serious questions concerning the validity of the warrant application, in particular the use by the US Secret Service of a paid "Confidential Informant" who not only operated a sting BBS in Phoenix Arizona but also himself, according to the affidavit, posted authorization codes for alternative LD carriers provided by the carriers to the Secret Service for that purpose. I find it interesting that the affidavit does not mention whether or not any of those codes were ever used or not, and whether or not subsequent investigations were thus triggered. Once more there arises a question regarding the legality of posessing information. It used to be that in this country posessing or transferring information to another was legal for all information (aside from classified military documents.) It was misuse (for fun & profit) which was illegal. Not only that, but one actually had to be caught in the act. Today, the mere accusation by law enforcement officials of having information with a potential for misuse have become reasonable cause to trigger seizure of your property. This reverses the intention of the framers of our Constitution to require the Government to prove beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt that a crime was committed before punishment takes place. Now the citizen can be punished first, be required to prove that he shouldn't be punished at all, and then perhaps his property will be restored (see the Steve Jackson Games case for the condition of the restored property.) Actually, on reviewing the text of the affidavits themselves, one is lead to believe that they were originally prepared as an ordinary search warrant, and that subsequent to their creation a decision was made to apply for seizure instead. We have seen claims by some folks they intend field constitutional challenges on the electronic frontier by pursuing legal remedy. Given the amount of information easily available to them, the number of possible cases to undertake challenging government activities, and their lack of obvious activity in such regards, one wonders whether or not Karl Denninger might have been right after all in his assessment. Indeed, I am within a fraction of an inch of eating crow (not my usual fare) in this regard. I could be wrong, but I have seen nothing noteworthy of a progress report. I have seen a lot of high profile marketing activity. But the only possible results from such efforts will be an eventual trickle-down reminiscent of Reaganistic promises; too little and too late. I note that the claims were made by folks quite successful in business. These are folks who are well organized and are achievers......they know what they are doing, and they are doing just what it is they wish to do. There's no space for criticizing their activities, nor the lack of apparent results. But there is some room for criticizing the fact that they seem to have changed lanes without bothering to tell anyone else on the frontier to stop looking for their help. There's a lot of meat in the Ripco case. It most likely will be cheaper for Bruce to buy new equipment than to challenge the seizure. But in the long run, not presenting the legal challenge can cost us all even more. And it might already have begun happening. Bill Vajk
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (03/10/91)
In article <1333@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) writes: >In article <103206.806@ulkyvx.bitnet> kpjone01@ulkyvx.bitnet (Kevin) writes: > >>3.) Since all the documents were sealed, they don't have a clue as to what >> they can do anyways. > >>One of the best was when I spoke with Dr. Ripco and he noted that it would >>cost more to take legal action to get his stuff back than if he just went out >>and purchased everything brand new. This is the worst problem around. Unless there is a house (or similar real property) involved, it simply isn't worth fighting over. If the law was enforced as written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that is, that you could not have punitive action taken against you until AFTER you were adjudicated guilty, then this would not be a problem. That is the first and foremost area where pressure needs to be applied to the government by groups such as the EFF. And it needs to be applied for ALL "alleged crimes", not just the ones that some special-interest group thinks need attention. This very problem is of concern to everyone. Do you know that I could call up the local police in your town today and report you as a drug dealer? If they judged my report as credible (and they >might< do just that in this jihad that is being fought) they could come and seize everything you own, never arrest you (since you were, of course, clean!) and yet you'd have to go fight to get your property returned! This is exactly what happened in several cases on the electronic frontier. The alleged crime is not the issue - the idea that you can be fined enormous amounts of money and property prior to trial is! >>I guess that's justice fer ya. Yeah. Some justice. The Soviets do a better job these days. >It was misuse (for fun & profit) which was illegal. Not >only that, but one actually had to be caught in the act. Today, the mere >accusation by law enforcement officials of having information with a >potential for misuse have become reasonable cause to trigger seizure of your >property. Or the mere accusation of dealing or using substances that the Government doesn't like this week. Or the mere accusation of posessing some kinds of pornagraphy. Or any one of a number of other "victimless crimes". >This reverses the intention of the framers of our Constitution >to require the Government to prove beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt >that a crime was committed before punishment takes place. Now the citizen >can be punished first, be required to prove that he shouldn't be punished >at all, and then perhaps his property will be restored (see the Steve Jackson >Games case for the condition of the restored property.) Of course, even if you do fight, you'll spend more doing the fighting than the property is worth in most cases. Only in the unusual case of extreme value is it worth your time to go after the scums in the Government to force them to return what is yours. The Government, of course, knows this. Thus they can, if they choose to harass you, simply seize property that isn't worth enough to fight over. They can do this DAILY. Since you have to fight individually for each seizure, they can effectively strip you of every piece of material wealth you have with no chance of your ever getting it back -- or justice in the form of punishment for those who abused the power given them. >We have seen claims by some folks they intend field constitutional challenges >on the electronic frontier by pursuing legal remedy. Given the amount of >information easily available to them, the number of possible cases to undertake >challenging government activities, and their lack of obvious activity in such >regards, one wonders whether or not Karl Denninger might have been right after >all in his assessment. Indeed, I am within a fraction of an inch of eating >crow (not my usual fare) in this regard. > >I could be wrong, but I have seen nothing noteworthy of a progress report. I >have seen a lot of high profile marketing activity. But the only possible >results from such efforts will be an eventual trickle-down reminiscent of >Reaganistic promises; too little and too late. Actually, that's about the size of it, and it's damn scary. The "too little too late" problem here is of course that by the time they manage to get off their tails and DO SOMETHING enough of a precedent will be set that there will be no way that the trend will be reversed -- short of armed violence. Yet is there really any difference between an armed mugger taking my computer and the government doing so without due process? According to the Bill of Rights, there is not. They are both thieves. In some states I have the right to kill a thief if I catch him in the act. >I note that the claims were made by folks quite successful in business. These >are folks who are well organized and are achievers......they know what they >are doing, and they are doing just what it is they wish to do. There's no >space for criticizing their activities, nor the lack of apparent results. >But there is some room for criticizing the fact that they seem to have >changed lanes without bothering to tell anyone else on the frontier to stop >looking for their help. These folks are also well aware that it is the publicity which is valuable here. To actually >do< something is another matter entirely -- the potential risk (of failing to pull it off) may not balance well with the reward if they do manage to change things. In short, there's lots of political mileage for them in talking big and doing nothing. There's significant risk in actually DOING something. >There's a lot of meat in the Ripco case. It most likely will be cheaper for >Bruce to buy new equipment than to challenge the seizure. But in the long >run, not presenting the legal challenge can cost us all even more. And it >might already have begun happening. It already has begun happening. It started with a war on drugs, which was just the excuse the government needed to get people to voluntarially give up their rights in this country. It won't stop until the people put their foot down and say "enough!" -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] Copyright 1991 Karl Denninger. Distribution by site(s) which restrict redistribution of Usenet news PROHIBITED.
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (03/10/91)
Both Karl Denninger and William Vajk are mistaken to assume that the EFF is not acting on certain cases. As we indicate in EFF News 1.03, there are a number of cases we simply cannot talk about yet. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 | "You gotta put down the ducky mnemonic@eff.org | if you wanna play the saxophone." Electronic Frontier | Foundation |
etj90 (The Binary Warlock) (03/13/91)
In <1991Mar10.073726.25320@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >If the law was enforced as written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, >that is, that you could not have punitive action taken against you until >AFTER you were adjudicated guilty, then this would not be a problem. >That is the first and foremost area where pressure needs to be applied to >the government by groups such as the EFF. And it needs to be applied for >ALL "alleged crimes", not just the ones that some special-interest group >thinks need attention. >This very problem is of concern to everyone. Absolutely! Although I am in the UK, the US seems to lead the world in bad things like this.
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (03/16/91)
In article <1991Mar10.073726.25320@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >Yet is there really any difference between an armed mugger taking my >computer and the government doing so without due process? According to the >Bill of Rights, there is not. They are both thieves. > No. The mugger is doing less of a crime than the government. The difference is that all the mugger is violating is your property and some legislation. The government is violating your privacy and the US Constitution, the essence <supposedly> of our government. -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
ken@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Ken Sallenger) (03/18/91)
In article <7121@ecs.soton.ac.uk> etj90 (The Binary Warlock) writes:
=> Absolutely! Although I am in the UK, the US seems to lead the world in bad
=> things like this.
Hmmph.
At least we _have_ constitutional guarantees to defend.
--
Ken Sallenger / ken@bigbird.csd.scarolina.edu / +1 803 777-6551
Computer Services Division / 1244 Blossom ST / Columbia, SC 29208jfw@neuro (John F. Whitehead) (03/22/91)
In article <7121@ecs.soton.ac.uk> etj90 (The Binary Warlock) writes: >Absolutely! Although I am in the UK, the US seems to lead the world in bad >things like this. And the UK leads the U.S. in things like 15-year imprisonments for framed I.R.A. "murderers". John Whitehead Internet: jfw@neuro.duke.edu Department of Neurobiology jfw@well.sf.ca.us Duke University Medical Center Bitnet: white002@dukemc Durham, North Carolina