bei@dogface (Bob Izenberg) (05/30/91)
smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes about the dermatologists who called the cops when wrong number data calls blocked access to their computer: > What's your point? That the police made a mistake? Sure. What of it? > Much of our judicial system is based on the assumption that the police > aren't perfect. What should they have done? Read some of the literature on less intrusive searches of electronic equipment. > And this system does in fact contain records which, if altered, > could result in financial loss to the owners of the system. What > should they do? They might have treated the situation as if it were non-computer-related. When I lived in New Jersey, a school in town had a computer that called my home phone every day to tell me that my son (the son that I don't have) had missed a day of school. Calling the school didn't ever get their machine off of my phone. Moving to Texas did. ;-) If I had reported this to NJBell, they'd change my number, possibly without charge. The problem would have been handled through channels. These two dermatologists, however, might have read any of the sensationalist "hacker" stories that are the best that one can expect (with some exceptions) from local and national press. In their panic, they escalated it from a wrong number problem with potential security overtones to a major security problem that was found to be without merit. > As best I can tell, they acted properly, for the > most part. They sought a warrant -- for which ``probably cause'', > not certainty, is required under our laws the presence or absence of which you can determine, after you take it to court to get the warrant unsealed (as Steve Jackson Games did successfully, after months of contradictory negotiations with federal and state officials.) True, Hopson's warrant may not have been sealed. If he challenges the warrant's basis, the equipment stays in custody, either as hostage to the action or evidence of a crime. He loses either way: temporarily or permanently is his only option. > -- they seized the named > items, they examined them, and they returned most of them. Sure, > the suspect denied any criminal intent, and even gave them a > plausible alibi. So what? So the burden of suspicion was placed on him, rather than the burden of proof placed upon the law enforcement machinery. > Put another way, why should the police believe an > excuse without further investigation? Agreed, but.... I think that asking a law enforcement officer unfamiliar with, and perhaps hostile to, computer technology and culture to preserve due process requires education and preparation. Given the natural suspicion endemic to the profession and the computer consciousness-raising process that Officer Nemeth and company were going through, it is possible that they picked the interpretation of the facts that most fit their preconceptions. > The only thing I saw that came close to official abuse was the broken > doors. If your claim is that the police should compensate the owner > for their cost, I won't argue. But I'm hard-put to see how else they > could have investigated a potential crime without impounding computers > and disks. Done their investigating right at the scene. In the interests of good will, I'll take it on faith that no law enforcement official, or any other person serving at their behest, would damage or destroy property. There does then exist the possibility that transportation of electronic equipment may result in its failure, and hence its unavailability as evidence. Weighing the impedance to examination that may be present on a computer against its value to its owner isn't easy, but someone needs to make that choice. If you didn't buy that line about destroying property, by the way, read up on Tom Tcimpidis' suit against Pacific Bell a few years ago. A user posted a credit card number not their own on his bbs in Tampa (Florida). After the message was removed, PacBell security people entered Tcimpidis' home and grabbed computers, oscilloscopes and everything else electronic that they could carry. As I recall, they didn't have a warrant, and were somewhat vague as to the methods used to gain entry to the residence. When the equipment was returned at least a year later, substantial damage had been done to it. Rather a shameful moment, and (once again trusting memory here) the decision in favor of Tcimpidis showed that you should never cross a Night Court video engineer.... ;-) > Please note that we are not talking about the Legion of Doom here, or > Steve Jackson Games, or even Leonard Rose. Responses which cite those > cases are most likely irrelevant.... We're talking about people who took a publicly advertised number, called it in good faith, probably tried hitting escape and control-C and a few other keys to wake the board up, and gave up when nothing happened. Routine bbs behavior, but not so to an investigator with no knowledge of the realities of computer communications, whose opinions may have been formed by self-serving statements by proescutors (and private citizens who certain state attorney- general's offices no longer need the services of) and telephone company representatives. Some telephone companies will do anything to cow bbs users, who (at least here in Texas) will mobilize to fight rate increases and their re-classification as businesses (unless they are businesses, of course.) If this comes down to providing biased counsel to officers struggling with a subject new to them, well, that's part of the cost of doing business. Consider the source! Have I left anything out? Oh, yeah. The Phone Company killed Kennedy. ;-) -- Bob P.S. What did this latest foray into dropped charges cost the public? Let's hope that the dermatologists don't do the math here. Fifteen hundred bucks to reprogram a modem? Come on, San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, ask informed questions! Bob Izenberg [ ] Ralph Kirkley Associates work: 512 838 6311 [ ] bei@rt_trace.austin.ibm.com home: 512 346 7019 [ ] bei@dogface.UUCP Opinions expressed in this message are those of its author, except where messages by others are included with attribution. No endorsement of these opinions by Ralph Kirkley Associates or IBM should be inferred.