cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (05/17/91)
In 1985, the ACLU of Southern California filed charges against the L.A.P.D. claiming that the department was illegally bandying about confidential records of persons investigated and/or arrested but not prosecuted as a result of participation in "public disturbances." In fact, the police unit accused of this activity was the PDID, the Public Disturbance Investigative Division (I believe). One officer was finally discharged from the L.A.P.D. for taking police records and uploading them to a BBS in Virginia operated by the Western Goals, a right-wing foundation dedicated to keeping tabs on everyone else in the nation, particularly those of a liberal or radical persuasion. This bit of lunacy made the press. What did not get wide treatment was an accompanying claim by the ACLU attorneys, made after the settlement with the L.A.P.D. was arranged, that they had reason to believe -- but no resources to investigate -- rumors that "red squads" at police departments around the country maintain well-secured BBSs precisely for the purpose of transmitting and storing information about people they believe to be dissidents. This information, so it was alleged, was the stuff that police could not legitimately collect or share, but which the red squads found useful in their eternal battle against political incorrectness. All of this went away, after awhile. But a recent article in the journal, THE NATION, indicated that red squads are coming back. In the wake of widespread, if vain, opposition to the Gulf War, and in preparation for general dissatisfaction among the populace if the economy continues to dive, the red squads, so the author reported, are getting their acts together. If so, are they also putting the BBSs back into action? I have asked this question of FBI and other law enforcement agencies and, surprisingly, do not get laughed out of the room. They take the allegations seriously...but there is no evidence acquired to make the case for an investigation. Is this just a chimera, or is there something to the rumor? How can anyone know? I think this is an interesting topic for conversation and action, if the right action can be specified. Bob Jacobson --
hughesl@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Larry Hughes) (05/17/91)
There is more than just idle rumor to this, although I'd doubt if you can pry much information out on it. There is actually an organization of police officers, who maintain "a network" for information exchange much like what you have described. That BBSs may be a part of the "network" does not really surprise me, but I think that the application is less of what you and I would deem a true BBS, and more of a BBS as it might be run by the government, or a big business. The real caveat to all of this is that the organization, whose name escapes me at the moment (but I promise I will post when I remember it) remains more secret than perhaps even the NSA due to the nature that it is a *private* network. Essentially, it is a network of "off-duty" law-enforcement officials who use it to exchange professional information/stories/etc - and, therefore, is not a public or government-affiliated operation, and is not available for public scrutiny. The "misuse" of such a system is certainly a cause for concern. _ /| l.e.hughes '\`0_o'' hughesl@jacobs.cs.orst.edu =( )- 70012,2213 (CI$) U Sluglick, Oregon
otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May17.071900.21980@milton.u.washington.edu>, cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes... >One officer was finally discharged from the L.A.P.D. for taking >police records and uploading them to a BBS in Virginia operated by >the Western Goals, a right-wing foundation dedicated to keeping tabs >on everyone else in the nation, particularly those of a liberal or >radical persuasion. This bit of lunacy made the press. What did not >get wide treatment was an accompanying claim by the ACLU attorneys, >made after the settlement with the L.A.P.D. was arranged, that they >had reason to believe -- but no resources to investigate -- rumors >that "red squads" at police departments around the country maintain >well-secured BBSs precisely for the purpose of transmitting and >storing information about people they believe to be dissidents. This >information, so it was alleged, was the stuff that police could not >legitimately collect or share, but which the red squads found useful >in their eternal battle against political incorrectness. So, Bob, how do we subscribe to these "red squad BBSs"? John G. Otto jgo@rai.cc.fsu.edu otto@fsu1.hepnet
bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ( ) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May23.024416.5831@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu writes: [deleted some about 'underground' police BBSes - called Red Squad BBSes] >So, Bob, how do we subscribe to these "red squad BBSs"? > >John G. Otto jgo@rai.cc.fsu.edu otto@fsu1.hepnet The San Jose, CA Police ran (run??) a BBS at (408)287-8399. It was in operation in 1988. I don't know if it's still up. I also wouldn't classify it as a "Red Squad BBS," but who knows? It is/was open to the public. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "A right delayed is a right denied." Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
learn@piroska.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo)) (05/28/91)
In article <5831@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> John G. Otto writes: >So, Bob, how do we subscribe to these "red squad BBSs"? In _Law And Order_ (The Magazine for Police Management) there is a regular computer chatter column. The March 1991 issue addresses the desire of the author, Bill Clede (CompuServe Mail 74736,165) to have CompuServ provide a private police forum. And there is a report in the same article about Genie's ALERT roundtable with a section which is restricted to "cops." The private section is under the control of David A. Florey and Greg Kranich. Both men are sergeants at San Jose PD. The magazine is fully "copyrighted". Mail address is 1000 Skokie Blvd, Wilmette, IL 60091. Subscriptions, 20 per annum, discounts for multi year. Bill Vajk