home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- ------------------------------
-
- From: "William Vajk (igloo)" <learn@GARGOYLE.UCHICAGO.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 18:00:40 CDT
- Subject: Punishment and Control: Reply to Gene Spafford
-
- ********************************************************************
- *** CuD #3.22: File 3 of 3: Punishment and Control ***
- ********************************************************************
-
- In CUD 3.14, Gene Spafford wrote:
-
- > There is little doubt that law enforcement has sometimes been overzealous
- > or based on ignorance. That is especially true as concerns computer-related
- > crimes, although it is not unique to that arena.
-
- I am concerned that while computer related interests isn't the only area in
- which law enforcement has fallen so far short of the mark as to be noticeable,
- it is the basis for one of the first relatively large scale interactions
- between law enforcement and middle class. This is the reason for so many of us
- noting cases which have acquired a notoriety exceeding past norms where the
- investigation involved a lower class. Such treatments have been the usual fare
- for the economically disadvantaged, sometimes those culturally distinct (see
- the movie _Chinatown_ for an excellent example.) Complaints on their behalf
- haven't been nearly as widespread in spite of the similarities of the behavior
- by law enforcement. It isn't new. It is simply new to "us."
-
- I have some serious reservations about the Chicago Police Department which
- has declared war on "gangs." Possibly other such declarations have been
- undertaken elsewhere as well. Just so we understand up front, I do not
- condone criminal behavior. But my understandings of these events is confounded
- by the difficulties I have in determining in advance of some criminal behavior
- or another just what actually constitutes a gang. How does one determine what
- is an Italian-American Sports Club, and which one is a sinister mob
- organization. How does one differentiate a group of young men, wearing
- identical attire while walking across town to play basketball in a park from
- another group, walking about their turf, and the Boy Scouts.
-
- A discussion I just had with the Public Relations officer at the Chicago
- Police Department did little to help. The distinguishing characteristics
- are looser and far more evasive than those mentioned by Pastor Niemoeller.
- The PR officer told me they have something "better than an educated guess"
- on which to base whether or not an individual or small group is gang related;
- whether or not to question (should we call it harass) citizens within a
- community. In the end, we are permitting the police to use personal judgment
- in many ways. The personal judgment they have been using has now been brought
- into play in middle class communities. Guess what. We're complaining about it.
-
- I am concerned that Spafford's comments can be read to be forgiving and
- conciliatory in nature where it regards errors made by professional law
- enforcement. Officer Nemeth in California (see CUD 3.15) has said that he's
- learning as he goes along. That's a hell of an answer to give some poor fellow
- who was attempting to access a published bbs number after you've broken two of
- his doors, confiscated his equipment, and subjected him to interrogation which
- assumed guilt instead of trying to develop information in a reasonable manner
- before using one of the most intrusive tactics permitted by law. There's an
- entire mentality which we see exercised in the modern prototypical police
- investigation. Officer Nemeth draws some conclusions of dubious worth even
- after knowing the facts and that there will be no prosecution, "Hopson and the
- other suspects should have given up after the first failed attempt" of trying
- to gain access to a computer. "The laws are funny. You don't have to prove
- malicious intent when you're talking about computer tampering. The first
- attempt you might say was an honest mistake. More than that, you have to
- wonder." ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-
- I suggest we put a rotary combination padlock on Nemeth's locker at work. Any
- time he misses getting it on the first try, he takes the day off....at his
- expense. But let's add a bit more realism. Someone should gently but
- erratically shake his arm to emulate a bit of line noise.
-
- The prosecutor in the case, Stephen Brown, didn't believe the police
- overreacted in their investigation. "They had a legitimate concern." Is having
- a legitimate concern reason to secure search warrants and damage property?
- Aren't there any less intrusive investigatory techniques available? Of course
- there are. The police didn't know where to begin their investigation of this
- suspected criminal activity. I wasn't surprised at all to learn that PacBell
- security knew. Given the involvement of yet another telephone company, is
- the outcome, the overreaction, any surprise?????
-
- We understand and feel compassion for one whose home has been violated by
- burglars. Often we hear that they no longer feel comfortable in their own
- home. Their inner feelings of security, something most of us take for granted,
- have been damaged, sometimes irreparably. It is obvious in hindsight that
- Nemeth's actions were unnecessary and counterproductive. I would not want him
- on the local police force in my town. I am most concerned regarding his
- ability to exercise judgment appropriate to the circumstances. But what is
- worse by far is that some consider his investigative techniques acceptable.
-
- N.B. Police brutality doesn't begin at the end of a
- nightstick or hose. It begins with an attitude.
-
- If you hire someone to write a bit of computer code for you which is to
- perform some specific function, do you accept their learning to do that
- task on the job and at your expense acceptable professionalism? I dare
- say you wouldn't. Had you hired them with the understanding that they are
- beginners and in training, then it would be considered acceptable.
-
- Neither I nor any citizen in this nation has accepted the proviso that our
- law enforcement agents are beginners learning the trade as they go along.
- We demand the height of professionalism from them, each and every one. We
- have granted them the extremes of the use of deadly force. I, for one, don't
- take that lightly. I demand they be professionals and culpable for their
- actions, whether working on my behalf or not. Spafford talks about
- responsibility, let it begin with those who are PAID to be responsible and
- have been evading that duty, manufacturers of software and law enforcement.
-
- Who pays them to be responsible? We all do.
-
- > Reporting of some of these incidents has also been incorrect.
-
- Yes, Gene. In article 5462@accuvax.nwu.edu you misspoke and assisted
- in proliferation of such incorrect reports :
-
- "The information I have available from various sources
- indicates that the investigation is continuing, others
- are likely to be charged, and there MAY be some national
- security aspects to parts of the discussion that have
- yet to be disclosed."
-
- Need I voice the obvious and ask how any "responsible" individual should
- handle errors they have made? Need I voice the obvious and ask a simple
- question. What has Gene Spafford done to correct errors he has made? Has
- his behavior in these matters met the criteria for responsibility he demands
- >from others?
-
- > Obviously, we all wish to act to prevent future such abuses,
- > especially as they apply to computers.
-
- 'To thine own self be true' seems so appropriate right about here. Did you
- wish to issue any corrections or retractions regarding some of your past
- articles ?
-
- > However, that being the case does not mean that everyone accused under
- > the law is really innocent and the target of "political" persecution.
-
- One of the elements common to propagandizing is to create a set of false issues
- which sound like something your opposition might have said. In this instance,
- I would appreciate most sincerely either having you repeat the source of such
- a statement (by someone other than an obvious lunatic) in these newsgroups, or
- to have you revise your statement into something more resembling the actual
- circumstances.
-
- > That is certainly not reality; in some cases the individuals charged
- > are clearly at fault.
-
- There are any number eventually found responsible and "at fault." I
- haven't seen much mention made of them on the networks. See below for
- one such case followed up. Is part of your problem, Gene, the fact that
- we haven't been flogging dead horses on the net; the fact we haven't been
- publishing news about those caught, prosecuted, and sentenced fairly? Given
- another [name deleted] mentality I am certain we could find a volunteer.
-
- > By representing all of them as innocents and victims, you further
- > alienate the moderates who would otherwise be sympathetic to the
- > underlying problems. By trying to represent every individual charged
- > with computer abuse as an innocent victim, you are guilty of the same
- > thing you condemn law enforcement of when they paint all "hackers" as
- > criminals.
-
- Really, this is a bit much. We presume innocence for all until they are
- actually adjudged guilty. They are thus, at most, represented as suspects
- until a verdict is handed down. But of course there are some folks who prejudge
- the outcomes and place articles on the network explaining the involvements
- of national security in the cases.........
-
- Gaining momentum here, Gene? You laid the groundwork for a lie earlier,
- in true propagandist style, and rush in for the kill in this paragraph.
- Nowhere has anyone claimed every individual charged with computer abuse an
- innocent victim. The other case of computer abuse in Naperville, Illinois
- late last year had to do with an employee of Spiegel.
-
- Michael H. Ferrell was charged with creating bogus invoices illegally
- collecting sizable sums of money. He was also charged with authorizing
- refunds to his credit cards using their cash registers. Although his scheme
- resulted in a computer tampering charge (because it is a relatively new and
- sexy action at the moment) he is more guilty in the ordinary sense of fraud
- laws designed to protect against abuse of trust. Abbreviated charges (press
- release) are available in CUD 3.00. He was found guilty (two of the charges
- were nolle pros) and sentenced as follows :
-
- 24 months probation
-
- 240 hours of public service work
-
- restitution of $30,861.85
-
- periodic imprisonment (weekends) for 6 weekends. Two to be served immediately,
- and four subject to future motion to vacate to be filed 2/26/1993.
-
- Here's a guy who really stole something. Money, lots in fact.
-
- > In particular, you portray Len Rose as an innocent whose life has been
- > ruined through no fault of his own, and who did nothing to warrant
- > Federal prosecution. That is clearly not the case. Len has acknowledged
- > that he was in possession of, and trafficking in, source code he knew was
- > proprietary.
-
- I believe you would do well to look up the definition of the term (and
- charge) of trafficking. There were no monetary considerations or agreements.
- In fact, similar charges were brought against Neidorf. The fact that the case
- was dropped precluded a proper addressing of such issues as exchange of
- information (proprietary or not) without financial consideration. One of the
- original charges brought against Len involved the retransmittal by Neidorf of
- the same login.c program back to Len. Raises the same issue we are going to be
- examining regarding Express Mail where the U.S. Postal Inspectors are arresting
- recipients of packages known by the US Postal Service to contain contraband
- and delivered in spite of that knowledge.
-
- Such a distancing by investigative and prosecutorial powers from rationality
- is quite troubling. If someone from LA were to express mail a reefer to
- Spaf, we might all be reading about a faculty member at Purdue arrested for
- possession of a controlled substance. Need we ask about the culpability of
- the sender?
-
- Many other questions also have not been answered because of Len's plea
- bargain. It seems that AT&T source code (according to one of the Foley
- affidavits) bears legends which claim both proprietary rights and a
- copyright. You stipulate proprietary. The dual labeling of the original
- software should do a lot to remove it from consideration as truly proprietary
- information. The laws regarding copyrights require that all copyright material
- is subject to deposit at the Library of Congress, where any citizen has a
- right to read and review.
-
- If this is the case, then possession is not illegal, because the text is
- protected from commercial exploitation by the copyright laws and Len should
- not have been charged with criminal. Copyright violation is a matter for civil
- suit. If someone makes 1000 copies of your newly released book and sends it to
- friends and associates, is it reasonable to expect a criminal prosecution by
- the U. S. Government, or will your publisher be required to undertake a civil
- suit for damages? Does it matter whether the copies are electronic or paper?
-
- Furthermore, if he sends all 1000 copies across state lines in a single
- package, has he violated federal laws regarding stolen goods valued
- at over $ 5000? Each unit is valued at $29.95 by the publisher. Does the
- fact that he sent 1000 copies individually packaged across state lines negate
- that federal interest? And when one bears in mind that the laws were
- originally aimed at automobiles, the connotation assumes tangible goods
- of substantial value, not tidbits of some larger intellectual property
- which may or might not withstand as yet unresolved testing for proprietary
- status, notwithstanding questions regarding the cost/value haphazardly
- assigned for the sake of federal prosecution. Login.c, a program of some
- approximately 2000 lines of code, has a value in excess of $ 5000? Official
- representatives of AT&T have made such representations. The individual making
- such an assessment has obviously crossed to the other side of the looking
- glass and is presently enjoying tea with Alice and the Mad Hatter. In the end,
- of course, all the original charges were supplanted.
-
- What would have happened had Len chosen to modify the login.c version which
- was written by David Ihnat and placed in the public domain? Which laws would
- then have been broken? The entire rationale supported by your article, Gene,
- falls apart into itty bitty pieces. Poor judgment alone is not a violation of
- any laws.
-
- What would have happened if Len sent the modified AT&T login.c file across
- state lines in 10 line increments, to be recombined at the receiving end?
- The challenges many of us feel are appropriate to such understandings haven't
- been possible to date.
-
- And finally, although by no means of least importance, the entire business
- of ownership of any single piece of AT&T software, whether source code
- or binaries needs to be examined. The ONLY owner is AT&T. Everyone who pays
- fees is licensed to use the software. Thus enters yet another dilemma.
- Possession is not licensed. Can possession be criminalized? Given this view,
- new questions arise. Use licensing concepts are not new nor are they unique.
-
- > The login changes were the source of the fraud charge.
-
- Perhaps you should reread the original 5 count indictment and examine the
- genesis of the adjustments the government made to the charges in the year plus
- >from beginning to settlement. The government's actions aren't at all pretty.
- To say the real source of all charges is itself suspect would be an
- understatement. The government kept digging around and throwing stuff at the
- ceiling till something kinda stuck. And here's Gene Spafford pointing his
- finger saying "Aha!" Sure reminds me of Salem. In science, how one acquires
- data is just as important as the data itself. This doesn't change when it
- comes to human interactions and the law.
-
- > It is certainly security-related, and the application of the law
- > appears to be appropriate.
-
- There was a recent post made to the network regarding a serious security
- flaw in the Interactive port of Unix to the 80386 machine. The article
- and all the pertinent information was posted from abroad. If one reads
- the law to which you refer carefully, every system administrator whose system
- forwarded or displayed that article is chargeable and could be found guilty
- under the same law. Indeed, the author of the article probably could have
- been arrested had it originated here in the United States.
-
- The law is erroneous in intent and stupid. It represents a feeble attempt to
- gloss over technological problems and solve them by social restrictions which
- are known not to work. The only workable solutions lie within the technology
- which contains the faults.
-
- Admissions were made recently by AT&T regarding internal security. Several
- appear in the May 13, 1991 issue of BellLabs News. The document is copyright
- with all rights reserved so I won't quote from it. Bell Labs reports on a
- study run of their own internal terminals. They discovered inadequate
- protections exercised by employees affecting (infecting) about 15% of their
- sample. This comes from a company which lays claims to closely guarded
- proprietary software? I rather think that a false claim. I had a discussion
- with a former AT&T employee. Given these circumstances, it wouldn't be at all
- difficult for an ex employee (and there are plenty of them about now-a-days...
- some apparently still angry at their former employer) to enter a facility, log
- in to the internal networks, and purloin proprietary secrets.
-
- Interestingly in the same issue is a discussion regarding the newer speed
- at which software is now being developed. One of the features is the
- reuse of software in segments. Perhaps something akin to production line
- tactics, with interchangeable parts. Comes right back around once more to
- there being but a single severely flawed Unix port for the 80386 CPU. If you
- have a security problem for one product, you'll have the same flaw in all of
- them. There are advantages and disadvantages to everything.
-
- At the end of the included (CUD 3.14) article, Spafford discuss
- responsibility. It isn't as though manufacturers of software have exercised
- sufficient of the legally mandate "prudent man" behaviors when it comes to
- generating or safeguarding data and code. Almost adult children regularly
- access sensitive information in computers all over this country at will.
- Care to draw a conclusion regarding efforts by the industry to protect their
- information? There is a well known and established "attractive nuisance"
- consideration in liability actions. Culpability is thus shared by the
- careless. Historically courts have forgiven criminal trespass of juveniles
- and sustained lawsuits and judgments against those who are careless with
- things known to attract the juvenile mind. In all states it is a violation
- of the law to leave ones keys in the ignition of an automobile. In some
- states this provision is actually enforced with fines levied against
- offenders.
-
- > By the comments Len made in the code, he certainly knew what he was
- > doing, and he knew how the code was likely to be used: certainly not
- > as a security aid. As somebody with claimed expertise in Unix as a
- > consultant, he surely knew the consequences of distributing this
- > patched code.
-
- I don't give a nit. You and I and anyone familiar with system administration
- knows that it only takes moments to install a trap door if a reasonably
- knowledgeable individual has access to root privileges. This permits
- subsequent iterations of improvement, usually equally undetected. It doesn't
- take a Len_Rose_Modified_Code to achieve such goals. The self-evident
- question which arises out of reviewing the court documents relating
- to Len Rose is simply "why did they prosecute him?" Reading it all and
- understanding most of it, I still raise the question.
-
- Other than an insult to AT&T's sensitivities, I don't understand all the
- hoopla associated with a relatively uninspired piece of what might best be
- called 'theftware.' It actually has about as much value in real terms as any
- other trophy. It has to do with the memory of acquisition. The swordfish on
- the wall it is hardly tradable, being of no worth to anyone other than the
- individual who worked to acquire it.
-
- I'm not responding to the balance of your "Len Rose is an idiot and a
- criminal" tirade. You obviously do lack sufficient information to make the
- caliber of judgments you've attempted. It would be interesting to know what
- your reactions might be were to suddenly be privy to, at the very least, *all*
- those documents which constitute the complete court record to date. They are
- court records, and available. Would you undertake writing a computer related
- article, perhaps about an operating system, with as little to back up your
- opinions as you have regarding computer crimes?
-
- Please note that my position in writing this article is not to support Len's
- cause to the exclusion of harsh realities. My interest in undertaking this
- discussion is directed towards promoting understanding of the irrationality of
- governmental behavior in this period of relative conservatism. I believe the
- pendulum is newly swung too far.
-
- Gene, none of the issues you've been so freely spouting off about are as
- simple and straightforward as you imply. There are basically two levels of
- publicly available information. The first is press releases by law enforcement
- personnel, the second is the somewhat more complete court record. I really
- shouldn't have to point out that press releases by law enforcement have
- historically been highly skewed. Anyone can go back to some case or another
- which had a press release by the prosecutor, and then read what eventually
- transpired in court. Even if the individual discussed was guilty, there is
- invariably a wide gap between the realities of the case and the publicity
- statements made by prosecutors. And if one has the chance to interview those
- who were directly involved in the case (on both sides,) the conclusions tend
- to deviate even further from the understandings promulgated by the press
- releases originally issued by the prosecution.
-
- I have many reservations about the way the prosecutions have been run,
- evidence handled, and the incestuous relationships between plaintiff,
- prosecutor, and expert witness. What, for example, isn't readily apparent
- in the published and court records in the Naperville case is the simple fact
- that that Interactive office might just as well be a department of the labs
- across the street. This is the old Lachman Associates, captive contractor to
- the labs. The very building occupied by Interactive is owned by Bell Labs,
- Murray Hill. I didn't know that till I visited the Du Page County Tax
- Collector's office (on a hunch.) The lab's grounds crews cross the street to
- mow the lawns. Therefore the plaintiff is AT&T. Every witness, including
- those expected to provide expert testimony on behalf of the government, are
- AT&T dependents for their livelihood. Sort of like getting into a dispute
- with a merchant in a town where you are the only outsider, and everyone else
- involved has a familial relationship.
-
- But let's look even a bit deeper. Len was hired at Interactive to be on
- assignment across the street at the labs. Not only that, but he was
- interviewed at the labs by lab personnel. He was hired and started work on a
- Monday morning. Len was terminated on Friday morning. Friday afternoon, a man
- we all have heard about and a seemingly wannabe Telco employee, Tim Foley of
- the US Secret Service, arrived at at Len's apartment to question him and read
- him a Miranda warning. On Monday, local authorities (the Naperville Police
- Department with Foley's assistance) had secured a search warrant and an
- arrest warrant. One of these days I'm going to ask the question why the motion
- requesting AT&T assistance on the raid to search Len's Naperville apartment
- was approved by a judge but was undated. It COULD be pure oversight, but
- given the context of the rest of the story, everything has become highly
- suspect. At best, it was a very very bad procedural error.
-
- Len was incarcerated on $ 50,000 bond. Interesting fact in itself, as the
- bond level for most local violent crimes is only about $ 10,000, to which bond
- was reduced on request by Len's attorney a week later. Vengeance by a
- prosecutor effectively under AT&T control, perhaps????
-
- > I share a concern of many computer professionals about the application
- > of law to computing, and the possible erosion of our freedoms.
- > However, I also have a concern about the people who are attempting to
- > abuse the electronic frontier and who are contributing to the decline
- > in our freedoms.
-
- Thus far, it seems most computer laws have been written at the behest of
- special interests instead of the public interest. The laws already inflict
- restrictions contrary to generally understood and accepted constitutional
- provisions. It seems that at every turn where a serious conflict has taken
- place and law enforcement became involved, the government has taken every
- possible action to prevent the constitutional challenges which are important
- to reforming and refining societal understandings of these issues.
-
- > Trying to defend the abusers is likely to result in a loss of
- > sympathy for the calls to protect the innocent, too.
-
- I cannot understand how anyone can make such a statement with a straight
- face. It is essential to our system of justice that even (especially)
- the obviously guilty get a good defense. If I were witness to my father's
- murder, I would demand the killer have a good defense team in spite of the
- fact I would do all in my power to see the person convicted.
-
- Our system of justice is far from perfect, but it sure beats the dickens
- out of whatever might be considered second best. We're not going to be
- able to maintain our relative fairness is we go about spiffing down the
- defense to suit someone's set of prejudices. I am glad the American Nazi
- Party has the right to march in Skokie, in spite of the fact I detest their
- platform. So long as the worse of my enemies is treated fairly, there's a
- chance I too will receive fair treatment.
-
- > However, I certainly do not want to ask people to rally around
- > the cases of Robert Morris or Len Rose as examples of government
- > excess, because I don't think they were, and neither would a
- > significant number of reasonable people who examine the cases.
-
- I wonder if, upon reading the court documents in the Maryland case for Len
- Rose, you would consider the motions filed by Carlos M. Recio on May 21, 1990
- to be a reasonable understanding of the excesses exercised by the government.
-
- Recio studied the case at that time and prepared, as Len's attorney, a
- voicing of serious concerns regarding the validity of the search warrant
- obtained by Foley et troupe. In fact, they exercised what we know as a
- 'general warrant.'
-
- "They seized Len Rose's Army medals from the master bedroom which were
- contained in a chest of drawers." It is clear they knew this seizure, as page
- 3 of the inventory spells out "Bag w/ Misc Papers + Army Commendation Medals."
- Thus, it was no oversight or accident.
-
- Recio continues:
-
- "The SS searched through the Rose family photo albums, removing a picture of
- Len Rose and several photographs of computer equipment that he had taken for
- insurance purposes."
-
- More evidence????? More excess?
-
- "The SS seized the Rose family's files (mortgage, loans, credit card bills,
- army records, marriage paperwork, diplomas, resumes', etc.)."
-
- I can see it now. Len's marriage paperwork was potentially additional evidence
- of criminality. Mortgage papers, more criminality....and so on with diplomas
- and army records.
-
- Please bear in mind that the basis for requesting a search warrant was to
- determine whether or not Len Rose was indeed the individual known as
- "terminus" and that he was indeed the individual who had transmitted the
- login.c program to Neidorf. That was the crime for which the government
- was seeking evidence. What is very clear in the record is that the government
- did in fact embark on a witch hunt, overtly seizing all sorts of things totally
- unrelated to their case, as in the colonial examples of general warrants,
- attempting to build prosecutable offenses out of thin air.
-
- It then became not "in the ordinary course" of an investigation that other
- issues surfaced, but as a direct result of the violation by the government
- of the very laws they are sworn to uphold.
-
- The usual course for charges originating on such a basis is dismissal, because
- it is not in the best interest of the citizens or the state to reward law
- enforcement officers for violating the rights of the citizens in order to
- build a case for prosecution. In scientific rationale, evolutionary aspects
- eventually will soon resolve the issues. Law enforcement will learn to keep
- within guidelines while improving their conviction statistics, and if the
- criminal escape this time, and he repeats, it is likely he will be caught
- and better prosecuted in the next instance (by that recently improved law
- enforcement.) And if the criminal reforms as a result of the close call, of
- what benefit is incarceration or punishment?
-
- Excessive? Actually yes, Gene, it was quite excessive. Now, to substantiate
- your claim, go find yourself a "significant" sized group of individuals
- prepared to take the time to seriously examine the Rose case, and when they're
- done, let's then compare results. In the meantime, if you really believe the
- case is important enough to elicit your commentary, read the documents proper
- and stop with reliance on second or third hand information.
-
- Twice now, regarding the resultants of the E-911 case you've been long on
- assumptions, short on proof. Twice now, regarding the resultants of the E-911
- case you've been long on promises, short on results. Given this history, I
- ask, would a "responsible" man now seek truth and publish it, or retire
- >from this discussion.
-
- This article isn't so much a defense of Len Rose as it is an indictment of the
- prosecutions. I also feel it is necessary to point out in no uncertain terms
- that those who support law enforcement blindly do themselves and their
- community a disservice. There is little doubt that many well intentioned
- individuals serve us well in careers supporting the justice system. There
- has been movement by all branches at the federal level of law enforcement to
- assume guilt before investigation and to trample rights freely utilizing the
- immunity originally granted in order to protect officers making honest mistakes
- as a standard operating procedure instead of an exceptional circumstance.
-
- The complaints on the net have, for the most part, been related to our own
- back yard. Computers are the baby here. Yet overall we see the same sorts
- of problems creeping into the justice system everywhere. Historically we have
- written our laws in such ways as to empower law enforcement personnel to
- capture criminals and bring them to trial while limiting offense to the
- sensibilities of the general population. The diverse thresholds of offense we
- have regarding police actions are based on our niche in society. Because I
- have become more concerned regarding police officers questioning long haired
- men at roadside, spread eagled against a rattletrap of a car, doesn't imply
- that my niche has changed. It does show that along with many others the level
- at which I take offense has changed with the incursion of similar tactics by
- police into the middle class middle aged community, the community to which I
- belong. The activities of this community haven't changed. The actions taken by
- the police have. We note, sadly, that finding or creating of "probable cause"
- is used to bring my neighbors personal and financial grief.
-
- So beware, Gene Spafford. The past immunities offered by class and perhaps
- occupation are doing nothing for us these days. Nor is it enough to be
- squeaky clean. Nor is it enough to have the general appearance of being
- squeaky clean. You are now required to preemptively make every law
- enforcement officer whose path you cross believe you are squeaky clean. If you
- fail, you won't go to jail (probably) nor will you be fined (probably.) But it
- can cost a lot of money in legal defense to keep oneself out of jail and
- to maintain a void criminal record.
-
- Bill Vajk
-
- ********************************************************************
- **END OF CuD #3.22**
- ********************************************************************
-
-