----- Original Message -----
From:
Of course all of us knew this. The article is good for explaining to non-technical friends.
http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB972002214791170991.htm
October 20, 2000
Electronic Form of 'Invisible Ink' Inside Files May Reveal Secrets
"Come here, you gotta see this," Mr. Hinds says he called out to fellow campaign workers, who gathered around his computer. They started searching through the previous e-mails. The first one said "Last Saved by: Kinko's Customer" and listed "gunhus" as the author. They found other names and more dates and times that the documents had been created and stored.
The Ciresi campaign alerted local authorities to its discoveries, which were first reported by the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Naturally, statists always run to the government for backup (gun-wielding thugs) when they are in trouble.
The campaign alleged that the masquerade wasn't just a political dirty trick but a possible misdemeanor
So why is this even called "a political dirty trick?" Don't they call this "opposition research"?
. A Minnesota law, which was designed to discourage anonymous attacks on politicians, requires those involved in election campaigns to disclose that fact in any political literature they prepare or distribute.
Obviously a 1st-amendment violation. [deletia flagrante]
County investigators, however, proceeded carefully, after learning that anyone could easily have framed Ms. Gunhus by entering her name in the properties box. "I could put in that 'William Shakespeare' is the author," says Bryan Lindberg, the assistant attorney leading the inquiry.
"Plausible deniability is maintained!"
But then, Mr. Lindberg says, his team uncovered a more substantive link. Subpoenaed phone and Internet-access records linked the "Katie Stevens" Hotmail account used to send the attack e-mails to a Kinko's
It seems there's a real problem with this. Even if we assume the "legality" of the anti-anonymous-attack law mentioned above, it seems to me that the police would have no probable cause to investigate an incident when they had no evidence that a crime had actually yet occurred. This would be particularly true if there was no other obvious crime being committed: A publication of true facts about a political candidate, even anonymously, would not necessarily trigger the law's $300 limit. Looks to me like the police were doing a political favor in looking into this case.
document-processing center and a phone line listed as belonging to Ms. Gunhus's home, according to an affidavit filed by the county attorney's office as part of its search-warrant request. "The telephone number back to the Gunhus residence in Ham Lake gave us the probable cause to look at her computers," Mr. Lindberg says.
Actually, it probably DIDN'T _really_ give them genuine "probable cause." It gave them what should be best described as "possible cause": It indicated that Gunhus had POSSIBLY violated a (unconstitutional) law. (Or someone living with her, etc...) ("Probable cause" is one of the most seriously abused concepts in American law these days, even more then "beyond a reasonable doubt." IMNSHO, they can't possibly have "probable cause" if they can't prove at least a 51% probability that a crime has been committed and the location of the search contained evidence of the crime. They probably rarely have this.)
Mr. Ciresi lost his state's Democratic primary last month.
Seems he deserved it.
The investigation into the e-mail messages continues.