New disclosures on 2600 case (Forwarded message)

23 Apr 1993

      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Although it's not directly related to the cypherpunks agenda,
I wanted to forward this message to the list to show the lengths that
law enforcement agencies will go to do their bidding. Unfortunately,
it would appear that we can expect more of the same shady behaviour in
the future.

8<------ Begin forwarded message ----------

Date:         Wed, 21 Apr 1993 22:18:18 EST
Reply-To: David Sobel <uunet!washofc.cpsr.org!dsobel>
Sender: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
              <uunet!VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU!CPSR%GWUVM.BITNET>
From: David Sobel <uunet!washofc.cpsr.org!dsobel>
Organization: CPSR Civil Liberties and Computing Project
Subject:      New disclosures in 2600 case

  New disclosures in 2600 case

        As you may recall, last November at a shopping mall outside of
Washington, DC, a group of people affiliated with the computer magazine
"2600" was confronted by mall security personnel, local police officers
and several unidentified individuals.  The group members were ordered to
identify themselves and to submit to searches of their personal property.
Their names were recorded by mall security personnel and some of their
property was confiscated.  However, no charges were ever brought against
any of the individuals at the meeting.

        Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility ("CPSR") filed
suit under the Freedom of Information Act and today received the Secret
Service's response to the FOIA lawsuit, in which we are seeking agency
records concerning the break-up of the meeting.  I think it's safe to say
that our suspicions have now been confirmed -- the Secret Service *did*
obtain a list of names from mall security identifying the people in
attendance at the meeting.

        There are three main points contained in the Secret Service's
court papers that are significant:

        1) The agency states that the information it possesses
concerning the incident was obtained "in the course of a criminal
investigation that is being conducted pursuant to the Secret
Service's authority to investigate access device and computer fraud."

        2) The agency possesses two relevant documents and the
information in those documents "consists solely of information
identifying individuals."

        3) The information was obtained from a "confidential source,"
and the agency emphasizes that the FOIA's definition of such a source
includes "any private institution which provided information on a
confidential basis."

        Taken together, these facts seem to prove that the Secret
Service wanted names, they had the mall security people collect them,
and they came away from the incident with the list they wanted.

        The agency asserts that "[t]he premature release of the
identities of the individual(s) at issue could easily result in
interference to the Secret Service's investigation by alerting these
individual(s) that they are under investigation and thus allowing the
individual(s) to alter their behavior and/or evidence."

        CPSR, in conjunction with EFF and the ACLU, is planning to
challenge the actions of the mall security personnel, the local
police and the Secret Service on the ground that the incident
amounted to a warrantless search and seizure conducted at the
behest of the Secret Service.

David Sobel
CPSR Legal Counsel
dsobel@washofc.cpsr.org

8<------ End of forwarded message -------

Cheers.

Paul Ferguson                    |  Uncle Sam wants to read
Network Integration Consultant   |       your e-mail...
Centreville, Virginia USA        | Just say "NO" to the Clipper
fergp@sytex.com                  |          Chip...

New disclosures on 2600 case (Forwarded message)

fergp＠sytex.com