BBS seizures

[L. Detweiler]

some annoying anonymous FIDONet apologist writes:
>In any case, I am informed hobby sysops have been arrested and their
>systems seized for allegedly illegal traffic on their systems of which
>they claim to have had no knowledge.  I believe this is the case in the
>CT case pending.  

First of all, the Connecticut case you seem to be referring to is that
of Michael Elansky (Hartford). See Computer Underground Digest for full
details. This was *not* email. He had file downloads and kept around
(uh) "fireworks recipes".

We've got to track down these supposed cases where boards were seized
for content. I consider them minor *anomalies*, and I think a rational
analysis of statistics will bear that out. Turning a board into a
systematic exercise in privacy violation is *not* the proper response
to paranoia about law enforcement seizures. This punishes users for the
misdeeds of overzealous officers. Sort of like ``because Steve Jackson
was raided we have to monitor all traffic'' or ``because there are 50K
missing children a year, you can't go outside to play''. Read the
*scalding* decision handed down by the judge in the S.J. case on T.
Foley and decide what the law *really* says about BBS seizures and
operator responsibility.

Don't these Fidonet operators *understand* that by perpetuating the
myth that they are responsible for all traffic on their machines, that
they are actually *playing into* the hands of authorities? they are
*strengthening* the paranoid atmosphere. And in fact I am quite
repulsed by their policies, posted here, that seem to cutely
rationalize systematic invasion of privacy. IMHO FIDOnet operators are
perpetuating that sort of media-hysteria-frenzy associated with illegal
activities on boards by their warped policies. The outcome of Steve
Jackson case should foster glasnost, ease, and freedom among the
operators, but instead it appears to have had the opposite effect on
FidoNet operators, who have done a fine job of erecting a vast,
oppressive network of systematic surveillance more appropriate to the NSA.

>Even if these cases are eventually dismissed, the
>legal expense and personal disruption to a private party (usually a
>young person of very limited means) is catastrophic and without
>practical recourse.

But this is absurd. There may be legal expenses associated with any
illegal seizure. One may be subject to seizure and involved in a
judicial process no matter *what* the policies. Would you rather
approach that process saying that `I have no knowledge of illegal
activity, I don't monitor any email traffic' or `uh, as far as I've
seen nothing illegal is going on, and I know *everything* that's going
on' or worse, `gee, somehow that one slipped by'?

At the *very minimum* there should be no restrictions on cryptography
use. And if they want to join cyberspatial society, they are going to
have to drop their silly paranoias and bizarre policies and routine
privacy invasion.

Fidonet operators wallowing in delusion and hysteria appear to have
missed an article by Joe Abernathy in the  Houston Chronicle ~Feb 1, 1993:

  > AUSTIN -- An electronic civil rights case against the Secret
  > Service closed Thursday with a clear statement by federal
  > District Judge Sam Sparks that the Service failed to conduct a
  > proper investigation in a notorious computer crime crackdown,
  > and went too far in retaining  custody of seized equipment.
  >
  > Secret Service Special Agent Timothy Foley of Chicago, who was in
  > charge of three Austin computer search-and-seizures on March 1,
  > 1990, that led to the lawsuit, stoically endured Spark's rebuke
  > over the Service's poor investigation and abusive computer
  > seizure policies.  While the Service has seized dozens of
  > computers since the crackdown began in 1990, this is the first
  > case to challenge the practice.
  >
  > Sparks grew visibly angry when it was established that the Austin
  > science fiction magazine and game book publisher was never
  > suspected of a crime, and that agents did not do even marginal
  > research to establish a criminal connection between the firm and
  > the suspected illegal activities of an employee, or to determine
  > that the company was a publisher. Indeed, agents testified that
  > they were not even trained in the Privacy Protection Act at the
  > special Secret Service school on computer crime.
  >
  > "How long would it have taken you, Mr. Foley, to find out what
  > Steve Jackson Games did, what it was?" asked Sparks. "An hour?
  >
  > "Was there any reason why, on March 2, you could not return to
  > Steve Jackson Games a copy, in floppy disk form, of everything
  > taken?
  >
  > "Did you read the article in Business Week magazine where it had
  > a picture of Steve Jackson -- a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen
  > -- saying he was a computer crime suspect?
  >
  > "Did it ever occur to you, Mr. Foley, that seizing this material
  > could harm Steve Jackson economically?"
  >
  > Foley replied, "No, sir," but the judge offered his own answer.
  >
  > "You actually did, you just had no idea anybody would actually go
  > out and hire a lawyer and sue you."
  >
  > More than $200,000 has been spent by the Electronic Frontier
  > Foundation in bringing the case to trial. The EFF was founded by
  > Mitchell Kapor amid a civil liberties movement sparked in large
  > part by the Secret Service computer crime crackdown.