************************************************************
************************************************************
*** EFF News #1.02 (February 1, 1991) ***
*** The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc. ***
************************************************************
************************************************************
IN THIS ISSUE:
Article 1: SEARCHES AND SEIZURES: A DIALOG ON THE WELL
Article 2: PRODIGY RESPONSES AND LETTER TO THE TIMES
Article 3: COMPUTERS, FREEDOM, & PRIVACY--A CONFERENCE
------------------------------------------------------------
Editors: Mitch Kapor (mkapor@eff.org)
Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org)
REPRINT PERMISSION: Material in EFF News may be reprinted if you
cite the source. Where an individual author has asserted copyright in
an article, please contact her directly for permission to reproduce.
E-mail subscription requests: effnews-request@eff.org
Editorial submissions: effnews@eff.org
We can also be reached at:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
155 Second St.
Cambridge, MA 02141
(617) 864-0665
(617) 864-0866 (fax)
USENET readers are encouraged to read this publication in the moderated
newsgroup comp.org.eff.news. Unmoderated discussion of topics discussed
here is found in comp.org.eff.talk.
This publication is also distributed to members of the mailing list
eff@well.sf.ca.us.
************************************************************
*** Art. 1: SEARCHES AND SEIZURES: A DIALOG ON THE WELL ***
************************************************************
[Editors' Note: The EFF believes it is important to establish a dialog
between the law enforcement community and those who are concerned that
law enforcement's investigation and prosecution of computer crimes
properly acknowledges our civil liberties.
A step toward such a dialog was taken recently on The Well (Whole
Earth 'Lectronic Link), the Sausalito-based BBS/conferencing system
associated with the Whole Earth Review. Gail Thackeray, an assistant
attorney general from Arizona who has been central to Operation Sun
Devil, initiated an exchange about search-and-seizure procedures that
highlighted the different perspectives on this issue.
Although Thackeray was bound by the confidentiality obligations of
her position not to discuss specific cases, she was more than willing to
offer her position on several general issues raised by computer searches
and seizures.]
#191: Gail Thackeray (gailt) Sat, Dec 1, '90 (11:23) 23 lines
A general comment on search warrants: from some of the mail I've
received, there seems to be a press-fostered (?) misconception that
there have been "no-knock" warrants in hacker cases. I do not know of
ANY, served by ANY agency. A "no-knock" warrant requires special
permission of the court, and is very unusual. Standard search procedure
(and I have witnessed more than I can count, both state & fed.) is to
try to time it so that someone (preferably a grownup) is home, often a
LOCAL unformed officer goes to the door, so that the occupants will
recognize a uniform they know. This avoids the strangers-at-mydoor
problem so well publicized by a late-60's FBI incident. The officers
knock, explain that they are there to serve a search warrant, and the
next step is to let the person read the warrant and ask questions.
The first thing which happens inside is called "securing the scene" --
the people in the residence/business are gathered together away from the
possible evidence locations (computers, etc.). Hate to spoil the
stories, but in the vast majority of cases, (and all the ones I have
personally witnessed), everything is really quite calm. The teams I work
with, once the scene is secure, will sit down and answer questions about
procedure, what comes next, whether arrests are also being made
(preferably not, in high-volume white-collar cases -- the search is
usually NOT done at the "end" of an investigation, but is part of the
overall investigation.)
People have asked why in a white-collar case, the cops carry/use guns.
Most departments have established policies governing this issue. Until
the "scene is secure" the cops may have their guns out -- this phase
usually takes about 2 minutes in the usual residence search -- it
doesn't take long to find out who's in the house and establish that
there is no danger. The single most dangerous police function (greatest
number of police deaths) is the traffic stop: the lowest level of
offense, in most states not really a crime, even. The second most
dangerous is the domestic complaint -- not necessarily any crime
involved.
People are most secure in their own homes & cars -- and that's where
they have the readiest access to weapons. That's when most danger to
cops & bystanders arises. Miami Vice has it all backwards -- hardly any
shootouts, statistically, in those cases, compared with traffic stops.
Contrary to the underground-board chatter, it is not S.O.P. to hold
shotguns to people's heads during the entire period of the search -- for
one thing, their arms would get tired! I know of one incident where an
adult who wouldn't calm down and sit and talk had to be physically
restrained briefly, but the goal is just that -to get everybody in the
place as quickly as possible away from the evidence and into an area
where they can read the warrant and ask questions.
Then the search team goes to work, while the people either leave or
wait. Obviously, we prefer to have a responsible adult stay (if there
isn't one there, we try to reach them and get them to come over) and
read the warrant, receive the inventory of items taken, etc.
Another commonly-asked question is, why was it necessary to have 5, 10
etc. people on the search team? Usually, as soon as the scene has been
secured, any extra people, like the uniformed officer who helps
detectives with the entry, leave. In a typical residence search, there
will remain enough officers to "find" and "record" the items to be
taken, and others to pack them up and put them in the vehicles.
There will also be someone, usually, with the occupants, identifying
them and answering questions. If we brought only two officers, the
intrusion into the home would last longer than it does when we have half
a dozen. The search teams in our office (led by very experienced)
officers) generally complete a residence search in somewhere around
three hours -- from knocking on the door to leaving a copy of the
inventory of items seized. Every case is different, and we never know
who/what we will encounter until we get there, but all of the above is
standard, with minor variations between agencies. The goal is to go in,
do the job as quickly as possible, and leave as soon as possible.
When everything works well, that's it. It is a good idea not to throw
things at the officers -- it makes them nervous, and they make more
mistakes when they're nervous...
And finally, we really, truly, do a certain amount of "counselling" --
especially where the likely target is a juvenile, whose parents have no
idea what he's been up to. We explain the nature of the investigation,
usually have to explain how the crime under investigation occurred, and
answer lots of questions like, "what happens next?" Yes, we do,
definitely, allow them to call their attorneys if they want (I actively
encourage this, as it reassures them about the process). We answer as
many questions as we can and refer them to available services.
Obviously, no one enjoys the experience of having their home/office
searched, but our teams are regularly thanked by parents for the way
they handled the situation. (Cross my heart & hope to die, it's true.)
Of course it doesn't always work this smoothly. But then, I am fortunate
in working with outstanding officers, who are very good at this aspect
of their jobs.
#194: Bob Bickford (rab) Sat, Dec 1, '90 (13:28) 29 lines
I respectively submit that your very interesting description of the
process is contradicted by reliable testimony of numerous witnesses both
in the Sun Devil cases and in many other sets of cases. You may protest
that these examples are "atypical" but as far as those people are
concerned the only thing that was 'typical' was what happened to them.
Your perspective is that of someone who sees these frequently, and is
probably quite used to the routine, and thus you have the benefit of
seeing lots of "smooth" ones. The people who experience "non-smooth"
invasions of their homes have a very different story to tell.
Some of the most egregious examples of such "non-smooth" searches happen
in drug cases, where it always seems that the officers in question
entirely forget such niceties as the Constitutional rights of the
accused, or indeed even those of the property owner or his/her guests.
Even if we assume, arguendo, that there is some rational basis for the
existing and rather extreme anti-drug laws, still there ought to be some
respect in these procedures. I can only hope that a few of the injured
parties will win multi-million dollar lawsuits against the government
AND against the responsible officers and officials; that might tend to
force the problem people back into line.
(Uh, none of the latter is directed at Gail; I have no particular reason
to think that she has had any unusual involvement in drug cases, nor to
think that she would have behaved in the grossly unConstitutional ways I
allude to even if she was involved.)
(I hate having to make disclaimers, you know that?)
#196: Gail Thackeray (gailt) Sat, Dec 1, '90 (16:04) 30 lines
DEFINING TERMS:
SUNDEVIL: a primarily-Secret-Service investigation into financial crimes
(fraud, credit-card fraud, communications service losses, etc.) led by
the Phoenix Secret Service office, with task force participation by the
Arizona U.S. Attorney's office and the Arizona Attorney General's
office.
The Neidorf case was an independent investigation handled by the Secret
Service and the U.S. Attorney's office in Chicago; the L.O.D.(BellSouth)
cases were handled by the Secret Service/U.S. Atty in Atlanta. Other
non-Sun Devil cases are several separate investigations centering around
New York (NY State police, et al.), California, and points in between.
You would never figure this out from the mainstream press, because no
matter how many times they're told, they go for the sound bite (sound
byte?) and not the facts. What I described above in my "search warrant"
responses is everything I have witnessed, which includes Arizona and the
Sundevil group of cases -and, if you check with your local P.D.,
standard textbook procedure in most agencies.
As to last comment, I can't think offhand what is meant by "forced
entry" -- most search warrants permit that if all else fails, but since
we usually try to find/get someone home first, it's rare -especially in
the kind of cases we're especially interested in here. If by "forced
entry" is meant the "sorry, don't want any" reaction to salesmen, then I
guess we'd have to call most of them that. The only truly "reliable"
accounts of anything are those tested in court & passed on by the trier
of fact (jury, judge) -- in legalsystem terms. (Within that system,
until it's been so tested, it's only opinion, no matter whose.)
I guess I was right in assuming that raising the UGLY SPECTRE of search
warrant procedure would get the conversation moving... :-)
#199: Craig M. Neidorf (knight) Sat, Dec 1, '90 (19:58) 23 lines
I'm glad that somebody official points out which cases were and were not
Operation Sun-Devil. However, I personally doubt that any kid's parents
are thanking the Secret Service for raiding their homes or wherever.
Even if they appear to thank you, it is probably just their way of
trying to make it look like they are being cooperative and hoping the
gov will be cool with them, like thanking a cop that pulls you over for
speeding and trying to be real nice so you don't get a ticket.
Believe me, my parents do not thank Foley or Bill Cook for the hell they
put us all through, and I think that I stand as a representative victim
for all involved.
Even the Secret Service admits that their standard operating procedures
like restraining everyone involved and shoving their faces into the
floor are out of place when dealing with these computer kids, but they
have done little to adjust their tactics -- mostly I imagine because
they don't care and a bunch of middle class kids who are more worried
about convictions are not going to start a fight over being man-handled
when they are hoping for the government to drop charges and so forth.
They just want to be left alone.
#200: Glenn S. Tenney (tenney) Sat, Dec 1, '90 (23:43) 24 lines
I think that once you start looking objectively from the other side of
the fence (regardless of which side you are on) you will understand the
other side.
Sure, every young cracker you (generic you) know isn't going to pull a
gun, but standard procedures are in place to protect the lives of folks
who do this day in and day out and *DO* face the odd life threatening
situation. That does not mean that it would be a comfortable, relaxing
situation to be a young cracker served with a warrant, but do try to see
things from the other side. If it were you putting your life on the
line, all it takes is once.
Beyond the initial phase, the evidence has to be gathered. Now you might
think, for example, why take a laser printer or a fax machine or an
answering machine? Come on, open your view and see that during an
investigation your computer might not start up properly if the printer
isn't attached (I've known some gear that way), or the fax machine might
have nasty numbers stored in it, or the answering machine might have a
nasty message... Again, I'd hate to be on the wrong side of a seizure,
but much of what happens makes sense.
Sheesh! Am I sounding conservative? Uh, oh -- better turn in my old ACLU
card :-)
#201: Emmanuel Goldstein (emmanuel) Sun, Dec 2, '90 (02:47) 61 lines
Almost EVERY case I've been acquainted with over the years involves some
miscarriage of justice somewhere along the line. We simply cannot ignore
the plain and simple fact that the punishment inflicted in these cases
far outweighs whatever offense has been committed, if any. And that
punishment begins the moment the knock on your door comes. Police
officers do not pull their guns every time they pull over a motorist.
They don't have guns drawn when they respond to a domestic argument. I
see no reason therefore to employ such tactics when investigating a kid
making free calls. It tells me that law enforcement has absolutely no
idea what they're getting into when they encounter such a case. Is it a
14 year old kid or the leader of a terrorist group? Come on. I really
think law enforcement is capable of telling the difference.
Why was it necessary in the summer of 1987 for agents to pretend they
were the United Parcel Service, complete with a truck? Did they really
think they'd be refused entry if it was known they were the law? Or were
they just having a good time playing with the perpetrators? How come it
was necessary in that same year to completely break down a door in New
York City with a battering ram? The family came home to find their door
leaning against the wall! Is that a proper way to carry out a search
warrant when people aren't home? Seems a bit heavy-handed to me.
But that's minor compared to the numerous cases of guns being pulled.
In one case, a kid awoke to find guns pointed at him. In another, guns
were pulled on a kid coming out of the shower! In the ZOD case in New
York this past summer, the kid's mother was terrified when a dozen
strange men pushed by her waving guns and not bothering to clearly
identify themselves. She thought they were about to be murdered and
cried out to her neighbors to call the police before someone finally
thought to say, "We ARE the police." This kind of treatment is
inexcusable. Sooner or later somebody is going to get killed because of
such a misunderstanding.
Then there are the countless cases of equipment being mishandled,
abused, and damaged. I'm sure Steve Jackson can fill in some of those
details. I have firsthand accounts of agents dropping equipment on the
floor and then saying "So sue me" to the suspect. There are so many more
cases but I really think I've made the point. That being that law
enforcement is handling this all wrong. You must remember the different
perspectives at work here. Young teenagers have a completely different
view of the world than most of us. They believe themselves to be
invincible much of the time. They do not respond well to "messages"
beamed at them through the media. It does not apply to them, in their
view. To break through this, you have to reach them on a personal level,
to show them that they are in very real danger. There are many ways of
doing this. Currently, law enforcement seems to be using the most
extreme methods.
What do you think happens to someone who has been through a traumatic
experience like the above? Do they suddenly fall into step and become
good citizens? No. They become bitter and cynical. They believe the
legal system is full of hypocrisies and double standards. You cannot
possibly know the fear that is permanently etched into somebody when
they undergo such an experience. I am thankful that I don't. But too
many young kids today know this fear -- it's becoming almost normal in
the hacker world. By using this approach, and by pledging to send
hackers to jail, an opportunity is being lost. It IS possible to reach
these people, but intimidation and incarceration are two strikes against
that goal.
--End of Article 1--
************************************************************
*** Art. 2: PRODIGY RESPONSES AND A LETTER TO THE TIMES ***
************************************************************
[Editors' Note: In EFF News 1.00, we editorialized about the Sears/IBM-
sponsored information service, Prodigy. We criticized Prodigy's
editorial policies and suggested that Prodigy's problems signify a need
for government policies that promote the establishment by private
entities of more responsive information services. The following are two
responses to the editorial, as well as a letter to the New York Times by
Jerry Berman of the American Civil Liberties Union and Marc Rotenberg of
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.]
Response 1: FROM JOHN AHRENS:
I have just received the first issue of EFF News. Let me be among the
first to congratulate you on the quality of both the layout and the
writing. I was beginning to fear that Cyberspace would be a realm
without formatting and without grammar. EFF News sets a standard.
In the spirit of the frontier that EFF wants to "civilize" (surely you
don't really mean this), I would like to comment on one of the articles.
Article 6 observes that the Prodigy debacle "illustrates the fallacy
that 'pure' market forces always can be relied upon to move
manufacturers and service providers in the direction of open
communication," and calls for a national network-access policy. But
surely this has it backwards.
The market *is* providing open communications. Only ten years after the
appearance of personal computers, we have thousands of BBSs, the fidonet
which connects many of them and is gatewayed to the Internet, and
systems such as the Cleveland Free-net. Virtually every self-respecting
institution of higher education is connected to BitNet or the Internet,
and provides more or less unrestricted access to faculty, and slightly
more limited access to students. Soon, children in elementary and
secondary schools will be joining the network in large numbers. And
there are all of the abuses and crimes and generally rowdy activities
that one would expect in such a situation.
A national network-access policy, would regulate services offered to the
public to ensure that they met certain standards of reliability and
confidentially, and to ensure that everyone was charged a fair price.
Such regulations would have a chilling effect on the emerging Cyberspace
free zones. They would ensure that we get what the bureaucrats think we
need, rather than what we want.
I suggest that EFF and its supporters should give priority to resisting
the emergence of any policy--national, state, or local--on networking.
Let's not civilize the frontier. Let's push back its boundaries, all the
way to the edge of the world.
--John Ahrens
| Internet: AHRENS%UHAVAX.DECNET@UHASUN.HARTFORD.EDU |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| BitNet: ahrens@hartford | Snail: Department of Philosophy |
| ahrensj@sjc | University of Hartford |
| Phone: 203-243-4743 | West Hartford, CT 06117 |
| 203-236-6891 | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 2: FROM BRAD TEMPLETON:
Subject: EFF and Prodigy
In article <1990Dec10.211625.9536@eff.org> mkapor@eff.org (Mitch Kapor)
writes:
>Although EFF is not involved at the moment in any activities
>directly relating to the Prodigy dispute, we believe that the dispute
>touches some basic issues with which we are very concerned, and that it
>illustrates the potential dangers of allowing private entities such as
>large corporations to try and dictate the market for online electronic
>services.
My personal opinion is that the EFF can do little but stand (almost)
wholly behind Prodigy on this one, as distasteful as that may sound to
some.
It is my impression that one of the EFF's goals is to get lawmakers to
realize that electronic publication deserves all the rights and
protections that more traditional forms get.
That means full first amendment protection for electronic publication,
and no government interference. We must realize that the 1st amendment
to your constitution is a double-edge sword, however. You must be
prepared to vigourously defend the right to publish in ways you don't
like.
Prodigy has made it clear from day 1 that they view themselves as an
edited publication. I feel it goes against what I feel are the EFF's
principles to even suggest to them what they should or should not
publish. The EFF should be fighting for their right to publish and
operate as they see fit. Only the market and the will of Prodigy's
owners should influence it.
(I do not say that Mitch was attempting to tell Prodigy what to publish
and what not to. I merely say that I think the EFF's role should be to
defend their right to make that decision.)
The one mitigating factor here is that Prodigy made a serious mistake
and actually told people to take discussions into E-mail. They did not
realize how much traffic that would generate, with some users sending
thousands of messages per day. So we can sympathise with those users who
were told to go to E-mail and later told that this avenue would only be
open to them at a high added cost. But this was a bad business decision,
and nothing more, in my opinion. It will lose them customers.
Many people don't realize the economics of offering flat-rate service.
Flat-rate services only pretend to offer unlimited use. They do this
under the assumption that few, if anybody, we really take them to the
limit. If too many people take you up on it (as happened with PC
Pursuit and now Prodigy) you just can't offer flat rate any more. It's a
fact of business life.
The problem is that computers magnify this difficulty. With a computer
you can use far more of a flat rate service than a human being could
alone. Thus PC-Pursuit broke down when people started making permanent
connections or running USENET feeds.
We can, of course, encourage Prodigy to offer a more unrestricted
service. In fact GEnie, where I am a SYSOP, is getting a lot of mileage
out of the fact that their new flat-rate service offers things that are
more a forum than a magazine. But it must be up to the market, in the
end, to decide between Prodigy, GEnie and a zillion other forum services
of all kinds. -Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. Waterloo,
Ontario 519/884-7473
Letter to The New York Times: JERRY BERMAN AND MARC ROTENBERG:
Marc Rotenberg writes:
Jerry Berman (ACLU) and I wrote a short article that appeared in the New
York Times this morning (Sunday, 1/6/91, business section). It was a
response to the article by Prodigy's Geoff Moore. Comments/criticisms
would be welcome/appreciated.
Here's the NYT article:
"Business Forum: Free Speech in an Electronic Age", The New York Times,
January 6, 1991
- Three weeks ago, Geoffrey E. Moore, director of marketing and
communications at Prodigy Services Company, wrote in the Forum that
Prodigy has no First Amendment obligation to carry every message its
subscribers post on the company's electronic bulletin board. Jerry
Berman of the American Civil Liberties Union and Marc Rotenberg of
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility argue that there is
more to the controversy.
"Prodigy's Forum article on its electronic service and the First
Amendment tells only part of the story. The recent criticism that
brought Prodigy into the national spotlight was not about Prodigy's
decision to curtail public postings about suicide, crime, sex or
pregnancy, as Prodigy suggests. It was rather Prodigy's effort to
suppress a consumer protest that began when Prodigy announced a hefty
increase in the cost of electronic mail.
"When some of Prodigy's subscribers learned of the proposed rate
hike, they posted public messages on the Prodigy bulletin board
available to other subscribers. In early November, Prodigy told
subscribers that they would no longer allow the public posting of
messages about Prodigy's fee policy. So Prodigy subscribers turned to
the private electronic mail to continue their protest. Besides sending
private messages to each other, these subscribers also sent private
messages to businesses which sell or advertise products on Prodigy.
Then prodigy stepped in and ended the protesters' memberships without
notice. Recently, Prodigy instituted a rule prohibiting all electronic-
mail communications with merchants except those directly related to
orders and purchase.
"The Prodigy dispute resembles some of the free speech cases
involving shopping centers. Although shopping centers are private
property and established for commercial activity, state courts have
recognized that they may also be a public forum where free speech may be
exercised. As services like Prodigy attract more and more people to
shop in their electronic mall, they are also creating a new way for
people to communicate with each other. The courts may some day hold
that electronic shopping networks like Prodigy are the public forums of
the 21st century.
"Prodigy contends that there are many other electronic forums to
satisfy free speech needs. Most of these services are small mom-and-pop
operations that can hardly compete with Prodigy which has invested about
one billion dollars to reach a mass market with its easy-to-use service.
Prodigy also says that it is not a common carrier, like the local phone
companies, required to carry all messages. That may be true, but it
raises further concerns about free speech. If the big electronic
networks are run on Prodigy's "family hour" principles, and if the
networks are carved-up among private providers with no common carrier
obligations, electronic free speech and public debate will be
significantly limited.
"Prodigy's dispute with its subscribers show why, to protect
First Amendment rights in the electronic age, we need to press Congress
to establish the infrastructure for an accessible public form and
electronic mail service operating under common carrier principles."
--End of Article 2--
************************************************************
*** Art. 3: COMPUTERS, FREEDOM, & PRIVACY--A CONFERENCE ***
************************************************************
************************************
* The First Conference *
* on *
* COMPUTERS, FREEDOM & PRIVACY *
************************************
Pursuing Policies for the Information Age in the
Bicentennial Year of the Bill of Rights
Tutorials & Conference, Limited to 600 Participants
Monday-Thursday, March 25-28, 1991
SFO Airport Marriott Hotel, Burlingame, CA, On the San Francisco
Peninsula
Co-sponsors & cooperating organizations include:
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-USA
Association for Computing Machinery Electronic Networking
Association
Electronic Frontier Foundation Videotex Industry Association
American Civil Liberties Union Cato Institute
IEEE Intellectual Property Committee ACM SIG on Software
ACM Special Interest Group on Computers & Society
ACM Committee on Scientific Freedom and Human Rights
IEEE-USA Committee on Communications and Information Policy
Autodesk, Inc. Apple Computer, Inc. The WELL Portal
Communications
Sponsored by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
A nonprofit, educational corporation (415)322-3778
e-mail: cfp@well.sf.ca.us fax: (415)851-2814
The sponsoring & cooperating organizations support this project to
enhance communication, understanding and consensus about these crucial issues,
but do not necessarily endorse views that may be expressed by participants.
ABOUT COMPUTERS, FREEDOM & PRIVACY --
We are at a crossroads as individuals, organizations and governments
increasingly use and depend on computers and computer networks. Within
ten years, most information will be utilized and exchanged
electronically.
We are in the pivotal decade when computer facilities and
policies,worldwide, will mature. They can allow and encourage mass
access to and useof great information processing and networking power,
and control potential
abuse.
For potent personal benefit, business improvement and national well-
being,information and its efficient access are becoming economically
available to individuals, organizations and governments. Such access
can greatly enhancesound decisions based on timely access to essential
knowledge.
Data on individuals and groups is being collected, computerized
andexchanged at an exponentially increasing rate within numerous
agencies and organizations.This has great legitimate value, but has also
prompted increasing concerns regarding issues of personal privacy.
To assure sound and equitable decisions, the public, the press and a
broad range of policy-makers must understand and openly discuss these
issues, their interactions and their implications for the future.
To protect the fundamental freedoms and personal privacy that are the
foundation of any free people, all parties must be informed, and all
must share in shaping and enhancing the great potential of the
Information Age.
ABOUT THE TUTORIALS (Monday) --
Seminars on March 25th offer parallel introductions to different
disciplines that converge in this conference. These are surveys for
individuals not already expert in the topics presented. They are half-
day tutorials, a.m. and p.m. Lecturers, topics, descriptions and times
were confirmed as of a late January press deadline, but may be subject
to change.
HOW COMPUTER CRIME IS INVESTIGATED
This reviews investigation, search, seizure and evidence requirements
for pursuing computer crime. It is for computer users, computer owners,
BBS sysops and investigators and attorneys unfamiliar with computer
crime practices. [p.m.]
-- Don Ingraham, nationally-known computer crime prosecutor,
Asst. District Attorney, Alameda County, California.
INFORMATION SECURITY
A primer for managers, lawyers and educators, this surveys computer
crime,risks, due care, trusted systems, safeguards & other security
issues.[p.m.]
-- Donn Parker, a leading consultant in information security
and computer crime, SRI International.
HOW COMPUTER CRACKERS CRACK!
Reviews real cases and how to recognize, prevent and investigate
computer security breaches. For computer center managers,
administrators, sysops, law enforcement and press . [a.m.]
-- Russell Brand, computer security specialist; programmer, Reasoning
Sys..
COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS & THE GLOBAL MATRIX
Survey of electronic-mail and teleconferencing services, access to
networked information services and remote computing applications, and an
overview of the worldwide computer matrix. [a.m.]
-- John Quarterman, author of, *The Matrix: Computer Networks &
Conferencing Systems Worldwide*; Texas Internet Consulting.
LOW-COST NETWORKS & COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEMS
(BBS)
Electronic-mail, bulletin board systems and tele-conferencing
alternatives with personal computers; outlines low-cost PC networks and
gateways to the global matrix. [p.m.]
-- Mark Graham, co-founder of Institute for Global Communications,
PeaceNet and EcoNet; Pandora Systems; and
-- Tim Pozar, well-known expert on the 10,000-computer FidoNet.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION IMPACTING COMPUTER USE
Detailed review of landmark federal statutes impacting access to
information, privacy of personal information, computer security and
computer crime. [p.m.]
-- Marc Rotenberg, former congressional counsel and expert on federal
computer legislation, CPSR, Washington DC.
COMPUTER-RELATED LEGISLATION WITHIN STATES
Survey of states' differing statutes that impact access to
information, privacy of information, computer security and computer
crime. [a.m.]
-- Buck Bloombecker, nationally-known researcher, lecturer and
consultant on computer security, crime & legislation.
IMPACTS ON THE U.S. OF OTHER NATIONS' PRIVACY INITIATIVES
European Economic Community and other international privacy and data
protection plans affecting trans-border data-flow and computer
communications, greatly impacting U.S. information practices and
international business. [a.m.]
-- Ron Plesser, former General Counsel, U.S. Privacy Protection Study
Commission; attorney, Piper & Marbury, Washington, DC.
ABOUT THE CONFERENCE SESSIONS (Tuesday-Thursday) --
Single-track Conference & banquet sessions Mar.26th through Mar.28th
offer diverse speakers & panel discussions including:
Key speakers include:
* Laurence H. Tribe,
Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School [Tuesday morning]:
"The Constitution in Cyberspace: Law & Liberty Beyond the Electronic
Frontier".
* Eli M. Noam,
Director, Center for Telecommunications & Information Studies, Columbia
University [Tuesday banquet]:
"Network Environments of the Future: Reconciling Free Speech and
Freedom of Association".
* William A. Bayse,
FBI's Assistant Director, Technical Services Division [Wednesday
banquet]:
"Balancing Computer Security Capabilities with Privacy and Integrity".
THE CONSTITUTION IN THE INFORMATION AGE [opening session]
Introductory remarks. Major policy proposals regarding electronic
communications and Constitutional protections, by Prof. Laurence Tribe.
ELECTRONIC SPEECH, PRESS & ASSEMBLY
Freedoms and responsibilities regarding electronic speech, public and
private electronic assembly, electronic publishing; issues of prior
restraint and chilling effects of monitoring.
COMPUTER-BASED SURVEILLANCE OF INDIVIDUALS
Monitoring electronic-mail, public & private teleconferences,
electronic bulletin boards, publications and subscribers; monitoring
individuals, work performance, buying habits and lifestyles.
PERSONAL INFORMATION & PRIVACY
Government and private collection, sharing, marketing, verification,
use, protection of, access to and responsibility for personal data,
including buying patterns, viewing habits, lifestyle, work, health,
school, census, voter, tax, financial and consumer information.
ETHICS & EDUCATION
Ethical principles for individuals, system administrators,
organizations, corporations and government; copying of data, copying of
software, distributing confidential information; relations to computer
education and computer law.
TRENDS IN COMPUTER NETWORKS
Overview and prognosis of computing capabilities and networking as
they impact personal privacy, confidentiality, security, one-to-one and
many-to-one communications, and access to information about government,
business and society.
LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES & PROBLEMS
Issues relating to investigation, prosecution, due process and
deterring computer crimes, now and in the future; use of computers to
aid law enforcement.
LAW ENFORCEMENT & CIVIL LIBERTIES
Interaction of computer crime, law enforcement and civil liberties;
issues of search, seizure and sanctions, especially as applied to shared
or networked information, software and equipment.
LEGISLATION & REGULATION
Legislative and regulatory roles in protecting privacy and insuring
access; legal problems posed by computing and computer networks;
approaches to improving related government processes.
ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
Implementing individual and corporate access to federal, state & local
information about communities, corporations, legislation,
administration, the courts and public figures; allowing access while
protecting confidentiality.
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES & IMPACTS
Other nations' models for protecting personal information and
communications, and for granting access to government information;
existing and developing laws including EC'92; requirements for trans-
national data-flow and their potential impacts; implications for
personal expression; accountability issues.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? [closing session]
Perspectives, recommendations and commitments of participants from the
major interest groups, proposed next steps to protect personal privacy,
protect fundamental freedoms and encourage responsible policies and
action.
ALSO: Tuesday and Wednesday will include structured opportunities for
attendees to identify groups with whom they want to establish contact
and, if they wish, announce topics they would like to discuss, one on
one.
ABOUT JUST SOME OF THE CONFERENCE SPEAKERS --
Ken Allen, Senior Vice President for Governmental Relations, Information
Industries Association (IIA).
Sharon Beckman, civil rights and criminal defense attorney and
Electronic Frontier Foundation litigation counsel, Silverglate & Good.
Jerry Berman, Director of the ACLU's Project on Information Technology
and Communications Policy Fellow, Benton Foundation.
Paul Bernstein, columnist, *Trial* mag.; Electronic Bar Assn. Legal
Info. Network administrator; LawMUG BBS sysop; edits on-line lawyers'
newsletter.
Sally Bowman, promotes responsible computing practices through school
teaching units; Director, Computer Learning Foundation.
David Burnham, author, *Rise of the Computer State*; former New York
Times investigative reporter; specialist in IRS & Freedom of Information
Act.
Mary Culnan, co-authored major credit reporting policies presented to
Congress; School of Business Administration, Georgetown University.
Dorothy Denning, received Aerospace's 1990 Distinguished Lecturer in
Computer Security award; author, *Cryptography & Data Security*.
Peter Denning, Editor, 1990 *Computers Under Attack*; past President,
ACM; founding Director, RIACS; editor, *Communications of the ACM*.
Dave Farber, co-founder, CSNET; member, National Research Council's
Computer Science & Telecommunications Board; University of
Pennsylvania.
Cliff Figallo, Director of the WELL (the Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link),
one of the best-reputed of the public teleconferencing systems.
David Flaherty, Canadian surveillance expert, Professor of History and
Law at the University of Western Ontario.
John Ford, Public Relations Director for Equifax, one of the nation's
largest providers of personal and credit information.
Bob Gellman, Chief Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives Governmental
Information Subcommittee.
Janlori Goldman, Director of the ACLU's Project on Privacy and
Technology, Washington, DC.
Harry Hammit, Editor, Access Reports, focusing on access to and freedom
of information, Washington, DC.
Martin Hellman, identified potential hazards in federal DES national
encryption standard; co-invented public-key encryption; Stanford.
Evan Hendricks, Editor/Publisher *Privacy Times* newsletter, Washington,
DC.
Lance Hoffman, public policy researcher and Professor of Electrical
Engineering & Computer Science at George Washington University.
Don Ingraham, wrote the first-ever search warrant for magnetic media,
computer crime prosecutor; Asst. District Attorney, Alameda County.
Bob Jacobson, former Prin. Consultant, California State Assembly
Utilities & Commerce Committee; drafted landmark computer
communications legislation.
Mitch Kapor, co-founder, Electronic Frontier Foundation; founder, Lotus
Corp.; received DPMA's 1990 Distinguished Information Science Award.
Tom Mandel, Director of the Leading Edge Values & Lifestyles Program at
SRI International.
John McMullen, well-known on-line journalist; co-authors "Newsbytes"
column on GEnie and Online America.
Peter Neumann, member, National Research Councils's 1990 *Computers at
Risk* comm.; Chair, ACM Comm.on Computers & Public Policy; moderates
RISKS Forum.
Donn Parker, perhaps the best-known international consultant and author
on information security and computer crime, SRI International.
Ron Plesser, former General Counsel, U.S. Privacy Protection Study
Commission; attorney, Piper & Marbury, Washington DC.
John Quarterman, author of the definitive study, *The Matrix: Computer
Networks and Conferencing Systems Worldwide*; Texas Internet Consulting.
Jack Rickard, Editor of *Boardwatch* magazine, perhaps the best news
source about computer bulletin boards; runs online information service.
Tom Riley, Canadian specialist in international computer communications
and privacy issues; Riley Information Services, Inc.
Lance Rose, co-author of *Syslaw*, about the law applied to on-line
situations; attorney, Wallace & Rose.
Marc Rotenberg, expert in federal computer and privacy law; Computer
Professionals for Social Responsibility, Washington office Director.
Noel Shipman, attorney for plaintiffs in electronic-mail privacy
landmark 1990 litigation against Epson America.
Harvey Silverglate, Electronic Frontier Foundation litigation counsel,
specialist in criminal defense and civil rights, Silverglate & Good.
Gail Thackeray, computer crime prosecutor; involved in Secret Service's
"Operation Sun Devil", former Arizona Asst. State Attorney General.
Robert Veeder, Acting Chief, Information Policy Branch, Office of
Information Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management & Budget
(OMB).
Willis Ware, Chair, U.S. Computer Systems Security & Privacy Advisory
Board established by Congress in 1987; Fellow, RAND Corporation.
Alan Westin, leader in early privacy legislation; co-authored landmark
*Equifax Report on Consumers in the Information Age*; Columbia
University.
Sheldon Zenner, former federal prosecutor in Chicago; defended *Phrack*
electronic publisher, Craig Neidorf; Katten, Muchin & Zavis.
CONFERENCE CHAIR
Jim Warren, Autodesk, Inc. & MicroTimes
415-851-7075, jwarren@well.sf.ca.us / e-mail
PROGRAM COMMITTEE
Dorothy Denning, Digital Equipment Corporation
Peter Denning, Research Inst. for Advanced Comp.Sci.
Les Earnest, Midpeninsula ACLU & Stanford U., ret.
Elliot Fabric, Attorney at Law
Mark Graham, Pandora Systems
Don Ingraham, Alameda County District AttyUs Office
Bruce Koball, Motion West
Marc Rotenberg, Comp. Prof. for Social Responsibility
Glenn Tenney, Fantasia Systems & The Hackers Conf.
ADVISORS
Ron Anderson, ACM SIGCAS & Univ. of Minnesota
John Perry Barlow, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Jerry Berman, ACLU & Benton Foundation
Dave Caulkins, USSR GlasNet
Vint Cerf, Corp.for National Research Initiatives
Margaret Chambers, Electronic Networking Assn.
Steve Cisler, Apple Computer, Inc.
Whit Diffie, Northern Telecom
Mary Eisenhart, MicroTimes
Dave Farber, University of Pennsylvania
Cliff Figallo, The WELL
John Gilmore, Cygnus Support
Adele Goldberg, ParcPlace Systems
Terry Gross, Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, et al
Keith Henson, consultant & Alcor
Lance Hoffman, George Washington University
Dave Hughes, Chariot Communications
Bob Jacobson, Human Interface Technology Lab.
Mitch Kapor, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Roger Karraker, Santa Rosa College
Tom Mandel, SRI International
John McMullen, NewsBytes
Peter Neumann, SRI International
Dave Redell, Digital Equipment Corporation
Ken Rosenblattt, Santa Clara Cnty. Dist. Atty's Office
Paul Saffo, Institute for the Future
Gail Thackeray, Arizona Attorney GeneralUs Office
Jay Thorwaldson, Palo Alto Medical Foundation
Terry Winograd, CPSR & Stanford University
Sheldon Zenner, Katten, Muchin, & Zavis
Affiliations are listed only for identification purposes.
****************************
* Application to Attend *
****************************
First Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy, March 25-28, 1991
Monday: Tutorials, Tuesday-Thursday: Conference Sessions & Banquets
SFO Marriott Hotel, 1800 Old Bayshore Hwy., Burlingame CA 94010
For hotel reservations at a special $99 Conference rate, call: (800)228-
9290
Due to the size of the facility, Conference registration is limited to
600 people. Tutorials registration is also limited. Balanced
participation from all of the diverse interest groups is being actively
encouraged.
Interested individuals should apply early to assure
acceptance.Applications will be accepted primarily on a first-come,
first-served basis, while encouraging balanced participation.
REGISTRATION FEES: If payment received: by Feb.8 2/8-3/15 after 3/15
Conference (3 days, incl.luncheons, banquets) $295 $350 $400
Tutorials (full day, 1 or 2 seminars) $95 $145 $195
Please circle fee and date selections.
Please make checks payable to "Computers, Freedom & Privacy / CPSR".
Please do not send cash. (If space is sold out, the uncashed check will
be voided and promptly returned.)
Check the "[x]" if information should NOT appear in the published
Attendee Roster. (Roster will greatly assist ongoing communications.)
[ ] name:
[ ] title:
[ ] organization:
[ ] mailing address:
[ ] city ST Zip:
[ ] phone(s):
[ ] fax:
[ ] e-mail:
Name-tag name:
Name-tag title:
Name-tag organization:
Expect to stay at SFO Marriott? [ ]yes [ ]no
To aid in balancing participation among groups,
please check all significantly applicable items.
[ ] user of computers or computer networking
[ ] user of electronic-mail services
[ ] user of teleconferencing services
[ ] user of direct marketing services
[ ] user of computerized personal information
[ ] user of government information
[ ] computer professional
[ ] BBS sysop (bulletin board system operator)
[ ] systems administrator / infosystems manager
[ ] network administrator
[ ] computer / communications security specialist
[ ] provider of data communications services
[ ] provider of electronic-mail services
[ ] provider of teleconferencing services
[ ] provider of direct marketing services
[ ] provider of computerized personal information
[ ] provider of government information
[ ] legislative official or staffqfederalqstate
[ ] regulatory official or staff [ ]federal [ ]state
[ ] law enforcement [ ]federal [ ]state [ ]local
[ ] prosecutor [ ]federal [ ]state [ ]local
[ ] judicial representative [ ]federal [ ]state [ ]local
[ ] criminal defense attorney
[ ] corporate or litigation attorney
[ ] civil liberties specialist
[ ] journalist [ ]newspaper [ ]television [ ]radio [ ]other
[ ] other:
[ ] other:
Privacy Notice:
This information will not be sold, rented, loaned, exchanged or used for
any purpose other than official CPSR activity. CPSR may elect to send
information about other activities, but such mailings will always
originate with CPSR.
Please mail form and payment to Conference office:
CFP Conference, 345 Swett Road, Woodside CA 94062
e-mail: cfp@well.sf.ca.us; fax: (415)851-2814
Conference Chair: Jim Warren, (415)851-7075
Sponsor: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility,
415)322-3778, a nonprofit, educational corporation [Internal
Revenue Code 501(c)(3)]
OTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PREMIER CONFERENCE --
This is an intensive, multi-disciplinary survey Conference for those
concerned with computing, teleconferencing, electronic mail,
computerized personal information, direct marketing information,
government data, etc. -- and those concerned with computer-related
legislation, regulation, computer security, law enforcement and national
and international policies that impact civil liberties, responsible
exercise of freedom and equitable protection of privacy in this global
Information Age.
For the first time, this 4-day event will bring together
representatives from all of these groups and more, all in one place, all
at one time.
Many of the recognized leaders and strongest advocates among the
various groups interested in the issues of the conference will discuss
their concerns and proposals.
Attendance will be limited to 600 people. Balanced representation
from the diverse groups interested in these issues is being encouraged.
Please see the enclosed application for details.
To inform participants about topics beyond their specialties, a number
of half-day seminars are scheduled in parallel for the first day
(Monday, March 25th). These tutorials will explore relevant issues in
computing, networking, civil liberties, regulation, the law and law
enforcement. Each tutorial is designed for those who are experienced in
one area, but are less expert in the tutorials' topics.
To explore the interactions and ramifications of the issues,
conference talks and panel discussions are scheduled in a single track
for the remaining three days (Tuesday-Thursday, March 26th-28th). These
will emphasize balanced representation of all major views, especially
including probing questions and discussion.
Explicit Conference events to foster communication across disciplines
are planned. Working luncheons, major breaks and two evening banquets
will further encourage individual and small-group discussions.
Please copy, post & circulate! [version 2.7, updated 1/26/91]
--End of Article 3--
:
