Hackers Underworld 2: Forbidden Knowledge/Hackers Underworld 2: Forbidden Knowledge.iso/LEGAL/EFF102.TXT

Text File | 1994-07-17 | 53KB | 1,109 lines

************************************************************
************************************************************
***           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 ([e-mail])
        Mike Godwin ([e-mail])

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:    [e-mail]
Editorial submissions:        [e-mail]

We can also be reached at:

Electronic Frontier Foundation
155 Second St.
Cambridge, MA 02141

[phone]
[phone] (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
[e-mail].


************************************************************
*** 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 des