**************************************************************************** >C O M P U T E R U N D E R G R O U N D< >D I G E S T< *** Volume 1, Issue #1.14 (June 14, 1990) ** **************************************************************************** MODERATORS: Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer REPLY TO: TK0JUT2@NIU.bitnet COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. -------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Contributors assume all responsibility for assuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. -------------------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************************** *** Computer Underground Digest Issue #1.14 / File 2 of 5 *** *************************************************************** ------------- Forwarded from Telecom Digest ------------- In article <8820@accuvax.nwu.edu> henry@garp.mit.edu writes: > >In reply to Frank Earl's note ... I would reckon one of the problems >is that most people don't know where the FBI's jurisdiction begins or >where the Secret Service's jurisdiction ends. I had a visit on Friday >afternoon from an FBI agent and it seemed to be mostly reasonable, >except he identified himself as being from a unit that I wouldn't >associate with this sort of investigation. Secret Service jurisdiction over computer crimes is set out in 18 USC 1030(d): The United States Secret Service shall, in addition to any other agency having such authority, have the authority to investigate offenses under this section. [18 USC 1030 is titled "Fraud and related activity in connection with computers.] Such authority of the United States Secret Service shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General. There is a similar provision in 18 USC 1029, which concerns "Fraud and related activity in connection with access devices." Mike Godwin, UT Law School ------------------ ******************************************************************** ------------------- The following is an anonymous submission. ------------------- Can someone answer the following? Operation Sun Devil is a two year investigation. If I'm counting right, including the number of federal and state officers involved in serving search warrants, at least 300 were involved in some capacity. Also, if I'm counting right, there have been only 9 arrests: 1) One guy in California who was arrested during a search on an unrelated charge (weapon's possession)(Doc Ripco?) 2) One guy in Chicago who was arrested during the search on an unrelated charge (weapons) 3) A woman in Pittsburgh (Electra?) 4) Terminus in New Jersey 5) Anthony Nusall in Tucson 6) Craig Neidorf (for publishing phrack) 7) Robert Riggs (for E911 documents) 8) Adam Grant (Atlanta) 9) Frank Darden (Atlanata) The first four were busted in January, and the last four in the last month. So, of the 9, only 7 were busted on computer-related charges. Of the 7, the charges seem bogus at best, such as Craig Neidorf's, if the information I've read is even half accurate. Now, here's my question: If warrants are supposed to indicate a crime has been committed, shouldn't there be more arrests if there is such a crime wave out there? After all that time, all that investigation, all that hype---where's all the crooks?? I suppose the cops could say it takes time to collect evidence. But aren't they supposed to have evidence when they get the search warrants? How long can it possibly take to acquire evidence if the groundwork has already been laid and if cops supposedly know what they're looking for?? Am I missing something? Will other charges be like those reported against Craig--for publishing? If I havae phrack 24 and the E911 file, does that make me a crook? If I uploaded it to a board. Can that board be busted for receiving stolen information? Maybe I'm missing something, but is there something wrong here? Where is this giant conspiracy? Where is all the harm that's going on? I guess the cops would say they can't talk while an investigation is going on, but hasn't it been going on for years? Shouldn't they have something they can convey other than general notions of threats to national security, huge losses, major conspiracies, and the rest of their babble? Is there something wrong with this picture?? =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ + END THIS FILE + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=  Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253 12yrs+