Article 4 of comp.org.eff.news: Xref: vpnet comp.org.eff.news:4 comp.org.eff.talk:299 misc.legal:502 Path: vpnet!tellab5!laidbak!ism.isc.com!ispd-newsserver!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!ames!decwrl!world!eff!mnemonic From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.news,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: EFF News 1.02, including Dialog on Search and Seizure Message-ID: <1991Feb1.155332.4233@eff.org> Date: 1 Feb 91 15:53:32 GMT Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Lines: 1111 Approved: mnemonic@eff.org ************************************************************ ************************************************************ *** 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-- -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 | "That information, as I have repeated infinitely mnemonic@eff.org | to myself, is classified ... though the keeping Electronic Frontier | of secrets ... seems less meaningful to me now." Foundation | --Major Garland Briggs Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253 12yrs+