------------------------------ Subject: Response to SJG Affidavit (part 1) From: David G. Cantor Date: Wed, 14 Nov 90 22:48:06 -0800 ******************************************************************** *** CuD #2.12: File 6 of 9: Response to SJG Affidavit (part 1) *** ******************************************************************** I just received the special issue CUD on the search affidavit for Steve Jackson. Thank you for publishing it. Perhaps you could discuss how transferring a document can be a crime, other than possibly a (relatively minor) copyright violation? If it truly is a crime, as stated in the affidavit, then anyone, by calling a document proprietary and attaching a large value to it, can, in effect, create a classified document and have this classification enforced by the US Government. As the Pentagon Papers case (dismissed against Daniel Ellsburg) showed, it's extremely difficult to prosecute such cases, even when they are real! Note that in Ellsburg's case there was no doubt that the documents in question were government documents. classified SECRET (mostly). Yet the case against Ellsburg was dismissed. Of course, Ellsburg had powerful allies: The New York Times and the Washington Post, among others. You pointed out, "It should also be remembered that the "$79,449.00" document in question was shown to contain nothing of substance that is not available to the general public for under $14. Further, to our knowledge, there is no evidence, contrary to suggestions, that E911 software was obtained". I find it troubling that these considerations are even relevant. What was transferred were a few electrons forming information, not classified, or otherwise secret. Even if it were 911 software, so what? No criminal charges were made concerning copyright or patent violations I also wonder, considering the generally tight budgets in our government, why the "Feds" are so interested in this case? Why are they investing so much effort? In my limited experience, this occurs when some party has an ax to grind or something special to gain. For example, in one of the first such cases, against Ronald Mark Austin (who in 1983 was convicted of a felony, primarily for accessing the (then) Arpanet), Los Angeles District Attorney Phillibosian (appointed by the Governor) was running in his first election. Presumably for publicity to help his re-election campaign, he fried Austin in a MAJOR PRESS CONFERENCE (this DA also gave us the infamous McMartin child molestation case). Who stands to gain in the current prosecution? Is it Bell South, trying to protect its turf in some way, or cover up something it has done? Is it having problems with its 911 system it would like to blame on someone else? Clearly it has the clout to cause such a prosecution. But WHY? This whole case STINKS. ******************************************************************** >> END OF THIS FILE << *************************************************************************** Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253 12yrs+