Date: 8 Feb 92 17:31: 39 CST
From: Moderators (tk0jut2@mvs.niu.edu)
Subject: File 1--Bust of "NotSoHumble Babe" / USA

The recent busts of three persons in the Detroit and Los Angeles areas
for alleged carding, theft, software copyright violations and fraud
raise a number of issues of CU relevance. Because of misinformation
circulating on the nature of the case, we summarize what we know of it
below.  "Amy" (handle: "NotSoHumble Babe") was busted on her birthday,
and is not untypical of many CU types, so we focus on her.

1. "Amy" was busted on Jan 30, in Farmington Hills (Mi), by local,
    state, and federal agents. There were reportedly up to 20 agents.
    The large number was because there were several from each
    department, including the FBI, SecServ, Mi State police, and
    others. They reportedly showed no warrant, but knocked on the door
    and asked if they could come in. When "Amy" said "yes," they burst
    (rather than calmly entered) with weapons, including
    "semi-automatics." Her boyfriend was reportedly asleep, and the
    agents awakened him with a gun to his head.  The agent in charge
    was Tony Alvarez of the Detroit SecServ.

2. There has been no indictment, but the agents indicated that charges
   would include theft, fraud, and copyright violations.  (software
   piracy and carding). The initial figure given was a combined $20,00
   for the three ("Amy," "Tom," and Mike").

3. All equipment was confiscated, included "every scrap of paper in
   the house. She was informed that, whatever the outcome of the case,
   she would not receive the equipment back and that it would be kept
   for "internal use."

The above account differs dramatically from one given by "anonymous"
in "Phantasy #6," which was a diatribe against the three for
"ratting." However, the above account seems fairly reliable, judging
from a news account and a source close to the incident.

"Amy" is 27, and reported to be the head of USA (United Software
Alliance), which  is considered by some to be the current top
"cracking" group in the country. If memory serves, "ENTERPRISE BBS"
was the USA homeboard.  She was questioned for about 10 hours, and
"cooperated." She has, as of Saturday (Feb 9) *not* yet talked to an
attorney, although she was put in contact with one late Saturday. The
prosecutor in Oakland County is the same one who is prosecuting Dr.
Kavorkian (of "suicide machine" fame). He has a reputation as
excessively harsh, and his demeanor in television interviews does not
contradict this.

The other two defendants, "Mike/The Grim Reaper," and "Tom/Genesis"
are from the Detroit and Los Angeles areas.

What are the issues relevant for us?

My own radiclib concern is with over-criminalization created by
imposing a label onto a variety of disparate behaviors and then
invoking the full weight of the system against the label instead of
the behaviors. It is fully possible to oppose the behaviors while
recognizing that the current method of labelling, processing, and
punishment may not be wise. Len Rose provides an example of how
unacceptable but relatively benign behaviors lead to excessive
punishment. This, however, is a broader social issue of which
computer-related crimes is simply a symptom.

Of more direct relevance:

1) It appears that the continued use of massive force and weaponry
   continues. We've discussed this before in alluding to cases in New
   York, Illinois, Texas, and California. The video tape of the bust
   of the "Hollywood Hacker" resembles a Miami Vice episode: A
   middle-aged guy is confronted with an army of yelling weapons with
   guns drawn charging through the door.  Others on the board have
   reported incidences of being met with a shotgun while stepping out
   of the shower, a gun to the head while in bed, and (my favorite) a
   15 year old kid busted while working on his computer and the
   agent-in-charge put her gun to his head and reportedly said, "touch
   that keyboard and die." The use of such force in this type of bust
   is simply unacceptable because of the potential danger (especially
   in multi-jurisdictional busts, which reduces the precision of
   coordination) of accidental violence.

2.  Until indictments and supporting evidence are made public, we
    cannot be sure what the occured. But, it seems clear that, for
    "Amy" at least, we are not dealing with a major felon.  Carding is
    obviously wrong, but I doubt that, in situations such as this,
    heavy-duty felony charges are required to "teach a lesson," "set
    an example," and re-channel behavior into more productive outlets.

 3. We can continue to debate the legal and ethical implications of
    software piracy. There is a continuum from useful and fully
    justifiable "creative sharing" to heavy-duty predatory rip-off for
    profit. This case seems to be the former rather than the latter.
    There is no sound reason for treating extreme cases alike.

3. We should all be concerned about how LE frames and dramatizes such
   cases for public consumption. The Farmington newspaper gave it
   major coverage as a national crime of immense proportions. We
   should all be concerned about how piracy cases are handled, because
   even extreme cases have implications for minor ones. Does
   possession of an unauthorized copy of Aldus Pagemaker and Harvard
   Graphics, collective worth more than $1,000, really constitute a
   major "theft"? We have seen from the cases of Len and Craig how
   evaluation of a product is inflated to justify indictments that
   look serious but in fact are not.

I'm not sure what purpose it serves to simply assert that people--even
if guilty of carding or piracy--should "get what's coming to them"
without reflecting on what it is they get and why.  The issue isn't
one of coddling or protecting "criminals," but to examine more
carefully what kinds of computer-related crimes should be
criminalized, which should be torts, and which should be accepted as
minor nuisances and--if not ignored--at least not criminalized.

To give the dead horse one last kick: I am not arguing that we condone
behaviors. I am only suggesting that we reflect more carefully on how
we respond to such behaviors. I do not know the circumstances of "Tom"
and "Mike," but "Amy's" case raises many issues we can address without
condoning the behavior.

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253