Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 08:53 EST From: "Michael E. Marotta" Subject: File 8--Comments on SJG Decision (GRID News) GRID News. March 30, 1993. ISSN 1054-9315. vol 4 nu 2. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (74 lines) Reflections of an Author and Publisher on Judge Sam Sparks' Decision by Michael E. Marotta mercury@well.sf.ca.us Grid News was launched in 1989. While Jolnet and PHRACK were being busted, I was a participant in the White House Conference on Library and Information Services. As a result of that bust, I applied for and received the ISSN designator from the Library of Congress. I wanted it perfectly clear that Grid News is a publication. (After its first volume, I obtained an ISSN for HERMES, a cybercast periodical for economic topics.) What disturbs me about Judge Sparks's ruling are these words: In any event, the Court declines to find from a preponderance of the evidence that on March 1, 1990, Agent Foley or any other employee or agent of the United States had reason to believe that property seized would be the work product materials of a person believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast or other similar form of public communication. Foley and Kluepfel were recognized by the court to be experts in computers. Yet, the court did not expect them to recognize a BBS as a "form of public communication." This is disturbing. Earlier this week, I received a file from Bitnic about the "Clinton-Gore Initiative." That we can link everyone in America to the same fiberoptic network and not have "public communication" is beyond reason. I wrote a book about codes and ciphers (available from Loompanics, P. O. Box 1197, Port Townsend, WA 98368. $13.95 w/s&h). This week, I have the proceedings from Crypto 85 and Crypto 86 and I enjoyed reading Adleman's attack on Shamir's quadratics. However, these guys should be warned that merely attempting to break someone else's cipher is suspect in the eyes of the law. Judge Sparks said: "Kluepfel had legitimate concerns, both about the 911 document stolen from Bell South and the possibility of a decryption system which could utilize passwords in rapid fashion and could result in intrusions of computer systems, including those of the Bell System." And later, he ruled: "If the Secret Service, in the performance of executing Court order, had only obtained and taken the 911 document or alleged decryption materials, application of the definitions of "documentary materials" and "work product materials" would logically result in no violation of the statute under the circumstances of this case." It seems that merely attempting decryption can make you the target of a Secret Service bust. Someone better warn the SETI folks and maybe Dr. Lilly ... (:-) The darkest shadow is cast by these words from the conclusion of the ruling: "It may well be, as the Government Defendants contend, these statutes relied upon by the Plaintiffs should not apply to the facts of this case, as these holdings may result in the government having great difficulties in obtaining information or computer documents representing illegal activities. But this Court cannot amend or rewrite the statutes involved. The Secret Service must go to the Congress for relief. Until that time, this Court recommends better education, investigation and strict compliance with the statutes as written." I suggest that the Secret Service and the telcos will in fact devote their resources to lobbying Congress for tougher laws and will not spend much effort on education within their ranks. Caveat computor. Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253