n


Article #58 (58 is last):
From: Cu-Digest (tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu)              <TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
Subject: Cu Digest, #5.22 -- Text of Decision in SJG Suit
Newsgroups: comp.society.cu-digest
Reply-To: tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu
Date: Fri Mar 26 00:13:00 1993


Computer underground Digest    Thu Mar 25 1993   Volume 5 : Issue 22
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Copy Eater: Etaion Shrdlu, Senior

CONTENTS, #5.22 (Mar 25 1993)
File 1--Judge Spark's Decision in Steve Jackson Games Suit

Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost from tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu. The editors may be
contacted by voice (815-753-6430), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at:
Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115.

Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL0 and DL12 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210;
in Europe from the ComNet in Luxembourg BBS (++352) 466893;

ANONYMOUS FTP SITES:
  UNITED STATES:  ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/cud
                  uglymouse.css.itd.umich.edu (141.211.182.53) in /cud
                  halcyon.com( 202.135.191.2) in /pub/mirror/cud
  AUSTRALIA:      ftp.ee.mu.oz.au (128.250.77.2) in /pub/text/CuD.
  EUROPE:         nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud. (Finland)
                  ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud (United Kingdom)

Back issues also may be obtained through mailservers at:
mailserv@batpad.lgb.ca.us   or  server@blackwlf.mese.com

COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views.  CuD material may  be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited.  Some authors do copyright their material, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission.  It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified.  Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication.  Articles are
preferred to short responses.  Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.

DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
            the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
            responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
            violate copyright protections.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 19:22:49 PST
From: Anonymous@well.sf.ca.us
Subject: File 1--Judge Spark's Decision in Steve Jackson Games Suit

ALTHOUGH THIS IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT-IF YOU POST THIS OPINION
PLEASE RETAIN THIS CREDIT:FIRST BBS POSTING-FLETC-INFONET
KFM M-SYSOP- 3-24-93 9:32PM- THANKS

          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
          WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
          AUSTIN DIVISION

STEVE JACKSON GAMES                *s
INCORPORATED, et al.,              *s
Plaintiffs,                        *s
                                   *s
V.                                 *s NO. A 91  CA 346 SS
                                   *s
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE,      *s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,  *s
Defendants                         *s

                    Opinion

                    I. Facts

     The issues remaining at trial in this lawsuit involves the
Plaintiffs Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated, Steve Jackson,
Elizabeth McCoy, Walter Milliken, and Steffan O'Sullivan's causes
of action against the United States Secret Service and the United
States of America pursuant to three statutes, "Private Protection
Act",42 U.S.C. 2000aa et seq.;"Wire and Electronic Communications
Interception and Interception of Oral Communication" Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510, et seq.; and "Stored Wire and Electronic
Communications and Transactional Records Access" Act, 18 U.S.C
2701, et seq. All other issues and parties have been withdrawn by
agreement of these remaining parties.

     The individual party plaintiffs are residents of the states
of Texas and New Hampshire, and the corporate plaintiff is a
Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Austin,
Texas.

     The Plaintiff Steve Jackson started Steve Jackson Games in
1980 and subsequently incorporated his business. Steve Jackson
Games, Incorporated, publishes books, magazines, box games, and
related products'. More than 50 percent of the corporation's
revenues are derived from its publications. In addition, Steve
Jackson Games, Incorporated, beginning in the mid-1980s and
continuing through this litigation, operated from one of its
computers an electronic bulletin board system called Illuminati.
This bulletin board posts information to the inquiring public about
Steve Jackson Games' products and activities; provides a medium for
receiving and passing on information from the corporation's
employees, writers, customers, and its game enthusiasts; and,
finally, affords its users electronic mail whereby, with the use of
selected passwords, its users can send and receive electronic mail
(E-mail) in both public and private modes. In February of 1990,
there were 365 users of the Illuminati bulletin board.

     Steve Jackson was both the owner and employee of Steve Jackson
Games, Incorporated, and authored many of its publications; he used
both Illuminati's public and private programs for electronic mail
and his use ranged from business records of the corporation,
contracts with his writers, communication with his writers
regarding articles which were intended to be published by the
corporation, to private communications with his business associates
and friends. Elizabeth McCoy's use of the Illuminati bulletin board
involved her participation as a game player, her critiques as to
the games and publications of the corporation, and her private


     'While the content of these publications are not similar to
those of daily newspapers, news magazines, or other publications
usually thought of by this Court as disseminating information to
the public, these products come within the literal language of the
Privacy Protection Act.
communications with associates and friends. William Milliken's use
of the Illuminati bulletin board was apparently limited to private
communicates to associates and friends. Steffan O'Sullivan's use of
the Illuminati bulletin board included writings for publication by
Steve Jackson Games, Inc. , his business dealings with the
corporation, and public and private communications with associates
and friends.

     Importantly, prior to March 1, 1990, and at all other times,
there has never been any basis for suspicion that any of the
Plaintiffs have engaged in any criminal activity, violated any law,
or attempted to communicate, publish, or store any illegally
obtained information or otherwise provide access to any illegally
obtained information or to solicit any information which was to be
used illegally.

     In October of 1988, Henry Kluepfel, Director of Network
Security Technology (an affiliate Bell Company) , was advised a
sensitive, proprietary computer document of Bell South relating to
Bell's "911 program" had been made available to the public on a
computer bulletin board in Illinois. Kluepfel reported this
information to Bell South and requested instructions, but received
no response. In April of 1989, Kluepfel confirmed the 911 Bell
document was available on the Illinois computer bulletin board and
learned the document was additionally available without any
proprietary notice on at least another computer bulletin board and
had been or was being published in a computer bulletin board
newsletter in edited form. In July of 1989, Kluepfel was finally


          - 3 -
instructed by Bell South to report the "intrusion" of its computer
network to the Secret Service and that the document taken was
"sensitive" and "proprietary. " Kluepfel had previously worked with
the Secret Service and was known as an expert and reliable
informant on computer "hacking. , 2 Thereafter, Kluepfel met
Assistant U. S. Attorney William Cook in Chicago and thereafter
communicated with Cook and Secret Service Agent Tim Foley. Agent
Foley was in charge of this particular investigation.

     Around February 6, 1990, Kluepfel learned that the 911
document was available on a computer billboard entitled "Phoenix"
which was operated by Loyd Blankenship in Austin, Texas. Kluepfel
"downloaded" the document to put in readable form and then advised
these facts to the Secret Service. Prior to February 26, 1990,
Kluepfel learned that Blankenship not only operated the Phoenix
bulletin board, but he was a user of the Illinois bulletin board
wherein the 911 document was first disclosed, was an employee of
Steve Jackson Games, Inc., and a user of the Steve Jackson Games,
Inc.'s bulletin board "Illuminati." Kluepfel's investigation also
determined that Blankenship was a "co-sysop" of the Illuminati
bulletin board, which means that he had the ability to review
anything on the Illuminati bulletin board and, importantly, maybe
able to delete anything on the system.  Blankenship's bulletin
board Phoenix had published "hacker" information and had solicited
"hacker" information relating to passwords, ostensibly to be


     2 "hacker" is an individual who accesses another's computer
     system without authority.
analyzed in some type of decryption scheme. By February 26, 1990,
Kluepfel determined that the Phoenix bulletin board was no longer
accessible as he could not dial, or "log into" it. He reported this
to Agent Foley. While Kluepfel advised Agent Foley that Blankenship
was an employee of Steve Jackson Games, Inc., and was a user and
co-sysop of Illuminati, Kluepfel never had any information whereby
he was suspicious of any criminal activity by any of the Plaintiffs
in this cause. Kluepfel was, and is, knowledgeable in the operation
of computers, computer bulletin boards, the publishing of materials
and document by computers, the communications through computer
bulletin boards (both public and private communications), and could
have 'logged" into the Illuminati bulletin board at any time and
reviewed all of the information on the bulletin board except for
the private communications referred to by the Plaintiffs as
electronic communications or electronic mail, but did not do so.
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.

     In February of 1990, Agent Foley was also knowledgeable about
computer bulletin boards and he too could have "logged" into
Illuminati, become a user and reviewed all public communications on
the bulletin board, but did not do so.

     By February 28, 1990, when the search warrant affidavit was
executed, Agent Foley had received information from reliable


          - 5 -
sources (Kluepfel, Williams, Spain, Kibbler, Coutorie, and Niedorf
, and possibly others') there had been an unlawful intrusion on the
Bell South computer program, the 911 Bell South document was a
sensitive and proprietary document, and that computer hackers were
attempting to utilize a decryption procedure whereby unlawful
intrusions could be made to computer programs including the Defense
Department, and these hackers were soliciting passwords so that the
decryption procedure could become operational. In addition, Agent
Foley was advised Loyd Blankenship had operated his Phoenix
bulletin board from his home, had published the 911 Bell South
document in edited form, and had published and communicated that a
decryption strategy was available and other "hackers" should submit
selective passwords to finalize the decryption scheme for
intrusions into computer systems by using a rapid deployment of
passwords. Agent Foley was also advised that Blankenship was an
employee of Steve Jackson Games and had access to the Illuminatie
bulletin board as a user and a co-sysop and he may well (and in
fact did) have the ability to delete any documents or information
in the Steve Jackson Games computers and Illuminatie bulletin
board. The only information Agent Foley had regarding Steve Jackson
Games, Inc. and Steve Jackson was that he thought this was a
company that put out games, but he also reviewed a printout of
Illuminati on February 25, 1990, which read, "Greetings, Mortal!
You have


3    'Kluepfel, Williams, Spain and Kibbler are employees of Bell
South; Coutorie is a University of Texas Systems investigator
assigned to investigate computer hacking; and Niedorf is a hacker
involved in the Illinois bulletin board system.
entered the secret computer system of the Illuminati, the on-line
home of the world's oldest and largest secret conspiracy.
5124474449300/1200/2400BAUD fronted by Steve Jackson Games,
Incorporated. Fnord. " The evidence in this case strongly suggests
Agent Foley, without any further investigation, misconstrued this
information to believe the Illuminati bulletin board was similar in
purpose to Blankenship's Phoenix bulletin board, which provided
information to and was used by "hackers." Agent Foley believed, in
good faith, at the time of the execution of his affidavit on
February 28, 1990, there was probable cause to believe Blankenship
had the 911 Bell South document and information relating to the
decryption scheme stored in his computer at home or perhaps in
computers, disks, or in the Illuminati bulletin board at his place
of employment at Steve Jackson Games, Inc.; that these materials
were involved in criminal activities; and that Blankenship had the
ability to delete any information stored on any of these computers
and/or disks.

     Unfortunately, although he was an attorney and expressly
represented this fact in his affidavit, Agent Foley was not aware
of the Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000aa et seq., and he
conducted no investigation about Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated,
although a reasonable investigation of only several hours would
have revealed Steve Jackson Games, Inc. was, in fact, a legitimate
publisher of information to the public and Mr. Jackson would have
cooperated in the investigation. Agent Foley did not know the
individual Plaintiffs but did know they were users of Illuminati as

          - 7 -
he had a list of all users prior to February 28, 1990. Agent Foley
did know and understand the Illuminati bulletin board would have
users and probably would have stored private electronic
communications between users. Notwithstanding the failure of any
investigation regarding Steve Jackson Games, Agent Foley and
Assistant U. S. Attorney Cook intended to seize and review all of
the information and documents in any computer accessible to
Blankenship, regardless of what other incidental information would
be seized. These intentions were expressly stated in their
application for a search warrant and the warrant itself.' Foley's
affidavit, executed on February 28, 1990, was sufficient under the
law for the issuance of a search warrant by the United States
Magistrate Judge. The Court does not find from a preponderance of
the evidence that the admitted errors in Foley's affidavit were
intentional and so material to make the affidavit and issuance of
the warrant legally improper. See, Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S.
154, 98 S.Ct. 2674 (1978). The factual errors in the affidavit
include the Bell 911 document was a computer program; the Bell 911
document was engineered at a cost of $79,449; the Bell 911 document
had been 'slightly" edited; articles in

     4 The Court does fault Agent Foley and the Secret Service on
     the failure to make any investigation of Steve Jackson Games,
     Inc. prior to March 1, 1990, and to contact Steve Jackson in
     an attempt to enlist his cooperation and obtain information
     from him as there was never any basis to suspect Steve Jackson
     or Steve Jackson Games, Inc. of any criminal activity, and
     there could be no questions the seizure of computers, disks,
     and bulletin board and all information thereon, including all
     back-up materials would have an adverse effect (including
     completely stopping all activities) on the business of Steve
     Jackson Games, Inc. and the users of Illuminati bulletin
     board.
Phrack were described as "hacker tutorials;" the Bell 911 document
published in Phrack contained a proprietary notice; Blankenship was
a computer programmer for Steve Jackson Games, Inc.; Blankenship's
alias "Mentor" was listed as an Illuminati bulletin board user;

Coutorie, prior to February 28, 1990, provided Foley with
information on Steve Jackson Games, Inc.; and that Kluepfel had
"logged" into Illuminati. The affidavit and warrant preparation was
simply sloppy and not carefully done. Therefore, the Court denies
the Plaintiff's contentions relating to the alleged improprieties
involved in the issuance of the search warrant.

     On March 1, 1990, Agents Foley and Golden executed the
     search

warrant. At the time of the   execution, each agent had available

computer experts who had been flown to Austin to advise and
review

the stored information in the computers, the bulletin boards, and
disks seized. These computer experts certainly had the ability to
review the stored information and, importantly, to copy all
information contained in the computers and disks within hours.

     During the search of Steve Jackson Games and the seizure of
the three computers, over 300 computer disks, and other materials,
Agent Golden was orally advised by a Steve Jackson Games, Inc.
Employee that Steve Jackson Games, Inc. was in the publishing
business. Unfortunately, Agent Golden, like Foley, was unaware of
the Privacy Protection Act and apparently attached no significance
to this information. The evidence is undisputed that Assistant U.

S. Attorney Cook would have stopped the search at the time of this
notification had he been contacted.

          - 9 -
     By March 2, 1990, Agent Foley knew Steve Jackson Games, Inc.
was in the publishing business and the seizure included documents
intended for publication to the public, including a book and other
forms of information. He also knew or had the ability to learn the
seizure of the Illuminati bulletin board included private and
public electronic communications and E-mail. By March 2, 1990,
Agent Foley knew that Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated, and its
attorneys in Dallas and Austin, were requesting the immediate
return of the properties and information seized, that transcripts
of publications and the back-up materials had been seized, and that
the seizure of the documents, including business records of Steve
Jackson Games, Inc., and their back-up was certain to economically
damage Steve Jackson Games, Inc. While Agent Foley had a legitimate
concern there might be some type of program designed to delete the
materials, documents, or stored information he was seeking, he
admits there was no valid reason why all information seized could
not have been duplicated and returned to Steve Jackson Games within
a period of hours and no more than eight days from the seizure. In
fact, it was months (late June 1990) before the majority of the
seized materials was returned. Agent Foley simply was unaware of
the law and erroneously believed he had substantial criminal
information which obviously was not present, as to date, no arrests
or criminal charges have ever been filed against anyone, including
Blankenship.

     In addition, Agent Foley must have known his seizure of
computers, printers, disks and other materials and his refusal to


          - 10 -
provide copies represented a risk of substantial harm to Steve
Jackson Games, Inc. -- under circumstances where he had no reason
to believe the corporation or its owner was involved in criminal
activity.

     The Secret Service denies that its personnel or its delegates
read the private electronic communications stored in the seized
materials and specifically allege that this information was
reviewed by use of key search words only. Additionally, the Secret
Service denies the deletion of any information seized with two
exceptions of "sensitive" or "illegal" information, the deletion of
which was consented to by Steve Jackson.     However, the
preponderance of the evidence, including common sense 5,
establishes that the Secret Service personnel or its delegates did
read all electronic communications seized and did delete certain
information and communications in addition to the two documents
admitted deleted. The deletions by the Secret Service, other than
the two documents consented to by Steve Jackson, were done without
consent and cannot be justified.

     By March 2, 1990, Agent Foley, Agent Golden, and the Secret
Service, if aware of the Privacy Protection Act, would have known
that they had, by a search warrant, seized work products of
materials from a person or entity reasonably believed to have a
purpose to disseminate to the public a"book" or "similar form of
public communication."

     'The application and the search warrant itself was worded by
Foley and Cook so that all information would be "read" by the
Secret Service.

          - 11 -
     The failure of the Secret Service after March 1, 1990, to --
promptly -- return the seized products of Steve Jackson Games,
Incorporated cannot be justified and unquestionably caused economic
damage to the corporation.

     By March 1, 1990, Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated was
apparently recovering from acute financial problems and suffering
severe cash flow problems. The seizure of the work product and
delays of publication, whether by three weeks or several months,
directly impacted on Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. Eight
employees were terminated because they could not be paid as
revenues from sales came in much later than expected. However, it
is also clear from a preponderance of the evidence that after the
calendar year 1990, the publicity surrounding this seizure and the
nature of the products sold by Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated
had the effect of increasing, not decreasing, sales. In fact, Steve
Jackson Games, Incorporated developed a specific game for sale
based upon the March 1, 1990, seizure. The Court declines to find
from a preponderance of the evidence there was any economic damage
to Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated after the calendar year 1990
as a result of the seizure of March 1, 1990.'

     As a result of the seizure of March 1, 1990, and the retention
of the equipment and documents seized, Steve Jackson Games,
Incorporated sustained out-of-pocket expenses of $8,781.00. The


     6 The Court finds the testimony of Joanne Midwikis, an
accountant who testified on behalf of Steve Jackson Games, Inc. and
Steve Jackson, on damages suffered by Steve Jackson Games, Inc. and
Steve Jackson was not credible.

          - 12 -
personnel at this corporation had to regroup, rewrite, and
duplicate substantial prior efforts to publish the book Gurps
Cyberpunk and other documents stored in the computers and the
Illuminati bulletin board, explain to their clientele and users of
the bulletin board the difficulties of their continuing business to
maintain their clientele, to purchase or lease substitute equipment
and supplies, to re-establish the bulletin board, and to get the
business of Steve Jackson Games, Inc. back in order. The Court has
reviewed the evidence regarding annual sales and net income of
Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated for 1990 and the years before and
after and finds from a preponderance of the evidence there was a 6
percent loss of sales in 1990 due to the seizure and related
problems. The evidence was undisputed that there was a 42 percent
profit on sales of publications of Steve Jackson Games,
Incorporated. Thus, Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated sustained

damages in loss of sales in 1990 of $100,617.00 for a loss of
profit of $42,259.00 as a direct and proximate result of the
seizure of March 1, 1990, and the retention of the documents
seized. After 1990, the net sales of Steve Jackson Games,
Incorporated continued to increase annually in a traditional
proportion as the sales had been increasing from 1988. Thus, from
a preponderance of the evidence, the loss of $42,259.00 is
inconsistent with the net income figures of Steve Jackson Games,
Incorporated in the years immediately following and preceding
1990.

     Regarding damages to Steve Jackson, personally, his own
testimony is that by 1990 he was becoming more active in the


          - 13 -
management of Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated, and spending less
time in creative pursuits such as writing. Steve Jackson Games,
Incorporated was in such financial condition that Chapter 11
proceedings in bankruptcy were contemplated. Thereafter, the
testimony clearly established that Steve Jackson Games reasserted
himself in management and was spending substantial time managing
the corporation. The Court declines to find from a preponderance of
the evidence that Steve Jackson personally sustained any
compensatory damages as a result of the conduct of the United
States Secret Service.

     Elizabeth McCoy, Walter Milliken and Steffan O'Sullivan also
allege compensatory damages. These Plaintiffs all had stored
electronic communications, or E-mail, on the Illuminati bulletin
board at the time of seizure. All three of these Plaintiffs
testified that they had public and private communications in
storage at the time of the seizure. Steve Jackson, Elizabeth McCoy,
Walter Milliken and Steffan O'Sullivan all testified that
following June of 1990 some of their stored electronic
communications, or E-mail, had been deleted.  It is clear, as
hereinafter set out, that the conduct of the United States Secret
Service violated two of the three statutes which the causes of
action of the Plaintiffs are based and, therefore, there are
statutory damages involved, but the Court declines to find from a
preponderance of the evidence that any of the individual Plaintiffs
sustained any compensatory damages.



          - 14 -
                               ii.

                               a.

                     PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT
              (First Amendment Privacy Protection)
                    42 U.S.C. 2000aa et seq.

     The United States Secret Service, by Agent Foley and Assistant
United States Attorney Cox, sought and obtained an order from a
United States Magistrate Judge to search for and seize and
thereafter read the information stored and contained in "computer
hardware (including, but not limited to, central processing unit(s)
monitors, memory devices, modem(s), programming equipment,
communication equipment, disks, and printers) and computer software
(including, but not limited to) memory disks, floppy disks, storage
media) and written material and documents relating to the use of
the computer system (including network access files) ,
documentation relating to the attacking of computers and
advertising the results of computer attacks (including telephone
numbers and location information), and financial documents and
licensing documentation relative to the compute programs and
equipment at the business known as Steve Jackson Games which
constitute evidence, instrumentalities, and fruits of federal
crimes, including interstate transportation of stolen property (18
U.S.C. 2314) and interstate transportation of computer access
information (18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(6))." See, Warrant Application and
Order.

     On March 1, 1990, the Secret Service seized the following
property on the premises of Steve Jackson Games, Inc.: Compuadd
keyboard; Packard-Bell monitor; DKT computer; cardboard box
containing disks, miscellaneous papers and circuit boards; Splat
Master gun with "Mentor" on barrel; Hewlett-Packard laser jet
printer; BTC keyboard with cover; IBM personal computer 5150
(disassembled); Seagate Tech hard disk; 2400 modem 1649-1795 with
Dower supply and disk; IBM keyboard; Amdek mode[l] 31OA; bulletin
board back-up files (approximately 150); Empac International
Corporation XT computer; "WWIV" users manual; red box of floppy
disks; miscellaneous papers and notes from desk; floppy disk
entitled "Phoenix setup." See, Warrant Return.

     The evidence establishes the actual information seized,
including both the primary source and back-up materials of the
draft of Gurps Cyberpunk, a book intended for immediate publication
(within days to weeks) , drafts of magazine and magazine articles
to be published, business records of Steve Jackson Games,
Incorporated (including contracts and drafts of articles by writers
of Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated), the Illuminati bulletin
board and its contents (including public announcements, published
newsletter articles submitted to the public for review, public
comment on the articles submitted and electronic mail containing
both private and public communications) . Notwithstanding over 300
floppy disks being seized, the evidence introduced during trial was
not clear as to what additional information was seized during the
search warrant execution. However, the evidence is clear that on
March 1, 1990, "work product materials, " as defined in 42 U.S.C.
2000aa-7 (b), was




          - 16 -
obtained as well as materials constituting "documentary materials"
as defined in the same provision.'

     The Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000aa, dictates:
"Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a
government officer or employee, in connection with the
investigation . . . of a criminal offense to search for or seize
any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably
believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a
newspaper, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication
. . ."  See, 42 U.S.C. [sec] 2000aa(a).

     Assuming Agent Foley was knowledgeable of the Privacy
Protection Act (which he was not), neither he nor Assistant United
States Attorney Cox had any information which would lead them to
believe that Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated published books and
materials and had a purpose to disseminate to the public its
publications. Their testimony is simply they thought it a producer
of games. As heretofore stated, the Court feels Agent Foley failed
to make a reasonable investigation of Steve Jackson Games,
Incorporated when it was apparent his intention was to take
substantial properties belonging to the corporation, the removal of
which could have a substantial effect on the continuation of



    7 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 was the seizing all documents and
information and, thereafter, the failure to promptly return the
information seized which leads to violation of the statute.

                    - 17 -
business. Agent Foley, it appears, in his zeal to obtain evidence
for the criminal investigation, simply concluded Steve Jackson
Games, Incorporated was somehow involved in Blankenship's alleged
activities because of the wording of the Illuminati bulletin board
menu. 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.'8

8    'The legislative history to the Privacy Protection Act states:

          ...the Committee recognized a problem for the law en-
          forcement officer, who seeking to comply with the
          statute, might be uncertain whether the materials he
          sought were work product or nonwork product and that they
          were intended for publication. Therefore, in the
          interests of allowing for some objective measure for
          judgment by the office, the Committee has provided that
          the work product must be possessed by someone "reasonably
          believed" to have a purpose to communicate to the public.

S. Rep. No. 874, 96th Cong., 2nd Sess., 10 (1980), reprinted in
1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3950, 3957. As the Court has stated, Agent Foley
with only a few hours of investigation would have "reasonably
believed" Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated had "a purpose to
communicate to the public." Therefore, under an objective standard,
assuming a reasonable investigation, Agent Foley and the Secret
Service violated the statute on March 1, 1990. However, Agent Foley
was not aware of the Privacy Protection Act and was therefore not
"seeking to comply" with its requirements. Consequently, the Court
found on March 1, 1990 neither Agent Foley nor any other employee
or agent of the United States "reasonably believed" the materials
seized were work product or Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated had
a "purpose to disseminate to the public."

                    - 18 -
     During the search on March 1, and on March 2, 1990, the Secret
Service was specifically advised of facts that put its employees on
notice of probable violations of the Privacy Protection Act. It is
no excuse that Agents Foley and Golden were not knowledgeable of
the law. On March 2, 1990, and thereafter, the conduct of the
United States Secret Service was in violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000aa
et seq. It is clear the Secret Service continued the seizure of
property of Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated including information
and documents through late June of 1990. Immediate arrangements
could and should have been made on March 2, 1990, whereby copies of
all information seized could have been made. The government could
and should have requested Steve Jackson as chief operating officer
of the corporation to cooperate and provide the information
available under the law. The Secret Service's refusal to return
information and property requested by Mr. Jackson and his lawyers
in Dallas and Austin constituted a violation of the statute.
Regarding any information seized that would constitute 'documentary
materials" (whereby the defensive theory of 42 U.S.C. 2000aa(b) (3)
might apply) there would have been no problem as the property was
in the possession of the United States Secret Service and their
experts and Steve Jackson were present to ensure no destruction,
alteration or concealment of information contained therein. In any
event, it is the seizure of the "work product materials" that leads
to the liability of the United States Secret Service and the United
States in this case. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000aa-6, the Court
finds from a preponderance of the evidence that Steve Jackson

          - 19 -
Games, Incorporated is entitled to judgement against the United
States Secret Service and the United States of America for its
expenses of $8,781.00 and its economic damages of $42,259.00. The
Court declines to find from a preponderance of the evidence other
damages of Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated or liability of the
United States Secret Service or the United States of America to any
other Plaintiff under the provisions of the Privacy Protection Act.

                               b.

          WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION
             AND INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
                     18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq.

     The Plaintiff s allege the United States Secret Service " s
conduct also violated 18 U.S.C. 2510, et seq., as it constituted
intentional interceptions of "electronic communication. " They
allege the interception occurred at the time of seizure or,
perhaps, at the time of review of the communication subsequent to
the seizure. There is no question the individual Plaintiffs had
private communications stored in Illuminati at the time of the
seizure and the court has found from a preponderance of the
evidence the Secret Service intended not only to seize and read
these communications, but, in fact, did read the communications and
thereafter deleted or destroyed some communications either
intentionally or accidentally. The Defendants contend there is no
violation of this particular statute under the facts of this case
because there never was any unlawful "interception" within the
meaning of the statute. Alternatively, the Defendants contend that
the "good faith reliance" on the search warrant issued by the


               - 20 -
United States Magistrate Judge is a complete defense under Section
2520 .

     The Government relies on the 1976 Fifth Circuit case of the

United States v. Turk, 526 F.2d 654 (5th Cir. 1976), cert denied,
429 U.S. 823, 97 S.Ct. 74 (1976), and its interpretation of the
statutory definition of "interception." In Turk, police officers
listened to the contents of a cassette tape without first obtaining
a warrant. The court concluded this was not an "interception" under
18 U.S.C. [sec] 2510 et seq.

     Whether the seizure and replaying of the cassette tape by the
     officers was also an "interception" depends on the definition
     to be given "aural acquisition." Under one conceivable
     reading, and "aural acquisition" could be said to occur
     whenever someone physically hears the contents of a
     communication, and thus the use of the tape player by the
     officers to hear the previously recorded conversation might
     fall within the definition set out above. No explicit
     limitation of coverage to contemporaneous "acquisitions"
     appears in the Act.
          We believe that a different interpretation -- one which
     would exclude from the definition of "intercept" the replaying
     of a previously recorded conversation -- has a much firmer
     basis in the language of S 2510(4) and in logic, and
     corresponds more closely to the policies reflected in the
     legislative history. The words "acquisition... through the use
     of any ... device" suggest that the central concern is with
     the activity engaged in a the time of the oral communication
     which causes such communication to be overheard by uninvited
     listeners. If a person secrets a recorder in a room and
     thereby records a conversation between two others, an
     "acquisition" occurs at the time the recording is made. This
     acquisition itself might be said to be "aural" because the
     contents of the conversation are preserved in a form which
     permits the later aural disclosure of the contents.
     Alternatively, a court facing the issue might conclude that an
     "aural acquisition" is accomplished only when two steps are
     completed -- the initial acquisition by the device and the
     hearing of the communication by the person or persons
     responsible for the recording. Either of these definitions
     would require participation by the one charged with an
     "interception" in the contemporaneous acquisition of the
     communication through the use to the device. The argument that
     a new and different "aural acquisition" occurs each time a
     recording of an oral
     communication is replayed is unpersuasive. That would mean
     that innumerable "interceptions," and thus violations of the
     Act, could follow from a single recording.

Id., at 657-658 (footnotes omitted). While the Fifth Circuit
authority relates to the predecessor statute, Congress intended no
change in the existing definition of "intercept" in amending the
statute in 1986. See, S. Rep. No. 541, 99th Cong., 2nd Sess. 13
(1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3555, 3567 ("Section
101(a)(3) of the ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT amends the
definition of the term "intercept" in current section 2510(4) of
title 18 to cover electronic communications. The definition of
"intercept" under current law is retained with respect to wire and
oral communications except that the term "or other" is inserted
after "aural." This amendment clarifies that it is illegal to
intercept the non-voice portion of a wire communication."). The
Court finds this argument persuasive when considering the
Congressional enactment of the Stored Wire and Electronic
Communications and Transactional Records Access Act, 18 U.S.C.
2701, et seq.

     The Court declines to find liability for any Plaintiff against
the Defendants pursuant to the Wire and Electronic Communications
Interception and Interception of Oral Communications Act, 18
U.S.C.2510, et seq., and specifically holds that the alleged
"interceptions" under the facts of this case are not
"interceptions"contemplated by the wire and Electronic
Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications
Act. It simply has no applicability to the facts of this case.

                              - 22-
                               c.

            STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
                AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS
                  18 U.S.C. [sec] 2701 et seq.

     Prior to February 28, 1990, Agent Foley, Assistant United
States Attorney Cox, and the computer consultants working with them
were cognizant of public computer bulletin boards and the use of
electronic communications and E-mail through them. Each of the
persons involved in this investigation, including Agent Foley, had
the knowledge and opportunity to log into the Illuminati bulletin
board, review its menu and user lists, obtain passwords, and
thereafter review all information available to the public. In fact,
Agent Foley erroneously thought Kluepfel had done this when a
printout of Illuminati documents dated February 25, 1990, was
received. When Foley applied for the search warrant on February 28,
1990, he knew the Illuminati bulletin board provided services to
the public whereby its users could store public and private
electronic communications. While Foley admits no knowledge of the
Privacy Protection Act and its provisions protecting publishers of
information to the public, he testified he was knowledgeable
regarding the Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and
Interception of Oral Communications Act. But, Foley never thought
of the law's applicability under the facts of this case. Steve
Jackson Games, Inc., through its Illuminati bulletin board
services, was a "remote computing service" within the definition of
Section 2711, and, therefore, the only procedure available to the
Secret Service to obtain "disclosure" of the contents of electronic


          - 23 -
communications was to comply with this statute. See,  18 U.S.C. 2
7 0 3 . Agent Foley and the Secret Service, however, wanted more
than "disclosure" of the contents of the communication. As the
search warrant application evidences, the Secret Service wanted
seizure of all information and the authority to review and read all
electronic communications, both public and private. A court order
for such disclosure is only to issue if "there is a reason to
believe the contents of a[n] . . . electronic communication . are
relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry." See, 18 U.S.C.
S 2703(d). Agent Foley did not advise the United States Magistrate
Judge, by affidavit or otherwise, that the Illuminati bulletin
board contained private electronic communications between users or
how the disclosure of the content of these communications could
relate to his investigation. Foley's only knowledge was that
Blankenship had published part of the 911 document and decryption
information in his Phoenix bulletin board, was employed at Steve
Jackson Games, Inc. , and could have the ability to store and
delete these alleged unlawful documents in the computers or
Illuminati bulletin board at Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. At
Agent Foley's specific request, the application and affidavit for
the search warrant were sealed.                            The
evidence establishes the Plaintiffs were not able to ascertain the
reasons for the March 1, 1990 seizure until after the return of
most of the property in June of 1990, and then only by the efforts
of the offices of both United States Senators of the State of
Texas. The procedures followed by the Secret Service in this case
virtually eliminated the safeguards

     - 24 -
contained in the statute. For example, no Plaintiff was on notice
that the search or seizure order was made pursuant to this statute
and that Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated could move to quash or
modify the order or eliminate or reduce any undue burden on it by
reason of the order. See, 18 U.S.C. [sec] 2703(d). The provisions
of the statute regarding the preparation of back-up copies of the
documents or information seized were never utilized or available.
See, 18 U.S.C. [sec] 2704. Agent Foley stated his concern was to
prevent the destruction of the documents' content and for the
Secret Service to take the time necessary to carefully review all
of the information seized. He feared Blankenship could possibly
delete the incriminating documents or could have programmed
destruction in some manner. Notwithstanding that any alteration or
destruction by Blankenship, Steve Jackson, or anyone else would
constitute a criminal offense under this statute, Foley and the
Secret Service seized -- not just obtained disclosure of the
content -- all of the electronic communications stored in the
Illuminati bulletin board involving the Plaintiffs in this case.
This conduct exceeded the Government's authority under the statute.

     The Government Defendants contend there is no liability for
alleged violation of the statute as Foley and the Secret Service
had a "good faith" reliance on the February 28, 1990, court
order/search warrant. The Court declines to find this defense by a
preponderance of the evidence in this case.

     Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated, as the provider and each
individual Plaintiffs as either subscribers or customers were


          - 25 -
"aggrieved" by the conduct of the Secret Service in the violation
of this statute.  While the Court declines to find from a
preponderance of the credible evidence the compensatory damages
sought by each Plaintiff, the Court will assess the statutory
damages of $1,000.00 for each Plaintiff.

                          III. SUMMARY

     This is a complex case. It is still not clear how sensitive
and/or proprietary the 911 document was (and is) or how genuinely
harmful the potential decryption scheme may have been or if either
were discovered by the Secret Service in the information seized on
March 1, 1990. The fact that no criminal charges have ever been
filed and the investigation remains "on going" is, of course, not
conclusive.

     The complexity of this case results from the Secret Service's
insufficient investigation and its lack of knowledge of the
specific laws that could apply to their conduct on February 28,
1990 and thereafter. It appears obvious neither the government
employees nor the Plaintiffs or their lawyers contemplated the
statute upon which this case is brought back in February, March,
April, May or June of 1990. But this does not provide assistance to
the defense of the case. The Secret Service and its personnel are
the entities that citizens, like each of the Plaintiffs, rely upon
and look to protect their rights and properties. The Secret Service
conduct resulted in the seizure of property, products, business
records, business documents, and electronic communications




          - 26 -
of a corporation and f our individual citizens that the statutes
were intended to protect.

     It may well be, as the Government Defendants contend, these
statutes relied upon by the Plaintiff s 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.

     The Plaintiffs are ordered to submit application for
attorney's fees and costs with appropriate supporting affidavits
within ten (10) days of the date of this order. The Defendants will
have ten days thereafter to file their responses.


     SIGNED this the s/12  day of March, 1993.




          Sam Sparks United States District Judge



                              -27-

------------------------------

End of Computer Underground Digest #5.22
************************************
Enter Command: 



First message is #45, last message is #58

   R   57. Cu Digest, #5.21              
 **R   58. Cu Digest, #5.22 -- Text of Decision in SJG Suit











-------------------------------
    c = Contribute a new message
    n = Read next unread message
    s = Read next unread message with same subject
    h = Help, list of additional commands
    q = Quit

Enter Command: p

Exiting news group : updating your .newsrc file


   === MGNR v2.3 ===========================================| normal mode |===

 **( mod )  1 comp.society.cu-digest
   (unmod)  2 comp.society.development
   ( mod )  3 comp.society.folklore
   (unmod)  4 comp.society.futures
   ( mod )  5 comp.society.privacy






   ----------------------------------------------------------
   `+': Next screen  `-': Previous screen
   `p': Parent dir  `m': Main dir  `q': Exit MGNR   `h': Help
   ----------------------------------------------------------

Enter Command: 2
                                                                                
 Firing up the group "comp.society.development"...

There are no articles in this group











-------------------------------
    c = Contribute a new message
    n = Read next unread message
    s = Read next unread message with same subject
    h = Help, list of additional commands
    q = Quit

Enter Command: p

Exiting news group : updating your .newsrc file


   === MGNR v2.3 ===========================================| normal mode |===

   ( mod )  1 comp.society.cu-digest
 **(unmod)  2 comp.society.development
   ( mod )  3 comp.society.folklore
   (unmod)  4 comp.society.futures
   ( mod )  5 comp.society.privacy






   ----------------------------------------------------------
   `+': Next screen  `-': Previous screen
   `p': Parent dir  `m': Main dir  `q': Exit MGNR   `h': Help
   ----------------------------------------------------------

Enter Command: 5
                                                                                
 Firing up the group "comp.society.privacy"...


First message is #1005, last message is #1099

   R 1083. Yet another White House address
   R 1084. Re: Employee Monitoring Systems
   R 1085. Re: Dorothy Denning's article in Comm. of ACM
   R 1086. Re: What is passwording?      
   R 1087. [ac388@freenet.hsc.colorado.edu (Jack Decker): Use of Medical
   R 1088. Re: Social Security Numbers as ID
 **  1089. : Social Security Numbers as ID
     1090. Re:  Computer Privacy Digest V2#026
     1091. police asking arrestees for SSN (was: Social Security Numbers a
     1092. Re: Digitizing signatures for credit card purchases
     1093. Re: Dorothy Dennings article in Comm. of ACM
     1094. Prof. D. Denning's trust in the FBI
     1095. Re: Social Security Numbers as ID
-------------------------------
    c = Contribute a new message
    n = Read next unread message
    s = Read next unread message with same subject
    h = Help, list of additional commands
    q = Quit

Enter Command: n


Article #1089 (1099 is last):
From: news@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: : Social Security Numbers as ID
Date: Thu Mar 18 22:01:37 1993

In article 4@pica.army.mil, Matthew B Cravit <cravitma@student.msu.edu> () writes:

>I was discussing a recent bunch of bicycle and computer thefts here at Michigan
>State University with one of the campus police officers, and in the course of
>our discussion, I asked what he suggested one do by way of identifying
>property. I asked if it was advisable to put a SSN on the bottom of my computer
>by way of identification, as the police in Toronto (Canada) where I used to
>live suggested using your SIN (Canadian equivalent to an SSN) for
>identification of property.  He said that quite apart from the fact that this
>is not a good idea from a privacy standpoint (I already knew that), putting a
>SSN on articles for identification was quite useless because he said that the
>Social Security Administration will NOT release the name belonging to a
>particular SSN to any local or state law enforcement agency FOR ANY REASON
>UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.  Is this assertion of his correct?
>
>[Moderator's Note:  This is true.  The few law enforcement agencies I
>have dealt with have always recommended to use you driver license number.
>Of course this was before states starting using a SSN as a driver license
>number. ._dennis ]
>/Matthew Cravit, Undergraduate Communications/Computer Science Student
> Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
> Internet: cravitma@studentc.msu.edu OR cravitm@clvax1.cl.msu.edu


The US Social Security Administration has the folowing program (at least,
they had it 2 years ago):

If you have someone's SSN and want to send them a letter, you can put it in
a stamped envelope and send it in another envelope, to the Social Security
Administration, requesting that it be send to that person.  They forward it
to that person (or try to, anyway).  They don't acknowledge the forwarding,
and of course you don't get that person's address from the Social Security
Admin., but that person has the choice of writing back to you.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. Rathinam     rathinam@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com
opinions, if any expressed, are mine and not my employer's
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enter Command: n


Article #1090 (1099 is last):
From: Mark Bell <idela!bell@ide.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re:  Computer Privacy Digest V2#026
Date: Fri Mar 19 13:51:41 1993

[Moderator's Note:  Does anyone have the text of USC Title 5, Section
552a? ._dennis ]

Here's the part that has the fines:

Section 552a(i)(2) Any officer or employee of any agency who willfully
maintains a system of records without meeting the notice requirements
of subsection (e)(4) of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and fined not more than $5000.

Near as I can tell, the notice requirements referred to above means
that agents of the state cannot construct recordkeeping edifices
without  due process.

There was a court case cited where a fellow said he would not furnish
his SSN on a voucher to receive a refund of some motor vehicle fees.
He would prevail if the state DMV SSN requirement had NOT been in
existence before 1974.

There was another court case cited where Aid to Families with Dependent
Children was denied because the applicant failed to obtain and disclose
SSN's for the children.  This was held NOT to violate 552a.

After reading some of this stuff, I can see why there are lawyers.
What happens is, you read the law and it seems clear enough.  Then you
read the notes that say what Congress' intention was and that seems OK
too.  Then you sort of glance a few pages later and see what the
exceptions are, and they turn out to be bigger than the core law.
Stuff is grandfathered in, the CIA is excepted, there are exemptions
for "routine use" and it sort of goes on and on.  But the bottom line
emerges if you have the right kind of lawbook.  You want to read what
the court cases have been based on the law.  These descriptions are
succinct and state the outcome clearly.

Your mileage may vary.

Mark Bell    Applications Engineer, IDE  Los Angeles   bell@ide.com

Enter Command: n


Article #1091 (1099 is last):
From: Jonathan Thornburg <jonathan@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: police asking arrestees for SSN (was: Social Security Numbers as ID)
Date: Sat Mar 20 02:34:30 1993

In article <comp-privacy2.25.5@pica.army.mil> Wm Randolph Franklin
<wrf@ecse.rpi.edu> writes:
| [...] in some (most?) places, the police want an
| SSN when they arrest you.  There was a local case a few years back,
| where someone was charged with, approx, obstruction of governmental
| administration for refusing.  He beat that charge, but it probably took
| some work.

Gee, I wonder what happens if you don't have an SSN?  Not everyone
arrested by American police is an American, certainly most foreign
tourists won't have SSNs...

Or alternatively, what if you have one but don't know it and don't
have the card with you?

- Jonathan Thornburg
  <jonathan@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu> or <jonathan@einstein.ph.utexas.edu>
  [until 31/Aug/93] U of Texas at Austin / Physics Dept / Center for Relativity
  and [until ~Apr/93] U of British Columbia / {Astronomy,Physics}

Enter Command: b=  n


Article #1092 (1099 is last):
From: "richard.b.dell" <rdell@cbnewsf.cb.att.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Digitizing signatures for credit card purchases
Date: Sat Mar 20 13:51:36 1993

In article <comp-privacy2.23.2@pica.army.mil> Dan Hartung <dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us> writes:
>wicklund@intellistor.com (Tom Wicklund) writes:
>>
>>Many stores are going to non-computerized forms of this -- they print
>>you a receipt, then print a second receipt which you sign and they
>>keep.  You don't have a receipt with your signature.
>>
>>Since I doubt the store physically sends the signed receipt to the
>>bank, your bank also doesn't have a signed receipt unless they get it
>>from the store, which will have a hard time finding a particular
>>receipt out of the hundreds for a certain day.
>

Sometime ago I had occasion, I believe for warranty purposes, to get
a copy of the original receipt from Sears.  They had absolutely no
trouble retrieving it and mailing me a copy within a week.


Enter Command: n


Article #1093 (1099 is last):
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Dorothy Dennings article in Comm. of ACM
Date: Sat Mar 20 17:05:48 1993

In Computer Privacy Digest V2 #026 "Prof. L. P. Levine" 
<levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu> writes:

>Michael T. Palmer <m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>
>As an aside, watch the use of the term "suspect".  Police use the term
>far too widely, blurring the term "suspect" with what should be called
>"perpetrator".  For example, in a recent event on this campus the
>police reported that "the suspect was seen running down the hall
>carrying the stolen object" or some such comment.  That is not true.
>The perpetrator of the crime was seen.  Later, when someone was
>arrested that person should be called a suspect.  When convicted, he
>or she is a convicted criminal.

The Suffolk County, NY, Police Departement uses the "perp", suspect,
criminal concept correctly.

My son was the victim of an Attempted Robbery in the 2nd degree last
December and the dectective in charge of the case used the terms in
their correct order.  At first, it was the perpetrators and after the
arrests were made, they became the suspects.  One is now a criminal
due to going into probation because of age and the other one is
awaiting trial after which he will become a criminal along with the
other one with the difference being my insistance of higher charges
for the "perp" than the accomplice.

The police as far as I'm concerned were very helpful and kind to us.
No one wants anything to happen to their kids and they helped us
get over a bad situation rather well.  

Dave

Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093


Enter Command: n


Article #1094 (1099 is last):
From: Carl Ellison <cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Prof. D. Denning's trust in the FBI
Date: Tue Mar 23 16:31:52 1993


It's been pointed out several times that Dorothy Denning has an apparent
trust in the FBI not shared by many of us (or many people who remember
Watergate).

In her CACM articles (March 1993), she notes:

        p.42 (right top): "none of the commentators has identified a single
        act of wiretapping abuse occurring under the current wiretapping
        statutes, which date back to 1968...."

Watergate occurred since 1968.  Nixon's enemy list was since 1968.  Granted,
this wasn't necessarily FBI behavior and may not have been related to the
statutes.  So, the argument might run that the FBI is pure and therefore
this new authority should be given to them.  However, in her main article,
she notes:

        p.29 (middle, top): "Since the FBI conducts fewer than one-third of
        all intercepts, the total benefits derived from electronic
        surveillance by all law enforcement agencies is considerably
        higher."

So, apparently, just giving the FBI permission to tap isn't good enough to
justify the legislation.  This applies to state and local law enforcement
also.  They're just as pure and uncorruptable as the FBI?

They might be.  We see the local LE abuses first hand.  We see FBI abuses
through J. Edgar's lingering PR campaign (eg., the TV series) so the FBI
looks pure to us.

Frankly I'm glad that

        P.28 (middle middle): "The [Bush] administration, the Department of
        Justice, and the FBI are all strong advocates for security in
        telecommunications networks."

I hope the Clinton administration is at least as strong an advocate for
security in telecommunications.  My approach is to use the strongest
encryption I can concoct, based on what I know and what's available to me
in order to ensure my communications security.

-- 
 - <<Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own, of course.>>
 - Carl Ellison                                        cme@sw.stratus.com
 - Stratus Computer Inc.       M3-2-BKW                TEL: (508)460-2783
 - 55 Fairbanks Boulevard ; Marlborough MA 01752-1298  FAX: (508)624-7488

Enter Command: n


Article #1095 (1099 is last):
From: Jonathan Katz <jonathan@cad.ucla.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Social Security Numbers as ID
Date: Tue Mar 23 16:55:31 1993


In article <comp-privacy2.26.6@pica.army.mil> news@cbnewsh.att.com writes:
>In article <comp-privacy2.25.5@pica.army.mil> Wm Randolph Franklin <wrf@ecse.rpi.edu> writes:
>   That's interesting, because in some (most?) places, the police want an
>   SSN when they arrest you.  There was a local case a few years back,
>   where someone was charged with, approx, obstruction of governmental
>   administration for refusing.  He beat that charge, but it probably took
>   some work.
>

   As a quick question (which has probably already been answered.  CA
requires SSN for getting a driver's lisc. now.... Is that legal? (funny word)
Is that in violation of other (national?) laws?
They will refuse to issue the lisc. if you dont provide the information.

   Thanks
      Jonathan
 
[Moderator's Note:  It is now legal for a state to do this. ._dennis ]

-- 
qp HumanNet: Jonathan Katz          |   Computer Aided Design Laboratory     qp
db AT&T-Net: (310)-825-7821         |_________     ---(*)---                 db
qp Internet: jonathan@kanga.cad.ucla.edu      |______Do you read rec.humor?  qp
db SnailNet: 38-138 Engineering IV, UCLA, LA, Ca, 90024|  No, frayed knot... db

Enter Command: n


Article #1096 (1099 is last):
From: David Lehrer <71756.2116@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Akron BBS Sting Update
Date: Wed Mar 24 01:31:41 1993

Akron Anomaly BBS trial issue:
 
Distributed with permission of The Akron Beacon Journal
David Lehrer
 
********************
 
 
07082108
POLICE  SAY  THEY  WERE  TAKING  A  BYTE  OUT OF CRIME MUNROE FALLS MAN WAS
ARRESTED  FOR  HAVING  X-RATED PICTURES ON HIS COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARD; HIS
PARENTS BELIEVE THE STING OPERATION WAS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.
Akron Beacon Journal (AK) - MONDAY March 22, 1993
By: CHARLENE NEVADA, Beacon Journal staff writer
Edition: 1 STAR  Section: METRO  Page: A1
Word Count: 1,538
 
TEXT:
When  the police cars pulled up to David Lehrer's quiet Munroe Falls street
last  June,  it  was  a  little  like  they  were  swooping down on a major
criminal.
 
   Police  Chief Steve Stahl went to the door and told Lehrer that he had a
search warrant to seize computer equipment belonging to Lehrer's son, Mark.
The  chief  told  the  elder  Lehrer  that there was reason to believe Mark
Lehrer,  then  22, was using the computer and a modem to disseminate matter
harmful to juveniles.
 
    Essentially, the chief said, it appeared that there were dirty pictures
on  a  popular  computer  bulletin board operated by the younger Lehrer and
that teen-agers could use their own computers to view the dirty pictures.
 
    The  police  went  through  the  Lehrers' home -- seizing, labeling and
photographing anything and everything that fit on the computer. It was just
like on a police television show, only it was happening in Munroe Falls and
the accused was a college student computer whiz.
 
    Greg  Lehrer,  Mark's  younger  brother,  remembers  asking  one of the
officers: 'Why don't you go out and find some real criminals?'
 
   That was nine months ago.
 
   Some might still ask that question.
 
   The  case of the State of Ohio vs. Mark Lehrer was closed last week when
Lehrer  stood  before  a  judge  in Summit County and pleaded guilty to one
rather strange misdemeanor: attempted possession of a criminal tool.
 
   Lehrer  and his family said the plea bargain was a way to put the matter
behind  them  without  risking  a  jury trial and more legal expenses. They
consider the whole episode a witch hunt by Munroe Falls police.
   David  Lehrer  has said from the beginning that Munroe Falls police only
wanted to appropriate his son's high-power computer -- which they labeled a
criminal tool -- for their own use.
 
   Within  the  computing  community,  the case caused so much outrage that
some  lawyers  and  accountants  set up a defense fund to help Lehrer. More
than $1,500 came from all over the country.
 
   Munroe  Falls  Police  Chief  Steve  Stahl  is about as unhappy over the
resolution as the Lehrers.
 
   Stahl wanted a felony conviction. The chief denied being on a witch hunt
for criminals in a relatively crime-free suburban community.
 
    Lehrer's  attorney,  Don  Varian,  said  the prosecutor offered to plea
bargain  because  prosecutors would have had problems going to trial: 'They
would have lost and they knew it,' he said.
 
   On  this much everyone agrees: Between last June and last week, the case
took lots of strange turns.
 
   THE AKRON ANOMALY
   It started one day last spring when Munroe Falls police got a tip from a
Kent  State  University  student  who  said  he  was concerned that obscene
material was available to juveniles through a computer bulletin board known
as the Akron Anomaly.
 
   The  Akron  Anomaly  was  the baby of Mark Lehrer, a University of Akron
student.  Lehrer  has  been into computers since he was in grade school and
his  dad  brought  the  first  one  home.  Among people who love computers,
bulletin boards are a way to share ideas and programs. Bulletin board users
are a little like yesterday's ham radio operators.
 
    The  operator  of  a computer bulletin board is usually someone who has
lots of games, pictures and programs to share.
 
    Others can sign onto their own computers -- and with the aid of a modem
and telephone line -- tap into the bulletin board and copy the files.
 
    As  computers  go,  Lehrer  had  a V-8 engine, a 486 IBM clone with 500
megabytes  of  memory.  (The  whole Bible could be stored in 1 1/2 of those
megabytes.)
 
    Lehrer works at a computer store in Stark County. He was allowed to buy
accessories  and upgrades at discount. His system -- not including discs --
was valued at about $3,000.
 
   The  bulletin  board  was  so  successful  that  early last year a local
computer group called it one of the best around.
 
    Those  who  wanted to use the bulletin board more than 45 minutes a day
were asked to pay $15 a year, which Lehrer applied to his phone bill.
 
   X-RATED MATERIAL
 
   The  board  had an adult section with X-rated pictures and movies. Those
who  wanted  access  to  the  adult  section had to send Lehrer a copy of a
driver's license and get a special clearance.
 
   Computer  users  don't  just  take  things  from  a bulletin board. They
contribute, too.
 
   Programs  and  pictures  sent to the Anomaly were received in sort of an
'in' basket. Lehrer then sorted them and filed them by category.
 
   The  X-rated  stuff  -- which Lehrer said was less than 2 percent of the
available  files  --  was  put  into  the  restricted-entry adult category.
According  to  Stahl,  some  of  the  X-rated  files  wound up in the clean
section.
 
    One in particular troubled Stahl. It was labeled '69,' a slang term for
oral sex, and had three X's behind it.
 
   To  Stahl,  that meant dirty. And since it wasn't in a restricted-access
section, anyone could see it.
 
   But  since  Munroe  Falls  didn't  actually  have  any  outraged parents
complaining, the police set up a sting operation.
 
    Working  on the advice of prosecutors from the Cuyahoga Falls Municipal
Court,  police  found  a  15-year-old  volunteer  and  had  him  apply  for
membership  under  a fake name. They sat him down at a computer and had him
press  the  button to access one of the X-rated files. Then he left because
his parents didn't want him viewing the material.
 
    Lehrer  was  charged with disseminating matter harmful to juveniles and
possession of criminal tools -- his computer.
    At  a  preliminary  hearing  last  June, Cuyahoga Falls Municipal Judge
James  Bierce  warned that more evidence would be needed to convict Lehrer.
Nonetheless, the matter was bound over to the grand jury.
 
    And  that's where it died. Just why isn't clear. Grand jury proceedings
are secret.
 
    Stahl said the grand jury didn't actually get to see the pictures.
 
    Varian has his own theory.
 
    The  police  didn't  have an independent witnesses saying they or their
children  were  offended, Varian said. All they had was the 15-year-old kid
who  was set up. That meant the jury would have had to look at the issue of
entrapment. Jurors might not have liked that.
 
   NEW CHARGES
 
   But  the  matter  didn't end with the grand jury no-billing the issue of
disseminating matter harmful to juveniles.
 
    New charges surfaced.
    When  authorities  seized  Lehrer's  computer,  they  also  took  those
shopping bags full of floppy discs. And apparently among them were some sex
pictures in which the subjects could have been under 18.
 
    So Lehrer was indicted for pandering obscenity involving minors.
 
    It didn't matter that the pictures came from a disc and weren't on line
or available through the bulletin board.
 
    The  new  charges  made  David Lehrer, Mark's father, suspect even more
that there was a hidden agenda.
 
   POLITICS AT WORK?
 
   Lehrer  chairs  the  city's  charter  review  commission.  Last May, the
commission voted not to make the police chief's job classified, which would
have afforded Stahl a great measure of job protection.
 
   Plus,  after  the  bust,  Susan  Lehrer  -- Mark's mother -- visited the
chief.  She  took notes. She said Stahl talked about how her son's computer
could be used in police work.
    Stahl  denied  his  actions  were politically motivated. He also denied
wanting  to  get  the  computer,  which  is  now  in the hands of state law
enforcement officials.
 
    The  chief  said  he  decided it would be wrong to ignore the case just
because Mark Lehrer's father held a public position.
 
    Stahl denied digging through the floppies to find more to charge Lehrer
with. The Bureau of Criminal Investigation did that, he said.
 
   COMPUTER GONE FOR GOOD
 
   Mark  Lehrer  acknowledged  having  some adult files in the unrestricted
area. With 10,000 files to deal with, he said, it was a clerical error.
 
    Summit  County Prosecutor Lynn Slaby said that it would have been tough
to  convict  Lehrer  on the kiddie porn charges because proving the ages of
the  people  in  the  pictures would have been tough. Varian said the women
looked in the range of 16 to 20.
 
    To salvage the case, prosecutors offered the plea bargain.
   Lehrer  said  he  agreed  to  it  because  expert witnesses -- people to
testify  the  people  in  the  picture  weren't under 18 -- would have cost
$6,000.
 
    Most  importantly,  he  said:  'I  didn't want to go to trial for child
pornography. Juries sometimes convict people unfairly.'
 
    He  got no jail time, no probation and a small fine. But he had to give
up his computer.
 
    'We  did  not endorse the plea agreement,' Stahl said. He said he still
believes   that  Lehrer  is  guilty  of  disseminating  matter  harmful  to
juveniles.
 
   The chief said he isn't on an obscenity crusade. 'We're not Ravenna,' he
said, referring to that city's anti-porn-crusading mayor, Donald Kainrad.
 
   To  Lehrer -- who sees an empty room instead of a sophisticated computer
-- it's been a nightmare and the end of a great hobby.
 
   'Being  hit  with child pornography charges' was far from just, he says.
'It's scary what people -- police and prosecutors -- can do to a citizen.'
  dl
 
CAPTION:
Photo
 
   PHOTO: LEW STAMP
 
   Beacon  Journal  -  David  Lehrer  (left)  and his son Mark question why
Munroe  Falls  police  targeted  Mark's  computer bulletin board, the Akron
Anomaly.
 
DESCRIPTORS:  DAVID LEHRER; MARK; MUNROE FALLS POLICE; SEARCH WARRANT;
              COMPUTER EQUIPMENT; COLLEGE STUDENT; OBSCENE; JUVENILE;
              BIOGRAPHY; INFORMATION
 
 



Enter Command: n


Article #1097 (1099 is last):
From: chonoles@sde.mdso.vf.ge.com (Chonoles Michael Jesse)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Personal Telephone Numbers
Date: Wed Mar 24 13:28:24 1993

Many plans for future communications systems have the concept
of a personal telephone numbers. Some simple versions of these are 
already available , AT&T's 700 service, BellAtlantic ContactLines, etc.

What would the consequencues be of every person having one telephone
number that would be used for work, home, vacation, etc.

Some suggestions were that you could have your social security number be your
telephone number, but any string could be used.

Does anyone have any ideas 

Thanks
 
-- 
Michael Jesse Chonoles
chonoles@acc.vf.ge.com
mjc@seas.eniac.upenn.edu

Enter Command: n


Article #1098 (1099 is last):
From: Susanna Elaine Johnson <sej3e@kelvin.seas.virginia.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: What happens if you don't have an SSN
Date: Wed Mar 24 13:55:19 1993

Being a Canadian citizen I don't have an SSN.  So I know what
happens if the local gestapo asks for one and you don't have it.

You go to jail for a minimum of three days while they
"investigate" you.  Note that this isn't an arrest - you haven't
been charged, merely "detained".

Of course, if they are able to show that you are NOT a US citizen
then the above mentioned three day limit does not apply for the
following reasons:

        (1) Not being a US citizen you have no civil rights, so 
            the police can do anything they want to you with
            impunity.

        (2) They can, if sufficiently annoyed, turn you over to
            Immigration.  You can rot in an INS jail for months
            while they verify your status.

        (3) It can take weeks to do a worldwide make through
            Interpol.  Meanwhile you sit in jail.  After all,
            you MIGHT be some sort of international terrorist...

        If I sound bitter about your land of liberty it is
because I speak from experience.

Anna Johnson
!All paranoid delusions are mine, not my employer's!

Enter Command: n


Article #1099 (1099 is last):
From: Phil Karn <karn@qualcomm.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Prof. D. Denning's trust in the FBI
Date: Thu Mar 25 03:27:49 1993


You don't understand. Dorothy Denning is actually a very strong
proponent of the unrestricted private use of encryption to protect
individuals against government abuse. She has been very distressed of
late to see how slowly encryption has been making it into the
mainstream. After all, her textbook is over 10 years old. Even though
it has sold many copies, and even though it describes all of the
standard techniques in great detail, only a few paranoids seemed
interested in turning them into practice.

She finally realized that the very best way to get encryption deployed in
the real world was to raise the specter of the government outlawing it.

Just consider all of the publicly available crypto software that has
become available in the short time since she first floated her "trial
balloon": PGP 2.x, RSAREF, RIPEM, maybe even PEM itself! Groups of
hackers (in the old, respectable sense of the word) are now working
feverishly to "get the crypto genie safely out of the bottle" in the time
they think they have left.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot: :-) :-)

Phil

Enter Command: n

There are no more unread articles
Enter Command: 



First message is #1005, last message is #1099

   R 1093. Re: Dorothy Dennings article in Comm. of ACM
   R 1094. Prof. D. Denning's trust in the FBI
   R 1095. Re: Social Security Numbers as ID
   R 1096. Akron BBS Sting Update        
   R 1097. Personal Telephone Numbers    
   R 1098. What happens if you don't have an SSN
 **R 1099. Re: Prof. D. Denning's trust in the FBI






-------------------------------
    c = Contribute a new message
    n = Read next unread message
    s = Read next unread message with same subject
    h = Help, list of additional commands
    q = Quit

Enter Command: p

Exiting news group : updating your .newsrc file


   === MGNR v2.3 ===========================================| normal mode |===

   ( mod )  1 comp.society.cu-digest
   (unmod)  2 comp.society.development
   ( mod )  3 comp.society.folklore
   (unmod)  4 comp.society.futures
 **( mod )  5 comp.society.privacy






   ----------------------------------------------------------
   `+': Next screen  `-': Previous screen
   `p': Parent dir  `m': Main dir  `q': Exit MGNR   `h': Help
   ----------------------------------------------------------

Enter Command: 4
                                                                                
 Firing up the group "comp.society.futures"...


First message is #2562, last message is #2597

 **  2562. `Images from the Edge' CD-ROM: State-of-the-Art SPM Images 
     2569. WANTED-> MICRO/NANO MACHINE Technology Info (micro robotics)
     2570. Re: WANTED-> MICRO/NANO MACHINE Technology Info (micro robotics
     2571. Re: WANTED-> MICRO/NANO MACHINE Technology Info (micro robotics
     2573. Data superhighway             
     2574. Licklider and his dream, the "Intergalactic Computer Network"
     2575. Re: Licklider and his dream, the "Intergalactic Computer Networ
     2576. Re: Licklider and his dream, the "Intergalactic Computer Networ
     2577. Delivery Failure Report       
     2578. Delivery Failure Report       
     2579. Delivery Failure Report       
     2580. Delivery Failure Report       
     2581. Delivery Failure Report       
-------------------------------
    c = Contribute a new message
    n = Read next unread message
    s = Read next unread message with same subject
    h = Help, list of additional commands
    q = Quit

Enter Command: p

Exiting news group : updating your .newsrc file
p


   === MGNR v2.3 ===========================================| normal mode |===

   ( mod )  1 comp.society.cu-digest
   (unmod)  2 comp.society.development
   ( mod )  3 comp.society.folklore
 **(unmod)  4 comp.society.futures
   ( mod )  5 comp.society.privacy






   ----------------------------------------------------------
   `+': Next screen  `-': Previous screen
   `p': Parent dir  `m': Main dir  `q': Exit MGNR   `h': Help
   ----------------------------------------------------------

Enter Command: p

   === MGNR v2.3 ===========================================| normal mode |===
   ^---------------------------- more above -----------------------------^
   ( mod ) 60 comp.risks
   (unmod) 61 comp.robotics
           62 comp.security...
   ( mod ) 63 comp.simulation
   ( mod ) 64 comp.society
 **        65 comp.society...
           66 comp.soft-sys...
           67 comp.software...
   (unmod) 68 comp.software-eng
           69 comp.sources...
   v---------------------------- more below --------------- Last is  84 -v
   ----------------------------------------------------------
   `+': Next screen  `-': Previous screen
   `p': Parent dir  `m': Main dir  `q': Exit MGNR   `h': Help
   ----------------------------------------------------------

Enter Command: +

   === MGNR v2.3 ===========================================| normal mode |===
   ^---------------------------- more above -----------------------------^
   (unmod) 70 comp.specification
           71 comp.specification...
   (unmod) 72 comp.speech
           73 comp.std...
           74 comp.sw...
           75 comp.sys...
   (unmod) 76 comp.terminals
           77 comp.terminals...
   (unmod) 78 comp.text
           79 comp.text...
   v---------------------------- more below --------------- Last is  84 -v
   ----------------------------------------------------------
   `+': Next screen  `-': Previous screen
   `p': Parent dir  `m': Main dir  `q': Exit MGNR   `h': Help
   ----------------------------------------------------------

Enter Command: 78
                                                                                
 Firing up the group "comp.text"...


First message is #8160, last message is #8354

 **  8160. PSDIT??                       
     8161. SUMMARY: Responses to question "What is the best dwb reference 
     8162. SIGDOC'93                     
     8163. Final Word ===>>> Word Perfect
     8164. groff-1.06 on Solaris-2.1?    
     8165. ColorQuick driver wanted      
     8166. Re: PSDIT??                   
     8279. Re: Printing on Letterhead    
     8280. Ami-Pro 3.0, WordPerfect, and TeX
     8281. [TROFF QUESTION] Wide tables/figures in 2-column format
     8285. Re: Printing on Letterhead    
     8286. Info. Wanted: Adding words to WORD's dictionary
     8287. Internationalized string collation
-------------------------------
    c = Contribute a new message
    n = Read next unread message
    s = Read next unread message with same subject
    h = Help, list of additional commands
    q = Quit

Enter Command: p

Exiting news group : updating your .newsrc file


   === MGNR v2.3 ===========================================| normal mode |===
   ^---------------------------- more above -----------------------------^
           73 comp.std...
           74 comp.sw...
           75 comp.sys...
   (unmod) 76 comp.terminals
           77 comp.terminals...
 **(unmod) 78 comp.text
           79 comp.text...
   (unmod) 80 comp.theory
           81 comp.theory...
           82 comp.unix...
   v---------------------------- more below --------------- Last is  84 -v
   ----------------------------------------------------------
   `+': Next screen  `-': Previous screen
   `p': Parent dir  `m': Main dir  `q': Exit MGNR   `h': Help
   ----------------------------------------------------------

Enter Command: +

   === MGNR v2.3 ===========================================| normal mode |===
   ^---------------------------- more above -----------------------------^
   ( mod ) 83 comp.virus
           84 comp.windows...









   ----------------------------------------------------------
   `+': Next screen  `-': Previous screen
   `p': Parent dir  `m': Main dir  `q': Exit MGNR   `h': Help
   ----------------------------------------------------------

Enter Command: 83
                                                                                
 Firing up the group "comp.virus"...


First message is #10668, last message is #11319

 ** 10668. Re: On the definition of viruses
    10669. Re: On the definition of viruses
    10670. Patriotic Virus Writers?      
    10671. Re: On the definition of viruses
    10672. Re: How to measure polymorphism
    10673. Re: Assymetric Cryptographic Checksums
    10674. Way to go, AP (Not)!          
    10675. Complexity of polymorphic viruses.
    10676. RE: LAT                       
    10677. Re: Infection question        
    10678. Re: On the definition of viruses
    10679. Re: Sale of Viri              
    10680. Re: os2-stuff (OS/2)          
-------------------------------
    c = Contribute a new message
    n = Read next unread message
    s = Read next unread message with same subject
    h = Help, list of additional commands
    q = Quit

Enter Command: p

Exiting news group : updating your .newsrc file


   === MGNR v2.3 ===========================================| normal mode |===
   ^---------------------------- more above --