[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[FYI] (Fwd) FC: ACLU will defend "cphack" mirror sites in court on M

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent:      	Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:24:28 -0500
To:             	politech@vorlon.mit.edu
From:           	Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject:        	FC: ACLU will defend "cphack" mirror sites in court on Monday
Send reply to:  	declan@well.com

The ACLU is representing three "cphack" mirror site operators who
received subpoenas in the Mattel/CyberPatrol case. This afternoon ACLU
attorneys filed documents to quash the subpoenas and oppose Mattel's
request for a preliminary injunction. There will be a hearing in
federal court in Boston at 2 pm Monday:

I sent Mattel my request for an extension on replying to my subpoena
this afternoon:

Mattel is still sending out bulk email subpoenas. I got this note a
few minutes ago:

>I host the site [URL deleted --DBM] on my computer at home. About an
>hour ago, I was served with a restraining order commanding me to
>remove everything related to Cyber Patrol. Since you seem to know a
>lot about this case, I was wondering if you knew whether or not this
>commandment is backed by the courts. I see no reason to take the site
>down, I don't feel I am doing anything immoral or illegal, but I also
>don't want the FBI to raid my home and smash up my computer.



March 24, 2000; Friday  2:47 AM, Eastern Time
Judge Allows Delivery by E-Mail
Associated Press

     That familiar e-mail greeting may start showing up with a novel
''You've got a subpoena!''

    Dozens of electronic messages racing across the Internet this week
what's believed to be an unprecedented payload a subpoena and other
documents approved by a judge warning that the recipient's Web site
may be violating a federal court order.

    Supporters applaud the idea, saying it allows attorneys to respond
accelerated ''Internet time'' to new issues of law and technology.
Critics say it's unworkable because e-mail can be falsified or forged
so easily. And unlike with human delivery, it can be nearly impossible
to verify that an e-mail subpoena was served successfully.


    Schwartz said he plans also to send physical copies of the
    documents via
registered mail.

    ''It has come to our attention that your Web hosting service or
    Web site is
publishing one or both of these prohibited files,'' Schwartz's e-mail
said. He also included a subpoena demanding electronic logs
identifying the people who downloaded the files.

    ''It makes sense. You want to put people who might conceivably be
violation of a court order that they're on notice,'' said Schwartz,
who sent dozens of the e-mails and received a few ''snooty messages''
in reply.

    Among those who received the e-mail was Declan McCullagh, a 
journalist for Wired who also manages an Internet discussion list
about technology policy issues, where Microsystems' actions were
roundly condemned.

    McCullagh published on his personal Web site archived messages
    about the
controversy. He criticized Schwartz's e-mails as ''subpoena spam'' and
''a shotgun approach to discovery.''

    ''Obviously, the Internet makes it easier to distribute this
    stuff, so it
makes sense that lawyers are responding to Internet problems with
Internet solutions, but in this case they've gone too far,'' McCullagh
said. ''E-mail is easy to forge,'' he added. ''I can't even be certain
it really did come from a real lawyer.''

    Schwartz said the judge's permission was crucial, as it granted
    him the
ability to send subpoenas as quickly as new mirror sites were
published on the Internet.

    ''It provides a medium to serve the court's order at Internet
    speed as
opposed to snail mail or even worse, by courier,'' Schwartz said.

---- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
------- End of forwarded message -------