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

[FYI] (Fwd) Re: Here is the infamous "Law Enforcement Post:

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent:      	Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:37:48 -0400
Send reply to:  	Law & Policy of Computer Communications
From:           	John Young <jya@PIPELINE.COM>
Subject:        	Re: Here is the infamous "Law Enforcement Post:

Now Sheriff Gates poses as interesting a witchhunt as the
Michigan case -- the zeal of law enforcement officers
working cybercrime. Gates is being sued in Polk County
Florida for violating the privacy of a couple who called
him to report an email death threat. Gates changed the
investigation to focus on the couple and raided their home
and seized computers and personal property. See:


Far more ominously is the Scottish security firm which
has assembled a vast databank of the entire World Wide
Web, and collecting more at 80 gigabytes and hour,
and provides law enforcement officials and employers
with evidence of cyber-malfeasance:


This private big brother databank is not the one which was
publicized a while back which was ostenstibly recording
the history of the Web.

Are there others like this -- excluding those of intelligence
agencies? For example, is the FBI or DoJ compiling such
an archive, or funding one?

DoJ's Paul Kendall gave a presentation in April on the
progress of a program set up in 1998 to share information
among all participants of the national (and international)
justice system. He noted the conflict between the
desires of justice participants for more information and the
privacy concerns of citizens and organizations, but assured
his audience that this conflict can be overcome by educating
local officials to be careful about the information being
collected and by spinning the justice case with PR (the
audience was official likeminders and reps of the companies
selling information collection and sharing products):


What would be the outcry if it was learned that all phone calls,
or all mail, was being archived for future nailing of miscreants?
Again, not that that is not being done by intelligence agencies in the
national security interest.

Finally, there is fairly rapid transfer of national defense technology
to domestic law enforcement and investigative agencies. The same
companies who service the defense industries are aggressively
marketing the same products to domestic law enforcement. As Paul
Kendall noted in his talk, the law is not up to speed with advanced
information technology, and now is the time to take advantage of that

The burgeoning of cybercrime units in police departments
is, as Sheriff Gates says, Christmas come early, now that
millions of potential criminals are gaga unwary about the Internet.

At 02:38 AM 10/22/00 -0400, you wrote:
>First, my reply:
>Mr. Gates, while your comments are uniquely unhelpful, it is nice to
>know that you are so clear about expressing exactly what you believe.
>Unfortunately, your remarks certainly leave me at something of a
>quandry in deciding who I believe are REALLY the "good guys" and who
>are REALLY the "bad guys."  Thanks so much for helping to put things
>in perspective.
>One of these days, perhaps your remarks will be doubly beneficial for
>putting these issues in prespective when discussing them with

>bodies and judicial officers.
>Finally, your remarks have helped renew my gratitude to the Framers
>of the U.S. Constitution for having the wisdom and foresight to erect
>the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.  While I do not see any
>benefit in validating your preconceptions about the world, I think
>there may be some benefit in asking you to engage in some additional
>Best regards,
>Eric Grimm
>Next, the Florida sheriff's point of view:
>ECG> "So law enforcement is automatically more credible, in your
>Yes, Yes, and Yes again. AND IN CASE THAT'S NOT CLEAR YES!
>ECG> The crime charged is DAMAGE to computer systems, in excess of
>$20,000. You ECG> can intentionally circumvent a security system
>without causing any damage -- ECG> and certianly without intending to
>cause damage -- presumably.  So what is ECG> your basis for making up
>prohibitions that are not on the books?
>ECG>  You are assuming facts not in evidence again.  AFAIK, there is
>not software ECG>  that has ever been installed without
>authorization.  Assume no installation ECG>  of software.  Prima
>facie conspiracy to do what?  Where is the DAMAGE?
>In the Intrusion cases I have worked the costs of the time to repair
>systems and investigate I.E. payroll comes in which can add up quick
>The Statue appears to read that this is true in this unknown
>location. The violation involves an aggregate amount of $1,000.00 or
>more but less than $20,000.00."
>ECG>  So what?  There is no law in STATE X prohibiting the
>circumvention ECG>  (intentional, negligent, or otherwise of a
>school's "security policy"). ECG>  Moreover it is unclear whether the
>school ever notified anyone of the ECG>  existence -- let alone any
>terms of the "security policy" you assumed.
>Maybe no law has been broken, but I think this goes to show state of
>mind. You know, like possession of rolling papers, scales,
>paraphernalia without drugs may not be a charge, but add the dope in
>Florida and its a stay at the Polk County graybar Inn.
>ECG>  Alan is a self-taught recent high school graduate
>Read about Global Hell, or Napster, and tell me a high school
>Student, much less graduate cant do anything he or she wants with a
>ECG>  Without inventing evidence that does not exist in the fact
>pattern I ECG>  proposed to you, please tell me again, specifically,
>how you infer (1) ECG>  damage, (2) intent, and (3) conspiracy.
>Damage = time spent investigating by school personal and maybe
>outside sources

>Intent = They did not have remote access? Thus they attempted to
>"steal" it. Conspiracy = here are the keys (aka ports). Also let me
>do a proxy for you or some pinging to find a hole, maybe port
> Alan first tries to help Sam set up a proxy.  That does not work. 
> Next,
>Alan pings the firewall a few times.Alan also sends some emails to
>Sam with suggestions on ports that firewall administrators sometimes
>leave open, and that Sam Student can try to use from the inside to
>access the MUD
>If I was working this case finding these files or Emails would be
>like Christmas come early.
>ECG>  No.  But there are lesser penalties for amounts of damage under
>$20,000. ECG>  The prosecutor, however, charged the max.  Presumably,
>the prosecutor will ECG>  offer a plea bargain, but it seems to me to
>constitute misconduct to ECG>  overcharge in order to secure a plea,
>when in fact no crime whatsoever has ECG>  been committed.
>Now you make me wonder what color are the clouds on your planet.
>Misconduct? I don't know these guys but I wish I did so I could let
>them know there was a shark in the water. Can't beat the charge so go
>after the State Attorney? You wonder why lawyers get a bad name.
>ECG>  So, Mr. Law-enforcement-mentality, their crime is not being
>sufficiently ECG>  deferential to authority figures?  Or are you
>rushing to judgment based on ECG>  an evaluation of whether they had
>intent to commit a crime?  If so, please ECG>  explain.
>Mr. Law enforcement -mentality? If this list serve is not about High
>Tech Crime Investigation AKA people catching bad guys somebody tell
>me and I will leave.
>The list is restricted to law enforcement personnel, investigators,
>technicians or specialists or attorneys engaged in the investigation
>and or prosecution of criminal activities. You MUST be employed with
>a federal, state or local law enforcement agency or in a senior level
>position with a corporate entity where your primary duty involves
>Information Technology security or investigation. (NOTE: Private
>sector applicants may be requested to provide references from law
>enforcement agencies.)
>The whole point is that there is no bbasis in law for them to becom
> convicts, from what I have seen so far.  Perhaps the prosecutor has
> some kind of "smoking gun," of which I will learn later, which will
> change the equation.  However, I think it is ten times more likely
> that the prosecutor does NOT have any "smoking gun" and the facts
> are no more than what I have presented in the hypothetical.
>You have not got a clue. I would on the side it was ten time more
>likely these guys and their lawyers, which one sounds like you are up
>to no good
> It may come as a surprise to you, but the school administrators do
> not sit on the state legislature and are not empowered to make up
> criminal laws on the fly.
>The cops arrested them and it sounds like the State Attorney is on
>board, thus the school the not make up squat.
>Let me make this plain. I am not and do not foresee the day I or most
>of those I work with will rise to your invitation of working for the

>jury for money. (or any other reason.)
>If you want an independent expert contact Doug Raymond from Facci.org
>or Fred Cohen from Sandia Labs These guys will work for you but I
>would not count on them coming down on your side of this.
>Okay to the group, I feel uncomfortable about Mr. Grimm being on the
>same listserve as me, and I sure don't think Sunny made his manual
>for people like him and I know I am not going to willingly work
>online in IRC with someone who says things like
>So law enforcement is automaticaly more credible, in your view?" So,
>Mr. Law-enforcement-mentality but it seems to me to constitute
>misconduct overcharge in order to secure a plea, when in fact no
>crime whatsoever has
> been committed.
>Don't forget this unnamed prosecutor could be in your or my
>jurisdiction and I would not want a backstaber in my area. Also I am
>positive we do not have the whole story here. I do not see how Mr.
>Grimm makes the cut to be on this list.
>I am Charlie L. Gates Jr.
>I live in Bartow, Florida
>my home phone is 863 533 4411 if there are any questions
>I put Crooks in Jail and resent wolfs in sheep's clothing.
>excuse my lack of verbal skills and bluntness but I smell a rat. If I
>have made a mistake point it out and I will apologize. Good night.
>Eric C. Grimm
>CyberBrief, PLC
>320 South Main Street
>P.O Box 7341
>Ann Arbor, MI  48107-7341
>fax 734.332.4901
------- End of forwarded message -------