From netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!not-for-mail Sun Jan  1 22:45:51 1995
Xref: netcom.com alt.conspiracy:71417
Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!not-for-mail
From: cp@panix.com (Charles Platt)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Police View of BBS Raids
Date: 23 Dec 1994 12:46:23 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
Lines: 220
Message-ID: <3df2df$gt7@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Following are some letters from someone in law enforcement. I 
think these letters are useful in that they demonstrate the 
mindset which causes police in ninja-style uniforms to go 
charging into someone's home, hold people at gunpoint, and 
rip out all their computer equipment--with an air of total 
self-righteousness. 

These letters come from the round-table forum on MindVox, an 
Internet site here in New York City. The round-table forum 
was established to encourage communication between hackers 
and law enforcement. It has been very little used recently. I 
posted a message there complaining about the Florida busts. 
Lines from *my* original message are quoted with the usual 
> marks in the following. 

For those who wish to know, the full address of MindVox is 
mindvox.phantom.com.

--Charles Platt

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

Post: 1473 of 1477
Subject: Re: BBS busts in Florida
From: fletc (security/law enfo)
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 94 15:29:13 EST
In-Reply-To: <HZRXwc2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>

[preamble omitted]

>Do you believe it is justified to use a "show of force" of this kind
>(against sysops who are nonviolent, everyday people ... one of them was
>even a paraplegic) instead of merely issuing a warning?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.  Do you mean show of force in terms
of search/arrest, or do you mean show of force in terms of drawn weapons?
If you mean arrest versus warning, I think the answer is clear -- if there
is probable cause that a law is being violated, then there is no reason
the police should go to the offender and give him a warning as opposed to 
conduct an investigation and prosecute.  Would you ask the police to do that
for an embezzler -- who may after all be nonviolent?

The issue of show of force at an arrest warrant itself is extremely
fact-specific, and depends a lot on the perspective of the participant.
I have no idea what the police knew or did not know when they went in.
Execution of warrants is a dangerous and volatile situation.  While most
sysops are nonviolent the investigation was not against most sysops --
it was against sysops who were breaking the law.  That is a rarefied
subset of sysops -- most sysops don't break the law either.  When you deal
with the subset of sysops who are under investigation and those against
whom there is enough evidence to conduct an investigation and get a 
search warrant, it is by no means clear that those sysops are nonviolent.
Being a paraplegic does not automatically confer nonviolent status.
Furthermore, even if the sysops themselves were likely to be nonviolent,
you have no idea how they will react when confronted by police conducting
a raid, you have no idea who else there is on the premises who may need
to be controlled.  Standard (and in my opinion appropriate) procedure on a
search warrant is to control first the people then the scene.  BTW, how
do you know those particular sysops are nonviolent?

First controlling the people means that you have a number of police, all
of whom will be armed (as is standard in the U.S.), entering the premises,
doing a quick check for people, controlling those people's movements and
then conducting the search.  There are often more officers used at the
entry than used during the search because there must be control of all
access and egress -- doors and windows.  Unnecessary officers can be 
released for other duties.  It will depend on the number of people to 
control, the size of the place to be searched, the items they are looking
for, special expertise of the officers and a host of other factors.

Is MindVox at risk?  I haven't a clue since I don't know what was involved
in Florida.  Even with overlap in content between MindVox and the Florida
boards my strong suspicion is no.  There should have been some belief
that the sysop of each of the raided boards was doing something illegal.
Even if there is a subgroup here on MindVox doing something illegal, 
without a suspicion that those people running MindVox are in collusion 
there should be no reason to take down MindVox.

2(A)
Abigail Abraham/ASA Cook County, IL
(NOT on official business)

this account...the fletc account...is managed by Kim Clancy but used by 
various law enforcement and security types to interact on Round-Table.  
In other words...its not Kim posting...Kim, the moderator, posts under 
sbranch....

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

Post: 1474 of 1477 
Subject: Re: BBS busts in Florida 
From: fletc (security/law enfo) 
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 94 15:40:46 EST 
In-Reply-To: <34Hywc2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com> 

>The policy seems to be, scare the shit out of a few really
>helpless, weak people, and this will scare all the other consumers,
>thus solving the problem with the minimum possible inconvenience.
>The fact that this is hardly an ethical approach to enforcement
>seems to bother nobody.

On what do you base your conclusions that these people are helpless and 
weak?  If they were arrested there is probable cause to believe they are 
guilty of some offense.  That is nowhere near the same as being 
convicted, and they are entitled to a presumption of innocence, but one 
does have to arrest someone and subject them to a trial in order to 
convict the person.

While it may be easiest for LE to go after weaker people or smaller fish 
in the food chain, it is often more fun, interesting and challenging to 
go after the bigger fish.  The decision on how to direct resources varies 
from agency to agency and from case to case.  In any event, I disagree 
with your statement.  It implies a number of things for which I've not 
seen any support.  First, it implies that a coordinated policy exists 
among all the different agencies which have raided sysops or people with 
computers.  Second, it ignores the fact that the smaller boards are more 
likely to be focused on or dominated by illegal activity.  Third it 
ignores the fact that the sysop of a small board is more likely to 
micro-manage in setting the tone and content for the board itself.

If the people who were arrested were in fact doing something illegal, why 
is it unethical for LE to have arrested them?  Because LE didn't go after 
everybody?  Why shouldn't LE and society use the deterrent effect?  And 
if it does solve the problem, that is, it substantially reduce the number 
of sysops doing illegal things, why shouldn't LE  and society take the 
easiest legal and an ethical way to do that, which is to arrest the smallest 
number of offenders possible?

If the sysops were doing nothing illegal, that's another matter, but that 
is not the subject here.  That would lead us in an entirely different 
discussion as to whether there was an error in the investigation or in 
the grant of a search warrant.  And of course there could be a still 
different discussion on what should be defined as illegal activity.  But, 
as I say, I think those are separate, though related, issues.

BTW, I think the tone of this message was much less civil and makes 
generalizations about LE which, I suspect, you might find disturbing if 
they were made about other groups and which is, IMO, not conducive to 
calm and productive discussion.

2(A)
Abigail Abraham/ASA Cook County, IL
(NOT on official business)

this account...the fletc account...is managed by Kim Clancy but used by 
various law enforcement and security types to interact on Round-Table.  
In other words...its not Kim posting...Kim, the moderator, posts under 
sbranch....

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

Post: 1478 of 1481
Subject: Re: BBS busts in Florida
From: fletc (security/law enfo)
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 94 11:06:13 EST
In-Reply-To: <Hae7wc1w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>

>So glad you find it fun to go after people.  Do you also find
>it "fun" when they fight back?

Investigations of people suspected of illegal activities, and prosecution 
of those charges is fun -- a lot.  It also has a good deal of social 
utility.  It is not fun to fight anyone, but the officers I know are 
prepared to if it becomes necessary.  It goes with the territory.

>Yet despite your disclaimer I sense the preconception that if there
>is "probable cause" it means the people probably are guilty, which
>puts them in a totally different class from everyone else.

Preconception?  No.  A firmly rooted belief developed after an 
investigation.  People arrested probably are guilty -- probable cause, 
remember?  When they're indicted or bound over there's been a judicial 
determination that there is enough evidence to believe they've committed a 
felony and they should stand trial for it.  It does put them in a 
different class from everyone else -- most people aren't probably guilty 
of felonies.  Furthermore, the presumption of innocence is a courtroom 
requirement.  Police and prosecutors shouldn't believe someone they're 
investigating or prosecuting is innocent or they shouldn't be investigating 
or prosecuting him.

>In my experience, sysops are quiet, nerdy people.

Why should your experience be what we generalize from? Your experience is 
different from mine, and those of many cops I know, and it is our 
experience that can and should control.  The sysops and computer users we 
investigate and prosecute are a select group.  I am personally familiar 
with a number of raids in which the objective as the computer but other 
stuff was found, like narcotics, like evidence of a series of burglaries, 
like several guns.  A colleague has had experience with sysops who a) 
tried to throw drain cleaner on the officers executing the warrant, b) 
had to be physically disarmed, and c) barricaded themselves in a rear 
bedroom and set the house afire.  He's worked on BBSs run by bikers 
dealing drugs ad white supremacists dealing hatred, bigotry and terrorism 
and none of them was "quiet" or "nerdy."  They were ugly, dangerous 
individuals who happened to operate bulletin board systems and who were 
well aware of the consequences they faced.

....

Furthermore, if there are improper raids on boards why should the fact 
that they're in cyberspace make anything different?  There is a ton of 
case law in place on how to deal with overbroad warrants, improperly 
executed warrants, or improvidently granted warrants.  Just because those 
things occur in cyberspace doesn't make them different.  There are 
already legal remedies.

2(A)
Abigail Abraham/ASA Cook County, IL
(NOT on official business)


this account...the fletc account...is managed by Kim Clancy but used by 
various law enforcement and security types to interact on Round-Table.  
In other words...its not Kim posting...Kim, the moderator, posts under 
sbranch....

-- 
############################################################
Charles Platt, 1133 Broadway (room 1214), New York, NY 10010
cp@panix.com      Voice: 212 929 3983      Fax: 212 929 4467

