Skip to main content
Podcast Episode: Chronicling Online Communities

EFFector - Volume 1, Issue 2 - Searches and Seizures: A Dialog On the Well


EFFector - Volume 1, Issue 2 - Searches and Seizures: A Dialog On the Well

***           EFF News #1.02 (February 1, 1991)          ***
***       The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc.       ***





Editors:	Mitch Kapor ( 
		Mike Godwin (

REPRINT PERMISSION: Material in EFF News may be reprinted if you 
cite the source. Where an individual author has asserted copyright in 
an article, please contact her directly for permission to reproduce.

E-mail subscription requests:
Editorial submissions:

We can also be reached at:

Electronic Frontier Foundation
155 Second St.
Cambridge, MA 02141

(617) 864-0665
(617) 864-0866 (fax)
USENET readers are encouraged to read this publication in the moderated 
newsgroup Unmoderated discussion of topics discussed 
here is found in

This publication is also distributed to members of the mailing list


[Editors' Note: The EFF believes it is important to establish a dialog 
between the law enforcement community and those who are concerned that 
law enforcement's investigation and prosecution of computer crimes 
properly acknowledges our civil liberties.
	A step toward such a dialog was taken recently on The Well (Whole 
Earth 'Lectronic Link), the Sausalito-based BBS/conferencing system 
associated with the Whole Earth Review. Gail Thackeray, an assistant 
attorney general  from Arizona who has been central to Operation Sun 
Devil, initiated an exchange about search-and-seizure procedures that 
highlighted the different perspectives on this issue.
	Although Thackeray was bound by the confidentiality obligations of 
her position not to discuss specific cases, she was more than willing to 
offer her position on several general issues raised by computer searches 
and seizures.]

#191: Gail Thackeray (gailt) Sat, Dec 1, '90 (11:23) 23 lines

A general comment on search warrants: from some of the mail I've 
received, there seems to be a press-fostered (?) misconception that 
there have been "no-knock" warrants in hacker cases. I do not know of 
ANY, served by ANY agency. A "no-knock" warrant requires special 
permission of the court, and is very unusual. Standard search procedure 
(and I have witnessed more than I can count, both state & fed.) is to 
try to time it so that someone (preferably a grownup) is home, often a 
LOCAL unformed officer goes to the door, so that the occupants will 
recognize a uniform they know. This avoids the strangers-at-mydoor 
problem so well publicized by a late-60's FBI incident. The officers 
knock, explain that they are there to serve a search warrant, and the 
next step is to let the person read the warrant and ask questions.

The first thing which happens inside is called "securing the scene"  -- 
the people in the residence/business are gathered together away from the 
possible evidence locations (computers, etc.). Hate to spoil the 
stories, but in the vast majority of cases, (and all the ones I have 
personally witnessed), everything is really quite calm. The teams I work 
with, once the scene is secure, will sit down and answer questions about 
procedure, what comes next, whether arrests are also being made 
(preferably not, in high-volume white-collar cases -- the search is 
usually NOT done at the "end" of an investigation, but is part of the 
overall investigation.)

People have asked why in a white-collar case, the cops carry/use guns.  
Most departments have established policies governing this issue. Until 
the "scene is secure" the cops may have their guns out -- this phase 
usually takes about 2 minutes in the usual residence search -- it 
doesn't take long to find out who's in the house and establish that 
there is no danger. The single most dangerous police function (greatest 
number of police deaths) is the traffic stop: the lowest level of 
offense, in most states not really a crime, even. The second most 
dangerous is the domestic complaint -- not necessarily any crime 

People are most secure in their own homes & cars -- and that's where 
they have the readiest access to weapons. That's when most danger to 
cops & bystanders arises. Miami Vice has it all backwards -- hardly any 
shootouts, statistically, in those cases, compared with traffic stops.

Contrary to the underground-board chatter, it is not S.O.P. to hold 
shotguns to people's heads during the entire period of the search -- for 
one thing, their arms would get tired! I know of one incident where an 
adult who wouldn't calm down and sit and talk had to be physically 
restrained briefly, but the goal is just that -to get everybody in the 
place as quickly as possible away from the evidence and into an area 
where they can read the warrant and ask questions.

Then the search team goes to work, while the people either leave or 
wait. Obviously, we prefer to have a responsible adult stay (if there 
isn't one there, we try to reach them and get them to come over) and 
read the warrant, receive the inventory of items taken, etc.

Another commonly-asked question is, why was it necessary to have 5, 10 
etc. people on the search team? Usually, as soon as the scene has been 
secured, any extra people, like the uniformed officer who helps 
detectives with the entry, leave. In a typical residence search, there 
will remain enough officers to "find" and "record" the items to be 
taken, and others to pack them up and put them in the vehicles.

There will also be someone, usually, with the occupants, identifying 
them and answering questions. If we brought only two officers, the 
intrusion into the home would last longer than it does when we have half 
a dozen. The search teams in our office (led by very experienced) 
officers) generally complete a residence search in somewhere around 
three hours -- from knocking on the door to leaving a copy of the 
inventory of items seized. Every case is different, and we never know 
who/what we will encounter until we get there, but all of the above is 
standard, with minor variations between agencies. The goal is to go in, 
do the job as quickly as possible, and leave as soon as possible.

When everything works well, that's it. It is a good idea not to throw 
things at the officers -- it makes them nervous, and they make more 
mistakes when they're nervous...

And finally, we really, truly, do a certain amount of "counselling"  -- 
especially where the likely target is a juvenile, whose parents have no 
idea what he's been up to. We explain the nature of the investigation, 
usually have to explain how the crime under investigation occurred, and 
answer lots of questions like, "what happens next?" Yes, we do, 
definitely, allow them to call their attorneys if they want (I actively 
encourage this, as it reassures them about the process). We answer as 
many questions as we can and refer them to available services. 
Obviously, no one enjoys the experience of having their home/office 
searched, but our teams are regularly thanked by parents for the way 
they handled the situation. (Cross my heart & hope to die, it's true.)

Of course it doesn't always work this smoothly. But then, I am fortunate 
in working with outstanding officers, who are very good at this aspect 
of their jobs.

#194: Bob Bickford (rab) Sat, Dec 1, '90 (13:28) 29 lines

I respectively submit that your very interesting description of the 
process is contradicted by reliable testimony of numerous witnesses both 
in the Sun Devil cases and in many other sets of cases. You may protest 
that these examples are "atypical" but as far as those people are 
concerned the only thing that was 'typical' was what happened to them. 
Your perspective is that of someone who sees these frequently, and is 
probably quite used to the routine, and thus you have the benefit of 
seeing lots of "smooth" ones. The people who experience "non-smooth"  
invasions of their homes have a very different story to tell.

Some of the most egregious examples of such "non-smooth" searches happen 
in drug cases, where it always seems that the officers in question 
entirely forget such niceties as the Constitutional rights of the 
accused, or indeed even those of the property owner or his/her guests. 
Even if we assume, arguendo, that there is some rational basis for the 
existing and rather extreme anti-drug laws, still there ought to be some 
respect in these procedures. I can only hope that a few of the injured 
parties will win multi-million dollar lawsuits against the government 
AND against the responsible officers and officials; that might tend to 
force the problem people back into line.

(Uh, none of the latter is directed at Gail; I have no particular reason 
to think that she has had any unusual involvement in drug cases, nor to 
think that she would have behaved in the grossly unConstitutional ways I 
allude to even if she was involved.)

(I hate having to make disclaimers, you know that?)

#196: Gail Thackeray (gailt) Sat, Dec 1, '90 (16:04) 30 lines


SUNDEVIL: a primarily-Secret-Service investigation into financial crimes 
(fraud, credit-card fraud, communications service losses, etc.) led by 
the Phoenix Secret Service office, with task force participation by the 
Arizona U.S. Attorney's office and the Arizona Attorney General's 

The Neidorf case was an independent investigation handled by the Secret 
Service and the U.S. Attorney's office in Chicago; the L.O.D.(BellSouth) 
cases were handled by the Secret Service/U.S. Atty in Atlanta. Other 
non-Sun Devil cases are several separate investigations centering around 
New York (NY State police, et al.), California, and points in between. 
You would never figure this out from the mainstream press, because no 
matter how many times they're told, they go for the sound bite (sound 
byte?) and not the facts. What I described above in my "search warrant" 
responses is everything I have witnessed, which includes Arizona and the 
Sundevil group of cases -and, if you check with your local P.D., 
standard textbook procedure in most agencies.

As to last comment, I can't think offhand what is meant by "forced 
entry" -- most search warrants permit that if all else fails, but since 
we usually try to find/get someone home first, it's rare -especially in 
the kind of cases we're especially interested in here.  If by "forced 
entry" is meant the "sorry, don't want any" reaction to salesmen, then I 
guess we'd have to call most of them that.  The only truly "reliable" 
accounts of anything are those tested in court & passed on by the trier 
of fact (jury, judge) -- in legalsystem terms. (Within that system, 
until it's been so tested, it's only opinion, no matter whose.)

I guess I was right in assuming that raising the UGLY SPECTRE of search 
warrant procedure would get the conversation moving... :-)

#199: Craig M. Neidorf (knight) Sat, Dec 1, '90 (19:58) 23 lines

I'm glad that somebody official points out which cases were and were not 
Operation Sun-Devil. However, I personally doubt that any kid's parents 
are thanking the Secret Service for raiding their homes or wherever.

Even if they appear to thank you, it is probably just their way of 
trying to make it look like they are being cooperative and hoping the 
gov will be cool with them, like thanking a cop that pulls you over for 
speeding and trying to be real nice so you don't get a ticket.

Believe me, my parents do not thank Foley or Bill Cook for the hell they 
put us all through, and I think that I stand as a representative victim 
for all involved.

Even the Secret Service admits that their standard operating procedures 
like restraining everyone involved and shoving their faces into the 
floor are out of place when dealing with these computer kids, but they 
have done little to adjust their tactics -- mostly I imagine because 
they don't care and a bunch of middle class kids who are more worried 
about convictions are not going to start a fight over being man-handled 
when they are hoping for the government to drop charges and so forth. 
They just want to be left alone.

#200: Glenn S. Tenney (tenney) Sat, Dec 1, '90 (23:43) 24 lines

I think that once you start looking objectively from the other side of 
the fence (regardless of which side you are on) you will understand the 
other side.

Sure, every young cracker you (generic you) know isn't going to pull a 
gun, but standard procedures are in place to protect the lives of folks 
who do this day in and day out and *DO* face the odd life threatening 
situation. That does not mean that it would be a comfortable, relaxing 
situation to be a young cracker served with a warrant, but do try to see 
things from the other side.  If it were you putting your life on the 
line, all it takes is once.

Beyond the initial phase, the evidence has to be gathered. Now you might 
think, for example, why take a laser printer or a fax machine or an 
answering machine? Come on, open your view and see that during an 
investigation your computer might not start up properly if the printer 
isn't attached (I've known some gear that way), or the fax machine might 
have nasty numbers stored in it, or the answering machine might have a 
nasty message... Again, I'd hate to be on the wrong side of a seizure, 
but much of what happens makes sense.

Sheesh! Am I sounding conservative? Uh, oh -- better turn in my old ACLU 
card :-)

#201: Emmanuel Goldstein (emmanuel) Sun, Dec 2, '90 (02:47) 61 lines

Almost EVERY case I've been acquainted with over the years involves some 
miscarriage of justice somewhere along the line. We simply cannot ignore 
the plain and simple fact that the punishment inflicted in these cases 
far outweighs whatever offense has been committed, if any. And that 
punishment begins the moment the knock on your door comes. Police 
officers do not pull their guns every time they pull over a motorist. 
They don't have guns drawn when they respond to a domestic argument. I 
see no reason therefore to employ such tactics when investigating a kid 
making free calls.  It tells me that law enforcement has absolutely no 
idea what they're getting into when they encounter such a case. Is it a 
14 year old kid or the leader of a terrorist group? Come on. I really 
think law enforcement is capable of telling the difference.

Why was it necessary in the summer of 1987 for agents to pretend they 
were the United Parcel Service, complete with a truck? Did they really 
think they'd be refused entry if it was known they were the law? Or were 
they just having a good time playing with the perpetrators? How come it 
was necessary in that same year to completely break down a door in New 
York City with a battering ram? The family came home to find their door 
leaning against the wall! Is that a proper way to carry out a search 
warrant when people aren't home? Seems a bit heavy-handed to me.

But that's minor compared to the numerous cases of guns being pulled.  
In one case, a kid awoke to find guns pointed at him. In another, guns 
were pulled on a kid coming out of the shower! In the ZOD case in New 
York this past summer, the kid's mother was terrified when a dozen 
strange men pushed by her waving guns and not bothering to clearly 
identify themselves. She thought they were about to be murdered and 
cried out to her neighbors to call the police before someone finally 
thought to say, "We ARE the police." This kind of treatment is 
inexcusable. Sooner or later somebody is going to get killed because of 
such a misunderstanding.

Then there are the countless cases of equipment being mishandled, 
abused, and damaged. I'm sure Steve Jackson can fill in some of those 
details. I have firsthand accounts of agents dropping equipment on the 
floor and then saying "So sue me" to the suspect. There are so many more 
cases but I really think I've made the point. That being that law 
enforcement is handling this all wrong. You must remember the different 
perspectives at work here. Young teenagers have a completely different 
view of the world than most of us. They believe themselves to be 
invincible much of the time. They do not respond well to "messages" 
beamed at them through the media.  It does not apply to them, in their 
view. To break through this, you have to reach them on a personal level, 
to show them that they are in very real danger. There are many ways of 
doing this. Currently, law enforcement seems to be using the most 
extreme methods.

What do you think happens to someone who has been through a traumatic 
experience like the above? Do they suddenly fall into step and become 
good citizens? No. They become bitter and cynical. They believe the 
legal system is full of hypocrisies and double standards. You cannot 
possibly know the fear that is permanently etched into somebody when 
they undergo such an experience. I am thankful that I don't.  But too 
many young kids today know this fear -- it's becoming almost normal in 
the hacker world. By using this approach, and by pledging to send 
hackers to jail, an opportunity is being lost. It IS possible to reach 
these people, but intimidation and incarceration are two strikes against 
that goal.

--End of Article 1--


[Editors' Note: In EFF News 1.00, we editorialized about the Sears/IBM-
sponsored information service, Prodigy. We criticized Prodigy's 
editorial policies and suggested that Prodigy's problems signify a need 
for government policies that promote the establishment by private 
entities of more responsive information services. The following are two 
responses to the editorial, as well as a letter to the New York Times by 
Jerry Berman of the American Civil Liberties Union and Marc Rotenberg of 
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.]


I have just received the first issue of EFF News. Let me be among the 
first to congratulate you on the quality of both the layout and the 
writing. I was beginning to fear that Cyberspace would be a realm 
without formatting and without grammar. EFF News sets a standard.

In the spirit of the frontier that EFF wants to "civilize" (surely you 
don't really mean this), I would like to comment on one of the articles.  
Article 6 observes that the Prodigy debacle "illustrates the fallacy 
that 'pure' market forces always can be relied upon to move 
manufacturers and service providers in the direction of open 
communication," and calls for a national network-access policy. But 
surely this has it backwards.

The market *is* providing open communications. Only ten years after the 
appearance of personal computers, we have thousands of BBSs, the fidonet 
which connects many of them and is gatewayed to the Internet, and 
systems such as the Cleveland Free-net. Virtually every self-respecting 
institution of higher education is connected to BitNet or the Internet, 
and provides more or less unrestricted access to faculty, and slightly 
more limited access to students. Soon, children in elementary and 
secondary schools will be joining the network in large numbers. And 
there are all of the abuses and crimes and generally rowdy activities 
that one would expect in such a situation.

A national network-access policy, would regulate services offered to the 
public to ensure that they met certain standards of reliability and 
confidentially, and to ensure that everyone was charged a fair price.  
Such regulations would have a chilling effect on the emerging Cyberspace 
free zones. They would ensure that we get what the bureaucrats think we 
need, rather than what we want.

I suggest that EFF and its supporters should give priority to resisting 
the emergence of any policy--national, state, or local--on networking.  
Let's not civilize the frontier. Let's push back its boundaries, all the 
way to the edge of the world.

 --John Ahrens
| BitNet: ahrens@hartford            | Snail: Department of Philosophy |
|  ahrensj@sjc                       |  University of Hartford         |
| Phone: 203-243-4743                |  West Hartford, CT 06117        |
|  203-236-6891                      |                                 |


Subject: EFF and Prodigy

In article <> (Mitch Kapor) 

>Although EFF is not involved at the moment in any activities 
>directly relating to the Prodigy dispute, we believe that the dispute 
>touches some basic issues with which we are very concerned, and that it 
>illustrates the potential dangers of allowing private entities such as 
>large corporations to try and dictate the market for online electronic 

My personal opinion is that the EFF can do little but stand (almost) 
wholly behind Prodigy on this one, as distasteful as that may sound to 

It is my impression that one of the EFF's goals is to get lawmakers to 
realize that electronic publication deserves all the rights and 
protections that more traditional forms get.

That means full first amendment protection for electronic publication, 
and no government interference. We must realize that the 1st amendment 
to your constitution is a double-edge sword, however. You must be 
prepared to vigourously defend the right to publish in ways you don't 

Prodigy has made it clear from day 1 that they view themselves as an 
edited publication. I feel it goes against what I feel are the EFF's 
principles to even suggest to them what they should or should not 
publish.  The EFF should be fighting for their right to publish and 
operate as they see fit. Only the market and the will of Prodigy's 
owners should influence it.

(I do not say that Mitch was attempting to tell Prodigy what to publish 
and what not to. I merely say that I think the EFF's role should be to 
defend their right to make that decision.)

The one mitigating factor here is that Prodigy made a serious mistake 
and actually told people to take discussions into E-mail. They did not 
realize how much traffic that would generate, with some users sending 
thousands of messages per day. So we can sympathise with those users who 
were told to go to E-mail and later told that this avenue would only be 
open to them at a high added cost. But this was a bad business decision, 
and nothing more, in my opinion. It will lose them customers.

Many people don't realize the economics of offering flat-rate service.  
Flat-rate services only pretend to offer unlimited use. They do this 
under the assumption that few, if anybody, we really take them to the 
limit.  If too many people take you up on it (as happened with PC 
Pursuit and now Prodigy) you just can't offer flat rate any more. It's a 
fact of business life.

The problem is that computers magnify this difficulty. With a computer 
you can use far more of a flat rate service than a human being could 
alone.  Thus PC-Pursuit broke down when people started making permanent 
connections or running USENET feeds.

We can, of course, encourage Prodigy to offer a more unrestricted 
service. In fact GEnie, where I am a SYSOP, is getting a lot of mileage 
out of the fact that their new flat-rate service offers things that are 
more a forum than a magazine. But it must be up to the market, in the 
end, to decide between Prodigy, GEnie and a zillion other forum services 
of all kinds.  -Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp.  Waterloo, 
Ontario 519/884-7473


Marc Rotenberg writes:

Jerry Berman (ACLU) and I wrote a short article that appeared in the New 
York Times this morning (Sunday, 1/6/91, business section).  It was a 
response to the article by Prodigy's Geoff Moore.  Comments/criticisms 
would be welcome/appreciated.

Here's the NYT article:

"Business Forum: Free Speech in an Electronic Age", The New York Times, 
January 6, 1991

- Three weeks ago, Geoffrey E. Moore, director of marketing and 
communications at Prodigy Services Company, wrote in the Forum that 
Prodigy has no First Amendment obligation to carry every message its 
subscribers post on the company's electronic bulletin board.  Jerry 
Berman of the American Civil Liberties Union and Marc Rotenberg of 
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility argue that there is 
more to the controversy. 

       "Prodigy's Forum article on its electronic service and the First 
Amendment tells only part of the story.  The recent criticism that 
brought Prodigy into the national spotlight was not about Prodigy's 
decision to curtail public postings about suicide, crime, sex or 
pregnancy, as Prodigy suggests.  It was rather Prodigy's effort to 
suppress a consumer protest that began when Prodigy announced a hefty 
increase in the cost of electronic mail.

       "When some of Prodigy's subscribers learned of the proposed rate 
hike, they posted public messages on the Prodigy bulletin board 
available to other subscribers.  In early November, Prodigy told 
subscribers that they would no longer allow the public posting of 
messages about Prodigy's fee policy.  So Prodigy subscribers turned to 
the private electronic mail to continue their protest.  Besides sending 
private messages to each other, these subscribers also sent private 
messages to businesses which sell or advertise products on Prodigy.  
Then prodigy stepped in and ended the protesters' memberships without 
notice.  Recently, Prodigy instituted a rule prohibiting all electronic-
mail communications with merchants except those directly related to 
orders and purchase.

       "The Prodigy dispute resembles some of the free speech cases 
involving shopping centers.  Although shopping centers are private 
property and established for commercial activity, state courts have 
recognized that they may also be a public forum where free speech may be 
exercised.  As services like Prodigy attract more and more people to 
shop in their electronic mall, they are also creating a new way for 
people to communicate with each other.  The courts may some day hold 
that electronic shopping networks like Prodigy are the public forums of 
the 21st century.

       "Prodigy contends that there are many other electronic forums to 
satisfy free speech needs.  Most of these services are small mom-and-pop 
operations that can hardly compete with Prodigy which has invested about 
one billion dollars to reach a mass market with its easy-to-use service.  
Prodigy also says that it is not a common carrier, like the local phone 
companies, required to carry all messages.  That may be true, but it 
raises further concerns about free speech.  If the big electronic 
networks are run on Prodigy's "family hour"  principles, and if the 
networks are carved-up among private providers with no common carrier 
obligations, electronic free speech and public debate will be 
significantly limited.

       "Prodigy's dispute with its subscribers show why, to protect 
First Amendment rights in the electronic age, we need to press Congress 
to establish the infrastructure for an accessible public form and 
electronic mail service operating under common carrier principles."

--End of Article 2--


                    *       The First Conference       *
                    *                on                *
                    *   COMPUTERS, FREEDOM & PRIVACY   *

               Pursuing Policies for the Information Age in the
                   Bicentennial Year of the Bill of Rights

              Tutorials & Conference, Limited to 600 Participants
                     Monday-Thursday, March 25-28, 1991

SFO Airport Marriott Hotel, Burlingame, CA, On the San Francisco 

Co-sponsors & cooperating organizations include:
  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-USA
  Association for Computing Machinery      Electronic Networking 
  Electronic Frontier Foundation           Videotex Industry Association
  American Civil Liberties Union           Cato Institute
  IEEE Intellectual Property Committee     ACM SIG on Software
  ACM Special Interest Group on Computers & Society
  ACM Committee on Scientific Freedom and Human Rights    
  IEEE-USA Committee on Communications and Information Policy
  Autodesk, Inc.   Apple Computer, Inc.   The WELL   Portal 

Sponsored by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
  A nonprofit, educational corporation          (415)322-3778
  e-mail:                fax: (415)851-2814

The sponsoring & cooperating organizations support this project to 
enhance communication, understanding and consensus about these crucial issues, 
but do not necessarily endorse views that may be expressed by participants.


  We are at a crossroads as individuals, organizations and governments 
increasingly use and depend on computers and computer networks.  Within 
ten years, most information will be utilized and exchanged 

We are in the pivotal decade when computer facilities and 
policies,worldwide, will mature.  They can allow and encourage mass 
access to and useof great  information processing and networking power, 
and control potential

  For potent personal benefit, business improvement and national well-
being,information and its efficient access are becoming economically 
available to individuals, organizations and governments.  Such access 
can greatly enhancesound decisions based on timely access to essential 

  Data on individuals and groups is being collected, computerized 
andexchanged at an exponentially increasing rate within numerous 
agencies and organizations.This has great legitimate value, but has also 
prompted increasing concerns regarding issues of personal privacy.

  To assure sound and equitable decisions, the public, the press and a 
broad range of policy-makers must understand and openly discuss these 
issues, their interactions and their implications for the future.

  To protect the fundamental freedoms and personal privacy that are the 
foundation of any free people, all parties must be informed, and all 
must share in shaping and enhancing the great potential of the 
Information Age.


  Seminars on March 25th offer parallel introductions to different 
disciplines that converge in this conference.  These are surveys for 
individuals not already expert in the topics presented.  They are half-
day tutorials, a.m. and p.m.  Lecturers, topics, descriptions and times 
were confirmed as of a late January press deadline, but may be subject 
to change.

  This reviews investigation, search, seizure and evidence requirements 
for pursuing computer crime.  It is for computer users, computer owners, 
BBS sysops and investigators and attorneys unfamiliar with computer 
crime practices. [p.m.]
-- Don Ingraham, nationally-known computer crime prosecutor,
Asst. District  Attorney, Alameda County, California.

  A primer for managers, lawyers and educators, this surveys computer 
crime,risks, due care, trusted systems, safeguards & other security 
-- Donn Parker, a leading consultant in information security
and computer crime, SRI International.

  Reviews real cases and how to recognize, prevent and investigate 
computer security breaches.  For computer center managers, 
administrators, sysops, law enforcement and press .  [a.m.]
-- Russell Brand, computer security specialist; programmer, Reasoning 

  Survey of electronic-mail and teleconferencing services,  access to 
networked information services and remote computing applications, and an 
overview of the worldwide computer matrix.  [a.m.]
-- John Quarterman, author of, *The Matrix: Computer Networks & 
Conferencing Systems Worldwide*; Texas Internet Consulting.

  Electronic-mail, bulletin board systems and tele-conferencing 
alternatives with personal computers; outlines low-cost PC networks and 
gateways to the global matrix.  [p.m.]
-- Mark Graham, co-founder of Institute for Global Communications, 
PeaceNet and EcoNet; Pandora Systems; and 
-- Tim Pozar, well-known expert on the 10,000-computer FidoNet.

  Detailed review of landmark federal statutes impacting access to 
information, privacy of personal information, computer security and 
computer crime.  [p.m.]
-- Marc Rotenberg, former congressional counsel and expert on federal 
computer legislation, CPSR, Washington DC.
  Survey of states' differing statutes that impact access to 
information, privacy of information, computer security and computer 
crime.  [a.m.]
-- Buck Bloombecker, nationally-known researcher, lecturer and 
consultant on computer security, crime & legislation.

  European Economic Community and other international privacy and data 
protection  plans affecting trans-border data-flow and computer 
communications, greatly impacting U.S. information practices and 
international business.  [a.m.]
-- Ron Plesser, former General Counsel,  U.S. Privacy Protection Study 
Commission; attorney, Piper & Marbury, Washington, DC.


  Single-track Conference & banquet sessions Mar.26th through Mar.28th 
offer diverse speakers & panel discussions including:

Key speakers include:

*    Laurence H. Tribe,
Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School  [Tuesday morning]:
"The Constitution in Cyberspace:  Law & Liberty Beyond the Electronic 

*    Eli M. Noam, 
Director, Center for Telecommunications & Information Studies, Columbia 
University    [Tuesday banquet]:
"Network Environments of the Future: Reconciling Free Speech and 
Freedom of Association".

*    William A. Bayse,
FBI's Assistant Director, Technical Services Division   [Wednesday 
"Balancing Computer Security Capabilities with Privacy and Integrity".

  Introductory remarks.  Major policy proposals regarding electronic 
communications and Constitutional protections, by Prof. Laurence Tribe.  

  Freedoms and responsibilities regarding electronic speech, public and 
private electronic assembly, electronic publishing; issues of prior 
restraint and chilling effects of monitoring.

  Monitoring electronic-mail, public & private teleconferences, 
electronic bulletin boards, publications and subscribers; monitoring 
individuals, work performance, buying habits and lifestyles.

  Government and private collection, sharing, marketing, verification, 
use, protection of, access to and responsibility for personal data, 
including buying patterns, viewing habits, lifestyle, work, health, 
school, census, voter, tax, financial and consumer information.

  Ethical principles for individuals, system administrators, 
organizations, corporations and government; copying of data, copying of 
software, distributing confidential information; relations to computer 
education and computer law.

  Overview and prognosis of computing capabilities and networking as 
they impact personal privacy, confidentiality, security, one-to-one and 
many-to-one communications, and access to information about government, 
business and society.

  Issues relating to investigation, prosecution, due process and 
deterring computer crimes, now and in the future; use of computers to 
aid law enforcement.

  Interaction of computer crime, law enforcement and civil liberties; 
issues of search, seizure and sanctions, especially as applied to shared 
or networked information, software and equipment.

  Legislative and regulatory roles in protecting privacy and insuring 
access; legal problems posed by computing and computer networks; 
approaches to improving related government processes.

  Implementing individual and corporate access to federal, state & local 
information about communities, corporations, legislation, 
administration, the courts and public figures; allowing access while 
protecting confidentiality.

  Other nations' models for protecting personal information and 
communications, and for granting access to government information; 
existing and developing laws including EC'92; requirements for trans-
national data-flow and their potential impacts; implications for 
personal expression; accountability issues.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?    [closing session]
  Perspectives, recommendations and commitments of participants from the 
major interest groups, proposed next steps to protect personal privacy, 
protect fundamental freedoms and encourage responsible policies and 

ALSO:  Tuesday and Wednesday will include structured opportunities for 
attendees to identify groups with whom they want to establish contact 
and, if they wish, announce topics they would like to discuss, one on 


Ken Allen, Senior Vice President for Governmental Relations, Information 
Industries Association (IIA).

Sharon Beckman, civil rights and criminal defense attorney and 
Electronic Frontier Foundation litigation counsel, Silverglate & Good.

Jerry Berman, Director of the ACLU's Project on Information Technology 
and Communications Policy Fellow, Benton Foundation.

Paul Bernstein, columnist, *Trial* mag.; Electronic Bar Assn. Legal 
Info. Network administrator; LawMUG BBS sysop; edits on-line lawyers' 
Sally Bowman, promotes responsible computing practices through school 
teaching units; Director, Computer Learning Foundation.

David Burnham, author, *Rise of the Computer State*; former New York 
Times investigative reporter; specialist in IRS & Freedom of Information 

Mary Culnan, co-authored major credit reporting policies presented to 
Congress; School of Business Administration, Georgetown University.

Dorothy Denning, received Aerospace's 1990 Distinguished Lecturer in 
Computer Security award; author, *Cryptography & Data Security*.

Peter Denning, Editor, 1990 *Computers Under Attack*; past President, 
ACM; founding Director, RIACS; editor, *Communications of the ACM*.

Dave Farber, co-founder, CSNET; member, National Research Council's 
Computer Science & Telecommunications Board; University of 

Cliff Figallo, Director of the WELL (the Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link), 
one of the best-reputed of the public teleconferencing systems.

David Flaherty, Canadian surveillance expert, Professor of History and 
Law at the University of Western Ontario.

John Ford, Public Relations Director for Equifax, one of the nation's 
largest providers of personal and credit information.

Bob Gellman, Chief Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives Governmental 
Information Subcommittee.

Janlori Goldman, Director of the ACLU's  Project on Privacy and 
Technology, Washington, DC.

Harry Hammit, Editor, Access Reports, focusing on access to and freedom 
of information, Washington, DC.

Martin Hellman, identified potential hazards in federal DES national 
encryption standard; co-invented public-key encryption; Stanford.

Evan Hendricks, Editor/Publisher *Privacy Times* newsletter, Washington, 

Lance Hoffman, public policy researcher and Professor of Electrical 
Engineering  & Computer Science at George Washington University.
Don Ingraham, wrote the first-ever search warrant for magnetic media, 
computer crime prosecutor; Asst. District Attorney, Alameda County.

Bob Jacobson, former Prin. Consultant, California State Assembly 
Utilities & Commerce Committee; drafted landmark computer 
communications legislation.

Mitch Kapor, co-founder, Electronic Frontier Foundation; founder, Lotus 
Corp.; received DPMA's 1990 Distinguished Information Science Award.

Tom Mandel, Director of the Leading Edge Values & Lifestyles Program at 
SRI International.

John McMullen, well-known on-line journalist; co-authors "Newsbytes" 
column on GEnie and Online America.

Peter Neumann, member, National Research Councils's 1990 *Computers at 
Risk* comm.; Chair, ACM Comm.on Computers & Public Policy; moderates 
RISKS Forum.

Donn Parker, perhaps the best-known international consultant and author 
on information security and computer crime, SRI International.

Ron Plesser, former General Counsel, U.S. Privacy Protection Study 
Commission; attorney, Piper & Marbury, Washington DC.

John Quarterman, author of the definitive study, *The Matrix: Computer 
Networks and Conferencing Systems Worldwide*; Texas Internet Consulting.

Jack Rickard, Editor of *Boardwatch* magazine,  perhaps the best news 
source about computer bulletin boards; runs online information service.

Tom Riley, Canadian specialist in international computer communications 
and privacy issues; Riley Information Services, Inc.

Lance Rose, co-author of *Syslaw*, about the law applied to on-line 
situations; attorney, Wallace & Rose.

Marc Rotenberg, expert in federal computer and privacy law; Computer 
Professionals for Social Responsibility, Washington office Director.

Noel Shipman, attorney for plaintiffs in electronic-mail privacy 
landmark 1990 litigation against Epson America.

Harvey Silverglate, Electronic Frontier Foundation litigation counsel, 
specialist in criminal defense and civil rights, Silverglate & Good.

Gail Thackeray, computer crime prosecutor; involved in Secret Service's 
"Operation Sun Devil", former Arizona Asst. State Attorney General.

Robert Veeder, Acting Chief, Information Policy Branch, Office of 
Information Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management & Budget 

Willis Ware, Chair, U.S. Computer Systems Security & Privacy Advisory 
Board established by Congress in 1987; Fellow, RAND Corporation.

Alan Westin, leader in early privacy legislation; co-authored landmark 
*Equifax Report on Consumers in the Information Age*; Columbia 

Sheldon Zenner, former federal prosecutor in Chicago; defended *Phrack* 
electronic publisher, Craig Neidorf; Katten, Muchin & Zavis.

Jim Warren, Autodesk, Inc. & MicroTimes
  415-851-7075, / e-mail

Dorothy Denning, Digital Equipment Corporation
Peter Denning, Research Inst. for Advanced Comp.Sci.
Les Earnest, Midpeninsula ACLU & Stanford U., ret.
Elliot Fabric, Attorney at Law
Mark Graham, Pandora Systems
Don Ingraham, Alameda County District AttyUs Office
Bruce Koball, Motion West
Marc Rotenberg, Comp. Prof. for Social Responsibility
Glenn Tenney, Fantasia Systems & The Hackers Conf.

Ron Anderson, ACM SIGCAS & Univ. of Minnesota
John Perry Barlow, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Jerry Berman, ACLU & Benton Foundation
Dave Caulkins, USSR GlasNet
Vint Cerf, Corp.for National Research Initiatives
Margaret Chambers, Electronic Networking Assn.
Steve Cisler, Apple Computer, Inc.
Whit Diffie, Northern Telecom
Mary Eisenhart, MicroTimes
Dave Farber, University of Pennsylvania
Cliff Figallo, The WELL
John Gilmore, Cygnus Support
Adele Goldberg, ParcPlace Systems
Terry Gross, Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, et al
Keith Henson, consultant & Alcor
Lance Hoffman, George Washington University
Dave Hughes, Chariot Communications
Bob Jacobson, Human Interface Technology Lab.
Mitch Kapor, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Roger Karraker, Santa Rosa College
Tom Mandel, SRI International
John McMullen, NewsBytes
Peter Neumann, SRI International
Dave Redell, Digital Equipment Corporation
Ken Rosenblattt, Santa Clara Cnty. Dist. Atty's Office
Paul Saffo, Institute for the Future
Gail Thackeray, Arizona Attorney GeneralUs Office
Jay Thorwaldson, Palo Alto Medical Foundation
Terry Winograd, CPSR & Stanford University
Sheldon Zenner, Katten, Muchin, & Zavis
  Affiliations are listed only for identification purposes.

                        *   Application to Attend  *

First Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy,     March 25-28, 1991
Monday: Tutorials,    Tuesday-Thursday: Conference Sessions & Banquets
SFO Marriott Hotel, 1800 Old Bayshore Hwy., Burlingame CA 94010
For hotel reservations at a special $99 Conference rate, call: (800)228-

Due to the size of the facility, Conference registration is limited to 
600  people.  Tutorials registration is also limited.  Balanced 
participation from all of the diverse interest groups is being actively 
  Interested individuals should apply early to assure 
acceptance.Applications will be accepted primarily on a first-come, 
first-served basis, while encouraging balanced participation.

REGISTRATION FEES: If  payment received:  by Feb.8  2/8-3/15  after 3/15
Conference (3 days, incl.luncheons, banquets) $295      $350        $400
Tutorials (full day, 1 or 2 seminars)          $95      $145        $195
Please circle fee and date selections.
Please make checks payable to "Computers, Freedom & Privacy / CPSR".  
Please do not send cash.  (If space is sold out, the uncashed check will 
be voided and promptly returned.)

  Check the "[x]" if information should NOT appear in the published 
Attendee Roster.  (Roster will greatly assist ongoing communications.)
[ ]  name:
[ ]  title:
[ ]  organization:
[ ]  mailing address:
[ ]  city ST Zip:
[ ]  phone(s):
[ ]  fax:
[ ]  e-mail:
Name-tag name:
Name-tag title:
Name-tag organization:
Expect to stay at SFO Marriott?     [ ]yes     [ ]no

To aid in balancing participation among groups,
please check all significantly applicable items.
[ ]  user of computers or computer networking
[ ]  user of electronic-mail services
[ ]  user of teleconferencing services
[ ]  user of direct marketing services
[ ]  user of computerized personal information
[ ]  user of government information
[ ]  computer professional
[ ]  BBS sysop (bulletin board system operator)
[ ]  systems administrator / infosystems manager
[ ]  network administrator
[ ]  computer / communications security specialist
[ ]  provider of data communications services
[ ]  provider of electronic-mail services
[ ]  provider of teleconferencing services
[ ]  provider of direct marketing services
[ ]  provider of computerized personal information
[ ]  provider of government information
[ ]  legislative official or staffqfederalqstate
[ ]  regulatory official or staff  [ ]federal  [ ]state
[ ]  law enforcement               [ ]federal  [ ]state  [ ]local
[ ]  prosecutor                    [ ]federal  [ ]state  [ ]local
[ ]  judicial representative       [ ]federal  [ ]state  [ ]local
[ ]  criminal defense attorney
[ ]  corporate or litigation attorney
[ ]  civil liberties specialist
[ ]  journalist  [ ]newspaper  [ ]television  [ ]radio  [ ]other
[ ]  other:
[ ]  other:

Privacy Notice: 
This information will not be sold, rented, loaned, exchanged or used for 
any purpose other than official CPSR activity.  CPSR may elect to send 
information about other activities, but such mailings will always 
originate with CPSR.

  Please mail form and payment to Conference office:
CFP Conference, 345 Swett Road, Woodside CA 94062
  e-mail:;  fax: (415)851-2814
  Conference Chair: Jim Warren,    (415)851-7075

Sponsor:  Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, 
415)322-3778, a  nonprofit, educational corporation  [Internal 
Revenue Code 501(c)(3)]

  This is an intensive, multi-disciplinary survey Conference for those 
concerned with computing, teleconferencing, electronic mail, 
computerized personal information, direct marketing information, 
government data, etc. -- and those concerned with computer-related 
legislation, regulation, computer security, law enforcement and national 
and international policies that impact civil liberties, responsible 
exercise of freedom and equitable protection of privacy in this global 
Information Age.

  For the first time, this 4-day event will bring together 
representatives from all of these groups and more, all in one place, all 
at one time.

  Many of the recognized leaders and strongest advocates among the 
various groups interested in the issues of the conference will discuss 
their concerns and proposals.

  Attendance will be limited to 600 people.  Balanced representation 
from the diverse groups interested in these issues is being encouraged.  
Please see the enclosed application for details.

  To inform participants about topics beyond their specialties, a number 
of half-day seminars are scheduled in parallel for the first day 
(Monday, March 25th).  These tutorials will explore relevant issues in 
computing, networking, civil liberties, regulation, the law and law 
enforcement.  Each tutorial is designed for those who are experienced in 
one area, but are less expert in the tutorials' topics.

  To explore the interactions and ramifications of the issues, 
conference talks and panel discussions are scheduled in a single track 
for the remaining three days (Tuesday-Thursday, March 26th-28th).  These 
will emphasize balanced representation of all major views, especially 
including probing questions and discussion.

  Explicit Conference events to foster communication across disciplines 
are planned.  Working luncheons, major breaks and two evening banquets 
will further encourage individual and small-group discussions.

Please copy, post & circulate!         [version 2.7, updated 1/26/91]

--End of Article 3--


Back to top

JavaScript license information