|
A Case for Mistaken Identity... Who's Privacy was Really Invaded? By Jim Bigeloww SLO Bytes PCUG According to the San Luis Obispo County (California) Telegram-Tribune, dated Saturday, March 23, 1991, the San Luis Obispo Police raided the homes of two Cal Poly students and two other residents including one in Santa Margarita for alleged computer crimes, "hacking." The suspects had, through their computer modems, unknowingly tried to access a computer owned by a group of local dermatologists. That same number had previously belonged to a popular local bulletin board, Cygnus XI. The police were alerted by the dermatologists and their computer technician who was afraid someone was trying to access their patient records. The police put a phone tap on the computer line for 10 days which showed over 200 calls placed to that number in one 24 hour period. Armed with a search warrant, police went to the house of the first suspect who later said he only called that number 3 times in a 24 hour period (I wonder who made the other 197 calls?). Unfortunately he was not home... this cost him two broken doors as the police had to enter the house some way. All computer equipment, disks and computer related equipment was "seized" and taken to police headquarters. Follow-up articles reveal that the individual had not committed local crimes, that no charges would be filed and that the computers . would be returned. Disks which were determined to contain illegally copied commercial software were to be turned over to Federal authorities. Like most personal home computer users I have interviewed, I didn't think much . of this matter at first, but I am now becoming alarmed. I am a 64İyear old senior citizen, perhaps a paranoid senior. I think most seniors are a bit paranoid. I am a strong supporter of law enforcement, an ex-peace officer, a retired parole agent, and as a senior I want law enforcement protection. . In this situation, according to the Tribune report, the police "had legitimate concern." But, apparently they didn't know what they were doing as the officer in charge stated "We are learning as we go." Accessing a modem is not easy. I, with five years of computer experience, find ? it difficult and frustrating to set up a computer and keep it operating, to understand a manual well enough to get the software to operate, to set the ) switches and jumpers on a modem, and then contact a BBS, and in the midst of their endless questions, coupled with my excitability and fumbling, answer them and get on line. I have many times tried to connect to BBS's only to be disconnected because I typed my name or code incorrectly. I have dialed wrong numbers and gotten a private phone. I do not want to be considered an enemy of law enforcement merely because I own a computer. I do not like to be called a "hacker," and especially because I contacted a BBS 3 times. The word, "hacker" originally applied to a computer user, now has become a dirty word. It implies criminality, a spy, double agents, espionage, stealing government secrets, stealing business codes, etc. Certainly, not that of a law abiding and law supporting, voting senior citizen, who has found a new hobby, a toy and a tool to occupy his mind. Computers are educational and can and do assist in providing community functions. I hope that the name "personal computer user" doesn't become a dirty word. The "hacker" problem seems to be viewed by law enforcement as one in which "we learn as we go." This is an extremely costly method as we blunder into a completely new era, that of computerization. It causes conflicts between citizens and law enforcement. It is costly to citizens in that it causes great distress to us, to find ourselves possible enemies of the law, the loss of our computers and equipment, telephones and reputation by being publicly called hackers and criminals. It causes more problems when we attempt to regain our reputation and losses by suing the very agencies we have been so diligently supporting, for false arrest, confiscation of our most coveted possession and uninvited and forced entrance into our homes, causing great emotional disturbances (and older people are easily upset). I have a legal question I would like answered. Who is obligated in this incident: the owners and operators of Cygnus XI for failure to make a public announcement of the discontinuance of their services? or the phone company for issuing the number to a private corporation with a modem? the police for not knowing what they are doing? the computer user? It is not a problem of being more cautious, ethical, moral, lawİabiding. It is a matter of citizen rights. The "hacker" problem now applies not only to code breakers, secret and document stealers, but to me, even in my first attempts to connect with a BBS. Had I tried to contact Cygnus XI my attempts would have put me under suspicion of the police and made me liable for arrest, confiscation of my computer, equipment, disks, and subsequent prosecution. I am more than a little bewildered. And, am I becoming a paranoid senior citizen, not only because of criminals, but of the police also? Am I running a clandestine operation by merely owning a computer and a modem, or am I a solid senior citizen, which may well imply that I don't own "one of those computers?" Frankly, I don't know. Even though my computer is returned, and I am not arrested or prosecuted, I wonder what condition it now is in after all the rough handling. (Police who break down doors do not seem to be overly gentle, and computers and their hard disk drives are very fragile instruments). Just who and how many have scrutinized my computer? its contents? and why? my personal home business transactions? and perhaps I supplement my income with the aid of my computer (I am a writer)? my daily journal? my most private and innermost thoughts? my letters? my daily activities? (This is exactly why personal computers and their programs were designed, for personal use. My personal computer is an extension of my self, my mind, and my personal affairs.) Can the police confiscate all my software claiming it is stolen, merely because they don't find the originals? (I, at the suggestion of the software companies, make backup copies of the original disks, and then place the originals elsewhere for safekeeping.) Do I need to keep all receipts to "prove" to the police that I am innocent of holding bootleg software? Is there a new twist in the laws that applies to personal computer users? Also any encoding of my documents or safeguarding them with a password, such as my daily journal, my diary, I have read in other cases, is viewed by law enforcement as an attempt to evade prosecution and virtually incriminates me. ("If it wasn't criminal why did the "suspect" encode it?") This recent incident arouses complex emotions for me. What will the future bring for the home and personal computer user? I do not care to fear the police. I do not want to have to register my computer with the government. Will it come to that in our country? I do not want to have to maintain an impeccable record of all of my computer usages and activities, imports and exports, or to be connected to a state police monitoring facility, that at all times monitors my computer usage. The year "1984" is behind us. Let's keep it that way. This matter is a most serious problem and demands the attention of all citizens. As for myself, I wasn't the one involved, but I find it disturbing enough to cause me to learn of it and do something about it. ###