From: lippard@Primenet.Com (James J. Lippard) Newsgroups: primenet.general,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Primenet user arrested for "terrorist threats" on the Internet Date: 24 May 1996 00:57:01 -0700 Organization: Primenet (602)416-7000 Lines: 87 Sender: root@primenet.com Message-ID: <4o3q4d$186@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> References: <4nlpn1$9bi@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <4o0tlm$o2u@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <4o27i9$h3g@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <4o3itp$jji@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> X-Posted-By: lippard@usr07.primenet.com In article <4o3itp$jji@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, wrote: >lippard@Primenet.Com (James J. Lippard) wrote: > >>1. The account was expired for nonpayment and because the user >> information was known to be bogus. It is our policy to record ANI >> information on users in such cases when they call in, so that >> an attempt to collect can be made. (BTW, only a few people at >> Primenet knew of the subpoena or the investigation. The person >> who obtained the ANI information was an employee in collections >> who did not know of this.) > >Yet someone at Primenet made the decision to pick up the phone, call >the FBI, and give them the ANI info. Yes, and that someone was me. My understanding is that the subpoena required me to do that, and I would do the same again. >>2. In the conversation I had with an FBI agent prior to this, I >> was told that they didn't think they had anything to prosecute for, >> but just wanted to have a talk with him. I believed this, since it >> didn't appear to me that there was anything to prosecute for in his >> posting. I was quite surprised to hear last week that he had been >> arrested. > >I'll take your word for it that that was the way you saw it at the >time. It is easy to be critical armed with hindsight. But I wonder >if you allowed the agent you spoke with to tell you what you wanted to >hear while you ignored the obvious. > >Is it not incongruous that the feds were hot after this guy so they >could just..."talk to him?" That motive is at best unacceptably vague >and at worst completely implausible. Their serving Primenet with a This is exactly what happened with the U.S. Secret Service in a previous case. The user was just talked to. (A user involved in a dispute with another user wrote email saying that if the other user tried to enter his home, he would use deadly force if necessary to stop him, and quoted from the Arizona Revised Statutes. For some unknown reason, this user cc'd his message to president@whitehouse.gov, and the mention of deadly force in a message to the president caught the attention of the Secret Service.) >court order means a federal judge thought there was serious evidence >of criminal activity and clearly they did too and were ready to go out >and bust down doors. A court order doesn't necessarily mean that at all. We've received quite a few, but to the best of my knowledge only two cases have led to arrests. BTW, the subpoena in this case did not come from a judge, but from the U.S. Attorney in Sacramento, who still had to convince a grand jury to bring an indictment. >>3. I would like to see the guy investigated and prosecuted for >> computer crime and fraud. > >You know the story behind this and I don't. I trust your judgement >that he may deserve such prosecution. However this is a separate >issue from the issue of Primenet turning him in to the feds to face >these other charges. > >>4. What would you have done? > >I wouldn't have given his ANI info to the feds. > >In the service of a greater justice I might have just let the guy get >away with a couple of months of free Internet service (?). Or I might >have used the ANI info to find him and get my money directly without >involving the government. Let them do their own dirty work. > >I would never offer my help in hunting down anyone unless I were clear >about all the facts. This includes a complete picture of the nature >and bona-fide turpitude of the alleged crime. Also that the person is >a serious suspect and that a proper justice would be served upon his >apprehension. And perhaps most important, the probity of the pursing >agency. > >If I were not certain of all of these things, I would not volunteer my >assistance lest I become an aide to evil doings. It is fools and >cowards who blindly assume that men with badges always serve right. There was no volunteering involved--the subpoena is quite clear that failure to turn over the requested information is something we could be prosecuted for. -- Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com) Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/ PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57 35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04