[868] in Intrusion Detection Systems
Re: Update on mail bombing threats--not so funny
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Church)
Sun Jan 26 05:05:47 1997
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 19:25:49 -0800
From: William Church <iwar@iwar.org>
To: ids@uow.edu.au
Reply-To: ids@uow.edu.au
crumrig@us-state.gov wrote:
>
> Just to tack on to what David said about the prosecution of computer criminals.
> DOD began to prosecute these types of cases years ago. The Air force last year
> spent several million on a new computer crime lab. They have taken delivery o
> f some pretty damn good equipment, and are able to supeona any thing they want.
> If they can get search warrants, and supeona ISP records, they have to be able
> to back it up with aapropriate law, otherwise the judge wouldn't give them the p
> ower to search and gather information. I don't know what rule or law they come
> under, but I know they wouldn't be able to go forward without it being backed up
> by law.
Sorry I have to respond to this. It is a misconception that judges
require significant evidence to grant a search warrant. For example
let's take wire taps for example which is a form of search. Since 1988
the government all levels requested 6780 Title III taps and none were
rejected. The Richard Jewell case is a good example. The government had
very little evidence but they still tore apart his house. Obviously in
cases of National Security the track record is even worse if that is
possible. So don't sit out there thinking that they need a reason to
search your premise.
