Newsgroups: can.legal,ont.general,can.general From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) Subject: The Police and the Publication Ban: A real event happened here. Message-ID: <2n8hek$2dd@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> Date: 29 Mar 1994 06:22:12 GMT I have been following and documenting a series of events which occurred at this site during the last few months. These events include the creation, editing, e-mail distribution, e-mail reception and fax transmission of the Karla/Teale FAQ file. I would advise the reader to carefully read this whole document and please quote only relevent parts when posting follow-ups. In my own opinion, I don't think that the sys-admins can be blamed for their actions. I think that what should concern most people is that the police, in their efforts at enforcing a *Publication Ban*, are expanding their conceptions of illegality to include the mere posession of files and documents. It should be clear in this document that at this site, the sys-admins will not protect computer-users' rights (real or imaginary) when the police come knocking at their door. It has been argued long and hard that the police are largely unable to enforce the publication ban on the net. I think we have a concrete example here that they will instead resort to twisting their interpretation of what a publication ban is, combined with tactics like threat and intimidation (search and seizure, etc). In light of this, we are left with a situation analogous to facing a radar speed trap when the speed limit signs have been obscured or removed. The publication ban may well serve the courts, but it doesn't serve the rest of us when an obviously unworkable ban is imposed on society, with the police going around like the key-stone cops putting out these fires as the occur. How many of you enjoy the feeling of being a criminal because you have a copy of the Washington Post article on your home computer? You don't know what I'm talking about? Read on... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 1: A Time Line of Events September 1994: A person or persons unknown drafted a document that detailed all information known to the underground grapevine, the net, etc. This document is refered to as "the FAQ". Later versions of this FAQ would circulate on various internet news groups, various gopher and ftp sites, and eventually on the Teale Tales Mailing List (TTML). The TTML was formed in December '93 as a result of the demise of the newsgroup alt.fan.karla-homolka at many Ontario universities. The TTML was publicly announced on WGR Newsradio 55 on December 1, 1993 by Abdul, the ELECTRONIC Gordon Domm. Originally operating from Finland's anon.penet.fi, this was moved to Illuminati Online in late February. The Players: -Abdul@io.com - Illuminati Online, Austin TX USA -Abdul had some editorial help with the TTML-FAQ from person X at UWO. -Joe B. (Baptista) is a general net-shit-disturber, and sees himself as a thorn in the side of police and government. He operates by flooding police/gov't fax machines and mail boxes with irritating information and demands for information. He has made a special effort to show authorities how futile the publication ban is. (It hasn't been verified by a second source that Joe's e-mail to fax service was used in this event, but to the best of my knowledge I *believe* that it was). Mid to late January or early February: - The FAQ is posted to several news groups. - It is believed that the police have *not* been monitoring or reading net news during this time. Feb 1, 1994: - version 2.1 of the TTML-FAQ is created. January 31/Feb 1, 1994: - Abdul sends out a few copies of the FAQ with his real name and possibly/ probably X's real name on it by accident to people other than the TTML. - 6 media organizations in Ontario receive faxes of the FAQ through Joe's e-mail-fax service. - It is unknown if Joe B. had any knowledge of the content or destinations of these faxes. - What ever the police received, the real names or Abdul, X, and possibly Joe B. (or his .chicken address) appeared in this document. The crown attorney begins an investigation. Feb 24 - March 3, 1994: - A local cop is instructed by the OPP to descend upon UWO and look for X. The only evidence to go on is the letter to the AG. X is interrogated, and nothing illegal is found on X's campus computer accounts. The identity of Abdul is determined by the police. X's home computer is searched (more or less against his will). Nothing illegal is found. Monday, March 7, 1994: - A piece of TTML mail was sent out with all members in plain view in the distribution header. Abdul calls this a mistake. This piece of mail was a request for media stories concerning how the internet was being used to circumvent the media information ban, and did not contain the FAQ. -------------------------------------------------------------------- | By now, the Police are most likely in possession of this list. | | People at these sites should be made aware that the police have, | | or will, or may, conduct examinations of machines, look for | | certain persons, or possibly confiscate machines if they are met | | with resistance to their efforts at erradicating all copies of | | the TTML-FAQ or other related files. | | | | Here is a site breakdown of the TTML (Teale Tales Mailing List) | | membership as of March 7/94: | | | | Total: 56 people on 47 machines | | | | Universities (29): Governments (2): Others (15): | | | | (1) acadiau.ca (1) gov.ab.ca (1) ab.ca | | (1) laurentian.ca (1) gov.bc.ca (1) cul.ca | | (5) mcgill.ca (2) dal.ca | | (1) queensu.ca Public / Freenets (6): (1) dnd.ca | | (4) ualberta.ca (1) emr.ca | | (2) ucalgary.ca (1) fidonet.org (3) mb.ca | | (3) umanitoba.ca (1) guildnet.org (1) mda.ca | | (1) uregina.ca (3) freenet.carleton.ca (2) ns.ca | | (2) usask.ca (1) freenet.victoria.bc.ca (1) on.ca | | (3) uwaterloo.ca (1) tuns.ca | | (5) uwo.ca Companies (4): (1) umd.edu | | (1) wlu.ca (4) .com | |____________________________________________________________________| Friday, March 11, 1994: - Computer administrators on the campus of UWO become aware of the above TTML distribution and take unilateral action to inform those from UWO that possession of banned material is at least cause for police concern and at worst- illegal. This warning was interpreted by some of those involved that the police were directly involved with them. At least one user's account was examined and files deleted without the knowledge of that user. Thursday, March 24, 1994: - The police have yet to visit Abdul. - TTML membership is around 90 people. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 2: The story and reaction as told by UWO administrators. >From reggers@julian.uwo.ca Date: Mon, 28 Mar 94 11:52:51 -0500 This is an open letter on recent developments at UWO and elsewhere regarding violations of the publication ban on the Karla Homolka case. Feel free to pass this note on to all interested parties. I am writing this report at the recommendation of the local police to advise you and others of the risks we may be exposed to. I'm not going to tell you what you should do, that's your responsiblity, but I will tell you of the risks you run and our experiences so far. The short story is this: If you or your users are in possession of material covered by the publication ban, especially if they are involved with the mailing list run by "Abdul, the ELECTRONIC Gordon Domm" , then you run a risk that the police may get a search warrant and seize your machine. The risk is modest, but are you prepared to take that risk? The longer story is this: As you may know there have been an number of incidents wrt. the printed media. Over the last month or so I have been involved with the London Police Department (LPD) and their investigation of a user here at Western who has used Electronic communications to violate the ban. The user had his account seized at the request of the LPD and has cooperated fully with their investigation. The user's account has since been restored but he has been advised by both the police and the chair of his department that he had better behave if he expects to keep his account and not be charged. Briefly, here's my understanding of what has happened: 1. The Attorney General of Ontario has assigned a Crown Attorney to enforce the publication ban -- this includes printed and electronic media. They are serious about enforcing the ban. 2. The AG has an OPP task force investigating incidents and they bring in city police (like the LPD) as needed. I do not know, but I would assume, that city police at other places have been investigating similar incidents. 3. The AG is in possession of a Karla Homolka FAQ dated late January 1994 written by the user here at UWO. They have it because "Abdul, the ELECTRONIC Gordon Domm" sent it to them! 4. The copy they have has the author's name and electronic address (it's forwarded mail). That's why the LPD have been investigating the user here at UWO -- the LPD have been instructed by the OPP, at the direction of the Crown, at the direction of the AG who was given the FAQ by Abdul. 5. Abdul has advertised and maintains an ad hoc mailing list for people interested in the case and several mailings have been made that list members of the list -- this includes several people here at Western including the FAQ author. The LPD (and I assume the OPP, etc.) are well aware of who are on this list. My understanding is the LPD (and OPP and others) are of the opinion that 1. a number of people are in violation of the publication ban -- especially "Abdul, the ELECTRONIC Gordon Domm" and the FAQ author who provided Abdul with the material sent to the AG. 2. to be in possession of such material (like the FAQ) is to be in violation of the publication ban. The police can seize computer equipment with a warrant if a case can be made to a JP who issues the warrant. If the police have reason to believe that a site holds copies of the FAQ or other correspondence from Abdul they may get a search warrant and seize equipment. In so far as that is the case, individuals in possession of such material (especially those on the mailing list) imperil not only their use of the machine but everyone else as well. Q: What about E-mail privacy? Has anyone been reading my mail? E-mail privacy is being honored. No one is going around reading other people's mail. However, if the police come to a site manager and say "We have reason to believe that user X is in possession of material that may violate the publication ban" the usual response is "I'll do what I can to help you (so that you don't get a search warrant and seize my machine)". Likewise, users who are advised by the police that they may be charged often do all they can to cooperate to avoid the charge. Material obtained under these circumstances may well include E-mail communications. The material seized so far at Western has been with the full cooperation of myself, the site managers and the users involved. However, if Abdul is willing to pass names to the attorney general, and if these guys truely believe in "free speach", what's the deal about privacy? If you wonder how names became known to the Police talk to Abdul. He's the fellow that broadcasts names and addresses. No one had to monitor E-mail to determine who is involved with the mailing list. Most sites maintain an audit trail of mail transactions. It's pretty easy to determine who gets mail from whom. But that doesn't mean we read your mail. Nor do we monitor your phone where there's a similar audit trail. Q: Will the university stand between the police and a campus computer in order to protect the rights of those that use the computer? Systems are managed by system administrators not the University. No system administrator is going to defend flagrant violations of the law under the guise of free speach. Especially when the police can get a search warrant and seize a system if you don't cooperate. And who wants to obstruct the police from doing their job anyways? If you think the University is going to protect your "right" to break the law you are sadly mistaken. The law applies here just as much as elsewhere. You don't have a right to violate the publication ban -- don't expect any sympathy or support if you do. Q: Has anyone been charged? Any machines seized? So far no one has been charged and no machines have been seized. Charges are pending of course and the FAQ author was advised that he could be charged. They also visited his home and examined his personal computer when he was told they would get a search warrant if he didn't cooperate. While I would not expect the Police to seize a machine it is certainly possible. More likely, they will call you up and advise you that you or your users may be in violation of the publication ban. I would encourage your cooperation -- usually this would mean removing any offending data and instructing your users to behave. I wouldn't encourage anyone to fight this in court. It isn't a issue worth fighting over. Failure to cooperate may well mean the police will get a search warrant and seize your system. I am the Computer and Network Security Officer at ITS/UWO. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 17:19:08 -0500 (EST) From: David Martin Subject: Karla Homolka Publication ban You may be aware that there have been several incidents involving electronic transmission and storage of information pertaining to the trial of Karla Homolka. We have been advised by the London Police Department that maintaining on a computer system any information regarding the Karla Homolka case may be in violation of the publication ban. It is possible that computer systems containing, or suspected of containing, such information could be seized by the Police. This situation applies equally to personal computer equipment in private residences, and to University owned equipment intended for instructional and research use. For this reason, the Department is cooperating with the LPD and the OPP and will a) pass on the names of anyone maintaining such information and b) will delete such information after making appropriate copies for the LPD and OPP. Please note that for most individuals, as for the University, the issue is not whether we could conduct a successful defense against any charges that might be laid, but rather that we all conduct ourselves in such a manner that charges are not laid in the first place. Dave Martin Computer Science Dept. Middlesex College University of Western Ontario London Ontario CANADA N6A 5B7 e-mail: dave@csd.uwo.ca Phone: 519-661-3538 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------