Hacktivists Arise!

I get that sense of "HERE WE GO AGAIN." 

Back in the late 80s, it was fashionable to arrest hackers and make a big deal out of it.  Soon, however, the whole thing seemed to fade into oblivion.  As the great Jim Thomas once said, "To talk today about computer crime is like calling a bank robbery an automobile crime."  In other words, the only real hackers were trying to rip off big banks, a laudable ambition, perhaps, but hardly defensible.

Now, Wikileaks gives the whole movement new meaning, or renewed meaning.  Mastercard's main site is down, Visa's is under attack, the Swiss Bank that froze Assange's account is being swamped, the Swedish and British prosecutors and law enforcement sites are slowed considerably.  All of this is because of the ridiculous harrassment of Julian Assange, the spokesman for Wikileaks. 

I think everyone now finally has the facts: there was no warrant out for him.  When there was, he arranged to turn himself in with the understanding that he was get bail for the misdemeanor charges.  What actually happened: The condom broke during consensual sex and the females involved say they wanted him to get tested for STDs.  He did not move with alacrity.  That is the sum total of the charges!!!!  Did they get tested?  Why not?  I mean, they could find out, couldn't they, if they just had the tests themselves.  If they tested positive, then perhaps pursue it further.

Anyway, because of all the site shutdowns, the ban by Mastercard, Paypal, Visa, the Swiss Bank, all doubtless under pressure from the U.S., hackers are now defending Assange.  (Isn't that what we call it when we attack a foreign government? Defense?) 

I don't know any of them or where they are, nor do I, but cyber-security experts should be in great demand these days. 

I thought I'd re-post one of the Czar's first efforts in dealing with cyber space and freedom, here speaking about co-operating with the authorities and giving advice to the young:

 

    *************************************************************** ***  CuD #1.22, File 4 of 6: The Czar's Guide to Law        *** ***************************************************************     THE CZAR'S GUIDE TO THE YOUNG CRIMINAL ACCUSED OF USING COMPUTERS          With the hyperactivity of law enforcement officials and the current attitudes of the public in general, it is probably time to consider what to do in case of a bust.  I would guess that just about everybody receiving the Computer Underground Digest has violated some sort of law somewhere in someone's mind involving computers.  This is not to say that all the readers of this publication are really criminals -- just that the laws are so broadly interpreted so as so make anyone with a modem a criminal.  For example, if you have ever downloaded shareware and not used it, but didn't delete it, and had it for over 15 days, you could be violating copyright laws if the author put some sort of announcement to the effect that such were the terms of agreement.  This means that you could very well be raided someday.        Nothing is more gratuitous than free legal advice given to a defendant who has already engaged counsel, especially if the giver of such advice is not an attorney.  However, as someone close to me was so arrested (and the charges later dropped), I thought you might be able to benefit from our experience.  It does not matter what the computer crime is, how extensive, how serious the charges, etc.  What matters is how you deal with the system when it comes knocking on your door.        There may be warning signs.  You could get a call or a preliminary visit from a member of the Secret Service, a call from security from a local phone company, a visit from a local policeman, news that someone you know has been busted, anything like that.  At that point, you are legally free to say whatever you want, but it is best if you give the impression that you are willing to cooperate.  Of course, any specific details you give will be noted.  They can not be used in evidence against you, but that will not stop them from making the attempt in the future.  I would indicate that I was very willing to help but that, right now, I had a number of pressing things to do and that I would like to talk tomorrow when I had much more time and could go into more detail.  Right now, I'd say, my mother was calling.  Everyone, to paraphrase Thoreau, should have such a mother.        I would hardly advise anybody to destroy evidence since that is a crime itself, but it would seem to me that at this point a lot of material you have had around the house has been bringing you bad luck.  A lot of paper and printouts are a definite fire hazard and should not be left lying around.  Also, old data never does you any good -- it would be wise to format most of your ala disks several times.  Better yet, treat yourself to some new ones and maybe your luck will change.  All those old, dusty disks simply clutter things up.  It's time to reorganize.        The search warrant usually takes a while to get, but most judges take the path of least resistance and will issue one on fairly flimsy grounds. Now you must realize that most police officers are not used to dealing with computer people and that they do not like the ones they do have to deal with at work.  The are used more to searches in the case of narcotics, illegal weapons, etc.  You can not expect them, then, to be overly polite when they do knock on your door.  Do not let this frighten you into telling them all sorts of things.  During the search, however, it helps to have someone there crying.  Also, act limply, as if you have lost the will to live.  This will usually placate the more professional ones who should realize thereby that you are not going to shoot at them.  This behavior is simply designed to keep you from being beaten or otherwise abused.  It does not help your case legally although, if they do beat or otherwise try to intimidate you, and you can document it, a prosecutor will feel less exuberant about taking the case to court.        They will probably place you under arrest at this point, reading you your rights.  Once they do, you are under no obligation to say anything, but I would advise you to say "I want an attorney."  An alternative is "I want a lawyer."  You can respond to their "good guy" questions about the weather and such, but then when the questions come back to the topic of computers you had best repeat the above sentence(s).  In fact, the more times you say it the better if it ever gets to court, but do not say it gratuitously so as to arouse the macho defensiveness that some officers may have.  Realize that the arresting officer is not a legal scholar and that he is no more culpable in this arrest than is the postman for bringing you a bill.  The real fighting lies ahead.  One final point:  it is wise to become acquainted with an attorney before any of this happens.  One thing is quite certain: nothing you say to the arresting officers is likely to help your case.        While they are carrying out your computer, your floppies, your printouts, your telephones, your answering machine, your radio, your tapes, watch them.  Remember the irrelevant material they seize.  This fact may be helpful in court as well and it may well help dissuade the prosecutor from doing anything much with the case.  In one case, they took copies of the Federal Register, a tape of Mozart's 23rd piano concerto (Horowitz), and Gordon Meyer's thesis.  The constant repetition of "I want my Mozart back" irritated the prosecutor no end and lessened enthusiasm for the case. (They also picked up pieces of grass the cat had brought in).  None of this is legally relevant, but then a lot they do is not legally relevant either ** such as taking the materials in the first place.        From here on, the case should be in the hands of a competent attorney. It is not necessary that he be an expert in computers since the prosecutor isn't either and the police even less so.  The odds are that you will be able to supply more than enough computer expertise.   What is important is his willingness to fight the case.  Most will take that path of least resistance, perhaps working toward a plea bargain.  The trouble with that is you are not in the best position at this point for a plea bargain.  One of you main strategies should be to make the case so much of a pain in the ass for the prosecutor that he tires of it.  If the charge is a misdemeanor, be advised that prosecutors do not like to prosecute such cases in the first place.  The charge was made a misdemeanor in the hopes that you would simply plead guilty and that would be an end of it.  It would also be the last you ever saw of your equipment.  One last point:  a defense attorney in one of these cases, after I had complained to him that as a taxpayer I resented the enormous expenditure of funds on these cases while there were abundant examples of clear and present dangers ripe for prosecution, said "Oh, they have absolutely no sense of resource management."   Hardly encouraging words.        A pain in the ass:  judges do not like to be overturned on appeal, usually.  The Fifth and Sixth Amendments are clearly relevant on your behavior before the trial.  I would hope that the First and Ninth would be applied somewhere in the defense.  Everyone knows that the first has to do with freedom of expression, but the ninth says, the way I read it, unless we specifically give up certain rights to the government, we retain them. I do not know, really, how these issues would ultimately be resolved, but when constitutional issues are raised during a trial and ruled not relevant, the path is set for appeal all the way, as the saying goes, to the Supreme Court.  No matter that it doesn't help in this case specifically -- it may well help in other aspects of the case.  The point is that once you are in the legal system and have an attorney, you are in a fight.  They have to prove that you are guilty and you have the right to make them prove it legally.        This does not mean that you examine all aspects of the case and come to a rational judgment.  The interesting thing is that they try to produce any sort of evidence no matter how irrelevant and you try to prevent them from presenting any evidence no matter how germane.  There is no longer any objective truth --simply a fight using words.        Finally, there is an old maxim to the effect that you should not lie to your attorney.  It is also true that it helps to have an attorney who believes in your case and is willing to fight it at every point, even points that seem to you quit irrelevant.  When and how much to tell him is a tricky issue.  Remember, he is good friends with the judge and the prosecutor, but he is also quite interested in winning cases for his clients.  It is also wise to arrange some sort of set fee for the entire case so that you feel more comfortable communicating with him.  One thing you should communicate is the outcome you wish to see from the trial and he should also make clear to you what your options are.  For example, it is more difficult for a prosecutor to convince a jury that you are guilty.  He doesn't even know that much about computers -- imagine him trying to educate others.  On the other hand, if he succeeds. and the jury recommends jail time, the judge is more likely to impose it.  On the other hand, a judge might be easier to convince, but he would feel much more free to suspend sentence and order "restitution."  You have to decide what risks you are willing to incur in search of the desired outcome.        I hope this hasn't sounded too frightening and I hope some of it might be helpful to someone out there.  All I can say right now is that it is a good time for people with computers to make friends with people with law degrees.  The current climate makes it necessary for the one and profitable for the other.       =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ +                               END THIS FILE                                + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=