Only criminals use terminals

[bascule]

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04...are-suspicious

This reminds me of my high school librarians... I'd bust out cmd.exe or SecureCRT and they'd freak out. How dare I try to connect to my shell server... I must be trying to hack into something!

[streaker69]

Re: Only criminals use terminals

When terminals are outlawed, only outlaws will have terminals.

[theprez98]

Re: Only criminals use terminals

However, this terminal was only a black screen with white text. It wasn't the dreaded black screen with green text!

[burncycle]

Re: Only criminals use terminals

If only they'd caught him with this on the screen. He would've been a goner for sure.

[Thorn]

Re: Only criminals use terminals

Upon reading this thread, and hearing of this case, my initial reaction was that "Here we have an officer not trained in high tech, interpreting something he has limited knowledge about, to be something bad. Once again, this reflects badly on law enforcement." As a former LEO, these types of stories make me cringe. However, I decided to check further, and downloaded the complete search warrant application. Blame it on me being an old cop and actually wanting to check facts, but that's what I do.

According the the EFF article:

The problem? Not only is there no indication that any crime was committed, the investigating officer argued that the computer expertise of the student itself supported a finding of probable cause to seize the student's property.

The problem with that statement is that is isn't exactly true. In fact, the EFF article is misleading by what information is left out. The EFF lawyers should know that probable cause is based on the totality of the circumstances, and not merely isolated statements. In fact, taken all together, the information contained in the affidavit quite nicely supports cause to obtain further evidence, and provide reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed, and the the named defendant was in fact the perpetrator.

The EFF and the firm representing the defendant are claiming that the warrant should be quashed based on the statements highlighted on the EFF's page about the case.

What the EFF fails to mention is that those highlighted portions are in the introductory portions of the warrant application search warrant, and this is hearsay supplied to the police by the complaint (i.e. "complaining witness"). Based on the statements, it would appear that the complaint is unsophisticated in the area of IT. However, he is merely making base allegations that a crime or crimes took place, and the statements are the interpretations of the complaint, and not the officer. The officer is merely supplying to the court information of 'this is how I got this started on this investigation, and this is what the guy told me'.

The EFF lawyers should know this.

After the initial introduction phase of the warrant affidavit, the officer goes on to mention the highlights of the investigation in Section 4d, 4e, 4f, and 4g. He mentions a fair number of supporting technical details, including the checking of DNS and DHCP logs containing the MACs and IP address of computers alleged to have been used by the defendant.

One point that bears mentioning here: An affidavit is effectively the abstract or executive summary of a criminal action. It is not the detailed report. The affidavit, as I mentioned earlier, is highlights of the crime and the resulting investigation.

Now, after all that, it may argued that sending out a number of emails via gmail and Yahoo to a Boston College mail list is or is not legal, depending on the circumstances. No doubt, that will be the next legal maneuver by the defense. However, based on the information of this case, it would appear that there is reasonable suspicion, rising to the level of probable cause, that the defendant did in fact send the alleged emails.

The next step, forensic examination of the defendant's computers, should provide further information that will either support the defendant being charged with a crime, or should exonerate him.

As I said before, the EFF lawyers should know this. What's more important, they should know how search warrants and probable cause works. So either they are being intentionally misleading and they are slanting the information to suit their own bias, or the need to go back to law school and take a remedial course on warrants.

So, as much as I like a lot of what the EFF does, here they are doing a disservice to those of us who look for them to protect our rights in the area of electronic information.

[g3k_]

Re: Only criminals use terminals

Thorn: I got to read the stuff on the EFF blog and I have to agree.... I didn't get the feeling that they were being 100% honest with everything they are saying, and I wasn't convinced that this kid is in the clear 100%

I don't feel though that sending an email to a mailing list is a crime.... Even if he was the student that did it, that is the way mailing lists work, amirite? So unless he hacked into the mailing list server and did it from there, I for one, see nothing wrong with what was done(legally). It isn't illegal to out somebody publicly, though I think it would be unethical and immoral.

[Thorn]

Re: Only criminals use terminals

Thorn: I got to read the stuff on the EFF blog and I have to agree.... I didn't get the feeling that they were being 100% honest with everything they are saying, and I wasn't convinced that this kid is in the clear 100%

I don't feel though that sending an email to a mailing list is a crime.... Even if he was the student that did it, that is the way mailing lists work, amirite? So unless he hacked into the mailing list server and did it from there, I for one, see nothing wrong with what was done(legally). It isn't illegal to out somebody publicly, though I think it would be unethical and immoral.

If they even charge the guy, sending the email could be fraud, or harassment, or stalking, or false personation, or several other criminal acts, depending upon the statute(s) the end up charging him under. I agree that the mail system is supposed to be used that way, and that outing by itself isn't nice, but hardly illegal. So it depends on how and in what way the emails were sent.

The big problem I have with this though, is that the EFF lawyers should know how warrants work, and that the base allegations of the complainant are not the statements of the officer.

Either they are being stupid about this, or they are being deliberately misleading. No matter which way it is, I expect better from the EFF.

[g3k_]

Re: Only criminals use terminals

The big problem I have with this though, is that the EFF lawyers should know how warrants work, and that the base allegations of the complainant are not the statements of the officer.

Either they are being stupid about this, or they are being deliberately misleading. No matter which way it is, I expect better from the EFF.

I think they are being deliberately misleading, personally. I know my nerd rage spiked a little before I started reading and a few other people I talked to took everything as face value. Its very easy to make someone feel a certain way over the internet, and I think that's what they are trying for. The EFF isn't that dumb.

[XROM]

Re: Only criminals use terminals

Thorn thanks for posting the link to the actual warrant application. I saw this earlier on another site and was kind of enraged. Now that I have had a chance to go through the whole application I agree that there is a reasonable suspicion.

[xor]

Re: Only criminals use terminals

The big problem I have with this though, is that the EFF lawyers should know how warrants work, and that the base allegations of the complainant are not the statements of the officer.

Either they are being stupid about this, or they are being deliberately misleading. No matter which way it is, I expect better from the EFF.

Are you saying that the EFF has a political agenda(being a sarcastic smart arse as usual)? Joe say it isn't so.

xot

[Thorn]

Re: Only criminals use terminals

I think they are being deliberately misleading, personally. I know my nerd rage spiked a little before I started reading and a few other people I talked to took everything as face value. Its very easy to make someone feel a certain way over the internet, and I think that's what they are trying for. The EFF isn't that dumb.

Agreed, although I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt,

Thorn thanks for posting the link to the actual warrant application. I saw this earlier on another site and was kind of enraged. Now that I have had a chance to go through the whole application I agree that there is a reasonable suspicion.

You're welcome, and I agree.

Are you saying that the EFF has a political agenda(being a sarcastic smart arse as usual)? Joe say it isn't so.

xot

Sadly, I think that's exactly what's happened here. I wouldn't get heartburn over the EFF or the defense arguing that sending the email didn't fit the crime -that's what's expected of the defense-, but I do get mad when they deliberately present misleading arguments that the police didn't even know the basics of the investigation when that is patently false.

[char_guerilla]

Re: Only criminals use terminals

Seriously. Sarcasm aside, the problem isn't that the EFF has a political agenda - that's the whole point of the EFF, and a problem with their agenda is another thread, another time. The problem is that they're acting like everyone will hulk out with nerd rage and forget to actually read the warrant application. It doesn't really make sense - it just makes them look bad. Or sloppy.

Then again, I am not a lawyer.

[YenTheFirst]

Re: Only criminals use terminals

I read both the warrant and the motion to quash, and not being a lawyer, have no idea who's more or less in the right, and who is legally correct.

My summary/understanding of it (how correct am I?)

1. The warrant
   1. Kid sends out an inappropriate email. The facts on this are pretty clear cut, in my opinion.
   2. A warrant is issued for the computer stuff, to investigate the email crime.
   3. a bunch of rumor/reputation stuff is thrown in there as well. (How he's a suspect in some other crime, how he has changed grades, supposedly.)
2. The Motion
   1. Sending that email was not actually a crime, at least not by the cited law
   2. hearsay and stuff aren't part of probable cause

Is my understanding of that correct?
I tend to agree with the EFF's view that a good deal of that stuff shouldn't be considered part of probable cause, but then again, I have no legal experience whatsoever. It just doesn't seem quite right.
The kid in question probably did something wrong - but he should be charged under the correct law.

and as for the scary command line - What the EFF did wrote on their site was blatant spin. disappointing.
It's treatment in the warrant is fairly bland, although I do get a bit of a feeling that the command line environment was taken into consideration, in considering this person 'teh haxxor', and helping to justify the warrant. It would seem, with such strong evidence in the DHCP logs, that the CLI/GUI difference should make no difference in the warrant.

Can someone explain why this (apparently extraneous) information was included in the warrant request? or is it typical practice to shotgun a request with all available info, including the unnecessary stuff?

[Thorn]

Re: Only criminals use terminals

Can someone explain why this (apparently extraneous) information was included in the warrant request? or is it typical practice to shotgun a request with all available info, including the unnecessary stuff?

like I said before, it is basically an laying out an overview for the court. The officer is merely supplying to the court information of 'this is how I got this started on this investigation, and this is what the guy told me'. You don't try to "shotgun" an affidavit. If anything this is nothing more than a synopsis of all the pertinent data.

A little perspective may give you an idea of what gets included (or not). This affidavit is 16 pages. In comparison, the detailed report, which will have everything in it, will probably run anywhere from 50 to about 100 pages. That will have verbatim statements from witnesses, and maybe even complete transcribed interviews. Appendices, such as the 'five days of DNS logs' mentioned in there could make the whole thing out to several thousand pages.

[theprez98]

Re: Only criminals use terminals

Sheesh Thorn, letting facts get in the way of a good story again...