From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 94 14:13:07 PST
To: barlow@eff.org
Subject: update noon
Message-ID: <9401151410.1.3858@cup.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Update Saturday noon.  Back from seeing Robert's sons and friend pick 
up his computer equipment and a 10 minute chat with Postal Inspector 
Dirmeyer, and a San Jose Police officer by the name of Weidner.  At 
least one point is clear, David Dirmeyer and Lance White are the same 
person, I simply asked him, and he admitted it. I also found out why 
he was willing to talk to me during the search.  He figured that
anybody who starts quoting chapter and section from the Federal Code 
is a lawyer. [Dirmeyer reminds me somewhat of one of my cousins when 
he was about 18.  My cousin was tall and gangly, and given to putting 
on a hick act.] 

Dirmeyer/White seemed completely unconcerned with having generated any 
liability for the government under the ECPA or the Newspaper Privacy 
Protection Act (2000aa).  He backed this up by being very proud of 
getting the system (well, most of it anyway) back to the sysop in 
under a week.  [The EFF *has* had a positive effect, this is the first 
time I ever heard of any LEA's caring how long they take to return a 
computer.]  He was very confident that a judge would dismiss any civil 
lawsuit brought by the users because of what he perceived as criminal 
obscenity activities by the sysop.  How actions, criminal or not, of 
one person (the sysop) cancels the rights of others (email customers) 
to recover from those who block access to their email is beyond me.  If 
that did not get them off the hook, they would get out of civil 
liability claims because they interrupted people's email access for 
such a short time, as opposed to the lengthy time the Secret Service 
kept Steve Jackson's BBS.  

I can almost quote the relevant sections of the ECPA, and *I* don't 
remember any time limits under which the civil penalties of law do not 
apply, "But Judge, I only exceeded the speed limit for a *few* miles!"  
I wonder how the Postal Service would react to locking *their* patrons 
out of a local office and away from their mail boxes for a week? 

I expressed my hope (as a San Jose resident and taxpayer) to Officer 
Weidner that the Post Office had agreed to take responsibility for any 
civil liability arising out of the case.  He was close to uncivil in 
stating that I had no standing in the case, and it was none of my 
concern.  He advised me to butt out of being involved in any way.  He 
asked if I had ever *seen* the material on that BBS, (my answer was 
no) and expressed the opinion that I would be smeared by it and 
greatly regret getting involved. 

Back to Dirmeyer, I asked him about the warrant.  He said what he did 
is ordinary investigation practice, including sending people 
unsolicited material and then picking it up under a warrant.  I asked 
him if the Judge knew, and he assured me the Judge was fully aware 
that the person getting a warrant for "Lance White's" correspondence 
was also Lance White.  He also said the Judge was aware of the 2000aa 
and ECPA issues, and that they were under orders not to look at 
anything labeled email.  For some reason, this did not reassure me. 

Robert's sons and a friend got the last pieces of the computer down to 
the lobby and we parted company with a few comments on my part about 
Postal Service agents legally sending kiddy porn through the mail, 
like the Nebraska case recently ruled entrapment by the Supreme Court. 

Just one minor thing to add.  Because of a persistent back injury, I 
am on crutches most of the time.  I was making my way across the lobby 
of the old Post office nearing the doors.  Dirmeyer and Weidner passed 
me, opened the doors, went through and let them swing shut in my face.  
I guess scum like me is below their notice. 

Keith Henson