From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 12:12:49 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Why should we trust the system?
Message-ID: <199608090119.SAA20142@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


When supporting plans like GAK ("key escrow") and wiretaps, you will 
frequently see the Denning-types justify them by claiming that there's 
protection from a requirement that a judge issue a search warrant.  It 
should be instructive, then, to present the Richard Jewell case as an 
excellent counter-example.  Richard Jewell, as you should all be aware, is 
the poor soul who happened to first see that pipe bomb at the Atlanta 
Olympics.  However, hours after it was publicly revealed that the Atlanta 
911 center screwed up, wasting 10 minutes looking up the address of 
"Centennial park," officialdom suddenly discovered they needed news to 
divert attention from their buffoonery.  They found it, as if on cue.

Tonight, I saw a national network news show say how Jewell is apparently 
quite innocent, and that the news media was quite willingly "used" by the 
government to convict Jewell in the press.  Great mea culpa, but that still 
leaves some serious questions.  Presumably, the government got warrants to 
search Jewell's apartment, correct?  Okay, what evidence did they use to 
support the granting of those warrants?

What, EXACTLY, did they tell the judge that ostensibly convinced him to 
grant a warrant?  Remember, police aren't supposed to get a warrant simply 
if they can't prove that a person is NOT a bomber.  The standard is suppose 
to work the other way around:  The police should get a warrant only if the 
amount of evidence of guilt (or, evidence of evidence) is sufficiently 
detailed to rise to a certain level of authority, known as "probable cause."

Evidence doesn't evaporate.  More precisely, the police had a responsibility 
to collect enough evidence together, POSITIVELY, to be able to show probable 
cause to believe that a crime had occurred, and that Jewell was guilty.  
Some of that evidence might, hypothetically, have initially appeared to show 
guilt and was later clarified, but that early evidence must still exist, to 
at least show the public that the cops didn't entirely fabricate the 
justifications they used to get the warrants.   So I ask again, did the 
police/FBI EVER have enough evidence to convince anyone by that "probable 
cause" standard?  Well, if they say they had it in the case of Richard 
Jewell, that isn't very reassuring.  

Okay, I'll admit that I _never_ believed that judges actually follow the 
standards they claim to.  But many other people of those who are more 
establishmentarian than I (I guess that group includes just about everybody, 
huh?) at least pretend to believe this, or hope this, and maybe a few 
suckers actually do. It should be their responsibity, then, to show that the 
granting of a search warrant occurs only when justified.  In Jewell's case, 
that was not the case.

If we allow this fiasco to die without a full analysis, particularly in 
light of the government's repeated assurances with regards to search 
warrants, we will be as incompetent as the police were.



 
Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com