| It's The Law |
| By Constable Roy L. Denton, retired |
I can remember the days where my name or face would appear somewhere in some sort of news media
be it the Herald-News, Chattanooga Times-Free Press, Knoxville News Sentinel or radio stations or all of
the local television stations located in Chattanooga.
Naturally, at the time I was considered a “public figure” and as such, my privacy expectation was very
minimal. However, time has went by and I’ve grown older and have a body that just can’t seem to keep
up with all that my vivid mind wants to do. So I have adjusted to a rather quiet life of relative seclusion in
my little house in our little town of Dayton and try to avoid media attention altogether if I can.
But in spite of my stepping out of the so called “lime-light” there are at times events or occurrences that I
hear or read about which compel me to “ramble” off my opinion on the subject.
Sure, I have been accused of “having a problem with people in authority” but I offer little or no credence
to such statement because it was a fellow in authority who said it. For the record, I actually respect
authority, but totally disrespect any person who is in an authority position who allows his or her position
to go to their head and adopt a “holier than thou” attitude with the public.
With that said, I will continue my ramble session on the subject of the Dayton Police Departments “one
man computer crime unit” which consists of patrolman Steve Rievley.
Our small Dayton Police Department has now journeyed into the cyber-law realm. Okay, now what?
First and foremost, it is my opinion that before the Chief of Police has any officer trained in computer
crimes he should first train them in constitutional rights, specifically the Fourth Amendment.
A couple cases on point are: On what authority are skateboards seized without a warrant? On what
authority, absent exigent circumstances, are persons taken from the clearly established “threshold of the
door” of their home, and have their home searched all without a warrant?
Also, perhaps the Investigator should be properly trained in knowing the true difference between what is
a civil matter versus what is a criminal matter. Each of these things was addressed by me before the
Dayton Council where I submitted pertinent documents to be included as part of the minutes of the
meeting.
Sure, I feel that it was a total waste of my breath to address the council, but feel free to go to city hall and
ask for the minutes as they are indeed public record.
Secondly, the iLook Investigation software that is to be used by the D.P.D. is not provided by the LaFear
Group, Inc., they simply provide training to use the software. The iLook Investigator software toolsets
are the copyright of the IRS Criminal Investigation Electronic Crimes Program and Elliot Spencer. ILook
is funded and developed by the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. ILook’s author is Elliot Spencer who
currently heads the Forensic Computing of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), United Kingdom’s anti-fraud
agency. The iLook software is completely free to any “sworn officer” and can be downloaded straight from
the Internet upon simply being licensed to do so.
So does this mean that auxillary deputies or persons deputized by a constable can access the software?
After all, once a person gets sworn into a deputized position he then becomes a “sworn officer” by
definition.
Could I have a constable friend of a different county swear you in as a sworn deputy thereby giving you
the exact same access to iLook? Certainly it does. So now the computer crime prevention plot thickens.
For example, Computer Hackers actively seek and map wireless connections that aren't secure. They use
the wireless connections of legitimate users to carry out their often illegal activities. If you don't secure
your wireless system, you are at risk for the following: 1) Anyone can connect to your wireless connection
and steal the services that you are paying for. 2) Anyone can connect to your wireless connection and
conduct illegal downloads of copyrighted materials. By the way, authorities will come after you, the
registered user of the connection. 3) Anyone can “sniff” your unsecured wireless connection and steal your
personal information or modify it without your knowledge. 4) Anyone can connect to your wireless
connection, engage in illegal activities, and law enforcement officers will trace the illegal activity to you, the
registered legitimate user of the connection and yep, you end up in jail.
You can now see how easy it is to find yourself hiring one of Dayton’s finest lawyers and standing before a
judge hoping and praying you can raise bail money for something you did not do, but for something a
computer happened to do. Scary isn’t it? More scarier than traffic light cameras to me.
It would take me about 5,000 words to try to explain just some of the ramifications of seizing someone’s
computer because the traditional Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights and case law are totally
different than that of computer land.
Also, it would take massive amounts of words to speak of jurisdictional authority. As we all know, the city
police enforce only city ordinances and state law WITHIN the corporate city limits. The Internet is
worldwide and it is a massive undertaking even for the F.B.I. to try to chop through the enormous laws
that must be followed just for an agent to even secure a proper warrant.
The old traditional ways of bouncing into a judge’s chambers and rambling out enough information to
support probable cause to have a search warrant issued simply does not satisfy the requirements that
even the federal agents must abide by.
Small towns where everyone knows everyone else, and where warrants can be easily secured, will not fly.
Any person with an ounce of legal sense would end up owning the city employee in a lawsuit. So extreme
caution should be used by this “one-man computer unit” and he should be required to study and fully
understand basic rights of the citizens he is supposed to be serving.
What about the “Civil Liability Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act”?
When law enforcement executes a search of an Internet service provider and seizes the accounts of
customers and subscribers, those customers and subscribers may bring civil actions claiming that the
search violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
I bet “one man computer lab” hasn’t even heard of that one.
What about ALL the Fourth Amendment “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” cases involving computers
under the “Privacy Protection Act”?
Title 42 U.S.C. Section 2000aa, clearly states that law enforcement must take special steps when planning
a search that officers have reason to believe may result in the seizure of certain First Amendment
materials.
Also, what about computers of attorneys, physicians and clergy?
The law is very clear that officers can be held liable for civil damages for violation of the Privacy
Protection Act. Special provisions apply to lawyers, doctors and clergy due to the very confidential nature
of their profession. In spite of this, has this one-man computer unit been properly trained in that? I
seriously doubt it.
Additionally, a territorial limit on searches of computer data poses problems for law enforcement as well
because computer data stored in a computer network can be located anywhere in the world.
For example, officers searching an office or home in Dayton pursuant to a warrant issued in Rhea County
may sit down at a computer and access information stored remotely on a computer located in New York,
Alaska, or even a foreign country. A single file described by the warrant could be located anywhere on the
planet, or could be divided up into several locations in different jurisdictions or countries.
Even worse, it may be impossible for officers to know when they execute their search whether the data
they are seizing has been stored within their jurisdiction or outside of it.
We must remember that the Fourth Amendment requires that every warrant must “particularly describe
the things to be seized”. Simply put, this “particularity requirement” prevents law enforcement from
executing “general warrants” that permit exploratory rummaging through a person's belongings in search
of evidence of a crime.
I’m not even going to attempt to address the “Hearsay” cases where most federal courts already have
often assumed that virtually all computer records contain hearsay. I could go on and on about this, but I
think my point is pretty clear, thus far.
I think we should consider the fact that a computer is just like any other piece of man-made device. Just
as with guns and knives, each are inanimate objects that do absolutely nothing and harms nobody by
themselves. It is someone with a gun or a knife that causes the harm. The same holds true with a
computer or even a cell phone.
In conclusion, I am going to end this “ramble” with one last example, being the common cell phone that
more people have than they do computers.
A very common type of theft of a cell phone is to not actually steal the cell phone, but to steal it’s function.
Just as it is possible to “hack” or steal someone’s computer without ever physically touching it. All a would
be thief need do is to simply monitor and intercept the Electronic Serial Number (ESN) of any cell phone
which can easily be done by obtaining an ESN reader and program the intercepted phone number into
another telephone and make it identical to yours. The thief can then call anyone, anywhere, anytime just
as though he were the legitimate subscriber of the phone service.
So with that said, if someone snatched your cell phone number from thin air and called in a death threat to
the president, just who would the Secret Service come to arrest?
You guessed it right. It would be YOU.
So with all this in mind, I feel that the Dayton Police Departments “one-man computer unit” could be very
useful in luring child predators by acting as a minor child, just as they do at www.perverted-justice.com
and leave the high tech computer world of tracking down Usama Bin Laden to the fed’s…who by the way
can’t even do the job either.
be it the Herald-News, Chattanooga Times-Free Press, Knoxville News Sentinel or radio stations or all of
the local television stations located in Chattanooga.
Naturally, at the time I was considered a “public figure” and as such, my privacy expectation was very
minimal. However, time has went by and I’ve grown older and have a body that just can’t seem to keep
up with all that my vivid mind wants to do. So I have adjusted to a rather quiet life of relative seclusion in
my little house in our little town of Dayton and try to avoid media attention altogether if I can.
But in spite of my stepping out of the so called “lime-light” there are at times events or occurrences that I
hear or read about which compel me to “ramble” off my opinion on the subject.
Sure, I have been accused of “having a problem with people in authority” but I offer little or no credence
to such statement because it was a fellow in authority who said it. For the record, I actually respect
authority, but totally disrespect any person who is in an authority position who allows his or her position
to go to their head and adopt a “holier than thou” attitude with the public.
With that said, I will continue my ramble session on the subject of the Dayton Police Departments “one
man computer crime unit” which consists of patrolman Steve Rievley.
Our small Dayton Police Department has now journeyed into the cyber-law realm. Okay, now what?
First and foremost, it is my opinion that before the Chief of Police has any officer trained in computer
crimes he should first train them in constitutional rights, specifically the Fourth Amendment.
A couple cases on point are: On what authority are skateboards seized without a warrant? On what
authority, absent exigent circumstances, are persons taken from the clearly established “threshold of the
door” of their home, and have their home searched all without a warrant?
Also, perhaps the Investigator should be properly trained in knowing the true difference between what is
a civil matter versus what is a criminal matter. Each of these things was addressed by me before the
Dayton Council where I submitted pertinent documents to be included as part of the minutes of the
meeting.
Sure, I feel that it was a total waste of my breath to address the council, but feel free to go to city hall and
ask for the minutes as they are indeed public record.
Secondly, the iLook Investigation software that is to be used by the D.P.D. is not provided by the LaFear
Group, Inc., they simply provide training to use the software. The iLook Investigator software toolsets
are the copyright of the IRS Criminal Investigation Electronic Crimes Program and Elliot Spencer. ILook
is funded and developed by the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. ILook’s author is Elliot Spencer who
currently heads the Forensic Computing of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), United Kingdom’s anti-fraud
agency. The iLook software is completely free to any “sworn officer” and can be downloaded straight from
the Internet upon simply being licensed to do so.
So does this mean that auxillary deputies or persons deputized by a constable can access the software?
After all, once a person gets sworn into a deputized position he then becomes a “sworn officer” by
definition.
Could I have a constable friend of a different county swear you in as a sworn deputy thereby giving you
the exact same access to iLook? Certainly it does. So now the computer crime prevention plot thickens.
For example, Computer Hackers actively seek and map wireless connections that aren't secure. They use
the wireless connections of legitimate users to carry out their often illegal activities. If you don't secure
your wireless system, you are at risk for the following: 1) Anyone can connect to your wireless connection
and steal the services that you are paying for. 2) Anyone can connect to your wireless connection and
conduct illegal downloads of copyrighted materials. By the way, authorities will come after you, the
registered user of the connection. 3) Anyone can “sniff” your unsecured wireless connection and steal your
personal information or modify it without your knowledge. 4) Anyone can connect to your wireless
connection, engage in illegal activities, and law enforcement officers will trace the illegal activity to you, the
registered legitimate user of the connection and yep, you end up in jail.
You can now see how easy it is to find yourself hiring one of Dayton’s finest lawyers and standing before a
judge hoping and praying you can raise bail money for something you did not do, but for something a
computer happened to do. Scary isn’t it? More scarier than traffic light cameras to me.
It would take me about 5,000 words to try to explain just some of the ramifications of seizing someone’s
computer because the traditional Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights and case law are totally
different than that of computer land.
Also, it would take massive amounts of words to speak of jurisdictional authority. As we all know, the city
police enforce only city ordinances and state law WITHIN the corporate city limits. The Internet is
worldwide and it is a massive undertaking even for the F.B.I. to try to chop through the enormous laws
that must be followed just for an agent to even secure a proper warrant.
The old traditional ways of bouncing into a judge’s chambers and rambling out enough information to
support probable cause to have a search warrant issued simply does not satisfy the requirements that
even the federal agents must abide by.
Small towns where everyone knows everyone else, and where warrants can be easily secured, will not fly.
Any person with an ounce of legal sense would end up owning the city employee in a lawsuit. So extreme
caution should be used by this “one-man computer unit” and he should be required to study and fully
understand basic rights of the citizens he is supposed to be serving.
What about the “Civil Liability Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act”?
When law enforcement executes a search of an Internet service provider and seizes the accounts of
customers and subscribers, those customers and subscribers may bring civil actions claiming that the
search violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
I bet “one man computer lab” hasn’t even heard of that one.
What about ALL the Fourth Amendment “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” cases involving computers
under the “Privacy Protection Act”?
Title 42 U.S.C. Section 2000aa, clearly states that law enforcement must take special steps when planning
a search that officers have reason to believe may result in the seizure of certain First Amendment
materials.
Also, what about computers of attorneys, physicians and clergy?
The law is very clear that officers can be held liable for civil damages for violation of the Privacy
Protection Act. Special provisions apply to lawyers, doctors and clergy due to the very confidential nature
of their profession. In spite of this, has this one-man computer unit been properly trained in that? I
seriously doubt it.
Additionally, a territorial limit on searches of computer data poses problems for law enforcement as well
because computer data stored in a computer network can be located anywhere in the world.
For example, officers searching an office or home in Dayton pursuant to a warrant issued in Rhea County
may sit down at a computer and access information stored remotely on a computer located in New York,
Alaska, or even a foreign country. A single file described by the warrant could be located anywhere on the
planet, or could be divided up into several locations in different jurisdictions or countries.
Even worse, it may be impossible for officers to know when they execute their search whether the data
they are seizing has been stored within their jurisdiction or outside of it.
We must remember that the Fourth Amendment requires that every warrant must “particularly describe
the things to be seized”. Simply put, this “particularity requirement” prevents law enforcement from
executing “general warrants” that permit exploratory rummaging through a person's belongings in search
of evidence of a crime.
I’m not even going to attempt to address the “Hearsay” cases where most federal courts already have
often assumed that virtually all computer records contain hearsay. I could go on and on about this, but I
think my point is pretty clear, thus far.
I think we should consider the fact that a computer is just like any other piece of man-made device. Just
as with guns and knives, each are inanimate objects that do absolutely nothing and harms nobody by
themselves. It is someone with a gun or a knife that causes the harm. The same holds true with a
computer or even a cell phone.
In conclusion, I am going to end this “ramble” with one last example, being the common cell phone that
more people have than they do computers.
A very common type of theft of a cell phone is to not actually steal the cell phone, but to steal it’s function.
Just as it is possible to “hack” or steal someone’s computer without ever physically touching it. All a would
be thief need do is to simply monitor and intercept the Electronic Serial Number (ESN) of any cell phone
which can easily be done by obtaining an ESN reader and program the intercepted phone number into
another telephone and make it identical to yours. The thief can then call anyone, anywhere, anytime just
as though he were the legitimate subscriber of the phone service.
So with that said, if someone snatched your cell phone number from thin air and called in a death threat to
the president, just who would the Secret Service come to arrest?
You guessed it right. It would be YOU.
So with all this in mind, I feel that the Dayton Police Departments “one-man computer unit” could be very
useful in luring child predators by acting as a minor child, just as they do at www.perverted-justice.com
and leave the high tech computer world of tracking down Usama Bin Laden to the fed’s…who by the way
can’t even do the job either.
| ONE MAN COMPUTER CRIME UNIT; Good police or legalized "hacker" |
