Anyone care to comment on what the situation is here in Canada.. (are things different or the same as USA?) regards robert ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Date: Friday, January 12, 2001 10:10 AM -0500 From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: DoJ publishes cybercrime manual, how much power cops have ******* See: http://www.cybercrime.gov/searchmanual.htm ******* http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,41133,00.html The Feds'll Come A-Snoopin' by Declan McCullagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 2:00 a.m. Jan. 12, 2001 PST WASHINGTON -- Ever wonder how much leeway federal agents have when snooping through your e-mail or computer files? The short answer: a lot. The U.S. Department of Justice this week published new guidelines for police and prosecutors in cases involving computer crimes. The 500 KB document includes a bevy of recent court cases and covers new topics such as encryption, PDAs and secret searches. It updates a 1994 manual, which the Electronic Privacy Information Center had to file a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain. No need to take such drastic steps this time: The Justice Department has placed the report on its cybercrime.gov site. PAGERS VS. PDAs: Anyone who's arrested will likely be patted down for guns, contraband and electronic devices. So be sure to yank the batteries if you're about to be nabbed. During an arrest, cops can scroll through the information on your pager without a warrant. What about PDAs? The latest word, oddly enough, might be a 1973 Supreme Court case, United States v. Robinson, that permitted police officers to conduct searches of an arrestee's possessions. Lower courts have extended this rule to include pagers. But PDAs more closely resemble computers in processing speed and storage capacity. Concludes the DOJ: "Courts have not yet addressed whether Robinson will permit warrantless searches of electronic storage devices that contain more information than pagers. If agents can examine the contents of wallets, address books and briefcases without a warrant, it could be argued that they should be able to search their electronic counterparts (such as electronic organizers, floppy disks and Palm Pilots) as well." Not everyone agrees that an arrest can lead to a full search. "The search incident to arrest is less settled," says Jennifer Granick, a San Francisco attorney specializing in computer crime law. [...] "NO KNOCK" SEARCHES: Conservative activists may hate this, but "no knock" searches, where Kevlar-clad goons toting M-16s break through your front door without warning, aren't going away. If anything, the Justice Department seems to think they're even more necessary when dealing with computer crimes. "Technically adept computer hackers have been known to use 'hot keys,' computer programs that destroy evidence when a special button is pressed. If agents knock at the door to announce their search, the suspect can simply press the button and activate the program to destroy the evidence," the manual says. It doesn't end there: The Justice Department cites a 1997 case, Richards v. Wisconsin, in which the Supreme Court said agents can conduct a no knock search even if the judge granting the warrant didn't approve one. That's allowed when agents have a "reasonable suspicion" that the subject of the search could destroy evidence or obstruct the investigation. [...] ---------- End Forwarded Message ---------- ********************************************** To (un)subscribe visit the list's WWW page at: <http://crypto-canada.greatvideo.com>
