Ontario Provincial Police harass Internet Users

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Stanton McCandlish

unread,
May 23, 1994, 11:00:56 AM5/23/94
to
Forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 22:00:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: [anonymous EFF member]

Note: due to the current political climate in Ontario, please do not forward
this story over the net with my name on it. Reading the story will
explain why. There is increasing evidence that with in the next two years
we may see in Canada a similar situation as has been taking place in
Italy over the last few weeks with the shutting down of 'amature' BBS sites.

As reported in Toronto's EYE Newspaper [e...@io.org] (similar to New Yorks
Village Voice) dated May 19. 1994

The London Ontario detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police have
begun a campaign of harassment against local University Internet users
who are attempting to use the 'net to gain
information on the Karla Homolka trial. A University of Western Ontario
(London) student had his Internet account frozen by the university
computer staff when requested by the Police. The reason for this lay in
the student's name being left on the text of a FAQ of the details of the
trial. Another student in Toronto had Faxed this material (which had been
Emailed to him) to the Toronto media, and the offices of the Premier of
Ontario and the Attorney-General as an act of provocation against the Ban
(his regular anonymous forwarding site was not working).The problem was
that he had forgotten to remove the other persons name and account number
from the original E-mail that was sent out.
The police action against the student's account was done without a
warrant, and also involved the
questioning of the student at the local police station. Likewise the
students home computer was searched without a warrant by using the threat
of criminal charges. The Student's computer account was re-instated, but
he was required to turn over all incoming Email to the police under the
threat of criminal charges if he did not cooperate. A list of about 50
people who had received Homolka FAQ's were passed on to the police. The
important part of this entire situation is that no one, including the
Ontario Attorney-General office is certain that the ban applies to the
Internet. The ban states that details of the trial cannot be published in
the print media but there is no ban on possession of information. There is
no mention of the Internet, nor the use of computer systems in the ban.
Further, there is no official investigation of the Internet on the part of
the Ontario Provincial Police, except for this one detachment.
One of the questions raised is the ethics of the University of Western
Ontario's computer department. Their cooperation with the police was based
on a fear of having their computer equipment confiscated (similar to the
case of the University of Cambridge in England). If the situation had
taken place with in the library system of the university, it would not have
been tolerated by the library staff due to the long held tradition in
that profession of the defence of freedom of speech. If the Internet is
to remain open this set of values will have to become part of the
professional comittment of the MIS staff of universities as well.

____ end fwd ______

--
Stanton McCandlish * me...@eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist
"In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich
Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of
phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps.
When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it."
- Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Who Should Keep the Keys", TIME, Mar. 14 1994

Roy Brander

unread,
May 24, 1994, 1:01:43 AM5/24/94
to
Stanton McCandlish (me...@eff.org) wrote:

: Note: due to the current political climate in Ontario, please do not forward


: this story over the net with my name on it. Reading the story will
: explain why.

Why? I thought it a nice summary, factual and with a minimum of
editorialising, all of which was clearly such, not disguised. Do you
think that the police will crack down on you for *criticizing* their
actions? Our country has not yet gotten so bad that the police would
feel comfortable doing that. Harrassing you for breaking the law
(at least in spirit, possibly in fact; that depends on the first
court ruling about USENET-as-publication) is one thing; harrassing you for
saying, oh, maybe:

THE POLICE ARE EXCEEDING AND MISUSING THEIR AUTHORITY TO THE DETRIMENT
OF FREE SPEECH AND PROPER LAW ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES, THEREBY THROWING
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE INTO DISREPUTE.

...is something else. Newspapers say things like that every day. It's
their job, and every citizen's, should their conscience guide them so.

Of course, if you had a reasonable fear that even such reasonable
criticism could make you a target for harrassment, AND you *really*
don't feel like being a test case, I can see your point. But if things
like the capital-letters above get me even a phone call from the police,
I'm calling my lawyer and the newspapers in rapid succession. If it
ends up costing me a lot of time, hassle, stress and money, so be it,
because I'll have my dander WAY up. But I'd bet loooong odds that
they would back down at once.

What I'm not volunteering for is being the test case for the whole
question of "does a USENET post break the ban?". That is a guaranteed
long tough court trial and very expensive unless a popular legal defence
fund is contributed to.

But the trial itself will never happen unless somewhere there is a
GUTSY Internet provider that just tells the cops, "I'm a common carrier.
I don't know or care what any of my users are posting and won't stop
them, or even tell you if they have an account, until I see a warrant."
He has to be ready at that point to expect the reply "If you make us
get a warrant, it'll also give us authority to take everything in your
machine room, right down to the wall jacks, and we'll keep it for a
year while you get a court date."

Since Steve Jackson Games in the States recently got a $2 Million settlement
because the court thought the Secret Service were *VERY* wrong to do just
that, I hope to see such a gutsy sysop appear real soon now.

When somebody actually stands up to the cops, lets give him an award!

Earl Cooley

unread,
May 24, 1994, 11:22:58 PM5/24/94
to
In article <CqAJA...@cuug.ab.ca> bran...@cuug.ab.ca (Roy Brander) writes:
[...]

>Since Steve Jackson Games in the States recently got a $2 Million settlement
>because the court thought the Secret Service were *VERY* wrong to do just
>that, I hope to see such a gutsy sysop appear real soon now.
>
That's a considerable exaggeration. The damages were in the $50K range, and
court costs were around $250K or so. The most important damages paid, IMHO,
was the $1000 a pop that was paid to individual users who had their e-mail
illegally read. Plus, it wasn't a settlement, it was real, live damages ordered
paid by the court.

--
Earl Cooley III
sh...@indial1.io.com

Charles Hymes

unread,
May 25, 1994, 1:13:29 PM5/25/94
to
In article <2rtjvc$m...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>,
Reg Quinton <reg...@julian.uwo.ca> wrote:
>Eg. the right to free speach does not mean you can...
> ....................break a publication ban.
>

Are you for real? Did you mean to type that? Do you have any idead of
what "free Speach" is, and how governemnts infringe upon it? Free
Speach is supposed to prohibit "publication bans" especibly about the
results of public trials or state procecutions. The conditions of use
of the computer system are one thing, but claiming that the right to
free speach does not allow you to say what the government has
forbidden you to say is another.

Charlweed Hymerfan

Abdul the ELECTRONIC Gordon Domm

unread,
May 24, 1994, 7:48:41 PM5/24/94
to
reg...@julian.uwo.ca (Reg Quinton) writes:

>turn of the century the press turned Billy the Kid into a folk hero -- he was
>in fact a homicidal nut case. Let's not do the same with these fellows.

Because Reg has a reputation to protect! :)

>1. The student had an instructional account, we don't give out Internet
> accounts.

Really? I had a paid account on uwovax for over two years...


> 3. To engage in any action which denies or unreasonably
> restricts the use of computer facilities to their authorized
> users. This includes using the facilities for work not
> directly related to Computer Science course assignments.

Sounds like someone from the McGill or U of T Scarborough school of
sysadmins... :)

>4. The student promised the system administrator that he would not use the
> system for that, yet within a month or so he did and that came to the
> attention of the local authorities.

Posting to newsgroups is one thing...however, I think that Starbuck has
every right to do what the hell he wants with email...

>Given that he was using a system for purposes other than it was intended and
>broke a promise to the system manager which could have resulted in the machine
>being seized and thereby restrict bona fide use I think the manager stands on
>very good grounds in disabling the account.

I don't buy that one (see above).

>The student was not questioned at the local police station. He was questioned
>here on campus. The system manager does not need a warrant to disable an
>account -- it's his machine, not the students. Material provided to the police

I would think that it would be Western's machine, Reg. Not yours or Dave
Martin's.

>|> no mention of the Internet, nor the use of computer systems in the ban.

>Clearly these fellows believe they are breaking the ban. In so far as that's
>what they are trying to do I'm not surprised at what follows from it.

This 'fellow' dosen't...

>Given the full story I think the student is very lucky to have not been
>expelled from the University (for using a system for purposes other than
>intended and for breaking a promise to the system manager) or charged with
>contempt of court (for breaking a court order).

I think that you might be very lucky to keep your job if the (UWO) Senate
sees that your were trampling on student's rights at will without a warrant.

>No one is stopping students from exercising their right to free speach.

UWO is, however, stopping them from excercising free SPEECH. :)


>Eg. the right to free speach does not mean you can barge into a lecture hall
> and interrupt a class. Nor does it mean you can spray graffiti over my
> car. Nor does it mean you can break a publication ban.

However, it does not limit the discussion of rumors, discussion about the
issue about the ban, the legality of it, etc. It just means that a
reporter in the room can't go on TV or print CONFIRMED FACTS from the
TRANSCRIPT.

Abdul, the ELECTRONIC Gordon Domm | The Teale Tales Mailing List
Moderator, Teale Tales Mailing List | is dedicated to preserving
Austin, Texas, USA | freedom of information in
| Canada's court system. Write
ab...@io.com | for more information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le liste email Teale Tales...maintenant disponible en francais!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reg Quinton

unread,
May 24, 1994, 3:19:08 PM5/24/94
to
The reporting by Eye magazine and the note Stanton McCandlish forwards on are
good evidence of why courts impose a publication ban -- the press is more
concerned about getting a "good" story than in presenting the facts. At the

turn of the century the press turned Billy the Kid into a folk hero -- he was
in fact a homicidal nut case. Let's not do the same with these fellows.

In article <1994052315...@eff.org>,

me...@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish) writes:
|> As reported in Toronto's EYE Newspaper [e...@io.org] (similar to New Yorks
|> Village Voice) dated May 19. 1994
|>
|> The London Ontario detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police have
|> begun a campaign of harassment

Local police, not OPP. And they've not started any campaign. They had an
obvious case shoved in their noses and dealt with it.

|> A University of Western Ontario
|> (London) student had his Internet account frozen by the university
|> computer staff when requested by the Police. The reason for this lay in
|> the student's name being left on the text of a FAQ of the details of the
|> trial.

The student's account was temporarily disabled (for no more than 5 days).
Some context for you:

1. The student had an instructional account, we don't give out Internet
accounts.

2. The student signed an obligations form that reads in part:

The computing resources of the Department of Computer Science
have been acquired for specific academic purposes - namely the
teaching of, and research into the field of Computer Science. As
a user authorized by the Department, you may use departmental
resources, especially computing, only for the purposes for which
they were allocated.

Scholastic Offences include, but are not limited to, the
following:


...
3. To engage in any action which denies or unreasonably
restricts the use of computer facilities to their authorized
users. This includes using the facilities for work not
directly related to Computer Science course assignments.

3. The student had been expressly instructed by the system manager that
this machine was not to be used to prepare or distributed the Karla
Homolka FAQ.

4. The student promised the system administrator that he would not use the
system for that, yet within a month or so he did and that came to the
attention of the local authorities.

Given that he was using a system for purposes other than it was intended and


broke a promise to the system manager which could have resulted in the machine
being seized and thereby restrict bona fide use I think the manager stands on
very good grounds in disabling the account.

|> The police action against the student's account was done without a

|> warrant, and also involved the questioning of the student at the local
|> police station.

The student was not questioned at the local police station. He was questioned


here on campus. The system manager does not need a warrant to disable an
account -- it's his machine, not the students. Material provided to the police

by the student was with the cooperation of the student.

|> important part of this entire situation is that no one, including the
|> Ontario Attorney-General office is certain that the ban applies to the
|> Internet. The ban states that details of the trial cannot be published in
|> the print media but there is no ban on possession of information. There is
|> no mention of the Internet, nor the use of computer systems in the ban.

Clearly these fellows believe they are breaking the ban. In so far as that's


what they are trying to do I'm not surprised at what follows from it.

Given the full story I think the student is very lucky to have not been


expelled from the University (for using a system for purposes other than
intended and for breaking a promise to the system manager) or charged with
contempt of court (for breaking a court order).

No one is stopping students from exercising their right to free speach. We
are very much concerned about where they exercise that right. The system this
student used is allocated for specific academic purposes. That doesn't mean
it's a soap box for the Karla Homolka FAQ. Especially since he was explictly
told that the machine was not to be used for that.

Eg. the right to free speach does not mean you can barge into a lecture hall
and interrupt a class. Nor does it mean you can spray graffiti over my
car. Nor does it mean you can break a publication ban.

FYI the Criminal Code of Canada reads at S.127

<----
Disobeying order of the court -- Attorney General of Canada may act.

127. (1) Everyone who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made
by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized
by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the
payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of
proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable
offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two
years.
---->

John P. LaRocque

unread,
May 25, 1994, 7:05:58 PM5/25/94
to
In article <1994052315...@eff.org>,
Stanton McCandlish <me...@eff.org> wrote:

>of criminal charges. The Student's computer account was re-instated, but
>he was required to turn over all incoming Email to the police under the
>threat of criminal charges if he did not cooperate. A list of about 50

That is a patent falsehood and a misreading of the Eye article.
From the article:

On Feb. 28, Starbuck had his university account restored. For the next
three weeks, he forwarded incoming private e-mail from Abdul to Quinton

I can say that the individual in question was not obliged in any way to
divulge his e-mail, and that the only obligations placed upon him were
to stay away from the whole Karla business (FAQ etc...)

>Stanton McCandlish * me...@eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist

--
|----\___ John P. LaRocque (lar...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)
********]|-----|___\__________
********]|_______>___________/ "There are those who believe
|_____ / that life here began out there..."

McDaniel

unread,
May 25, 1994, 8:12:54 PM5/25/94
to
reg...@julian.uwo.ca (Reg Quinton) writes:

>In article <2rvlcc$9...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> jlin...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Helen, The Ill-Tempered Ticket Lady) writes:
>|> So Reg, were you *born* with that stick up your ass, or is it an
>|> acquired trait?

>This isn't a discussion. It's just name calling. If you have a point to make
>you've done a very good job of disguising it.

Ha. Ha. I got her point quite clearly, myself. Gave me a good chuckle
too. Thats good after a long day at work.

Anyhow, who dictated that we must have a discussion with you? I believe her
point is that you can't tell her what to say and what not to. And that
furthermore you shouldn't be telling anyone else to.

Comes across quite clearly to me. So do a few other things. . but
I'm too polite to translate her message for you further and besides
it would probably seem as if I was giving you a stiff caining.
(Ha Ha. Sorry, my sense of humor goes a bit off after I get off
work.)

-Henry

Thomas Leavitt

unread,
May 26, 1994, 8:50:29 AM5/26/94
to
Reg Quinton (reg...@julian.uwo.ca) wrote:
: The reporting by Eye magazine and the note Stanton McCandlish forwards on are

: good evidence of why courts impose a publication ban -- the press is more
: concerned about getting a "good" story than in presenting the facts. At the
: turn of the century the press turned Billy the Kid into a folk hero -- he was
: in fact a homicidal nut case. Let's not do the same with these fellows.

Wow... a voice in *favor* of censorship. What a concept! Who are the courts,
or you, to decide what the "facts" are for everyone else?!? Or how the
material is to be presented!?!

: The student's account was temporarily disabled (for no more than 5 days).
: Some context for you:

: 1. The student had an instructional account, we don't give out Internet
: accounts.

: 2. The student signed an obligations form that reads in part:

: The computing resources of the Department of Computer Science
: have been acquired for specific academic purposes - namely the
: teaching of, and research into the field of Computer Science. As
: a user authorized by the Department, you may use departmental
: resources, especially computing, only for the purposes for which
: they were allocated.

: Scholastic Offences include, but are not limited to, the
: following:
: ...
: 3. To engage in any action which denies or unreasonably
: restricts the use of computer facilities to their authorized
: users. This includes using the facilities for work not
: directly related to Computer Science course assignments.

How frequently is this enforced? How can this be anything but a case of
selective enforcement? Do you have a newsfeed containing anything other
than groups which might reasonably be related to "Computer Science course
assignments"? You do? How do you justify that?

: 3. The student had been expressly instructed by the system manager that


: this machine was not to be used to prepare or distributed the Karla
: Homolka FAQ.

: 4. The student promised the system administrator that he would not use the
: system for that, yet within a month or so he did and that came to the
: attention of the local authorities.

: Given that he was using a system for purposes other than it was intended and
: broke a promise to the system manager which could have resulted in the machine
: being seized and thereby restrict bona fide use I think the manager stands on
: very good grounds in disabling the account.

Cowardice... they'd have to seize every machine with a mailing account or
newsfeed, otherwise it is clearly selective, targeted enforcement... is the
Canadian public so utterly wimpy that it would tolerate this for even a
moment? I thought your system of government was much more accountable to
the people.

: |> The police action against the student's account was done without a

: |> warrant, and also involved the questioning of the student at the local
: |> police station.

: The student was not questioned at the local police station. He was questioned
: here on campus. The system manager does not need a warrant to disable an
: account -- it's his machine, not the students. Material provided to the police
: by the student was with the cooperation of the student.

Co-operation under duress is invalid.

: |> important part of this entire situation is that no one, including the


: |> Ontario Attorney-General office is certain that the ban applies to the
: |> Internet. The ban states that details of the trial cannot be published in
: |> the print media but there is no ban on possession of information. There is
: |> no mention of the Internet, nor the use of computer systems in the ban.

: Clearly these fellows believe they are breaking the ban. In so far as that's
: what they are trying to do I'm not surprised at what follows from it.

Clearly they're trying to circumvent the ban... there is a difference.

: Given the full story I think the student is very lucky to have not been


: expelled from the University (for using a system for purposes other than
: intended and for breaking a promise to the system manager) or charged with
: contempt of court (for breaking a court order).

Canada is lucky this didn't happen, because otherwise, it would be clear that
freedom of speech is dead in your Province.

: No one is stopping students from exercising their right to free speach. We


: are very much concerned about where they exercise that right. The system this
: student used is allocated for specific academic purposes. That doesn't mean
: it's a soap box for the Karla Homolka FAQ. Especially since he was explictly
: told that the machine was not to be used for that.

Are your students explicitly told that any and all political/controversial
speech, or any speech not directly related to Comp. Sci. is forbidden?
Are your students free to ftp, to receive mail on a mailing list?

How can any Canadian tolerate the summary seizure of this person's
mailbox? What more extreme violation of the right to privacy could be
imagined?

: Eg. the right to free speach does not mean you can barge into a lecture hall


: and interrupt a class. Nor does it mean you can spray graffiti over my
: car. Nor does it mean you can break a publication ban.

: FYI the Criminal Code of Canada reads at S.127

: <----
: Disobeying order of the court -- Attorney General of Canada may act.

: 127. (1) Everyone who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made
: by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized
: by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the
: payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of
: proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable
: offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two
: years.
: ---->

Cowardice in the defense of the status quo is no virtue.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Leavitt--Leavitt Publications, Box 7095, Santa Cruz, CA 95061-7095
Finger lea...@deeptht.armory.com for info on Computer Purchase Guide and
other offerings (on-line 'zines, ftp directory, WWW pages).

David Jones

unread,
May 26, 1994, 12:15:37 PM5/26/94
to
In article <2rtjvc$m...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>,
Reg Quinton <reg...@julian.uwo.ca> wrote:
>
>Given that he was using a system for purposes ...
>... which could have resulted in the machine

>being seized and thereby restrict bona fide use I think the manager stands on
>very good grounds in disabling the account.


On precisely what grounds could the University of Western Ontario
computers have been seized?


>FYI the Criminal Code of Canada reads at S.127
>
><----
>Disobeying order of the court -- Attorney General of Canada may act.
>
>127. (1) Everyone who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made
> by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized
> by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the
> payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of
> proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable
> offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two
> years.
>---->


It is important to note that Gordon Domm was NOT found guilty
of violating a publication ban.

He was found guilty of violating a court order, as Reg correctly points out.

Gordon Domm was NOT found guilty of violating a publication ban,
since he was NOT publishing. The relevant portions of the
Canadian Criminal Code are pretty clear about what consitutes
publishing. Sending letters is NOT publishing.

It is not at all clear that the UWO students were doing anything wrong.
It is rather unfortunate that they were presumed guilty and apparently
treated as such by UWO officials.

Zodiac

unread,
May 26, 1994, 6:53:11 PM5/26/94
to

I feel obliged to clarify something Reg Quinton says:

> The reporting by Eye magazine and the note Stanton McCandlish
> forwards on are good evidence of why courts impose a publication ban
> -- the press is more concerned about getting a "good" story than in
> presenting the facts. At the turn of the century the press turned
> Billy the Kid into a folk hero -- he was in fact a homicidal nut
> case. Let's not do the same with these fellows.

Having opened his post thus, Reg begins to point out factual errors
-- _not_ in the eye article, but in the summary. Still, he seems to
imply eye WEEKLY was somehow at fault for these factual errors.

Reg correctly points out two factual errors in the summary:

>|> The London Ontario detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police have
>|> begun a campaign of harassment
>
> Local police, not OPP. And they've not started any campaign. They had
> an obvious case shoved in their noses and dealt with it.

Correct. The LPD is not a branch of the OPP. It was not represented as
such in the eye article.

>|> The police action against the student's account was done without a
>|> warrant, and also involved the questioning of the student at the local
>|> police station.
>
> The student was not questioned at the local police station. He was
> questioned here on campus.

Correct. And it clearly states this in the eye article.

Since these errors were not eye WEEKLY's, Reg's opening sentence -- "The


reporting by Eye magazine and the note Stanton McCandlish forwards on are

good evidence of why courts impose a publication ban" -- seems
disingenuous.

His association of Abdul and Lt Starbuck with a "homicidal nut" is bizarre
and panic-mongering.

Ken.
--
"Don't HATE the media... | K.K.Campbell
beCOME the media!" --*-- <zod...@io.org>
- J. Biafra | . . . . cum grano salis

John P. LaRocque

unread,
May 25, 1994, 7:21:46 PM5/25/94
to
In article <2ru3op$j...@illuminati.io.com>,

Abdul the ELECTRONIC Gordon Domm <ab...@illuminati.io.com> wrote:

>>1. The student had an instructional account, we don't give out Internet
>> accounts.

>Really? I had a paid account on uwovax for over two years...

Let me guess - 1991/92 and 1992/93. You still live in Don Mills?

>>Given the full story I think the student is very lucky to have not been
>>expelled from the University (for using a system for purposes other than
>>intended and for breaking a promise to the system manager) or charged with
>>contempt of court (for breaking a court order).

>I think that you might be very lucky to keep your job if the (UWO) Senate
>sees that your were trampling on student's rights at will without a warrant.

That's not entirely true. Reg was informed by authorities of a
potential breach of the ban coming from UWO. He investigated the problem
user. No warrant was necessary because the student in question cooperated.
I have no doubt that the police could easily have arranged a warrant to
look at his hard drive, if the student in question said, "No, you can't
look at my computer."

Incidently, when Feminazis were raging a furor over alt.sex groups
on campuses, UWO was one of the few universitsies that said, "No, this
isn't a problem, and we don't need to delete them."

>However, it does not limit the discussion of rumors, discussion about the
>issue about the ban, the legality of it, etc. It just means that a
>reporter in the room can't go on TV or print CONFIRMED FACTS from the
>TRANSCRIPT.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know, but this could be considered a
defence (although it didn't server Gord Domm any good).


>Abdul, the ELECTRONIC Gordon Domm | The Teale Tales Mailing List
>Moderator, Teale Tales Mailing List | is dedicated to preserving
>Austin, Texas, USA | freedom of information in
> | Canada's court system. Write
>ab...@io.com | for more information.

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Le liste email Teale Tales...maintenant disponible en francais!!
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't checked. Is the French list encoded in the ISO-8859-1/ANSI
character set or the IBM character set? (you could easily check this
by reading the document from within MS-Windows - i.e. Ansi)

Helen, The Ill-Tempered Ticket Lady

unread,
May 25, 1994, 9:55:24 AM5/25/94
to
In <2rtjvc$m...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> reg...@julian.uwo.ca (Reg Quinton) writes:

[oodles of mindless drivel deleted...]

So Reg, were you *born* with that stick up your ass, or is it an
acquired trait?

--
Jason A. Lindquist "I have never before seen methane personified"
-- Billy West
li...@uiuc.edu
Krujawooski Limos -- Dial 1-800-YES-I-AM

Hugh Ross

unread,
May 26, 1994, 6:42:23 PM5/26/94
to
In article <2rtjvc$m...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>, reg...@julian.uwo.ca (Reg Quinton) writes:
>
> [...]
> [...]

I think part of the issue here is how computing resources are viewed;
e.g., is the computer:

- a limited, specialized resource to be rationed and controlled, used
by the few who specifically need it?

or,

- an open communications tool like a telephone or paper mail, to be
used by all members of the institution?

At my institution, I often see a tension between these two views.
Generally administrators tend to hold the former ("limited resources")
view, while users tend to have the latter ("communications tool") view.

Administrators are the ones that are responsible for providing the
resource, and, historically, the computer has been used for a relatively
narrow set of academic (business, etc.) purposes, e.g. running a stats
program, or C programming for the CS students. Particularly since money
is tight (as always), the policy hasn't changed: "This is a limited
resource and we can take it away from anyone if we see fit."

Under the "limited resource" view, Reg Quinton's policy (or, rather, him
following his University's policy) is perfectly reasonable. The computer
is just a tool, so why invite trouble by "protecting" this user? Why is
it my job to protect him anyway? He's obviously not following our usage
rules in the first place.

However, as I'm sure many of us are aware, the computer is no longer the
mild mannered number-cruncher of a decade ago. It's not exactly a
telephone, not quite a printing press, not really a radio station...
but somehow more than all of these.

Users, I've found, have a habit of using the resources that are
available, regardless of what the institutional policy is. Hence, if you
give 'em a full usenet feed, and email, and ftp access, and all the
rest, then they'll start sending frivolous mail, read alt.swedish-chef,
and waste bandwidth by the hour downloading GIF pictures of the space
shuttle. However, they also use the same resources for "allowed"
purposes, like participating in academic discussions, downloading useful
software, or creating software for the net community.

It's hard to draw the line between "allowed" and "not allowed" usage,
and impossible to enforce the old rules (except in rare cases when a
rule-breaker ends up right in the administrator's face). The
administrators are stuck in the middle, though; they don't have the
money or computing resources to provide EVERYTHING, yet that's what the
users demand. This is why the old rules remain in place; they tend to
(nominally) place controls on the usage of what is, in reality, a
limited resource.


In my opinion, then, Reg Quinton is not out of line for enforcing his
institution's rules about computer use, but I think that those rules
reflect an outdated view of what a computer is for. We need to work
towards giving electronic communications the same respect that telephone
and paper mail communications currently have, and sysadmins will, sooner
or later, have to acknowledge that their systems are being used in this
way whether they like it or not. A sysadmin will then have the same
constraints as a postal worker or publisher when it comes to free speech
issues like the one which sparked this debate.

Some administrators might view this as a loss of control; I'd prefer to
think of it as an increase in importance and responsibility. The
providers of computer support were once mere technicians; we are in the
process of becoming the administrators of information flow in our
society. Now is the time to become aware of just how big a
responsibility that is, and start acting accordingly.

Hugh

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hugh Ross c...@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu
Academic Computing Intern ro...@cs.oberlin.edu
Houck Computing Center (216) 775-8779
Oberlin College, Oberlin OH USA http://intern.cc.oberln.edu/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trailing Edge Technologies: Empowering People to be Stupid since 1989
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Helen, The Ill-Tempered Ticket Lady

unread,
May 26, 1994, 1:31:20 PM5/26/94
to
In <2s0clk$j...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> reg...@julian.uwo.ca (Reg Quinton) writes:

>In article <2rvlcc$9...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> jlin...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Helen, The Ill-Tempered Ticket Lady) writes:

>|> So Reg, were you *born* with that stick up your ass, or is it an
>|> acquired trait?

>This isn't a discussion. It's just name calling. If you have a point to make


>you've done a very good job of disguising it.

Bzzt! Sorry, thanks for playing. The correct response was:
"This is not a competition. This is only an exhibitions. As always,
please, No Wagering."

The point being made was about your attitude regarding the law, your
users, your job, and civil rights. I didn't expect you to understand
it. If I did, we probably wouldn't be here to begin with. But then
again, I am the type to think common sense and civil rights go hand-
in-hand...

I'd ask, "Are you for real?" Except that there's a few dozen Kbytes
over in ux4's /var/mail that proves you are...


"Aw, fuck it. Who wants pie?"

Reg Quinton

unread,
May 25, 1994, 4:39:00 PM5/25/94
to
In article <2s00vp$6...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,

chy...@geneva.csmil.umich.edu (Charles Hymes) writes:
|> but claiming that the right to
|> free speach does not allow you to say what the government has
|> forbidden you to say is another.

Anyone who wants to may chose to break this, or any other, law. Don't be
surprised at the consequences.

Those users locally who have posted MAKE MONEY FAST pyramid schemes have been
dealt with. As has Lt. Starbuck. What's the deal?

Reg Quinton

unread,
May 25, 1994, 4:32:52 PM5/25/94
to
In article <2rvlcc$9...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
jlin...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Helen, The Ill-Tempered Ticket Lady) writes:
|> So Reg, were you *born* with that stick up your ass, or is it an
|> acquired trait?

This isn't a discussion. It's just name calling. If you have a point to make

Zodiac

unread,
May 28, 1994, 9:56:17 AM5/28/94
to

John P. LaRocque writes:

> That is a patent falsehood and a misreading of the Eye article.
> From the article:
>
> On Feb. 28, Starbuck had his university account restored. For the next
> three weeks, he forwarded incoming private e-mail from Abdul to Quinton
>
> I can say that the individual in question was not obliged in any way to
> divulge his e-mail, and that the only obligations placed upon him were
> to stay away from the whole Karla business (FAQ etc...)

This is a good point and highlights a tendency in a few
privacy-advocates to overstate a case, to incite panic. There is no
doubt what happened at the University of Western Ontario was WRONG,
even criminal, but get your facts straight that people will realize
the real danger isn't in gross abuses but these more insidious,
gradual invasions of privacy under the guise of "civility" and
"morality" and whatnot.

Reg Quinton comes out quite the villain in this, but it is hardly all his
fault. The real villains are the London Police Department -- over-zealous
computer illiterate clowns. You have to realize Reg is also a victim in
this, because the police -- and I talked with Officer Sandy Wright of the
LPD -- seem smugly sure of themselves and are ready to threaten to
confiscate all computer equipment if sysadmins do not cooperate.

Whether Wright is full of shit is debatable, but the threat is very real
to the isolated administrator. This is the value of organization, of
uniting, of organizations like EFF and EFC. There is strength in numbers.
Alone, sysadmins are very vulnerable -- as was Reg.

However -- I should add, Reg is not representing himself as a victim but a
willing accomplice. For that position, he deserves all the flaming he
gets. His position remains: "These were bad boys. The cops should harm
them. I don't care about the legalities of the ban."

Since no one has defined the Internet as being covered in the Homolka ban
-- and they all agree with this, from Marion Boyd on down -- it seems only
Reg and his cop friends are sure that Abdul and Lt Starbuck were in
contempt of court.

T. Stephen Eggleston

unread,
May 30, 1994, 3:29:15 PM5/30/94
to
In article <2s00vp$6...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>, Charles Hymes wrote:
> In article <2rtjvc$m...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>,
> Reg Quinton <reg...@julian.uwo.ca> wrote:
> >Eg. the right to free speach does not mean you can...
> > ....................break a publication ban.


I suppose that we could then extrapolate.....

The right to free speech does not mean you can....
Read a restricted (censored) novel...
Publish a newspaper on a restricted (taboo) subject...
Speak an unpopulr (censored) opinion in a public place...
Say, Read, Do or Think ANYTHING that the "Government" has banned,
with or without constitutional basis.

Get Real

If you want a fair trial, and you think publicity during the trial
will influence the jury, sequester them.

Personally, I would object violently if I were tried "in Secret."

$include flameshield
But Then Again, I Could Be Wrong
$end include

--
Steve Eggleston Internet:nua...@access.digex.net
Nuance Data Systems (703)823-8963 CIS:72040,713
"Technology Should Set You Free, Not Make You Crazy"

Daniel B Case

unread,
May 31, 1994, 2:08:00 AM5/31/94
to
In article <DcYwjiVk...@access.digex.net>, nua...@access.digex.net (T. Stephen Eggleston) writes...

> If you want a fair trial, and you think publicity during the trial
> will influence the jury, sequester them.

Minor point of info: Canadian law does not easily allow for sequestering or
changes of venue-hence, those stupid publication bans.

Jason Skiles

unread,
May 31, 1994, 10:16:34 AM5/31/94
to
Daniel B Case (v140...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu) wrote:
: In article <DcYwjiVk...@access.digex.net>, nua...@access.digex.net (T. Stephen Eggleston) writes...

They outta rewrite a few laws, then. How hard can it be? Sequestering a jury
is a simple technical matter. Holding trials in secret is downright scary,
a hallmark of every totalitarian regime of the modern era.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| Jason "Chuckles" Skiles | <Insert a clever quotation here.> |
| chuc...@mcs.com | - <misattribute it here> |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| Any opinions I express are also those of every single school, company, |
| and organization I've ever been in any way associated with. Honest. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reg Quinton

unread,
Jun 1, 1994, 11:34:40 AM6/1/94
to
At UWO our interactions were with the London Police Dept. not the OPP.

In article <kadie.7...@hal.cs.uiuc.edu>,
ka...@hal.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) writes:
|> I think it would be wise for university staff, when confronted with a
|> legal threat related to their duties, to consult with University legal
|> counsel.

To be sure, this is good advice. This does not mean that every interaction one
has with the police requires that you call in a lawyer (at $$$/hr). One judges
the threat/risk and acts accordingly. And, of course, not all interactions with
the police are "harassment" --

1. your tail light is burnt out, you better get that fixed.
2. you are in a no parking zone, please move.
3. what you are doing is chargeable, please stop.

In the first two examples there's no need for consul. In the 3rd there's no
need for counsel if you decide to cooperate.

In the case we had the local police made no threats to seize University systems
nor did they ever, at any time, have access to (or even make a request for) any
University system. Their primary goal was to get the student to stop -- they
seemed prepared to press charges if he wouldn't. They wanted to see what
material the student had and the student agreed to let them have it and
supplied other material over time. They did want to see the student's PC at
home and they did threaten to get a search warrant if the student didn't
cooperate.

Given that there was no threat to the University, and the student's behaviour
was contrary to acceptable use policies of the dept, I saw no need for legal
consul (although I certainly talked to my superiours).

If the student had decided to not cooperate with the police this would have
been a very different story:

Q: Can/should the University give to the police files from a user's account?

A: I think not. But if the police produce a warrant then you have to.

Q: Can/should the University have their legal consul defend a student charged
with a crime while using University resources?

A: I some cases yes, in others no. In the particular case, I do not believe
this University would fund a defence of this student were he charged with
contempt of court wrt the Karla Homolka ban.

Carl M Kadie

unread,
May 31, 1994, 11:49:24 PM5/31/94
to
zod...@io.org (Zodiac) writes:

[...]


>You have to realize Reg is also a victim in
>this, because the police -- and I talked with Officer Sandy Wright of the
>LPD -- seem smugly sure of themselves and are ready to threaten to
>confiscate all computer equipment if sysadmins do not cooperate.

[...]

I think it would be wise for university staff, when confronted with a
legal threat related to their duties, to consult with University legal
counsel.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= Email: ka...@cs.uiuc.edu =
= URL: <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/>

Marcel Mongeon

unread,
May 31, 1994, 7:47:36 PM5/31/94
to

Says who?

Both sequestering of juries and changes of venue can be done. It's just that
judges here in Ontario don't think a jury should have to suffer through a
sequestration just because they haven't wimped out of their public duty.

As to the change of venue as it relates to Teale-Homolka: where would you
suggest that we change the venue to?

--
||| Marcel D. Mongeon
||| (Information Technology Lawyer & Trade Marks Agent, Ontario, Canada)
||| phone: (905) 528-5936
||| e-mail: mar...@joymrmn.on.ca

Daniel B Case

unread,
Jun 1, 1994, 2:15:00 PM6/1/94
to
In article <Cqoy3...@joymrmn.on.ca>, mar...@joymrmn.on.ca (Marcel Mongeon) writes...

>v140...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>
>>In article <DcYwjiVk...@access.digex.net>, nua...@access.digex.net (T. Stephen Eggleston) writes...
>>> If you want a fair trial, and you think publicity during the trial
>>> will influence the jury, sequester them.
>
>>Minor point of info: Canadian law does not easily allow for sequestering or
>>changes of venue-hence, those stupid publication bans.
>
>Says who?
>
>Both sequestering of juries and changes of venue can be done. It's just that
>judges here in Ontario don't think a jury should have to suffer through a
>sequestration just because they haven't wimped out of their public duty.

So, obviously, the judges say so. Not that I think that gives the ban any more
legitimacy.

>As to the change of venue as it relates to Teale-Homolka: where would you
>suggest that we change the venue to?

I have no idea. Vancouver, perhaps?

Roy Brander

unread,
Jun 2, 1994, 2:43:52 AM6/2/94
to
Jason Skiles (chuc...@MCS.COM) wrote:

: Daniel B Case (v140...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu) wrote:
: : In article <DcYwjiVk...@access.digex.net>, nua...@access.digex.net (T. Stephen Eggleston) writes...
: : > If you want a fair trial, and you think publicity during the trial
: : > will influence the jury, sequester them.

: : Minor point of info: Canadian law does not easily allow for sequestering or
: : changes of venue-hence, those stupid publication bans.

:They outta rewrite a few laws, then. How hard can it be? Sequestering a jury
: is a simple technical matter.

Locking up innocent people that are performing a civic duty is a little
more than a "simple technical matter"; some cultures find it quite
offensive. If Americans are going to flame Canadians for meekly putting
up with publication bans, they should at least acknowledge that they
are instead meekly putting up with infringements on each jury's civil
rights as the exchange. Here is an analysis of the two systems, based
on direct quotes from the 77-page ban document by Justic Kovacs:

[para115] A comparison of our two legal traditions was
considered in Re Global Communications Ltd and the Attorney
General for Canada (1984) 10 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (O.C.R.),
Thorson, J.A. said at p. 110:

"The central thrust of the submission in this
regard made by counsel for the appellant before
this Court, as before Linden J., is that in the
United States, being itself a free and democratic
society and, as well, the very country in which the
fugitive in this case will stand trial if committed
in Canada for extradition, prior restraint of the
press is an exceptional procedure. This, it is
said, is demonstrated by the decision of the U.S.
Supreme Court in Nebraska Press Ass'n et al. v.
Stuart, Judge, et al. (1976), 427 U.S. 539, in
which the Court observed that the 'barriers to
prior restraint remain high and the presumption
against its use continues in tact'".

[para116] Thorson, J. continued:

"It will be seen from the latter passage that what
is there being discussed are two different
approaches to achieving the same goal, namely, the
protection of the accused's right to a fair trial.
That the approaches are indeed different is, I
think, undeniable. It is true that generalizations
about the approach followed in the United States
are somewhat unsafe because there are differences
from state to state, and even the decisions of the
United States Supreme Court appear less categorical
than the Nebraska case might suggest: see for
example the more recent decision of that court in
Gannett Co., Inc. v. Depasguale, etc., et al.
(1979), 443 U.S. 368. Generally speaking, however,
the approach taken in the United States seems to be
to allow for the widest possible latitude in media
reporting of events transpiring prior to and during
the course of the trial of an accused person. This
is counterbalanced in the interests of ensuring an
impartial and unbiased jury, in a number of ways
including, during the jury selection process, by an
often searching examination into the attitudes,
biases and even the personal and financial affairs
of potential jurors and, after the jury selection
process has been completed, by the sequestration of
the members of the jury while the trial is in
progress to reduce the risk of their exposure to
the media and other publicity generated by it.

In Canada, by contrast, the process of jury
selection is neither as prolonged nor as exhaustive
as a general rule; indeed the kind of questioning
and probing into the affairs of potential jurors
that is sometimes seen in the United States would
be unlikely to be permitted under our system.
Moreover, in Canada the sequestration of jurors
throughout a trial occurs only exceptionally. The
strong bias of our system is to prevent the
dissemination before the conclusion of the trial of
media publicity that might be prejudicial to the
accused's fair trial."

(Emphasis added)

[para117] Thorson, J. continued:

"I offer no comment on the relative merits of
the two different approaches, except to say that
each shares the common objective of seeking to
ensure a fair trial but comes at that objective
from a different tradition of legal history."

(end quotes)

I'm not disagreeing, however: in the Holmolka case 27,000,000 people
have been inconvenienced, hundreds of police hours wasted, and the
administration of justice brought into some disrespute to save an
admittedly significant imposition ... on 12 people, and somewhat less
of an imposition on a hundred or so that might have to answer many
personal questions and then be rejected from the jury.

That's going too far. I don't think we need to drop our system entirely,
even Americans restrict trial coverage in some rare cases, and I think
in *MOST* cases our system causes almost no problem at all - so very
many cases don't even MERIT three lines on page 57. But anytime a
case is of considerable public interest and there is ANY significant
chance of another Holmolka-style ban-breaking movement -- we should
just go with jury inquisitions and sequestration instead.


: Holding trials in secret is downright scary,


: a hallmark of every totalitarian regime of the modern era.

Silly me, I though the hallmark was "shooting dissidents".

Seriously, public trials are just *one* of several mechanisms to ensure
the judiciary is responsible to the public. As long as a number of
people with the freedom to complain about poor administration of
justice are aware of the trial's proceedings, some mechanism to keep
judges from becoming God exists.

Don't forget, the press *were* at the trial, and if they were
forbidden to reveal the trial's proceedings, they were **NOT** forbidden
to go back to their newspapers and write:

"I am unable to lawfully reveal what happened at Holmolka's trial, but
I can comment that justice was not done, that the power of the judiciary
was abused, and that the publication ban is being misused to cover up
the abuse of power. Call your MP and complain." .... IF they could
do so without being irresponsible journalists, i.e. if it were arguably true.

None of them have done so. There is a principle at stake here, but not
the immediate future of freedom.
^^^^^^^^^

Stefan Chakerian

unread,
Jun 2, 1994, 7:11:05 PM6/2/94
to
In article <2sfgs2$c...@venus.mcs.com>, Jason Skiles <chuc...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>Sequestering a jury
>is a simple technical matter. Holding trials in secret is downright scary,

>a hallmark of every totalitarian regime of the modern era.

Most court records for minors in this district (2nd district, New Mexico)
are unavailable to the public, and the courtroom is usually closed. All
(or nearly all) adult trials are open. The point be that secret trials
are used for the public good (supposedly) and here is an example.

Note that the records are not destroyed, though. There is a lot of
leeway on the interpretation of "secret." If by "secret" you mean
no one knows what went on, all records are destroyed, and it's possible
for the defendant to have been found guilty and shipped off without ever
being heard from, then that is a much darker view which is, indeed, scary.

stef
--
Stefan Chakerian Good, fast, cheap. Pick two.
sch...@tesuque.cs.sandia.gov

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages