Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!dave From: dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) Newsgroups: net.followup,net.micro,net.legal Subject: Re: Computer Bulletin Board Confiscated Message-ID: <4464@utcsrgv.UUCP> Date: Sun, 3-Jun-84 10:09:32 EDT Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.4464 Posted: Sun Jun 3 10:09:32 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Jun-84 11:22:42 EDT References: <898@ihuxi.UUCP> Organization: The Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto Lines: 27 I do not have any knowledge of this situation other than what has been posted to the net, but I would like to clear up a miconception which has floated around through many postings. It appears likely that the system was "confiscated" not as some form of punishment by the LAPD but because the system and its records (and having the entire system may be the only way the LAPD can be sure it can reproduce the records) will ne required as evidence against the person who left the "AT&T calling card number" on the system. Alternatively, it may be needed as part of the investigation, so that the police can determine who left the information. This is quite different from "confiscating" as a form of punishment to the system administrator, and has quite different legal implications. If someone steals your tape recorder, and the police recover it, they might keep the tape recorder as evidence for the trial, and only return it after the trial. No-one suggests you've committed a crime. It's the same principle. (lrf, V nz n ynjlre) Dave Sherman Toronto -- dave at Toronto (CSnet) {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave