Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 16:55 CDT From: TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@uicvm.uic.edu Subject: NEIDORF TRIAL OVER! GOVERNMENT DROPS ALL CHARGES! Less than halfway through the trial, and before it had presented its remaining witnesses, but government dropped all charges against Craig Neidorf. Defense Attorney Sheldon Zenner said that Prosecutor Bill Cook's decision was "in line with the highest standards of good government and ethical conduct." Zenner said that the government could have continued to the last and let the jury decide, but did the honorable thing. One reason for the surprise decision, according to one inside source, was that, as the testimony and cross-examination proceeded, the government realized that BellSouth had not been forthcoming about the extent of availability of the document and its worth. The prosecution apparently relied on the good faith of BellSouth because of the previously good working relationship it had with it and other telecom companies. Craig Neidorf was ecstatic about the decision, and feels vindicated. He can now resume his studies, complete his degree, and seriously consider law school. He *WILL NOT* resume publication of PHRACK! Zenner praised Bill Cook's decision to drop all charges, and added he is not angry, but appreciative. Zenner also felt that the the efforts of EFF, CuD, and the many individuals who supported Craig were instrumental in creating credibility and visibility for the case, generating ideas and information for the defense, and facilitating enlisting some of the prospective defense witnesses to participate. There are those who have taken the Ed Meese line and assumed that Craig must have done *something* or the government wouldn't be prosecuting him. Others have not been as strident, but have put their faith in "The System," assuming that the process works, and as long as Craig's procedural rights were protected, we should "wait and see." Others on the extreme end have said that those of us who supported Craig would change our minds once all the evidence has come out, and we were criticized for raising issues unfairly when the government, so it was claimed, couldn't respond because it had to protect Craig's privacy and was required to sit in silence. One prosecutor even said that when all the evidence comes out, Craig's supporters would slink back under their rocks. There is little cause for Craig's supporters to gloat, because the emotional and financial toll on Craig and his family were substantial. Dropping the charges hardly means that the system works, because if it worked, there would have been no charges to begin with. From the beginning, Craig expressed his willingness to cooperate, but the government made this impossible with its persecution. Craig's supporters, from the beginning, have published the evidence, explained the issues, and we can still see no reason for his indictment. The evidence presented by the government in some cases could have been presented as well by the defense to show that *no* criminal acts occurred. When witnesses must be coached into how to present negative evidence, and when little, if any, can be adequately constructed, one would think that somebody in the prosecutor's office might realize there simply isn't a case there. The government had no case in the beginning, they could not construct one, and they had nothing at the end. So, dropping the charges does not indicate that the system works, but rather that sometimes a just outcome may result despite unjust actions of over-zealous agents. The prosecution not only lost the case, but reduced its credibility in all areas of computer enforcement. The claim that a recent TELECOM Digest contributor made that the SS and others may intentionally overstep bounds to establish more clearly the lines of law may be true, but what about the costs to innocent victims of such Machiavellian tactics? Do we really live in such a cynical society that we find it acceptable to place lives, careers, and reputations at great risk? Now, however, it is time to move on and address the lessons learned from the experience. Some of the issues include how computerists can be protected from overzealousness, how law enforcement agents can perform their legitimate tasks of gathering evidence without violation rights, and how legislation can be written to reflect technological changes that protect us from predators while not subverting our rights with loose, broad, or inaccurate language. This has been the goal of Mitch and the EFF, and it is one on which we should *all* unite and focus our energy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 03:23 CDT From: TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@uicvm.uic.edu Subject: Days Three and Four of Craig's Trial Some final comments on Day Three of Craig Neidorf's trial: It was curious that, in introducing the PHRACK/INC Hacking Directory, a list of over 1,300 addresses and handles, the prosecution seemed it important that LoD participants were on it, and made no mention of academics, security and law enforcement agents, and others. In some ways, it seemed that Bill Cook's strategy was to put HACKING (or his own rather limited definition of it) on trial, and then attempt to link Craig to hackers and establish guilt by association. It was also strange that, after several months of supposed familiarization with the case, that neither Bill Cook nor Agent Foley would pronounce his name correctly. Neiforf rhymes with eye-dorf. Foley pronounced it KNEEdorf and Cook insisted on NEDD-orf. Further, his name was spelled incorrectly on at least three charts introduced as evidence, but as Sheldon Zenner indicated, "we all make mistakes." Yeh, even Bill Cook. One can't but think that such an oversight is intentional, because a prosecutor as aware of detail as Bill Cook surely by now can be expected to know who he is prosecuting, even when corrected. Perhaps this is just part of a crude, arrogant style designed to intimidate, perhaps it is ignorance, or perhaps it is a simple mistake. But, we judge it an offense both to Craig and especially his family to sit in the courtroom and listen to the man prosecuting their son to continually and so obviously mispronounce their name. DAY FOUR OF THE TRIAL (THURSDAY, JULY 26): Special Agent Foley continued his testimony, continuing to describe the step by step procedure of the search, his conversation with Craig, what he found, and the value of the E911 files. On cross-examination, Agent Foley was asked how he obtained the original value of the files. The value is crucial, because of the claim that they are worth more than $5,000. Agent Foley indicated that he obtained the figure from BellSouth and didn't bother to verify it. Then, he was asked how he obtained the revised value of $23,000. Again, Agent Foley indicated that he didn't verify the worth. Because of the importance of the value in establishing applicability of Title 18, this seems a crucial, perhaps fatal, oversight. Next came the testimony of Robert Riggs (The Prophet), testifying presumably under immunity and, according to a report in the last issue of CuD, under the potential threat of a higher sentence if he did not cooperate. The diminutive Riggs said nothing that seemed harmful to Craig, and Zenner's skill elicited information that, to an observer, seemed quite beneficial. For example, Riggs indicated that he had no knowledge that Craig hacked, had no knowledge that Craig ever traded in or used passwords for accessing computers, and that Craig never asked him to steal anything for him. Riggs also indicated that he had been coached by the prosecution. The coaching even included having a member of the prosecution team play the role of Zenner to prepare him for cross-examination. It was also revealed that the prosecution asked Riggs to go over all the back issues of PHRACK to identify any articles that may have been helpful in his hacking career. Although it may damage the egos of some PHRACK writers, Riggs identified only one article from PHRACK 7 that MIGHT POSSIBLY be helpful. What are we to make of all this? So far, it seems that the bulk of the evidence against Craig is weak, exaggerated, and at times seems almost fabricated (such as the value of the E911 file and Craig's "evil" attempt to organize a league of "criminals." We have been told repeatedly be some law enforcement officials and others that we should wait, because evidence will come out that could not be discussed in public, and that this evidence would silence critics. Some have even said that those who have criticized law enforcement would "slink back under their rocks" when the evidence was presented. Perhaps. But, so far at least, there has been no smoking gun, no evidence that hasn't been discussed previously, and no indication of any heinous conspiracy to bring America to its knees by trashing the E911 system, robbing banks, or destroying the technological fabric of society. Perhaps a bombshell will be introduced before the prosecution winds up in a few days. But, even if Craig is ultimately found guilty on any of the counts, there is certainly nothing presented thus far that appears to justify the severity of the charges or the waste of state resources. To paraphrase that anonymous writer in the last issue of CuD, I can't help but wonder why we're all here!