HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: Innocent until proven guilty?
Originator: jon@cyclone
Organization: The MITRE Corp. McLean Va.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:35:58 GMT


In article <1992Nov12.160017.3835@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, caress@thebe.ecn.purdue.edu (Peter N Caress) writes:
> Somewhere out on the internet is a series of articles taken from a Pittsburgh
> paper (the Pittsburgh Free Press, I belive) about civil seizure laws and
> their abuse. I think it was archived at the Free Software Foundation. I'd be
> grateful if someone could post and ftp site from which I could download the
> series. Thanks! 
> 
> -- Peter
>

Here ya go.
----begin included message ----
Article: 11007 of alt.censorship
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Seizures (was Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1992 21:15:37 GMT

paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) writes:

[...]
Not to be outdone,
>Congress has enacted RICO and amended the criminal code to allow
>property seizures prior to a criminal conviction.  All of this is in
>response to anti-drug hysteria.
>
>/pbp

It's worse than that. Property is being seized without criminal
charges even being filed. According to an article that was posted
last week:

'You should also get a copy of the reprinted series "Presumed Guilty" that
was published by The Pittsburgh Press in 1991.  Both plain text and PostScript
versions are available via anonymous FTP from "ftp.eff.org" in directory
"pub/cud/papers".  The files are named "presumed" and "presumed.ps"'

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

----- end included message ------
-- 
<jon@mitre.org>|--24HR Libertarian Party News (900)454-2378 [$1.95 a minute]--
----------------------------------| Libertarian Party            (800)272-1776 
          DON'T BLAME ME!         | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
       I voted Libertarian.       | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776  
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Dissidents harassed in USA
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:26:06 GMT

A repost from comp.org.eff.talk:

From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Subject: Secret Service and 2600
Reply-To: tinsel@uiuc.edu
Organization: Masticating Illini
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 03:26:49 GMT

I'd like to call your attention to the following articles, all
in clari.mb.govt:

  Reports of "Raid" on 2600 Washington Meeting 11/09/92 
  Secret Service Role Questioned in "2600 Washington Raid" 11/10/92
  ****Conflicting Stories in 2600 Raid 11/11/92

Briefly, a regular 2600-sponsored meeting in Arlington was interrupted
by security and police officers, who searched the participants, 
confiscated various written materials, including CPSR applications, and 
threatened them with arrest.  The `raid' was apparently pre-planned, 
and may been on behalf of the U.S. Secret Service.  Craig Neidorf 
(of CPSR) was present and is quoted in the article.
--
Thomas Insel (tinsel@nyx.cs.du.edu, tinsel@uiuc.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.org.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Cellular privacy in USA and FBI phonetapping capability
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:35:43 GMT

From RISKS-FORUM Digest 14.03:

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 14:58:48 EST
From: "Barry C. Nelson" <bnelson@ccb.bbn.com>
Subject: Cellular misinformation

The Boston Globe, 9 Nov 1992, had a human interest story illustrating some good
uses for the ubiquitous cellular phones.  In many places you can dial *SP for
the State Police, and this had been credited with getting rapid assistance to
accident and crime victims, as well as apprehending a dangerous escapee. They
mentioned problems with routing 911 calls.

What I found more interesting was a discussion about the Coast Guard preparing
to adopt *CG as a maritime cellular distress number.  A local official was
quoted as saying that the existing broadcast channels will remain in operation
because anyone nearby will hear you and the CG operates Direction Finding
stations to pinpoint your location. Okay...

But then he went on to say that cellular calls "only give you a point to point
channel", leading one to the wrong belief that they couldn't DF a cellular
user, and that nobody else could listen if they wanted to.

-BCNelson

P.S.: After a PGN talk at MIT recently, someone in the audience claimed that
      the FBI has multiple "trunks" attached to the local cellular hub in
      Boston and they can monitor both sides of a conversation by just typing 
      in your number.  Thank goodness that this is a democracy.  :-^
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:00:48 GMT

It's irrelevant whether AT&T treats all their employees the way John is
being treated.  AT&T is not the government.  Free speech doctrines do
not apply to them.

If they were to fire John over this issue, that would be different.  In
that case, he could claim unfair treatment.

Unless I've missed something in this thread, John is not being fired.
He has only been asked not to post controversial (by AT&T's definition)
material.  AT&T has every right to censor under these circumstances.

---
I guess there's some things          |      Seems like the more I think I know
I'm not meant to understand          |                 The more I find I don't
Ain't life a riot? Ain't love grand? | Every answer opens up so many questions
Richard Stueven                 gak@wrs.com            ...!attmail!gakhaus!gak

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: tedwards@eng.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: A Copper Balloon
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:37:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.131432.8697@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>that's why we need laws which support society values
>and oppose things like drugs, pornography and cryptography which have
>the potential to be dangerous to society.

Cryptography is part of _my_ family values! :)

-Thomas


Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Use of cryptography - discussion on sci.crypt
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:13:39 GMT

There's a lively discussion on the newsgroup sci.crypt about the right
to use cryptography and proposals to make it illegal in USA unless the
government is given keys.

Comp.org.eff.talk also has parts of the discussion.

People have been criticizing the lack of scientific contents in the
messages (sci.crypt is devoted to scientific discussions on
cryptography, after all) and many of the points have been made in the
discussion already, so if you start participating in the discussion at
this point with political messages it would be polite to omit
sci.crypt and use groups like alt.privacy, alt.society.civil-liberty,
comp.org.eff.talk or some other political groups.

//Jyrki
From: caress@thebe.ecn.purdue.edu (Peter N Caress)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Innocent until proven guilty?
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:00:17 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Somewhere out on the internet is a series of articles taken from a Pittsburgh
paper (the Pittsburgh Free Press, I belive) about civil seizure laws and
their abuse. I think it was archived at the Free Software Foundation. I'd be
grateful if someone could post and ftp site from which I could download the
series. Thanks! 

-- Peter
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6504 alt.activism:18549 talk.politics.drugs:7413
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: alt.society.emigration
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:42:45 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Followup-To: alt.config
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

[ followups directed to alt.config ]

There were some emigration discussions here some time ago.  I voiced
the idea of an emigration newsgroup.

I could use some voices of support for alt.society.emigration:

In article <BxFIsE.F07@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <JKP.92Nov9032644@cardhu.cs.hut.fi> Jyrki Kuoppala <jkp@cs.hut.fi> writes:
>
>>alt.society.emigration		Where to move and why?
>
>I won't create it unless someone besides you supports it.  I have
>difficulty seeing anyone paying any attention to this group.
>
>-- 
>____ Tim Pierce                / 
>\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 

If there are more voices of opposition than support I won't create the
group.  (Tim Pierce doesn't count because he's been in my kill file
for many months ;-)

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.culture.jewish,misc.legal,soc.culture.african.american,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism,alt.native,soc.rights.human
From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Re: [soc.culture.jewish, et al.] ADL Urges Supreme Court to Take Hate Crimes Cases
Organization: VTT
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:28:40 GMT

A post about the ADL model Hate Crimes legislation states that the
legislation is constitutional, its drafters are considerate of the
First Amendment, and gives a list of groups supporting the legislation
whose (the groups') purpose is to support groups which are often
hated.

However the post does not state what the legislation actually states.
Could someone please lay out the details of the legislation?  Evidently
it intensifies the punishment for criminal acts if they are determined
to be "Hate Crimes" [Crimes aren't usually done for love-)].

How is this done?  It seems to me that such a law might enhance the 
penalties if the attacker curses at the victim ("nigger", "wop",
"faggot", "bastard", "motherf*cker", "honkey", ...).  All such terms
indicate derision based on the group the person addressed is (allegedly)
in.

Could someone lay out the legislation and point out why it would (not)
be Constitutional? 

-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.history,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] A History of the Bill of Rights
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:23:22 GMT

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
: That history of the Bill of Right was, despite a very clear political
: bias in tone, for the most part accurate.

Could you point out the areas you feel are biased so we can
evaluate your claim?

: [...]
:                                           (By the way, it is
: also inaccurate for the ACLU to claim they defend the Bill of
: Rights: They defend the parts of it which their members find
: politically comfortable and make specious arguments to ignore 
: other parts...)

Could you give some examples of this?

Thankx.
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6503 soc.history:9278 alt.politics.usa.constitution:958 alt.politics.homosexuality:6977 soc.women:19181 uiuc.civil-liberty:96 soc.culture.african.american:10821 alt.censorship:8715 talk.politics.theory:4823
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.history,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: [ACLU] A History of the Bill of Rights
Date: 12 Nov 1992 16:04:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) says:

>fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>: That history of the Bill of Right was, despite a very clear political
>: bias in tone, for the most part accurate.
>
>Could you point out the areas you feel are biased so we can
>evaluate your claim?
>
>: [...]
>:                                           (By the way, it is
>: also inaccurate for the ACLU to claim they defend the Bill of
>: Rights: They defend the parts of it which their members find
>: politically comfortable and make specious arguments to ignore 
>: other parts...)
>
>Could you give some examples of this?
>
>Thankx.
>-- 
>> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
>> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
>> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
>


How about the 2nd Amendment?
-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: A Copper Balloon
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:30:30 GMT

In article <BxK9sB.9MC@wrs.com>, gak@wrs (Richard Stueven) writes:
>Nice work.

Thanks!

>Have you received any flames yet, from people who didn't get it?

Only one person so far.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Innocent until proven guilty?
Date: 12 Nov 92 03:59:50 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I am the last person to
think that we free a hoodlum.
But the following news report seems to me to be a little unfair.
A person is caught bypassing the toll at a subway station.
He has over $10,000 on him.  The police are saying that if
the person with the money cannot prove that he earned it legally,
that they can take it.  (This seems to me to be opposed to our
system which presumes a person innocent until proven guilty.)

The complete text of the story follows:  
	NEW YORK (UPI) -- A subway fare-beating suspect from North Carolina
might wish he sprung for a cab Saturday, when Transit police stopped him
at a Midtown station and found he was carrying more than $10,000 in
cash.
	William Felix, 22, of 1206 Arlee St. in Greensboro, N.C., was
arrested for fare evasion about 11:55 a.m. after he slipped through a
turnstile without paying the $1.25 fare at the 42nd Street and Eighth
Avenue station, near the Port Authority bus terminal, said Transit
police spokesman Sgt. Luis Medina.
	``The gentleman was observed by two officers, who detained and
questioned him,'' Medina said.
	``He gave evasive answers and the officers subsequently arrested him.
When he was searched, they found he had stuffed in his two front trouser
pockets $10,187.96,'' the sergeant said.
	Officers Richard Fischer and James O'Connor of Transit Police
District 1 were working undercover on a fare evasion detail when they
stopped the North Carolina visitor, who did not resist and carried no
drugs or weapons.
	Asked the source of the money, Felix explained he saved it over the
last six months while working at a Burger King and Holiday Inn, Medina
said.
	A one-way bus ticket from Greensboro also was found in the man's
pockets, but the officers later discovered he was wanted by Nassau
County authorities on an outstanding warrant for criminal mischief,
Medina said.
	While carrying large sums of cash is not illegal, Felix was held
while the Long Island warrant and the source of the money was
investigated.
	``We do have an obligation to investigate whether this money was
legally obtained,'' Medina said.
	Meanwhile, unless Felix or someone else legitimately can claim the
money, investigators from the Drug Enforcement Administration or the
Internal Revenue Service are expected to share the funds with the
arresting agency.


-- 
 Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
 From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.history,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: [ACLU] A History of the Bill of Rights
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:09:45 GMT
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."

In <1992Nov12.040909.625@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>The case in question, US v. Miller, says nothing of the sort. 
[...]
> Specifically, the Court asked if Jack Miller's ownership
>of a sawed-off shotgun had a "reasonable relationship to the 
>preservation or efficiency of the militia." If so, his right to 
>own it would be protected under the Second Amendment. Miller was clearly
>a member of the militia (e.g. physically capable of military service.)
>However, the Court found no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun was
>a usefull militia weapon. They based this on past laws regulating
>the militia and on the sort of weapons issued by the Army.

Hang on a minute, Frank.  (I hate arguing with Frank, he's almost always
right.)  As I recall, the issue was not that "...the Court found no 
evidence..." but that no-one *brought* evidence before them (Miller
being dead by that time, and no-one else being particularly inclined
to press the issue.)  In fact, I thought I remembered the Opinion being
carefully worded to reflect this.  Don't we usually mention at this point
that sawed-offs *were* in use by the Army, and that there wasn't anybody to
*tell* the Court this?

-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.history,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] A History of the Bill of Rights
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 02:39:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.222322.22536@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
>: That history of the Bill of Right was, despite a very clear political
>: bias in tone, for the most part accurate.

>Could you point out the areas you feel are biased so we can
>evaluate your claim?

Since my post was in reply to the full text of the history, you can
search back, find it, and see for yourself if you find it biased.
Specifically, the text assumed the "activist" position of "prefered
freedoms" (e.g. that some protected rights are important, and the
rest don't really count.) Further, it implied that the Bill of 
Rights was more-or-less meaningless until organizations like the ACLU
came along (and that thier efforts are what made the Bill of Rights
a menaingfull protection.) While the role of the ACLU and similar
groups has been important, the implication of the document exagerates
this.

>:                                           (By the way, it is
>: also inaccurate for the ACLU to claim they defend the Bill of
>: Rights: They defend the parts of it which their members find
>: politically comfortable and make specious arguments to ignore 
>: other parts...)

>Could you give some examples of this?

I did, in a later post: Their position on the Second Amendment.

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: A Copper Balloon
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:57:46 GMT

Nice work.

Have you received any flames yet, from people who didn't get it?

gak

---
Richard Stueven       AHA# 22584 |----------|
Internet:            gak@wrs.com |----GO----| Oh, what heights we'll hit...
ATTMAIL: ...!attmail!gakhaus!gak |---SHARX--| On with the show!  This is it!
Cow Palace:            107/H/3-4 |----------|
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Innocent until proven guilty?
Date: 12 Nov 92 07:01:55 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov12.035950.145069@watson.ibm.com> yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
>[Concern over a common, ho-hum seizure case deleted.]

You're new around here, aren't you?

There is something highly unusual about the story you posted, and that is
that there is any investigation at all.  Generally, the cops just *say*
it's "drug money" and the fed and local cops split it.  Period.

It's up to the "civil seizure" vitcim to sue to get it back, and he has
to prove that he's NOT guilty.

This goes on all the time.  Routinely, DEA agents walk through airports
stopping people that fit a "drug courier profile" that includes things
like looking at a clock or watch; walking quickly; walking slowly; being
non-white; being among the first passengers off the plane; being among the
last passengers off the plane; being in the middle bunch of passengers off
the plane; looking at a uniformed officer; not looking at a uniformed
officer; going to or coming from a known source city for drugs (all cities
everywhere); going to or coming from a known destination city for drugs (all
cities everywhere)...

They then take any cash found on these people, and send them on their way.

They take cars, houses, land, anything they want anywhere they want in the
same way.  An anonymous tip is enough, but sometimes they don't even have
that much evidence.

If they pick on the wrong person, and it looks like he's got the resources
to sue and make a stink (lawyers say it's not worth it unless the property
seized is worth at least $100,000), then they: 1) seize the assets the
victim was going to use for the fight, 2) cut a deal where for a cash
settlement and a written promise not to talk to the press, the victim
can have his stuff back (in other words, they seize your house, and you
can have it back if you can borrow enough to buy it back from the cops),
or, increasingly, 3) kill him.  The unwashed masses don't know anything
about drugs, but they hate 'em.  The cops say "drugs", and the public says
"oh, whatever you did is ok then".

Over 80% of civil seizure victims are never charged with any crime.  Even if
they are, and are found not guilty, they still have to sue to get their
stuff back.  This is a civil matter, not a criminal one, so they have no
right to an attorney.  If they can't afford one, tough.

>This seems to me to be opposed to our system which presumes a person
>innocent until proven guilty.

We here in the U.S. used to have a system quite like that.  We used to live
under the rule of law, instead of the rule of men.  What country do you live
in?

  Thanks awfully,
            Patrick
From: briansp@css.itd.umich.edu (Brian Spolarich)
Newsgroups: alt.necromicon
Subject: Re: NECRONOMICON
Date: 6 Nov 1992 21:11:00 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: stimpy.css.itd.umich.edu
Keywords: death

In article <9210946.13@cuslm.ca> 9210946@cuslm.ca (THERIAULT YANICK M.) writes:
>	Hey guys!  I know I may have my hand chopped off for saying this but 
>it's been 4 years that I've been hearing about this book from H.P.Lovecraft 
>and it was said, I REPEAT!  IT WAS SAID AND PRONOUNCED NECRONOMICON!!!!!!  
>Not Necronomicron like some people on this newsgroup tend to write!
>

   Or for that metter, the name of this group:  alt.NECROMICRON.
  
  Wouldn't that be a dead, really little thing?

 brightest blessings

-brian


Newsgroups: alt.necromicon