FC: DoJ cybercrime manual covers PDAs, encryption, secret searches

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

*******
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 (declan () wired com)

   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.

   [...] 




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------