|
This file is available on a Cryptome DVD offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for a DVD of the Cryptome 10-year archives of 35,000 files from June 1996 to June 2006 (~3.5 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. Archives include all files of cryptome.org, cryptome2.org, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org. Cryptome offers with the Cryptome DVD an INSCOM DVD of about 18,000 pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985. No additional contribution required -- $25 for both. The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost. | |||
17 October 1997
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 01:35:18 -0400 From: Dwight Hines <Elmhines@AOL.COM> Subject: Notice To: CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM October 16, 1997 Please take this electronic message as legally sufficient notice that: 1) The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) has stated that they are not competent to investigate illegal electronic surveillance. This fact has been filed in the U.S. District Court, Middle District, Jacksonville Division. This fact is congruent with the views in a recent published article: Marc D. Goodman, Why the Police Don't Care About Computer Crime, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 10(3), 1997. 2) The travellers' advisory warning for those staying in motels in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Michigan are still in effect for those who are concerned about computer privacy, personal privacy, and consequent activities. For an excellent review of case and statutory, as well as some good common sense approaches to privacy, see Christopher Slobogin, Technologically - Assisted Physical Surveillance: The American Bar Association's Tentative Draft Standards, Harvard J. Law Technology, 10(3), 1997. Also recommended for parallel reading with this article is Federal Prosecution of Violations of Intellectual Property Rights, Department of Justice, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, May, 1997. 3) Please be advised that your failure to intiate appropriate actions for the protection of you or your clients, for harms already suffered, may result in the forfeiture and loss of any and all claims, and related claims, in the future. 4) The Law Enforcement Code of Ethics states: "As a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of men to liberty, equality and justice. . . . I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession. . . law enforcement." From Goodman, id. There would appear to be substantive conflict between the reality of paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, and the Code of Ethics. 5) For those of you who are participating in the work on the state by state corruption index, modeled after Transparency International, please do not reply to this email address. Send your information to Dwight Hines, P.O. Box 61524, Jacksonville, Florida 32236 Thank you, dh Great Quote: littera gesta docet, quid credas, allegoria