Date: 05 Feb 93 16:25:34 EST From: Steve Brown <70511.3424@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: File 6--In Re "Legal Strategy on 2600 Nov. '92" (CuD #5.07) Response to CUD 5.07, File-3 "Legal Strategy on 2600 Nov. '92 Mall Harassment" by Robert A. Carolina. <<>> Who are you talking about? Just because someone wears a badge and a uniform does not mean he or she will act a certain way. Security agents are private agents who protect property and assets for the owner. Security guards do the same with a state certificate (as long as you are breathing and have never had a felony conviction). Law enforcement officers are 24 -hour-a-day public servants who are sworn to uphold the laws of the state within the parameters of the Constitution. Private security guards and law enforcement officers have completely different missions. The former has minimal (if any) formal training. Why do you think they would act the same? >>When you combine nervous uniforms (like under-trained mall rent-a-cops) together with volatile personalities (like hackers sporting anti-social nick-names) the result is usually a rapidly escalating level of disharmony. (At the far extreme, disharmony like this can produce four cops beating the hell out of Rodney King because he "just wouldn't lie still on the ground". The point is not to criticize Mr. King, but to make sure that you don't end up in the hospital. Money awarded by a court is a poor substitute for missing teeth.)<< The point is that you are confusing the issues by comparing apples to oranges. You over generalize and create the impossible. By using the term "uniforms" you lump law enforcement officers and security guards together. "Uniforms" implies that since they look alike and use some of the same tools (gun, baton), then they must act alike and do the same. This is not likely if they follow different rules, laws, standards, and training. >> Fourth, mall cops are not government agents, and as such, their conduct is (mostly) not governed by the Constitution.<< This IS true. Unless, the mall SECURITY GUARDS are directed to do something in behalf of a government law enforcement agency (in this case the Secret Service). Then, technically, the SECURITY GUARDS become government agents and are subject to the same formal procedures. This may have been the case, and you do point this out. >>Third, recognize that a mall IS private property and the mall operators can throw you out for little or no reason. Fourth, mall cops are not government agents, and as such, their conduct is (mostly) not governed by the Constitution. So what does this all mean? Basically, Ghandi was right. The ticket to dealing with obstreperous uniformed mall cops is polite, passive resistance. The key here is POLITE. At all times, assure the mall cop that you will obey all lawful instructions. Do not give the uniforms any reason whatsoever to escalate the scene.<< >>If you are confronted by a group of threatening looking mall cops and they hassle you, ask if you are being ejected from the mall. If yes, then wish the officers a nice day and head for the nearest exit. If no, then wish the officers a nice day and head for the nearest exit. (Do you see a pattern emerging? Remember, you do not generally have a "right" to stay in a mall. Thus, your best defense from ignorant mall cops is to get the hell off of their turf.)<< Once again you are right. "The mall operators can throw you out for little or no reason." So if that's the case, why would you even want to stay and ask a bunch of unintelligent questions. As for your strategy, I think Ghandi would tell you to forget about being polite. I think he'd tell you to "get the hell out of Dodge." Why you would encourage anyone to confront "obstreperous uniformed mall cops with polite, passive resistance" is beyond me. You'd be better off leaving on your own accord. This would at least insure your chances of a safe return at a later time if need be. If it is evident that you are not wanted while on private property (mall or elsewhere) just leave and take your $$ with you. Through subtle uses of the English language sectors of society (law enforcement and the media) have portrayed the would-be criminals behind a keyboard "as "hackers." There has been a great amount of ignorance and myth regarding the use of the computer as a criminal tool. The ignorance has led to the name calling of the people who use these powerful machines to conduct crimes. They are called "hackers" when they should simply be called criminals. I can surely understand how the derogatory use of the term "hacker" could anger the legitimate computer world. By choosing to use the term "hacker" rather than criminal, more attention is placed upon the computer, itself, rather than the person who has done the crime. The derogatory use of hacker is dehumanizing. By definition criminals have rights; Hackers and witches do not. Steve Jackson might be a witch (or would it be a warlock?) in a modern day Salem Witch Hunt. My biggest concern is your attempt to dehumanize the police in a similar way. Whether you know it or not (maybe you don't really care), you have employed the same dehumanizing method in your effort to portray law enforcement. The computer world should not alienate its "enemy" through the use of name calling. Your effort seems to have been to inform people of their legal recourses during an incident similar to the "2600 Harassment" incident. The strength of the legal advise given, however, was weakened by the strategy you chose to use. You have probably confused a good many people in your attempt to explain sound legal ideas. A GUARD is a guard. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (police, cop) is a law enforcement officer. A uniform unfortunately is what many ignorant people see. It is a way to dehumanize a person who gives you a ticket when you speed, prevents you from driving home after a fun night of partying, rushes your child to the hospital while he or she bleeds to death in a patrol car, and risks his life to protect yours during a robbery. Occasionally, he or she has to arrest an individual whether it be for a crime committed with a computer or not. Often when a police officer is killed in the line of duty, the news passes like a cold wind. It's much easier to put a bullet through a uniform than someone with a wife or husband and children. Ignorance is a disease of the mind which must be fought, not only with facts, but with a sound strategy. Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253