From deke Thu May 26 07:23:51 1994
Received: from localhost by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id AAA02623; Thu, 26 May 1994 00:23:50 -0700
From: deke (Deke Motif Nihilson)
Message-Id: <199405260723.AAA02623@wps.com>
Subject: TObust (fwd)
To: sciww (Santa Cruz IWW)
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 00:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: deke (Deke Motif Nihilson), vad (Crys-Vad Hyphus)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3894      
X-Status: 
Status: OR

*****************************
*****HEADER INFO DELETED*****
*****************************
> Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 22:00:16 -0400 (EDT)
> From: [anonymous EFF member]
> 
> Note: due to the current political climate in Ontario,  please  do  not 
> forward  this  story over the net with my name on it. Reading the story 
> will explain why. There is increasing evidence that with  in  the  next 
> two  years  we may see in Canada a similar situation as has been taking 
> place in Italy over the last  few  weeks  with  the  shutting  down  of 
> 'amature' BBS sites.
> 
> As  reported  in  Toronto's  EYE Newspaper [eye@io.org] (similar to New 
> Yorks Village Voice) dated May 19. 1994
> 
>  The London Ontario detachment of the Ontario  Provincial  Police  have 
> begun  a campaign of harassment against local University Internet users 
> who are attempting to use the 'net to gain  information  on  the  Karla 
> Homolka trial. A University of Western Ontario (London) student had his 
> Internet account frozen by the university computer staff when requested 
> by the Police. The reason for this lay in the student's name being left 
> on the text of a FAQ of the details of the trial.  Another  student  in 
> Toronto  had Faxed this material (which had been Emailed to him) to the 
> Toronto media, and the offices  of  the  Premier  of  Ontario  and  the 
> Attorney-General  as an act of provocation against the Ban (his regular 
> anonymous forwarding site was not working).The problem was that he  had 
> forgotten  to remove the other persons name and account number from the 
> original E-mail that was sent out. 
> 
>     The police action against the student's account was done without  a 
> warrant,  and also involved the questioning of the student at the local 
> police station.  Likewise  the  students  home  computer  was  searched 
> without  a  warrant  by  using  the  threat  of  criminal  charges. The 
> Student's computer account was re-instated, but he was required to turn 
> over  all  incoming  Email  to  the police under the threat of criminal 
> charges if he did not cooperate. A list of  about  50  people  who  had 
> received  Homolka  FAQ's  were  passed on to the police.  The important 
> part of this entire situation is that no  one,  including  the  Ontario 
> Attorney-General  office  is  certain  that  the  ban  applies  to  the 
> Internet. The ban states that details of the trial cannot be  published 
> in  the  print  media but there is no ban on possession of information. 
> There is no mention of the Internet, nor the use of computer systems in 
> the ban. Further, there is no official investigation of the Internet on 
> the part  of  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police,  except  for  this  one 
> detachment. 
> 
>    One of the questions raised is the ethics of the University of Western
> Ontario's computer department. Their cooperation with the police was based
> on a fear of having their computer equipment confiscated (similar to the
> case of the University of Cambridge in England). If the situation had
> taken place with in the library system of the university, it would not have 
> been tolerated by the library staff due to the long held tradition in 
> that profession of the defence of freedom of speech. If the Internet is 
> to remain open this set of values will have to become part of the 
> professional comittment of the MIS staff of universities as well.
>  
> ____ end fwd ______
> 
> -- 
**************NAME DELETED****************
> 
> "In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich
> Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of
> phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps.
> When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it."
> - Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Who Should Keep the Keys", TIME, Mar. 14 1994
> 


--