Post by: tortoise on July 22, 2003, 03:03:21 PM
Never a dull moment in this business; established PC client I have done work for in the past and I am currently replacing a failed HD in his CompaQ Laptop. Meanwhile he brings me a G4 titanium that he says his wife purchased at a DEA auction and he is locked out because of the password on the OS-X side will not let him in. Wants me to get in and wipe it clean and do a fresh install of everything. So I get inside and find the information on the previous owner, some nice Buddhist activist mother of two that hardly looks to be a drug dealer type. Just on a hunch I call her and she tells me it was stolen about six weeks ago and she would love to get it back, and if that is not possible at least recover her data from the machine before I wipe it. Told her to call her local Police and I did the same, waiting for an officer to arrive as I write this. Should be very interesting to see the outcome, at best I will see them both end up happy (presuming his story of the DEA auction is true), otherwise I will end up with one very happy owner and one very unhappy client
http://forums.dealmac.com/read.html?f=1&i=...80930&t=1280930
Post by: CyberPet on July 22, 2003, 03:16:52 PM
Post by: george on July 22, 2003, 03:24:54 PM
George.
Post by: pendragon on July 22, 2003, 03:49:25 PM
Thanks Tortoise!
Harv
Post by: Mayo on July 22, 2003, 04:32:48 PM
A similar post at Maccnn showed a different side of humanity. Without going into all the details in what appears to be a similar situation, the Macnn writer stated in his post that "I'm not a terribly ethical person..."
That statement has bothered me ever since I read it. Who would make such a statement publicly and how can a person see themselves that way and apparently not care? Respondents at Macnn were not very concerned that the Mac was probably stolen. (And purchased on eBay if memory serves...)
Which is a good example of the different vibes of Macnn and TS, IMNSHO.
Which leads me to a related topic, which is security on OS X. I use DiskLock with OS 9 and one reason that I haven't tried using X more is that DiskLock is incompatible with X. The app cannot even be used on a partitioned disk if X is installed on another volume. If I can find a way to securely lock my drives and encrypt files in X then I would be much more inclined to give it a go.
Otherwise, when my volumes are protected in DiskLock the startup splash screen shows my name, phone number and a message to ask for identification if the Mac is being serviced, etc. Without the password it isn't possible to get beyond the splash screen message. It is also my understanding that it isn't possible to get around the protection by booting with a system CD or any other method short of removing the protected drive.
Post by: Highmac on July 22, 2003, 04:46:00 PM
Just noticed - this is post No 700. Still got an awful long way to go to catch up with many of you, though.
Post by: giantmike on July 22, 2003, 05:01:14 PM
Post by: RobW on July 22, 2003, 05:34:15 PM
Post by: Bernie on July 22, 2003, 09:47:00 PM
are for the bad guys.
Post by: jepinto on July 22, 2003, 09:52:14 PM
Post by: Gary S on July 22, 2003, 10:07:05 PM
Post by: Paddy on July 22, 2003, 10:31:56 PM
And that story about the DEA certainly didn't ring true when the rightful owner said that the PB was stolen only 6 weeks ago! While things may be seized immediately upon arrest, actual FORFEITURE isn't a simple thing, and generally doesn't happen unless there has been a conviction. Know of any drug cases that proceeded from arrest to conviction in 6 weeks? Not in this country!The statutes pertaining to criminal forfeiture can be found here:
http://www.dea.gov/pubs/csa/853.htm#h
Before forfeited property is disposed of, there is supposed to be an attempt to make sure that there is no other "third party interest" - which one would hope would not have been an overwhelming task in this particular case, given that the rightful owner had reported the PB stolen AND it was clear that the defendant (fictional in this case, I'm sure) was not the rightful owner. In addition, there are certain legal requirements to give notice of disposition of forfeited property - again, this doesn't happen overnight.
Fishy, fishy, fishy...I'm now dying to know what the client told the cops!
Post by: RHPConsult on July 22, 2003, 11:51:41 PM
Even more useful was to post it . . . there being so few places these days . . . movies, books, media, so-called "music" etc. etc. where the "right thing" is celebrated.
Reading these days of the courage of the US military, firefighters and cops are reassuring exceptions to much of the dreck that seems to generate so much attention whereever one looks.
End of The Olde Man's Rant (for today)
PS: Maybe, someday, Jennie will tell the story of The Tie, a TS Historical Landmark!
Post by: beacher on July 23, 2003, 12:38:51 AM
Paddy, you're dead wrong about the confiscation thing. . .Your stuff can be confiscated and you have to SUE the police to get it back, often times costing more than it's worth, which is why the police absolutely LOVE the confiscation laws. Most people will just abandon their property, rather than deal with the expense and hassle. I have 2 close friends that are cops, and one of them is always driving some fancy car that they've grabbed. And then they get to sell them, and the police departments get to keep the proceeds of the auction! Whatever happened to guilty until proven innocent?
Post by: jepinto on July 23, 2003, 07:16:14 AM
QUOTE(beacher @ Jul 23 2003, 1:38 AM)
Your stuff can be confiscated and you have to SUE the police to get it back, often times costing more than it's worth, which is why the police absolutely LOVE the confiscation laws. Most people will just abandon their property, rather than deal with the expense and hassle. .....and the police departments get to keep the proceeds of the auction! Whatever happened to guilty until proven innocent?
And if one owns land the county sherriff wants to have for a youth camp (with his name on the gate, imagine that!), you'd be surprised at how quickly a reverse sting can be set up. And how even talking about another parcel owned during a conversation can cause that second parcel to be confiscated.
Or local law enforcement asking for radar guns and the justification is "it'll pay for itself the first month", or $90 tickets for "rolling through" a stop sign, at 1:30 a.m., no other cars on the road, at a stop sign that sits 20 feet back from the road one must turn onto? Or $95 speeding tickets handed out, conveniently, right where the speed limit drops from 45 to 35 designated only by one sign, which, oh SUPRISE is obscured by a utility pole?
Don't get me started! Our laws are now enforced for monetary gain. Who's guarding the hen house when the agency charged with enforcing the rules derives monetary gain from said enforcement?
Post by: Paddy on July 23, 2003, 08:24:15 AM
"Important differences exist between in rem and in personam forfeiture. First, while in personam forfeiture requires a criminal conviction of the property's owner, an in rem proceeding only requires the government to prove that the property was used for an illegal purpose or that the property constitutes contraband. Second, the government bears a lower burden of proof in an in rem forfeiture action than it does in an in personam action. Since an in personam action is criminal, the government must prove the charges against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. In an in rem action, on the other hand, only proof by a preponderance of the evidence is required."
Is there abuse? Undoubtedly. Is it a bad law? Seems counter to many of our basic rights and freedoms - it assumes that the "property" (rather than the person) is guilty until proven otherwise. It is a law designed to discourage drug trafficking, supposedly. Is it effective? Are any of the drug laws in the US effective? I would reply "not particularly" to the last two items...but that is a whole 'nother ball of wax.
One of the cases under consideration, where the defendants were not convicted (in fact the charges were dropped):
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/...02/011357-1.htm
The reasons why the case was dropped are not clear in the ruling from the NC Supreme Court ruling on the property forfeiture - one has to assume/hope that there was sufficient evidence to to prove that the property was used for an illegal purpose. I couldn't find any more information on this particular case, unfortunately. It does appear that the state laws regarding forfeiture vary considerably - NC's are "in personam" - though it would appear that NY's are different again - see the Cato institute book review below. The real trouble comes when the local jurisdiction hands the forfeited property over to the federal agencies...at which point it would appear that different rules may apply. And the federal agency, in these cases, "splits the pot" with the local agency (original arresting/seizing agency). So, there is some incentive to hand things off to the feds, isn't there, if you happen to be an agency that otherwise wouldn't be able to keep the stuff without a conviction? Oh what a tangled web!
More:
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/programs/af.htm (What the DEA says)
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/dea/pu...iefing/3_13.htm
http://reason.com/0107/ci.ml.railway.shtml
Interesting review published in the Cato Journal (journal of the Cato Institute, a conservative/libertarian think tank - whom I often violently disagree with - but in this case, their case for less government is probably well-founded and well-argued.)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-10.html
Where's Randy when we need him??
At any rate, given the timetable for forfeiture, I still think that the 6 weeks in and of itself is highly suspicious - the wheels of justice tend to grind a little more slowly than that.
Post by: tortoise on July 23, 2003, 10:15:18 AM
Update on the case; police informed me the laptop is being returned to the rightful owner. My client called and rather sheepishly backtracked a bit on the story, his wife bought it at maybe a garage sale or flea market rather than a DEA auction, he was a bit fuzzy and evasive at best on the exact details. He also admitted that the purchase price was $250 to which I replied anyone thinking they can buy a $3000 computer with a bag of related accessories for $250 should remember the old saying about “if it sounds too good to be true”
I did not belabor the point, and I think it is fair to say he got caught in an act of bad judgement at the very least. Apparently the police feel there is not a strong case for receiving stolen property, but they did inform him that if he has the paperwork they would happily assist him in following the money trail in a backwards progression as was suggested above and he might even recover his $250 investment. Does not sound like he is interested in pursuing the issue which again confirms my initial assessment of his role in all of this.
In our discussion he put most of it on his wife and said that I did the right thing and he had no hard feelings. He even said that if his work laptop (the legit CompaQ that is here awaiting a replacement HD) was ever stolen he would hope someone would do the same for him. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I also feel his demeanor has two primary motives. One is to cover his ass with the police and two to see to it that I finish the repairs on his CompaQ before he might express any displeasure with my actions. Perhaps I am too cynical but the changing stories make me suspect of any statements at this point.
On a final note to leagle, your comments and analysis were concise and interesting. I guess I owe you an apology for my blanket condemnation of the legal profession and government employees as a whole. That’s the trouble with generalizations and I know there are always exceptions and even good moral people who practice law. It is just so hard to remember when one looks at the collection of lawyers in Washington DC that we all affectionately refer to as our government of the people.
Post by: RHPConsult on July 23, 2003, 10:33:04 AM
It, as well as the other posts, remain mighty interesting . . .
Post by: Gary S on July 23, 2003, 10:44:42 AM
Spike Lee would be proud of you! "Do The Right Thing".
Looks like he uses OSX too.
Post by: beacher on July 23, 2003, 12:50:14 PM
And once again, Tortoise, we're proud to have you in our ranks!
Post by: Paddy on July 23, 2003, 03:45:06 PM
And yes, Beacher, it proved to be an interesting bit of research. (and BTW, I mixed up "in rem" and "in personam" in my first sentence - "in rem" is the civil type of forfeiture) - potentially scary stuff. Remind me not to carry $646,000 with me next time I get on an Amtrak train!
Post by: kelly on July 23, 2003, 06:56:11 PM
Think how happy the original owner will be.