[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Responding to msg by [email protected] ("Declan B. McCullagh") on
Sun, 31 Mar 10:42 AM
>One gave me the impression the DoJ had to develop
>custom hardware and software for this "Internet
>wiretap" done without Harvard's direct cooperation.
DoJ is probably cutting spying-sensitive Harvard some slack, or
slyly crowing about setting up the Crimson butts with a promise
for deniability. Is it possible that the CFP chit-chat revved
that Janus-spin, practicing for more pervasive cyber-sleuth
slathering of wannabe L&O insiders?
The New York Times, March 31, 1996, p. 20.
First Internet Wiretap Leads to a Suspect
[Excerpts of story not in the TWP]
Stephen P. Heymann, a Federal prosecutor in Boston, said
investigators had worked with Harvard to determine a method
of tracking the suspect that would protect the privacy of
He said that the Harvard system had 16,500 accounts and
13,000 users and that about 60,000 E-mail messages each day
moved in and out of the area where investigators were
looking for the intruder.
Mr. Heymann said investigators had used a high-speed
computer to check for 10 to 15 key words that matched the
intruder's profile. If they were not sure if an electronic
communication containing a key word was Mr. Ardita's, the
investigators looked at 80 characters on either side of the
key word to make that determination. Mr. Heymann said
investigators believed that only twice had they read a
complete message that was not Mr. Ardita's.