Thomas G. Tcimpidis, Sysop of the MOG-UR BBS, has his personal computer and data storage seized by the Los Angeles Police when Pacific Tel determines that one of his message bases contains a stolen Calling Card number.
In 1984, Tom Tcimpidis was running an electronic bulletin board system. Tom's
BBS was very active, with many conferences. He did not monitor or read all
notes in all the conferences, so he did not realize that some folks were
exchanging stolen long-distance telephone credit-card numbers in a conference
on his BBS. The local phone company got a tip that Tom's BBS was being used
by such thieves, dialed up Tom's BBS to verify those facts, and having done
so, swore out a criminal warrant for Tom's arrest. Tom was arrested, and his
computer and floppy disks were confiscated.
Tom quickly appeared (by entering a message via modem) in the LAWyers
Special Interest Group (LAW SIG) on the CompuServe network - he had to
use a friends computer to do so since his had been taken by the local
prosecutors. He posted messages advising the lawyers in the electronic
conference of the above facts, that he had no knowledge such activities
were taking place on his BBS, that he was a working stiff without funds
to pay lawyers' fees, and that he needed help. Los Angeles attorney and
solo practitioner Charles K. Lindner, another participant in the LAW SIG,
volunteered to represent Tom. Chuck pointed out that serious legal issues
were involved in the case--issues that could have a significant and adverse
effect on the development of telecommunications and teleconferencing should
Tom be convicted - could the operator of an on-line system b held criminally
liable for activities and information on the operators system of which the
operator had no knowledge?. Chuck asked if other lawyers on the system would
help him in the defense of Tom's case.
Several of us, concerned about the threat of such a criminal action to the
development and growth of what we instinctively knew was very, very important
technology, jumped to the task and responded that we would help. We discussed
the facts in the LAW SIG conference; Chuck uploaded a copy of the statute
under which Tom was charged, and we dissected the statute; many of us did
legal research, electronically posting the results in the conference. We
debated, argued, and discussed the legal issues and existing case law--all
by teleconference. As we moved forward with our discussions and analysis we
commenced to prepare a motion to dismiss. Chuck, as the lawyer of record,
worked with all of us, using the important information we had provided and
prepared, and filed a collectively created motion to dismiss the case and a
brief in support thereof.
The end result was that in the face of this well researched motion and
supporting authority--the product of group action by attorneys from around
the country via a teleconference--the state's attorney dismissed the entire
case on its own motion and with prejudice! A total victory for Tom--and for
teleconferencing!
Without on-line telecommunications and teleconferencing, such a result would
have been impossible. It would have been impossible for Chuck to talk and
deal with all the attorneys via "normal" methods of communication--voice
telephone calls and correspondence - to say nothing of the fact that prior
to all of us being a part of this on-line conference, none of us knew each
other. He could never have contacted us all in a timely fashion. Nor could
he have dealt with all this information--found it, had it analyzed, produced
documents--from divergent parts of the country. Indeed, most of us did our
work late at night, in non-prime time--remember, this was pro bono for all
of us.