To be honest, it can be kind of amusing watching people talk about Internet technologies when they don’t really understand it. There are entire websites dedicated to the kinds of things I used to hear regularly when I managed the tech support department for a regional Internet Service Provider.

Part of my job there was processing subpoena’s for local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. I can’t count the number of times I needed to not only produce data to comply with court orders but also provide a crash course in what the data actually means. This includes pointing out to people that really did not understand that someone could be on a Comcast cable internet connection at home and still send mail from their user@xyzcompany.com address. The Internet is both more simple and more complex than many people realize.

I learned quickly that people of all ages are scattered throughout our criminal justice system. These people are being asked to address computer related crime or complaints from citizens where some or all of the potential crime takes place via the Internet. When the police or a prosecutor tries to tackle these matter — with the best of intentions — they can end up creating a lot more problems for victims, suspects, and wastes a lot of time and resources.

In this week’s Forum On Risks To The Public In Computers And Related Systems mailing (subscribe here) at ) there is a story that really illustrates why changing technology is such a challenge for law enforcement folks that are not prepared to properly investigate complaints that involve technology.

Mark Hamblett, Mistaken Identity in Civil Rights Lawsuit
Bronx [NYC] resident William Hallowell filed suit in the Southern District yesterday claiming police and prosecutors blundered by wrongfully arresting him for an e-mail he never sent.

Mr. Hallowell was working part time at the Riverdale Country School Library in April 2007, and exchanging e-mails about the return of a library key with his supervisor, Robin Berson, when Ms. Berson inadvertently typed the wrong e-mail address – to a Ben Hallowell.

She received in return an unsigned e-mail saying the recipient had sold the key for “hookers,” a “handful” of drugs and a gun. The writer also professed his desire for Ms. Berson and proposed a sexual liaison in the library.

The lawsuit alleges that, on a complaint from Ms. Berson, New York City police, “Despite the obvious lack of evidence against him,” arrested William Hallowell and held him for more than 30 hours.

The complaint, charging false arrest and malicious prosecution, states, “Determined to make an arrest, any arrest, defendants bluntly violated Mr. Hallowell’s rights by turning a blind eye to the overwhelming evidence of his innocence,” and blames prosecutors for waiting for four months to dismiss the case. The Bronx County District Attorney’s Office declined comment.

This, I realize, is an extreme example, but it could have all been avoided with a quick perusal of the e-mail messages with intact mail headers would have quickly clarified the situation and avoided this huge mess.

The New York Times reported on this July 10th in an article titled Suit Says Man Was Arrested for Nasty E-Mail Message He Didn’t Write.

In the suit, which names New York City and several police officers as defendants, Mr. Hallowell, 24, says that the officers “deliberately and maliciously ignored a mountain of evidence” that proved that he did not send the offending message.

In an interview, he added that the officers did not even seem to understand how e-mail addresses work.

“I said it to them literally, ‘I don’t know,’ countless times. ‘That’s not my name.’ ‘That’s not my e-mail.’ ‘I did not send that.’ “

The harassment charge was dropped last August, the lawsuit said, because of a lack of evidence, but only after Mr. Hallowell made three court appearances over four months.

With any luck, cases like this will result in prosecutor offices and other law enforcement agencies either hiring on-staff technologists or making use of experts as contractors. So much other stuff has been outsourced by local, state, and federal agencies that it shouldn’t be hard to put a contract for an on-call geek out for bids.

Mr. Hallowell clearly had his civil rights violated, his personal reputation dragged through the mud, and his life interrupted by multiple court appearances and over twenty-four hours behind bars on top of the injustice of being arrested for a crime he knew nothing about. This is not an “oops” – this is an American life seriously harmed by a lack of technical competence on the part of New York City law enforcement personnel.

Justice should be blind, but not computer illiterate.

John McCain may like to talk tough on the campaign trail, but for over two decades he has failed to deliver for the law enforcement community.

MCCAIN VS. THE COPS PROGRAM:

2005: McCain Voted For Corporate Tax Breaks Instead of $1 Billion for COPS. In 2005, McCain voted against providing $1 billion for the COPS program, offset by closing corporate tax loopholes. [2005 Senate Vote #70, 3/17/2005]

2003: McCain Voted Against $500 Million For Local Law Enforcement To Help Fight Drug-Related Crime. McCain voted against providing $500 million for local law enforcement grants that provide money to rural law enforcement agencies to fight violent and drug-related crime. [2003 Senate Vote #6, 1/17/2003]

1995: McCain Voted To Eliminate the Successful COPS Program. In 1995, McCain voted for the Republican Commerce-Justice spending bill which included a plan “to dismantle [the] cops-on-the-beat program” [COPS] and replace it with a “block grant program giving local governments control over how to spend crime-fighting money.” [1995 Senate Vote #591, 12/7/1995; Chicago Tribune, 12/8/1995]

MCCAIN VS. FIRST RESPONDERS AND HOMELAND SECURITY:

McCain Voted To Eliminate A $100 Million Fund For Emergency Communications Equipment. McCain voted to support an amendment that eliminates $1 billion Commerce Department interoperability grant program and transfers funds to Department of Homeland Security for an uncreated interoperability grant program; and eliminates $100 million fund for strategic reserves of communications equipment designed for deployment in event of major disaster. [2007 Senate Vote #66, 3/7/2007]

MCCAIN VS. 1994 CRIME BILL:

McCain Voted Against the Landmark $30.2 Billion 1994 Crime Bill. In 1994, McCain voted against the Crime Bill which has authorized $30.2 billion over six years for crime related programs, including the hiring of additional police officers, prison building, helping communities prevent crime, and an assault weapons ban. [1994 Senate Vote #295, 8/25/1994]

McCain Said The Crime Bill Was “Ineffective” and “Ill-Conceived.” McCain repeatedly criticized the 1994 crime bill, calling it “an ineffective, ill conceived and pork laden piece of legislation.” He said he voted against final passage of the bill because of “the unfair allocation formulas and excessive spending that were added to the bill in conference and the weakening in conference of the tough law enforcement provisions that were included in the original bill adopted by the Senate.” [Arizona Republic, 8/26/1994]

After casting himself as a “Maverick” in 2000, the new John McCain is walking in lockstep with President Bush, pandering to the right wing of the Republican Party, and embracing the ideology he once denounced. On the campaign trail McCain has callously abandoned many of his previously held positions, even contradicted himself, in a blatant attempt to remake himself into a candidate Republicans can accept in 2008. So just who is the real John McCain? The Democratic National Committee will present a daily fact aimed at exposing the man behind the myth.

You can find the other McCain Mythbusters at the DNC’s press release archive.