Muhamad Arif Komarudin ( 30208254 )
PCE 0801
WHO’S KEVIN POULSEN ?
Kevin Lee Poulsen (born 1965 in Pasadena, California, U.S.) . He is currently a senior editor at Wired News. Before segueing into journalism, he had a controversial career in the 1980s as ahacker whose handle was Dark Dante. He worked for SRI International by day, and hacked at night. During this time, Poulsen taught himself lock picking, and engaged in a brash spree of high-tech stunts that would ultimately make him one of America's best-known cyber-criminals. Among other things, Poulsen reactivated oldYellow Page escort telephone numbers for an acquaintance that then ran a virtual escort agency.
His best-appreciated hack was a takeover of all of the telephone lines for Los Angeles radio station KIIS-FM, guaranteeing that he would be the 102nd caller and win the prize of a Porsche 944 S2.
When the FBI started pursuing Poulsen, he went underground as a fugitive. When he was featured on NBC's Unsolved Mysteries, the show's1-800 telephone lines mysteriously crashed.[2][4] He was finally arrested in April 1991. In June 1994, Poulsen pleaded guilty to seven counts of mail, wire and computer fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice, and was sentenced to 51 months in prison and ordered to pay $56,000 in restitution. At the time, it was the longest sentence ever given for cracking. He also pleaded guilty to breaking into computers and obtaining information on undercover businesses run by the FBI.
Poulsen enjoyed brief celebrity in the tech world upon his release from federal prison, and was the subject of the book Watchman: The Twisted Life and Crimes of Serial Hacker Kevin Poulsen, a work which Poulsen himself has decried.
Poulsen has reinvented himself as a journalist since his release from prison, and sought to distance himself from his criminal past. Poulsen served in a number of journalistic capacities at California-based security research firm SecurityFocus, where he began writing security and hacking news in early 2000. Despite a late arrival to a market saturated with technology media, SecurityFocus News became a well-known name in the tech news world during Poulsen's tenure with the company and was acquired by Symantec. His original investigative reporting was frequently picked up by the mainstream press. Poulsen left SecurityFocus in 2005 to freelance and pursue independent writing projects. He became a senior editor for Wired News in June 2005, which hosts his recent (as of 2006) blog, 27BStroke6, which has since been renamed Threat Level.
KESIMPULANNYA :
Kevin poulsen ini di kenal dengan sebutan Dark dante kemahirannya adalah menghack lewat phone lines. Bnayak kasus kriminal yang dia lakukan melalui Dunia maya dan dia adalah seorang black hat hacker. Dan dia di penjara selama 51 bulandan harus membayar denda sebesar $56.000 , dam setealah keluar dar penjara kevin poulsen terlahir lagi sebagai seorang wartawan.
Tugas Etika profesi
Muhamad Arif Komarudin ( 30208254 )
PCE 0801
The Supreme Court appears likely to rule against public employees who claimed a local government violated their privacy by reading racy text messages they sent on their employers' account.
Several justices said today that the employer, the Ontario, Calif., police department, acted reasonably in monitoring the text messages in view of its written policy warning employees they have no guarantee of privacy in the use of office computer and electronics equipment.
Justice Stephen Breyer said he didn't see "anything, quite honestly, unreasonable about that."
While the case involves government workers, the decision could have broader privacy implications as courts continue to sort out privacy issues in the digital age. Many employers, including Ontario, tell workers there is no guarantee of privacy in anything sent over their company- or government-provided computers, cell phones or pagers.
The case arose when the Ontario department decided to audit text message usage to see whether its SWAT team officers were using them too often for personal reasons. Three police officers and another employee complained that the department improperly snooped on their electronic exchanges, including many that were said to be sexually explicit.
An Ontario police official had earlier informally told officers that no one would look further if officers personally paid for charges above a monthly allowance.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the informal policy was enough to give the officers a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their text messages and establish that their constitutional rights had been violated. The appeals court also faulted the text-messaging service for turning over transcripts of the messages without the officers' consent. The court declined to hear the appeal of USA Mobility Wireless, Inc., which bought the text-messaging service involved in the case.
The Obama administration is backing the city, arguing that the written policy, not any informal warning, is what matters. "The computer help desk cannot supplant the chief's desk. That simple, clear rule should have decided this case," Justice Department lawyer Neal Katyal said.
More broadly, Katyal said, the appeals court ruling calls into question policies put in place by governments across the country. "Thousands of employers rely on these policies, and millions of employees," he said.
The court could take a very narrow path out of the case. Because the employees involved are police officers, several justices said that their communications might be sought by defense lawyers in criminal cases.
"I mean, wouldn't you just assume that that whole universe of conversations by SWAT officers who were on duty 24/7 might well have to be reviewed by some member of the public or some of their superiors?" Justice John Paul Stevens said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wondered whether the reason for looking at the messages mattered. "Let's assume that in this police department, everyone knew, the supervisors and everyone else, that the police department people spoke to their girlfriends at night," Sotomayor said. "And one of the chiefs, out of salacious interest, decides: I'm going to just go in and get those texts, those messages, because I just have a prurient interest."
It wouldn't matter, said Kent Richland, the city's lawyer, and Justice Antonin Scalia chimed that he agreed. "So when the filthy-minded police chief listens in, it's a very bad thing, but it's not offending your right of privacy. You expected somebody else could listen in, if not him," Scalia said.
Chief Justice John Roberts was alone in asking questions that suggested he would side with the officers. Roberts said the department might have allowed officers to black out any messages they were willing to pay for, providing an accurate picture of text message usage without compromising privacy.
The argument also displayed the limits on the justices' mastery of modern communications devices as Roberts tried to figure out the role of the text-messaging service in enabling an exchange between two people.
"I thought, you know, you push a button; it goes right to the other thing," Roberts said.
"You mean it doesn't go right to the other thing?" Scalia said.
A decision is expected later this year
TRANSLATE :
Pengadilan tertinggi sepertinya akan membuat penentangan pada pegawai umum yang
mengklaim bahwa pemerintah daerah telah melanggar privasi mereka dengan membaca
pesan teks yang agak sedikit jorok yg dikirimkan ke akun para pegawai
Beberapa (Justice=semacam pangkat jiga manager dll) bilang bahwa pegawai, ontario, dept polisi California
layak dalam memonitoring pesan text untuk dilihat karena dituliskan dalam peringatan policy(kebijakan)
tertulis untuk pegawai bahwa mereka tidak memiliki jaminan akan privasi mereka dlm penggunaan komputer
dan perlengkapan lainnya
Justice Stephen Breyer mengatakan dia tidak melihat "apapun, sejujurnya, tak masuk akal mengenai itu
sementara kasus itu melibatkan pegawai pemerintah, keputusuan bisa memiliki impilikasi privasi yang lebih luas
selama Pengadilan melanjutkan untuk memisahkan pokok persoalan privasi di era digital. Banyak pegawai, termasuk
Ontario, mengatakan pada pekerja bahwa tidak ada jaminan pirvasi pada apapun yang dikirimkan melalui computer, HP,
ataupun pager yang disediakan oleh perusahaan.
Kasus ini muncul setelah Dept.Ontario memutuskan untuk mengaudit penggunaan pesan teks untuk melihat apakah opsir2
team SWAT menggunakannya terlalu sering untuk alasan pribadi. 3 opsir polisi dan pegawai lainnya komplain bahwa
departemen tidak patut mengintip pertukaran elektronik mereka, termasuk banyak hal yg bs digolongkan kategori seksual
Seorang pejabat polisi ontario sudah diberi tahu sebelumnya secara tidak resmi bahwa opsir yang tidak akan dicari lebih lanjut
ialah opsir yang secara personal "membayar" di atas gaji perbulannya
9th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals di San Fransisco mengatakan bahwa kebijakan informal itu cukup untuk memberikan para
opsir "pengaharapan yang layak akan privasi" dalam pesan teks mereka dan menetapkan bahwa hak konstitusional mereka telah
dilanggar. Appeal Court juga menyalahkan servis pesan teks yg telah membelokan transkrip pesan tanpa sepengetahuan opsir
Pengadilan menolak untuk mendengar permohonan dari USA Mobility Wireless, Inc. yang membeli servis pesan text yg terlibat
dalam kasus ini
Administrasi Obama menyokong kota, memperdebatkan bahwa kebijakan tertulis, bukan peringatan informal, yg menjadi masalah.
"Komputer help desk tidak bisa menggantikan chief desk. Aturan yg simple dan jelas itulah yg seharusnya menentukan kasus ini."
Kata pengacara Justice departemen Neal Katyal.
Lebih luasnya, Katyal bilang, pertimbangan pengadilan menguasai panggilan menjadi pertanyaan kebijakan ditempatkan pada pemerintah
di pelosok negeri. "Ribuan pegawai bergantung pada kebijakan ini, dan jg Jutaan lainnya," dia bilang
pengadilan mengambil jalan sangat sempit diluar kasus ini. karena pegawai yg terlibat adalah opsir polisi, beberapa justice
bilang bahwa komunikasi mungkin dicari oleh pengacara pertahanan dalam kasus kriminal
"Maksudku, akankah kamu beranggapan bahwa seluruh alam semesta komunikasi oleh opsir SWAT yang bertugas pada 24/7 mungkin
harus di review oleh beberapa anggota umum atau oleh atasan mereka?" kata Justice John Paul Stevens
Justice Sonia Sotomayor heran dengan alasan untuk melihat pesan menjadi masalah. "kita asumsikan bahwa di departemen polisi, semua orang tau
, supervisor dan lainnya bahwa orang2 departemen polisi berbicara pada pacar mereka pada malam hari." Sotomayor bilang
"dan salah satu dari kepala, memiliki ketertarikan mesum, memutuskan : "Saya akan pergi ke dalam dan mengambil teks dan pesan
tersebut karena saya memiliki keterarikan akan hal mesum2.
Itu tidak akan menjadi masalah, kata Kent Richland, pengacara Kota, dan Justice Antonin Scalia menyetujui. "jadi ketika
kepala polisi dengan pikiran mesum mendengar, itu akan menjadi hal yang buruk, tapi bukan brarti itu melanggar hak privasi.
kau mengharapkan orang lain mendengarkannya, kalau bkn dia," kata Scalia
Kepala Justice John Roberts sendirian dalam menanyakan pertanyaan yang mengusulkan bahwa dia akan berpihak pada opsir.
Roberts bilang bahwa departemen mungkin mengijinkan opsir2 untuk menggelapkan pesan apapun yang akan mereka bayar, menyediakan
gambar yang akurat dari penggunaan pesan text tanpa membahayakan privasi
Perdebatan itu juga menampilkan batasan keahlian Justice dalam alat2 komunikasi modern seperti Robert coba mencari tahu
peranan dari servis pesan teks yang memungkinkan adanya pertukaran antara 2 orang.
"aku pikir, kau tahu, kau tekan tombol; dan lalu itu pun sampai ke tempat lain," kata robert
"maksudmu itu tidak langsung sampai ke tempat lain?" kaya Scalia
keputusan diharapkan nanti pada tahun ini
COMMENT :
Menurut pandangan saya disini, keputusan pemerintah daerah Ontario untuk menyadap semua aktivitas yang di lakukan oleh para pegawai melalui media elektronik seperti komputer ( email , dll), handphone dan pager sudah melewati batas privasi antara suatu perusahaan dengan pegawainya. Walaupun secara tersurat pada peraturan daerah tertulis bahwa dept. kepolisian Ontario tidak menjamin privasi pegawai dalam penggunaan komputer dan perangkat elektronik lainnya. Tetapi tidak etis apabila di kaitkan secara moral. loh toh apabila alasannya mengatas namakan keamanan atau apapun itu dept. kepolisian Ontario dapat melakukan filter tidak menyadap semua informasi yang ada.
SUMBER:
