Are booby-trapped computers legal?

(I've changed the name of this thread.)

At 2:30 AM 9/6/95, Lucky Green wrote:

>I am wondering about the legalities of booby trapped computer equipment.
>Would it be legal if a clear warning to the fact was posted on the
>hardware?

There are two types of "booby traps" to consider:

* Type 1 Booby Trap: a shotgun is placed inside a home, set to fire if and
when a burglar enters. Or an electrified region of a room is set to "get
energized" when an intruder enters. These are "surprises" and are canonical
booby traps.

These have been found to be illegal in several court cases. (I'm not a
lawyer, but I've been reading about them for 20 years. Famous cases where a
burglar sued, and won, because he was injured when breaking into a house.)

* Type 2 Booby Trap: electrified perimeter fences. So long as these are
adequately marked ("If you touch this fence, you will probably die"), and
are not public nuisances where children and pets will inadvertently
validate Darwin's theory, these are--I think--legal. There may be license
fees required, to build an electrified fence, but I think it is possible to
build a lethal voltage electrified fence on one's property.

Thus, I suspect it is fully legal to build an electrified fence around
one's PC, providing suitable warnings are included.

I would not call the second type a real booby trap, though some courts
might, depending. A properly labelled electrified fence seems legal, on
one's own property, but may not be. And certainly I think any
explosive-rigged system is illegal, for explosives reasons if not for booby
trap reasons.

I know of no case law on this, and suspect that if an FBI agent were to be
electrocuted or blown up upon trying to open/use/disconnect the PC, even
with clear warnings, that a prosecution would happen. Results are unclear
(to me).

(I think that if an FBI agent were to be electrocuted while climbing on a
clearly labelled electrified fence, no prosecution would result.)

Of course, if a PC were to be clearly labelled as being rigged, then steps
could presumably be taken to defuse the arrangement.

>Interesting side note: a few months ago, several hundred 5 gallon
>containers of insecticide were stolen from the lot of an agricultural
>supply dealer here in California.  The incident made a small note in the SF
>Chronicle. It was mentioned that the FBI is taking part in the
>investigation.
>
>What wasn't mentioned was that this insecticide is an ideal precursor to
>various forms of neuro toxins, namely Tabun and Soman, two types of nerve
>gas so vicious and toxic that even Hitler refused to approve their use. I
>predict that eventful times are just around the corner.

As Lucky knows, I live out in the country. I agree that some "muckers"
(R.I.P. John Brunner) are likely to mount assaults on urban centers.

Bad news for some. But then the good news is that the threat of nuclear
annihilation has all but gone away completely, and that cancels out an
awful lot of the minor bad news items the scribblers keep telling us are so
awful.

--Tim May

---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
Corralitos, CA              | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^756839      | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

> 
> There are two types of "booby traps" to consider:
> 
> * Type 1 Booby Trap: a shotgun is placed inside a home, set to fire if and
> when a burglar enters. Or an electrified region of a room is set to "get
> energized" when an intruder enters. These are "surprises" and are canonical
> booby traps.
> 
> These have been found to be illegal in several court cases. (I'm not a
> lawyer, but I've been reading about them for 20 years. Famous cases where a
> burglar sued, and won, because he was injured when breaking into a house.)
> 

These are completely illegal in Texas and Florida for shure. To make such
devices legal the state legal system has to equate property value to parity
with life. See below for further comment on this.

> * Type 2 Booby Trap: electrified perimeter fences. So long as these are
> adequately marked ("If you touch this fence, you will probably die"), and
> are not public nuisances where children and pets will inadvertently
> validate Darwin's theory, these are--I think--legal. There may be license
> fees required, to build an electrified fence, but I think it is possible to
> build a lethal voltage electrified fence on one's property.
> 
> Thus, I suspect it is fully legal to build an electrified fence around
> one's PC, providing suitable warnings are included.
> 

As far as I know the owner of property has no legal right to kill a person
either traspassing or stealing it in any of the 50 states. There was a
recent federal ruling that basicly says that if you meet a burglar in your
home at nite you can not kill or otherwise harm them unless you're life is
directly threatened. In short, you MUST give up the ground if at all
possible. Federal and all 50 states (as far as I have been able to
determine) rule human life to have a inherantly higher value than property
of any type (this does not apply to government institutions).

In Texas and all other cattle states that I am aware of, there are specific
laws that limit how much voltage and current capacity an electrified fence
can have. These laws specificaly prohibit any form of lethal installation.
There is no license required nor do you have to mark the fences as electrified.

To address the issue of premeditation in regards to this sort of system,
does attempted murder ring any bells? If the officer(s) have warrents (and
it is not up to the accussed to decide that issue at any time) and you
refuse to assist them you are guilty of a crime (justifiably so).

> I would not call the second type a real booby trap, though some courts
> might, depending. A properly labelled electrified fence seems legal, on
> one's own property, but may not be. And certainly I think any
> explosive-rigged system is illegal, for explosives reasons if not for booby
> trap reasons.
> 

I don't know what you call it but if nothing else it is ethicaly and moraly
reprehinsible.

> I know of no case law on this, and suspect that if an FBI agent were to be
> electrocuted or blown up upon trying to open/use/disconnect the PC, even
> with clear warnings, that a prosecution would happen. Results are unclear
> (to me).
> 
> (I think that if an FBI agent were to be electrocuted while climbing on a
> clearly labelled electrified fence, no prosecution would result.)
> 

Of course not, the FBI as SOP turn the electricity, water, etc. off prior to
assaults. In either case the person responsible for the electrification
would find themselves in court facing some nasty charges. The law does not
recognize the awareness of the victim in these types of cases. It in general
falls to the owner/operator to inshure safe operating conditions. In the
case off electrification this would mean current limiting on the power
supply such that no permanent damage would result to the hapless.

I am pretty sure that it is lawful to use deadly force to protect 
property, in New Mexico.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Tue, 5 Sep 1995, Jim Choate wrote:

> . . . federal ruling that basicly says that if you meet a burglar in your
> home at nite you can not kill or otherwise harm them unless you're life is
> directly threatened. In short, you MUST give up the ground if at all
> possible. . . . 

Citation please.  Killing is usually a state matter.  I doubt
there was any such federal ruling.

In California, there is a legal presumption that anyone who
illegally enters an occupied dwelling, at night, is a threat
to life or great bodily harm.  You may, therefore, use deadly
force without further evidence.  (This means you can shoot 'em
in the back if you want.)

Now back to the booby-trapped computer thread:

I think it would be better to have your booby-trap kill your 
data, not the nice men in the nomex ski masks.  While those folks
might take a dim view of the former, they would most certainly
would take extreme umbridge at the latter.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From tcmay@got.netWed Sep  6 00:30:39 1995
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 20:49:25 -0700
From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Are booby-trapped computers legal?


(I've changed the name of this thread.)

At 2:30 AM 9/6/95, Lucky Green wrote:

>>I am wondering about the legalities of booby trapped computer 
equipment.
>>Would it be legal if a clear warning to the fact was posted on the
>>hardware?

>There are two types of "booby traps" to consider:

>* Type 1 Booby Trap: a shotgun is placed inside a home, set to fire if 
>and when a burglar enters. Or an electrified region of a room is set to 
>"get energized" when an intruder enters. These are "surprises" and are 
>canonical booby traps.

>These have been found to be illegal in several court cases. (I'm not a
>lawyer, but I've been reading about them for 20 years. Famous cases 
>where a burglar sued, and won, because he was injured when breaking 
>into a house.)

Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d  657  (Iowa 1971).

The defendants owned an old, boarded-up house, located several miles 
from their home, in which they stored various old bottles, fruit jars 
and the like, which they considered to be antiques.  Several times 
during the previous several years the windows in the house had been 
broken and the entire place "messed up."  The defendants first posted 
"no tresspass" signs to keep off intruders, but the break-ins continued.  
Shortly before the injury to the plaintiff, the defendants placed a 
"shotgun trap" in one of the bedrooms.  The gun was first positioned so 
as to hit an intruder in the stomach, but Mr. Briney, at his wife's 
insistance, lowered it to hit at the legs.  He said that he set the gun 
"because I was mad and tired of being tormented," but insisted that "he 
did not intend to injure anyone."

The plaintiff was shot in the legs and permantly injured when he entered 
the defendant's bedroom shortly after the gun was set.  He had been to 
the place several times before, and had intended upon this occasion to 
steal some of the defendant's possessions.  The plaintiff pleaded guilty 
to a charge of larceny and paid a fine of $50.  He also sued the 
defendant for personal injuries and was awarded $20,000 in actual 
damages and $10,000 in punitive damages.

[Jury instruction #6 was one of the items at issue in the appeal to the 
Iowa Supreme court]

Instruction 6 stated: "An owner of a premises is prohibited from 
willfully or intentionally injuring a tresspasser by means of force that 
either takes life or inflicts great bodily injury and therefore a person 
owning a premise is prohibited from setting out "spring guns" and like 
dangerous devices which will likely take life or inflict great bodily 
injury, for the purpose of harming tresspassers.  The fact that the 
tresspasser may be acting in violation of the law does not change the 
rule.  The only time when such conduct of setting a "spring gun" or a 
like dangerous device is justified would be when the tresspasser was 
committing a felony of violence or a felony punishable by death, or 
where the trespasser was endangering human life by his act."

[Upheld on appeal]

Note that the case caused a literal riot in Iowa.  Checks poured in to 
the Briney's (the boobytrappers) from everywhere (by one account, even 
from prisons).  They raised over $10,000 this way.  Briney was heard to 
comment: "They used booby traps in Viet Nam didn't they?"  Asked if he 
would do it again:  "There's one thing I'd do different, though, I'd 
have aimed that gun a few feet higher."  Reference is given to a front 
page story in the Chicago Trib. of April 25, 1975.

See also, Allison v. Fiscus, 156 Ohio St. 120, 100 N.E.2d 237 (1951).
[Plaintiff could collect damages when he was injured by a booby trap 
consisting of two sticks of dynamite even though he was feloniously 
breaking into defendant's warehouse with intent to steal.]

Some states allow a criminal liability, even of homocide, to landowners 
installing booby traps.

The basic rule today in most states resembles the restatement position:

Section 85.  Use of Mechanical Device Threatening Death or Serious 
Bodily Injury.

The actor is so far privileged to use such a device intended or likely 
to cause serious bodily harm or death for the purpose of protecting his 
land or chattels from intrusion that he is not liable for the serious 
bodily harm or death thereby caused to an intruder whose intrusion is, 
in fact, such that the actor, were he present, would be privileged to 
prevent or terminate it by the intentional infliction of such harm.

Some states have deviated from Section 85, however, California included.

People v. Caballos, 12 Cal. 470, 526 P.2d 241, 116 Cal. Rptr. 233 
(1974).  "It seems clear that the use of such [mechanical] devices 
should not be encouraged.  Moreover, whatever may be thought in torts, 
the [Restatement] rule setting forth an exception to liability for death 
or injuries inflicted by such devices 'is inappropriate in penal law for 
it is obvious that it does not prescribe a workable standard of conduct; 
liability depend on fortuitous results.'  (i.e. what the trespasser was 
doing in there in the first place)

What constitutes reasonable force is generally a question for the jury.  
Some exceptions exist.

When the invasion is peaceful, and in the presence of the possessor, the 
use of any force at all will be unreasonable unless a request has been 
made to depart.  Chapell v. Schmidt, 38 P. 892 (1894) (Defendant caned 
elderly person who was picking flowers); A request need not be made 
however when conduct of the intruder would indicate to a reasonable 
person that it would be useless or that it could not safely be made in 
time.  See Higgins v. Minagham, 47 N.W. 941 (1891).

>* Type 2 Booby Trap: electrified perimeter fences. So long as these are
>adequately marked ("If you touch this fence, you will probably die"), 
>and are not public nuisances where children and pets will inadvertently
>validate Darwin's theory, these are--I think--legal. There may be 
>license fees required, to build an electrified fence, but I think it is 
>possible to build a lethal voltage electrified fence on one's property.


While clear notice of the danger of deadly force is a partial defense to 
criminal and civil liability in some states, (Starkey v. Dameron, 21 
P.2s 1112 (1933) [Colorado] State v. Marfaudille, 92 P. 939 (1907) 
[Washington State]) and implicit or constructive notice in others 
(Quigley v. Clough, 53 N.E. 884 (1899) (Presence of barbed wire may 
constitute notice of deadly or injurious force)), some prohibit it 
outright, notice or not (State v. Plumlee, 149 So. 425 (1933) [La.]

An obnoxiously exhaustive treatement of the entire subject can be found 
in Bohlen and Burns, The privilege to Protect Property by Dangerous 
Barriers and Mechanical Devices, 35 Yale L.J. 535 (1926); or for a more 
interesting treatement (IMHO) Hart, Injuries to Trespassers, 47 Law 
Q.Rev. 92 (1931).


>Thus, I suspect it is fully legal to build an electrified fence around
>one's PC, providing suitable warnings are included.

Varies by state.  If your intent is to prevent ACCESS to the computer, 
as opposed to THEFT, I cannot see how electrocution could be considered 
"reasonable force" to prevent it, given the host of other methods to 
prevent access without harm to the trespasser.

>I would not call the second type a real booby trap, though some courts
>might, depending. A properly labelled electrified fence seems legal, on
>one's own property, but may not be.

I don't know that CRIMINAL liability will insue in those states that 
exempt defenses with warnings, but certainly civil liability might.  
Never know what a jury will do.

>And certainly I think any explosive-rigged system is illegal, for 
>explosives reasons if not for booby trap reasons.

Again, reasonable force will be a question for the jury.  Explosives are 
a bit dramatic for a jury to swollow as "reasonable."  Explosives 
charges will likely be in counts 4&5.

>I know of no case law on this, and suspect that if an FBI agent were to 
>be electrocuted or blown up upon trying to open/use/disconnect the PC, 
>even with clear warnings, that a prosecution would happen. Results are 
>unclear (to me).
>(I think that if an FBI agent were to be electrocuted while climbing on 
>a clearly labelled electrified fence, no prosecution would result.)
>Of course, if a PC were to be clearly labelled as being rigged, then 
>steps could presumably be taken to defuse the arrangement.

Ominously, the possessor is responsible for determining the 
'trespasser's' right to enter the property.  In other words, if a 
officer with legal rights to enter the property was injured or killed by 
a booby trap (warnings or not) liability would almost without question 
insue.  The only defined defense available would be the officer's 
contributatory negligence (ignoring the sign- etc.).

My guess is that FBI enters, sees the PC, calls bomb squad, a member of 
bomb squad is injured by explosive or electrocution or whatever, 
liability insues, warning or not.  At this point warning is not an issue 
as the possessor would not have the right to repell legally entitled 
officers were he present and thus cannot repell them while absent.

I've completely ignored the use of other deadly force in home invasion 
cases.  Mr. Sandfort was pretty close to right on there for Cali.


>--Tim May

>---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
>Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
>tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero

---
00B9289C28DC0E55 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
E16D5378B81E1C96 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!
*New Key Information*    -    Finger for key revocation and latest key update.

Thing about the Restatement (any of 'em) is that they
must be read carefully, being especially wary of
circularity.  Note here that the actor would be privileged
only to the extent he would be privileged, get it? under
some other body of law not specifically referenced.

So it all comes back to reasonable apprehension of bodily
harm to yourself or your family (or guests, I suppose), in 
your home or similar place.

MacN

On Wed, 6 Sep 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> The basic rule today in most states resembles the restatement position:
> 
> Section 85.  Use of Mechanical Device Threatening Death or Serious 
> Bodily Injury.
> 
> The actor is so far privileged to use such a device intended or likely 
> to cause serious bodily harm or death for the purpose of protecting his 
> land or chattels from intrusion that he is not liable for the serious 
> bodily harm or death thereby caused to an intruder whose intrusion is, 
> in fact, such that the actor, were he present, would be privileged to 
> prevent or terminate it by the intentional infliction of such harm.
> 
[big snip of excellent research]

On Tue, 5 Sep 1995, Jim Choate wrote:

> As far as I know the owner of property has no legal right to kill a person
> either traspassing or stealing it in any of the 50 states. There was a
> recent federal ruling that basicly says that if you meet a burglar in your
> home at nite you can not kill or otherwise harm them unless you're life is
> directly threatened. In short, you MUST give up the ground if at all
> possible.

In Maryland you have the responsibility to retreat if possible when 
confronted by someone threatening your life or limb.  If you are unable 
to retreat or are in your domicile (or motel room, etc.) you have the 
right to use deadly force to stop an attack.

You certainly do not have the right to use deadly force against someone 
for any other reason than immediate threat of life or limb to you or 
someone else.

-Thomas

> > As far as I know the owner of property has no legal right to kill a person
> > either traspassing or stealing it in any of the 50 states. There was a
>  [...]
> In Maryland you have the responsibility to retreat if possible when 
   [...]
> You certainly do not have the right to use deadly force against someone 
> for any other reason than immediate threat of life or limb to you or 
> someone else.

Being a freedom loving, gun owner, with an interest in maintaining both 
my rights to guns, and my right to cryto, I am saddened to see that you 
have to retreat at all.

As far as I am concerned, if I am in my house, and someone uninvited is 
in there also (burglar/thief/psycho/whatever) then I have already 
sufficiently retreated.. and they will likely be shot. Anyone invading my 
home is considered a threat to my wife, children and myself.

I had heard that in the state of Texas, intruders/trespassers are at 
their own risk after sundown, as it is legal to fire upon them at that 
point, regardless of thier intent.. I have not been able to confirm this, 
as of yet.. but am looking for the answer in my meager spare time.

RobL

Under UK law it is certainly illegal to create any device with the
intention of causing greivous bodily harm to anyone. The right to self
defense is very precisely that, the right to take reasonable steps to 
defend yourself with commensurate force if attacked.

If someone hits you in the face you do not have the right to kill
him. If someone tries to do serious harm to you and the only way
to avoid that harm is to kill them that is self defense.


There is no self defense argument where the purpose is not to prevent
physical harm. 

Any device intended to cause harm to someone tampering with a computer
could well land the perpetrator in jail for a very long time for
attempted murder or murder.


People who go round drawing parallels to gun ownership and cryptography 
ownership are simply playing into the governments hands. Cryptography has net 
benefits to society. Most advocates of gun ownership tend to convince me of 
little more than they are a danger to society. Regardless of their case they are 
the biggest argument for gun control, and therfore poor advocates of their 
cause. I see their attempts to draw parallels with cryptography to be little 
more than trying to shore up their sinking ship with one thats afloat.


		Phill

In message <9509061938.AA02249@zorch.w3.org>, hallam@w3.org writes:
[...]
>People who go round drawing parallels to gun ownership and cryptography 
>ownership are simply playing into the governments hands.

That could well be.  (that's a crypto relivant as this message
gets - sorry)

>                                                        Cryptography has net 
>benefits to society. Most advocates of gun ownership tend to convince me of 
>little more than they are a danger to society. Regardless of their case they a
>re 
>the biggest argument for gun control, and therfore poor advocates of their 
>cause.    [...]

I'm sorry to see you say that, but rather then argue here I'll provide
a pointer to a fine set of arguments "A Nation of Cowards" by Jeffrey R. 
Snyder (the "nation" it refers to is the USA, not the UK).  Available
via the web <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/firearms/cowards.html>, enjoy
or not.

On Wed, 6 Sep 1995 hallam@w3.org wrote:

> 
> Under UK law it is certainly illegal to create any device with the
> intention of causing greivous bodily harm to anyone. The right to self
> defense is very precisely that, the right to take reasonable steps to 
> defend yourself with commensurate force if attacked.
[...]

> 
> People who go round drawing parallels to gun ownership and cryptography 
> ownership are simply playing into the governments hands. Cryptography has net 
> benefits to society. Most advocates of gun ownership tend to convince me of 
> little more than they are a danger to society. Regardless of their case they are 
> the biggest argument for gun control, and therfore poor advocates of their 
> cause. I see their attempts to draw parallels with cryptography to be little 
> more than trying to shore up their sinking ship with one thats afloat.
> 
> 
> 		Phill
> 

King George didn't like us owning guns either.  I'm pleased my ancestors 
had a difference of opinion with him concerning this and a few other things.

Brad

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> There is no self defense argument where the purpose is not to prevent
> physical harm. 


If this were a political philosophy list I would state that self-defense
justification often extends to property (As I believe it should).  Since 
this is a cryptography-and-social-changes-thereof list I will refrain...


> People who go round drawing parallels to gun ownership and cryptography 
> ownership are simply playing into the governments hands.
<snip>


No!  Stop!  Don't say it!  PLEASE go post this message to 
alt.security, talk.politics.guns and alt.fan.david-sternlight and keep it 
away from this list...


Bryce (toss in alt.flame while you are at it...)

signatures follow:


                                    +                                           
      public key on keyservers      /.      island Life in a chaos sea        
      or via finger 0x617c6db9      /           bryce.wilcox@colorado.edu     
                                    ---*                                     

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Auto-signed with Bryce's Auto-PGP v1.0beta3

iQCVAwUBME46vvWZSllhfG25AQEX9QP9HpngGnwA1rSEo7knTJ8RalpK9HbZm0u/
SkO6blQCV8kqcYxN5uZTFefCQPjTakEaUv8YnWpHNGOfFIu8igNOGMTCTV6ptVEy
rYKqupcycYXugN7XGdgQH2UNCUO2M59FpBC65nm4FB05ZUrwYyz0weeCkmxDTZHP
1FKRnjXpWrU=
=b3yP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----