Conference 7.286::digital

I don't know who, is "saying" this is acceptable, because it isn't! We've had
the same problem here, things disappearing, getting legs and walking off.
Whoever these "IDIOTS" are that steal, should be "HORSE WHIPPED"! We now lock
everything up, don't leave laptops on your desk (even through the day), etc.

I know how you feel,

RC

    That's nothing.  Someone removed the communication module from my VAX
    4000 Model 300 and didn't even have the courtesy to shut the power off. 
    They just yanked the module out of the system.  At first glance I
    couldn't figure what happened to the system.  All the lights were on
    but the system didn't do anything.  I'm behind locked doors these days.
    
    Anyone leaving anything laying about that can fit into an inner-office
    envelope is asking for trouble.
     

So where not the only site with problems with stealing.. 

Managment just shrug and say oh well.. live without it.. but the 
point being.. it was there to support customers..

Security.. They don't do a damn thing...

and now I can't trust my fellow work mates 

At my old office, we suffered a lot from stealing. Solution ? They closed the 
office and made us all home workers. Now, no problem - no kit !

Alan

    One solution is to "organize the stealing" ;-).
    
    Sold old equipement to employes at a very low price. Sold new
    equipement in the same way. Evrybody should by it. When all employes
    will have one or two system there will be less stealing.
    
    Another solution is give (FEW) employes pc...
    
    Another is PCUtility like for employes. Imagine each employes pay a fee
    to have a PC at home. Every year update to new system. 
    
    A PC for evry employes is also a way to improve company knowledge.
    
    My two c 

    
    
    	The people who are stealing don't particularly care if they have
    pc's for themselves. I'm sure they are reselling this stuff on the
    black market. 
    
    	We had a board ripped off in FAB4 that was a proprietary board for
    a PVD system. Cost for the board was about $40K (custom made), but it
    was useless to anyone without a Watkins Johnson dep tool. I don't think
    some of these thieves are too bright. 
    
    jim

We just discovered a theft here.  They were pretty tricky
about it too.

Our admin person needed to process some very large Word and
PowerPoint files.  Normally, she just does mail and some
simple Word stuff.  She complained that her PC was slow.
My boss complained to me that her PC was too slow and that
I might want to find a way to obtain a faster one for her.

I balked because I thought that a 486DX2-66MHz, 24MB RAM
system seemed to work well for the rest of us, so it should
work fine for her too.  I had an extra 16MB RAM SIMM, so I 
decided I would bump her system to 32MB.

Pop the cover off, and guess what I found.  Someone had 
replaced her 66MHz/24MB motherboard with a 33MHz/8MB
motherboard.  This could have happened anytime in the
last 16 months since she never really taxed the system
during that time.

I moved her harddrive to another system last night.
(I sliced my finger open doing it.  If the person
with the hot coffee became rich, I wonder how much
this could be worth?  Never mind.  My boss said
I really wouldn't enjoy all that cash while wearing
a body cast.)

Now we get the fun job of reporting this and filling 
out paperwork, etc.  I'll probably just use the pilfered
system to fix a few others that are not totally functional.
Expense freeze on you know.

    re: .8
    
    Unless you know for sure that the machine did at one
    time have a 66MHz motherboard in it, this sounds more
    like a manufacturing mistake.  If you are sure it
    must have been tampered with, then I'd conjecture it
    is someone fairly near-by who has the same type of
    system but with a 33MHz motherboard.
    
    my $0.02,
    Rich

I'm the one who put in the extra 16MB RAM, and
an Ethernet card.  I set up the software.  
I attached the scanner, etc.  There was a 
66MHz in there a year and a half ago.

re: 4721.83 

...
>    Theft is taking another person's property without permission and
>    without force.  Robbery is taking property with force or threat of
>    force.  Burglary is taking property from a building.
>    
>    The intent to return the property is irrelevant -- if you steal a car
>    but intend to return it, it is still stealing.  Would you like a
>    citation from Black's Law Dictionary or from the New Hampshire Revised
>    Statutes Annotated?

Although I'm not a lawyer and can't quote from Black's Law Dictionary or 
from the Revised Statutes Annotated of ANY state, I do have a personal
experience that may be pertinant.
 
About twenty years ago I sat on a jury tying a car theft case in Pennsylvannia.
Although the car had ben wrecked (totaled, infact) the person who had taken
the car maintained that he had intended to return it.  The judges instructions
were pretty clear: unless the prosecution had demonstrated beyond a reasonable
doubt that the individual had NOT intended to return the car we could not
return a guilty verdict for theft, but could find guilt on the lesser charge
of "using without the owners permission".

Based on this, I tend to the opinion that intent is very relevant; "theft"
only occurs if there is an intent not to return.   Note that "intent" can
be inferred by the use to which the property taken is put.

In fact, I suspect that Black's Law Dictionary would define theft to include
the intent of premanently denying the onwer possession/use of the property,
or some such words.

... oh, yes.  There was a last minute settlment and we never got to
consider the case.  {sigh}

I have seen recent references to a charge of "theft by unauthorized taking",
which I surmise might apply to such cases.

				Steve

re theft:
massachusetts make a special case for automobiles.
auto theft is called something else, not theft.
other states might have similar laws.

    
    	"Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle", but I don't know why.
    

>>> massachusetts make a special case for automobiles.
>>> auto theft is called something else, not theft.
>>> other states might have similar laws.

    Unfortunately, I believe NH doesn't have a special law.  So, I've heard
    the thieves prefer Nashua (ZKO) and Salem (NIO) since, if caught, they
    will most likely be charged with "unauthorized taking" instead of
    theft.  Can anyone confirm?


    								-Paul

    Nobody gets caught stealing cars from ZKO.  The cops just fill out the
    forms for the insurance companies, and let you know if they happen
    across it's carcass.  The MA cops don't give a rats ass either.
    
    The kids from Lowell play a little game... they steal a car in Lowell,
    rip off the car's nameplate, drive to NH, find a car in another parking
    lot they want to steal, park the one they have steal the new one, dump
    the new car in Lowell and repeat.  The kids from Laurence strip the
    car, and you never see it again (except as a carcass).
    
    _Fred (Been there, done that.  Thought that the cops did things like
    dust for prints, or get security camera tapes, or something... thought
    wrong.  Got lucky, the kids from Lowell stole the car, so I got it back
    sans door locks, ignition switch, and rx-7 logo).
    

>                <<< Note 4721.108 by BUSY::SLAB "As you wish" >>>
>
>    
>    	"Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle", but I don't know why.

Because too many joy riding teenagers would have been saddled with a 
lifelong felony rap for "grand theft, auto" if there were no alternative.
It's a face-saving measure - joy riders get a slap on the wrist, but the 
law stays somewhat consistent and there's some deterent.

- tom]

You can still get arrested for grand theft for stealing a car,
again it comes down to intent.  If they find it abandoned in the next
city then obviously it was not stolen (in the legal sense) but
just "used without authority".  On the other hand if they find that it
has been resold or is in a chop shop then obviously it was taken
for the intent of making a profit and never being returned,
that is stealing in the legal sense.  Of course it doesn't make
much difference to the owner of the car, it is still missing either
way and a tremendous affront to one's personal space and dignity.

Similar to "armed" versus "unarmed" robbery.  Still missing the same
amount of money, still the same insult to one's dignity but different 
penalty dependent on the manner is which it was done.

It also amazes me how many couples get into arguments, one drives off
in a car, the other one calls the police and tells them their car has
been "stolen" when in fact it may registered to both of them.  Even 
heard of one case where a boyfriend had loned his car to a girl friend
for an extended period of time, they had a falling out, he reclaimed his
car, she reported it stolen.  They found him and the car, stopped him
as they would any stolen car suspect.  Took awhile to straighted it all
out, they eventually did.  Now should they have done something to her like
charge her for harrassment?

    
    Come on.  When you punch out the locks and ignition, there isn't much
    doubt that you stole the car.  Any other interpretation - regardless of
    if the car was later abandoned - is one of the reasons we have so much
    of this crap.
    

    As the owner of a new vehicle that was taken for a "joy ride" by a
    group of "teenagers" (18/19 and some over) and totaled, my view is that
    there is no deterrent.  The police couldn't even be bothered to come
    out to take a report, I had to go to the station.  It was finally found
    in a sand pit in Marlboro, and I founfd out only because I was daily
    chasing up the police to find out what had been reported.  All this to
    get accused by the insurance company of having had someone steal it and
    total it.  From this experience and a couple of others, I would say
    that it really doesn't matter what the law is, especially with respect
    to crimes against property - they are enforced randomly and selectively
    at best.  
    
    I have found that with respect to law enforcement, I much prefer some of
    the locations overseas that I hace worked at where there are fewer,
    well enforced laws with well defined consequences.  Two of the safest 
    places I have been are Tokyo and Singapore - extremely disparate
    populations with a mix of cultures and econimic situations, but they
    have a few very well enforced regulations to deal with crimes against
    property and crimes against persons and they apply them swiftly and
    even handedly, and no one walks away because they didn't know or had
    enough money to defeat the system or, or,or
    
    	Bill
    

When locks have been punched out and physical damage done,
and especially when things have been removed such as radios,
transmissions, etc., you do not see the "used without authority"
on the arrest warrant.  My point is that exactly, there are many
instances where people leave the keys in the car or in some way
make it very easy to take a car while doing very little physical
damage, that is "using without authority" and deserves a place in
the law.  Taking things out of a vehicle below a certain value
is "petty larcency", taking the whole vehicle or a part of the vehicle
with a value exceeding a certain amount is "grand larcency".  Taking a
vehicle by force is "robbery", taking a car by armed force is
"armed robbery", taking a car by armed force while in traffic
with people in it is "hijacking".  In all cases the car disappears,
but the penalties are all different.

Cars taken in Nashua and left in Lowell stripped come under the
category of "stolen".

Whether the police should spend more effort in catching perpetrators
of such crimes is a different argument.  I agree that they should
but also realize that it will take more money (i.e. taxes) in order
to provide the resources to do so.

    
    	RE: .111
    
    	Well, isn't that too bad for the teenagers, being "saddled" with
    	that terrible charge that they brought upon themselves.
    

I kind of liked the 'edp' thread better than the stolen car one!

-mark

Yeah, yeah Steve, you should let em keep going at it...

Maybe I can try...

So edp, I love the HLO policy that has security taking your personal property
from you...

    	Do *not* start this up again.  Thank You.
    
    Joyce
    Co-Moderator Digital

> heard of one case where a boyfriend had loned his car to a girl friend
> for an extended period of time, they had a falling out, he reclaimed his
> car, she reported it stolen.  They found him and the car, stopped him
> as they would any stolen car suspect.  Took awhile to straighted it all
> out, they eventually did.  Now should they have done something to her like
> charge her for harrassment?

	This imho would fall under "filling a false police report",
	which is a felony I believe.  Recently there's been several
	people in NH charged with that crime (but not related to
	automobiles).

    Re .119:
    
    > Do *not* start this up again.
    
    You may not prohibit employees from discussing issues relating to their
    work environment.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

Then let's *all* exercise restraint. I'd guess that's OK, isn't it?

Pete

    re: .124 These replies appear to have gone.

    re .122
    You didn't say "pretty please"!
    
    8^)
    r
    

Set note/title="Confiscation policy called stealing by left wingers"

	Here's webster definitions.  By definition, it is "stealing" if
	the property was taken without "right".  And the question being
	debated is whether or not the corporation has the "right" (or
	"authority").

Cross references:
  1. appropriate           

1. con.fis.cate \'ka:n-f*-.ska-t, k*n-'fis-k*t\ aj [L confiscatus, pp. of 
   confiscare to confiscate, fr. com- + (Xfiscus treasure - more at FISCAL 1: 
   appropriated by the government : FORFEITED 2: deprived of property by 
   confiscation
2. con.fis.cate \'ka:n-f*-.ska-t\ \.ka:n-f*-'ska--sh*n\ 
   \'ka:n-f*-.ska-t-er\ \k*n-'fis-k*-.to-r-e-, -.to.r-\ vt 1: to seize as 
   forfeited to the public treasury 2: to seize by authority - con.fis.ca.tion 
   n

Cross references:
  1. take                  

seize or seise or seise \'se-z\ \'se-z\ vb [ME saisen, fr. OF saisir to put 
   in possession of, fr. ML sacire], of Gmc origin; akin to OHG sezzen to set 
   - more at SET usu  1a: to vest ownership of a freehold estate in often  1b: 
   to put in possession of something {the biographer will be seized of all 
   pertinent papers} 2a: to take possession of : CONFISCATE 2b: to take 
   possession of by legal process 3a: to possess or take by force : capture 
   3b: to take prisoner : ARREST 4a: to take hold of : CLUTCH 4b: to possess 
   oneself of : GRASP 4c: to understand fully and distictly : APPREHEND 5a: to 
   attack or overwhelm physically : AFFLICT 5b: to possess (one's mind) 
   completely or overwhelmingly 6: to bind or fasten together with a lashing 
   of small stuff (as yarn, marline, or fine wire) 1: to take or lay hold 
   suddenly or forcibly 2: to cohere to a relatively moving part through 
   excessive pressure, temperature, or friction - seiz.er n

1. steal \'ste-(*)l\ \'sto-l\ \'sto--l*n\ vb or stole;  or sto.len or 
   steal.ing [ME stelen, fr. OE stelan; akin to OHG stelan to steal] 1: to 
   take the property of another 2: to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, 
   gradually, or unexpectedly 3: to steal a base 1a: to take or appropriate 
   without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully 
   1b: to take away by force or unjust means 1c: to take secretly or without 
   permission 1d: to appropriate entirely to oneself or beyond one's proper 
   share {~ the show} 2a: to move, convey, or introduce secretly : SMUGGLE 2b: 
   to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner 3a: to seize, gain, or 
   win by trickery, skill, or daring {a basketball player adept at ~ing the 
   ball from his opponents} of a base runner  3b: to gain (a base) by running 
   without the aid of a hit or an errorrom another without right or without 
   detection. STEAL may apply to any surreptitious taking of anything tangible 
   or intangible; PILFER implies stealing repeatedly in small amounts; FILCH 
   adds a suggestion of snatching quickly and surreptitiously; PURLOIN 
   stresses removing or carrying off for one's own use or purposes - steal.er 
   n SYN syn STEAL, PILFER, FILCH, PURLOIN mean to take f
2. steal n 1: the act or an instance of stealing 2: a fraudulent or 
   questionable political deal 3: BARGAIN

Cross references:
  1. fit                   

1. ap.pro.pri.ate \*-'pro--pre--.a-t\ \-.a-t-*r\ vt [ME appropriaten, fr. 
   LL appropriatus, pp. of appropriare, fr]. L ad- + proprius own 1: to take 
   exclusive possession of : ANNEX 2: to set apart for or assign to a 
   particular purpose or use 3: to take without permissionNFISCATE mean to 
   seize high-handedly. APPROPRIATE stresses making something one's own or 
   converting to one's own use without authority or with questionable right; 
   PREEMPT implies beforehandedness in taking something desired or needed by 
   others; ARROGATE implies insolence, presumption, and exclusion of others in 
   seizing rights, powers, or functions; USURP implies unlawful or unwarranted 
   intrusion into the place of another and seizure of what is his by custom, 
   right, or law; CONFISCATE always implies seizure through exercise of 
   authority - ap.pro.pri.a.tor n SYN syn APPROPRIATE, PREEMPT, ARROGATE, 
   USURP, CO
2. ap.pro.pri.ate \*-'pro--pre--*t\ aj : especially suitable or compatible 
   : FITTING - ap.pro.pri.ate.ly av

    But the question is how is 'stealing' defined in the law.  Quite often
    I found that laws define common terms with uncommon meanings.  I don't
    think that the Webster definition has much bearing unless we also see
    the text of the law were are discussing.
    
    				-John

In my opinion, we don't need to know either the dictionary or legal
'definition' of stealing to form a personal opinion about what we
think is OK to do. I don't see a problem with security trying to
discourage unauthorized taking or use of property. Who is harmed?

I think it's very unfortunate that any employee feels so threatened by
his or her employer. You'd think there'd be a positive relationship
there, with both satisfying needs of the other, but I get the
impression more and more don't share that belief. It'd probably be
best for both parties to end such a negative relationship, but one is
probably forbidden by law to do so, and the other ... I don't know.

Peet

    The "problem" arises when the company violates your rights.  Would
    you still think its OK if the company decided to do random polygraph
    tests on people leaving the facility asking them if they 'stole'
    from the company today?  There is a fuzzy grey line where the
    companies rights end and your rights begin.
    
    				-John

just to make this a little more complicated:

we were recently given a new "LKG site brochure".
it provides a very brief introduction to some aspects of the site.
here is one entry:

PROPERTY PASSES
Issued by Security for Digital property only, call
6-7822.

LKG is not HLO.  but the rules at the two locations do not blend easily.

    Ugh... just what we need... more stringent property passes.
    
    I shuttle parts and systems backs and forth to various plants often 
    (we do testing for many different groups).  The current property pass
    and SBA procedures are usually a bureaucratic nightmare.  The rules of
    the game seem to change at the whim of the security person or
    receptionist on duty.  Just when you think you've got it figured out,
    some site decides that they need to change.
    
    This process needs to be EASIER not HARDER.  Maybe if the company
    showed a little trust in its employees, some of this cynicism we all
    suffer from may die down a bit...
    
    I respect Digital's desire to keep an eye on it's "stuff", but surely
    there's got to be a better way...
    
    -Steve
    
                                               

> The "problem" arises when the company violates your rights.  Would
> you still think its OK if the company decided to do random polygraph
> tests on people leaving the facility asking them if they 'stole'
> from the company today?

	I wonder when they'll start asking us to fill a cup every time
	we leave the building :-)

    There is a procedure for individuals who "shuttle" parts between
    sites on a regular basis.  HLO uses a  pass book issued to the
    named individual which contains about 25 passes in their name
    and that named individual uses them as needed.  Whether this is
    still a possibility for other sites....????   You might want to
    check with Security.  It solved the issue of using regular 
    property passes for "shuttles".  

    justme

    Re .130:
    
    > I don't see a problem with security trying to discourage unauthorized
    > taking or use of property.
    
    Read the first two sentences of .26 again.  There is no problem with
    security discouraging theft.  There IS a problem with security engaging
    in theft.
    
    > Who is harmed?
    
    The person whose property is taken is harmed.  Even if Digital returns
    the property eventually, the owner is deprived of its use for a period,
    and illegally so.  I use my computer every day, and I would not permit
    Digital to take it for even a minute.
    
    > I think it's very unfortunate that any employee feels so threatened
    > by his or her employer.
    
    It is unfortunate that Digital threatens its employees.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    I walk out of HLO with a Contractor atin the evenings. He has his own
    laptop. On the back is an HLO issued sticker with info, including his 8
    digital badge number. He opens the case the laptop is in, shows the
    sticker and his badge and off we go. Takes the same amount of time as
    checking my personal bag.
    
    Howard

> The person whose property is taken is harmed.  Even if Digital returns
> the property eventually, the owner is deprived of its use for a period,
> and illegally so.  I use my computer every day, and I would not permit
> Digital to take it for even a minute.

	BTW, for anyone who has had their radar detector "confiscated"
	in Conn. by the police, this is the same type of thing.  While
	you can get your radar detector back (they don't want to go to
	court which would overturn their illegal law banning radar
	detectors), it's still a pain.

	As John (Covert) said in an earlier reply, security can gain
	the same effect by simply taking down the serial number of
	the computer (or whatever, assuming it has one), and the
	badge number of the employee.  If a theft is later reported,
	and the serial number of the item alegedly stolen matches
	one they recorded that you left with, then the police can
	be brought in.

Re -.1 radar detectors:   

By the way, they are no longer illegal, haven't been for few years now.
	

Re: recording serial number etc...

Of course this is the reasonable way to handle it.  Eric's chief complaint 
about DIGITAL 'threatening' to 'steal' your personal property is based on 
what I would hope is just a poorly worded memo on the change in HLO security
policy.  But I don't know what the actual practice has been.  Does anyone 
know what HLO has been doing when it comes across property that it can't 
identify as DIGITAL's or the possessor's?  

re: "Read the first two sentences of .26 again."

Eric, are you aware that when you start a discussion by inferring that
one is unable to read, or comprehend what was read, you start by
offending? I am not trying to be critical, either. I am trying to
contribute to the general store of human knowledge and understanding.

re: "It is unfortunate that Digital threatens its employees."

I do not feel threatened. I wonder why that is. Is it because I am not
sensitive enough to my environment? Is there a real threat there that
I should be wary of?

I guess there's room for differing opinions on that. I do not feel
threatened, so I will depart from this conversation for now.

Pete

    
    	RE: .81
    
    	edp, why isn't Digital [and/or Security] a shopkeeper?  I looked
    	it up, and it appears that we would fall under the definition of
    	"shop".  Crap AHD, of course, but it's gotta be close.
    

>Eric, are you aware that when you start a discussion by inferring that
>one is unable to read, or comprehend what was read, you start by
>offending? 
    
    It shouldn't offend you if Eric infers that one is unable to read,
    since that would be a failing of Eric's. Now, if he _implies_ that
    one is unable to read is a different matter entirely.
    

>          <<< Note 4721.140 by SHRCTR::PJOHNSON "Vaya con huevos." >>>
>
>re: "Read the first two sentences of .26 again."
>
>Eric, are you aware that when you start a discussion by inferring that
>one is unable to read, or comprehend what was read, you start by
>offending? 

Given that so few people seem to carefully read or re-read the postings 
of others before they reply, I find eric's approach to reminding people 
what has already been said to be appropriate, even polite.

- tom]

    To help minimize office theft one could:
    	1.  Cover valuables with clutter (if your desk is like mine)
    	2.  Help create (or continue) an atmosphere and attitude of respect
    		for property (personal and private (DIGITAL's)).
    	3.  For problem areas, install some (or more) video cameras.
    		Surveillance is less invasive than individual searches -
    		and it won't slow you down in your exit.
    
    I would push for more of a "Neighborhood Watch" type of approach.  All
    together.

    RE: The whole concept of this string...
    
    I've noticed that when a company is in dire straights, laying off,
    going down hill, in a flaming death spiral - choose your own metaphor
    for "bad times" - that theft seems to go way up. For example, at my
    favorite larger-than-most Aerospace Company, there used to be random
    (12 per shift per guard) car searches on the way out. They never really
    found anything "stolen", from the guards I've spoken with. When they did
    major workforce upheavals a while back, "everything" was walking out
    the door. PC's, MAC's, printers, an "in use" VAXServer, 3 "running" IBM
    servers were shut down and stolen...the list was endless it seemed.
    
    My security contacts tell me that they haven't had any reports of
    stolen stuff in 4 months now and it was onesy-twosy for the 4 months
    before that. Kind of a coincicdence that layoffs stopped about 12-14
    months ago. I believe that some of it (theft) is related to how one
    feels about where one works, and how the company you work for treats
    you. At the Aerospace Factory, there seems to be a genuine feeling
    that this is a pretty good place to work, they have work to do and more
    coming in, and I run across more and more groups that work together as
    a "team". Sure, there's more than a few doubting-thomas's, but the
    overall feel is much more upbeat than a year ago.
    
    and back during our last "purges", stuff was even disappearing from our
    tiny little office. But I haven't heard of any lately...
    
    .mike.
    

    Re .140:
    
    > Eric, are you aware that when you start a discussion by inferring
    > that one is unable to read, or comprehend what was read, you start by
    > offending?
    
    a) You mean imply, not infer.
    
    b) I implied no such thing.  The implication is that the person ignored
    or did not comprehend or forgot, not that they are unable to
    comprehend.
    
    c) I did not start a discussion with that comment.  It was entered in
    response to repeated statements demonstrating ignorance of .26, some of
    them insulting, and in spite of repeated explanations.
    
    > I am not trying to be critical, either.
    
    That claim seems at odds with your criticism.
    
    > I do not feel threatened.
    
    How you feel casts no light on the meaning of Digital's policy.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .141:
    
    Digital may operate shops somewhere, but that doesn't give it
    shopkeeper rights elsewhere.  Also, you can't just look up shopkeeper
    in the dictionary; these things are defined in the law.  And even if
    Digital were a shopkeeper, the law only entitles Digital to detain a
    person, not to take their property, and it only permits that detention
    when there is sufficient cause -- and "I don't know it isn't mine" is
    not sufficient cause.  So the shopkeeper aspect is moot on three
    points.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.