Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: Mike Godwin Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Federal Indictment of Len Rose Message-ID: <10739@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 12 Aug 90 01:21:26 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: Mike Godwin Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas Lines: 81 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 562, Message 1 of 6 One of the things that troubles me about the Len Rose indictment is that it appears to have been edited. Normally, a federal indictment will state under each or charge the specific statute under which the particular offense has been committed. Lest someone read into this an accusation that Len Rose edited his indictment for some particular purpose, let me add that it is often easy to overlook the statutory references, which typically appear at the bottom of each page, and which often look like pro-forma additions. But without the statutory references, it is unclear which statutes Rose is alleged to have violated. It seems certain that 18 USC 1343 (wire fraud) and 18 USC 2314 (interstate transportation of stolen property) are two of the statutes; it is unclear, however, whether the government is also prosecuting Rose under 18 USC 1030 (use of computers to defraud) or 18 USC 371 (conspiracy). The particular statutes under which Rose is being prosecuted will dictate many of the issues that will be litigated if he goes to trial. My personal favorite of the counts is Count Two: >And the Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges: >1. Paragraphs 1 through 26 of Count One are incorporated by reference, >as if fully set forth. >2. On or about January 9,1990, in the State and District of Maryland, >and elsewhere, > LEONARD ROSE JR. a/k/a/ Terminus >did knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and with intent to defraud, >traffic in (that is, transfer, and otherwise dispose of to another, >and obtain control of with intent to transfer and dispose of) >information through which a computer may be accessed without >authorization, to wit: a trojan horse login program, and by such >conduct affected interstate commerce. I know of no federal statute that outlaws "trafficking in" information "through which a computer may be accessed without authorization," absent some allegation that the information was proprietary and stolen. One wonders whether this count is meant to refer to Rose's authoring a password-recording modification to AT&T system software. Our Moderator offers what seems to me to be a correct interpretation of at least one of the counts: >If my understanding of the allegations is correct, >modifications to the source code causing passwords entered by users >using the 'su' command to be retained in a separate file for review by >unauthorized persons was transmitted. I believe Mr. Neidorf then >printed this information in his publication {Phrack}. Assuming this interpretation is correct, it is unclear whether Rose broke the law in this action, unless the federal government has proof that Rose's actions were part of a conspiracy to defraud AT&T or one of the Bells. (That's why it's important to determine whether a conspiracy is being charged here.) In conspiracy prosecutions, an otherwise-legal act may make a defendant liable under the conspiracy statute if that legal act was in furtherance of the conspiracy. Mike Godwin, UT Law School mnemonic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (512) 346-4190 [Moderator's Note: Well, you got it the way *I* got it, save tightening up the lines a little, correcting a couple of typos. Was it specifically edited by someone? Well, in the part at the top, the reference was to the 'United States of Amerika' ... I swapped out the /k/ for a /c/ ... it looks like someone was tampering with it. Also, according to Len Rose (on the phone with me), he 'gave it to someone to be typed' for the net. I don't know if *he* personally sent it here; after all his complaints about having no equipment at his disposal, how could he? Someone may have sent it, and used his name. There were no statuatory references in the copy I received.