Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!kali.enet.dec.com!plouff
From: plouff@kali.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Search Warrants & Organizations (was Re: Missing mission)
Message-ID: <15155@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Date: 4 Sep 90 19:34:34 GMT
Sender: newsdaemon@shlump.nac.dec.com
Distribution: na
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 50


In  several articles spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) writes...

>I just finished reading through mailing #3, and I am disappointed.
>Why?  Because there is a very important mission statement missing from
>the list given:  helping to establish a sense of responsibility in
>users of networks and computers.
>
and later... 
>I have worked as a consultant for a number of firms and government
>agencies.  I have seen transcripts of login sessions where hackers
>damaged files, boody-trapped systems, stole proprietary information,
>and crashed systems.  I have had my own machine broken into and
>damaged.  I know from personal experience that there are some real
>rotten people out there.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that there is an organization 
promoting the security of networked computers.  It actively tries to 
reach system managers with step-by-step guidelines on closing common 
security holes, provides security monitor software and actively lobbies 
with computer manufacturers to write and ship reasonably secure 
operating systems.  In other words, this mythical organization is active 
in the "prevention" side of computer and network security.

Is it reasonable for this organization to work for the rights of persons
accused in computer crime-related activities? 

And later...

>>I have yet to see any reasonable justification for actions such as the
>>confiscation of equipment from Steve Jackson Games just because they
>>publish a Cyberpunk role-playing game.
> 
>There is no evidence that the SJG system was confiscated "just because
>they publish a Cyberpunk role-playing game."  (Of course, there has
>been no evidence that that was not the reason, either.)  
>[...] 
>Now, contrary to what some people claim, I'm not trying to defend the
>seizure of the equipment at SJG or claim that they (folks at SJG) were
>involved in something illegal.  HOWEVER, I am also not claiming the
>opposite.  The only side of the story we've heard so far is from the
>folks at SJG, and they would obviously not admit to anything illegal.

I would respectfully suggest that someone challenge Steve Jackson on 
this point when he speaks at a public general meeting of the Boston Computer 
Society later this month.

-- 
Wes Plouff	plouff@kali.enet.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard, Mass.