Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!mnemonic From: mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Missing mission Message-ID: <36908@ut-emx> Date: 5 Sep 90 04:11:28 GMT References: <11446@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <1990Aug26.063940.29357@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> <36814@ut-emx.UUCP> <11502@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Sender: news@ut-emx Reply-To: mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin) Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas Lines: 108 In article <11502@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes: > >As a law student, Mike, I believe you would understand the definitions >of libel and slander? Making false statements about another in a >public forum falls under such definitions, does it not? It does not. As always, Spaf, you forget the all-important element of intent. I may well have misrepresented you, but I never knew I was stating a falsehood nor did I lack concern as to whether the statements were true or false. Assuming you are a public figure in the world of computer security, my comments were protected speech, even if, due to my possible misunderstandings, they were false. The reason I say "as always" above, Spaf, is that you often seem to forget the significance of the element of "intent" when it comes to hacking as well. Most hackers lack serious criminal intent. Morris seems to have lacked criminal intent altogether, but you (as I recall) wanted to ban him from the computer industry forever. >I have never promoted any such philosophy as you claim. Nor have I >ever expended any effort on behalf of such a cause. I have, however, >objected to the false characterization that "anyone who calls himself >a hacker and is prosecuted by the government is obviously a >wrongly-persecuted innocent." I don't believe I owe anyone an >apology. You do. I apologize if I misrepresented you, but based on what you have said publicly about both the Morris case and the Neidorf case, it is hard for me to see how I have done so. In any case, I didn't suggest you apologize; what I said was this: >One thing that seems to be missing from his own statements is >an admission that he was wrong to accept the government's characterization >of the "theft" in the Neidorf and related Bell South cases. You assured me and other people, Gene, that the facts of the Bell South cases would demonstrate the wisdom of the prosecutions. This demonstration has yet to come to pass. Perhaps if you are unwilling to admit you were mistaken, you might be willing to say the teensiest tiniest positive thing in favor of Neidorf, who's out tens of thousands of dollars? >I know from personal experience that there are some real >rotten people out there. Indeed there are, but this is an odd comment, since no one is disputing you here. >The existance of those people certainly doesn't excuse slipshod or >incorrect prosecution. This comes close to the admission about the Neidorf case I suggested you make. > But it does mean that there are legitimate >reasons why law enforcement officials are trying to catch and >prosecute some of them. Again, an odd comment, since no one disputes that there are legitimate reasons to prosecute hackers. > I haven't seen any evidence of the sinister >conspiracy theories some people have been promoting. I don't mean to give credence to any particular conspiracy theory here, Spaf--I don't think there are any conspiracies in the ordinary sense, and I don't know anyone who does. I think it may be a rhetorical strategy on your part to classify those who criticize certain patterns of government behavior as "conspiracy theorists." The question that comes to my mind is this: Would you allow yourself to recognize such evidence if you saw it? > Ignorance, >perhaps. Frustration, perhaps. But not evil intent. People are >losing time and money because of unauthorized users, and the law >enforcement personnel are trying to respond -- that's their job. You forget to mention those who have lost time and money not because of unauthorized users but because of uninformed prosecutions. >Unfortunately, they don't have the tools or training to do it as well >as they should, nor do they have the cooperation. That doesn't mean >they are going to ignore the victims. Indeed. They seem to have created a new class of victims that *wishes* it had been ignored. >Along with the vigorous protestations about rights, I think it would >be much more constructive to think up ways to stop cracking/hacking >and help catch the transgressors than it would be to continue to >publicly slam people who don't necessarily agree with you. Well, by Net standards what I wrote earlier hardly qualifies as a "slam." But I do apologize for misrepresenting you, if in fact I did. I still wish, however, that you would admit you were mistaken about the Neidorf case. --Mike Mike Godwin, UT Law School | "We need a new cosmology. mnemonic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | New Gods. New Sacraments. (512) 346-4190 | Another drink." | --Patti Smith