Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!apple!well!tenney From: john@qip.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.news Subject: Re: Len Rose meets the Secret Service--REPOST WITH CORRECTIONS Message-ID: <20786@well.sf.ca.us> Date: 16 Sep 90 16:44:54 GMT References: <37186@ut-emx> <37226@ut-emx> Sender: tenney@well.sf.ca.us Reply-To: john@qip.UUCP (John Moore) Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ Lines: 49 Approved: comp-org-eff-news@well.sf.ca.us In article <37226@ut-emx> mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin) writes: ]I've been informed that there's some text missing from this story; ]the following is a corrected version. I have a number of reactions to Len Rose's story. The first is that the SS is really over-reacting to this situation. Len was treated just as badly as a mugger or rapist, and yet was at most (if he is to be believed) guilty of bad judgement and some property ownership violations best settled with civil law. It's a shame that the lords of the 1st amendment (the mass media) are collaborators in this brutal assault on the first amendment rights of computer users. The second is if you have proprietary source code, you cannot complain if you get hassled in some way (although the SS police state tactics were way out of line). It is just not smart, in this day of computer "crime" hysteria, to have anything you shouldn't have. On the other hand, when I was young (and enough years ago - 20 - that the statute of limitations has LONG past), a group of us did some university hacking and ourselves had proprietary source of an OS (now defunct), so I understand the urge. In fact, at the time it was the only way of learning about OS construction. That is no longer true. The third is that Len was really naive about how to act when accosted by the law. Even if one is COMPLETELY innocent, the best thing to do is to shut up and say nothing until your attorney is present. Len really blew it by trying to be cooperative. The people behind this jihad are just going to take advantage of such cooperation. The fourth is that we are going to have to get some sanity into this whole issue. If someone vandalizes a computer, they should be treated like vandals, not murderers (and I hope they go to jail for that vandalism!). If they trespass in a computer, they should be treated like trespassers. If data is "stolen," its owners shouldn't claim that the "thief" took away from them whatever it cost to make the data. After all, the owners still have it, and unless the data is used competitively against them, they really suffered no dollar cost at all. I hold AT&T to blame for some of this mess! Their allegations, in various cases, of huge thefts just serve to inflame the situation. I would be ashamed to work for AT&T as a software engineer! Yes - one shouldn't steal AT&T source code or marketing documents. But, a computer hacker who grabbed a source of Unix for his own use didn't steal $20,000,000,000 as was alleged in one case - he stole $1000 or so (unless he distributes that source code). It is more akin to theft of service (a 'la cable TV fame) than theft of property. -- John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john USnail: 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale,AZ 85253 anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu Voice: (602) 951-9326 Wishful Thinking: Long palladium, Short Petroleum Opinion: Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment!