Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!pacbell.com!pacbell!well!tenney
From: denning@src.dec.com (Dorothy Denning)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.news
Subject: Re: Musings on constitutionality - Result of Neidorf charges
Message-ID: <20818@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: 18 Sep 90 18:20:39 GMT
Sender: tenney@well.sf.ca.us
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center
Lines: 75
Approved: comp-org-eff-news@well.sf.ca.us

In article <9009170528.AA22846@mindcrf.mindcraft.com>, Chuck Karish
wrote:

>>All of the information is from Information Week, September 3, 1990, 
>>page 55.
>>
>>"The charges against Neidorf were all dropped on July 27, after his attorney
>>proved that anyone with a computer could access the BellSouth data."

>The description I heard of the outcome was that it was shown that
>BellSouth would sell the data to anyone who asked for it, for a nominal
>copying fee.

The information about the E911 system was contained in other documents,
but you couldn't just call up Bell and say "Send me the E911 document."

The charges were not dropped because anyone with a computer could access
the BellSouth data.  They were dropped because it was determined that
there were no real secrets in the E911 file.

In article <4628@graphite18.UUCP>, Tom Mellman wrote:

>This is all so scary to me.  I understand that Neidorf wanted to
>get off any way he could, but it's frightening that the defense
>he had to use was only that the material was already in the public
>domain.

He was charged with interstate transportation of stolen property and
wire fraud (relating to the theft).  I'm not an expert on the law,
but it would seem that the defense did exactly the right thing by
responding to the charges.

>I mean, at the very basis of this is issue is the definition of
>stolen property.  How can you steal something from someone if you
>don't deprive him of it?

The best argument I have heard is that you deprive the person of the
right to control the distribution and use of the information.

In article <37287@ut-emx>, Mike Godwin wrote:

>I understand your concern, and I agree with you that the real legal
>issues weren't addressed. On the other hand, Neidorf was an unwilling
>test case, and federal prosecutions are so traumatic that it would have
>been foolhardy to pass up such a clear win.

I don't understand what you mean by "real legal issues".  Aren't the
real legal issues in a case the actual charges, which is what the
defense responded to?

>Instead, one can make an argument that falls squarely within traditional
>property law--namely, that Neidorf did not deprive Bell South of the
>*exclusive use* of their "proprietary information."  How do we know
>this?  *Because nobody could conceivably USE that file for anything*
>-- except, possibly, for publication purposes, which are protected.

BellSouth said they gave a revised version of the E911 document to
people working in the field so that they could better deal with
installation and maintenance problems with the 911 system.  (The
document is about installation and maintenance of the 911 system.)
Bell employees also claimed that the document could be used to disrupt
911 service.  They seemed particularly concerned about the document
being used for "social engineering."  This is a legitimate concern,
especially since their employees are trained to be helpful.

I agree that the case raises a number of interesting issues, like
how do you put a price on information.   If you are the phone company,
what price would you put on a document that in your assessment might
bring down the 911 system?

For those of you who don't know, along with John Nagle I was at the
trial working with the defense.  John gets credit for locating the
documents in the public domain on the 911 system.

Dorothy Denning
denning@src.dec.com