Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: hacker = computer criminal
Message-ID: <6003:Oct421:37:5490@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 4 Oct 90 21:37:54 GMT
References: <20225:Oct319:48:5690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1990Oct4.031131.2296@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1990Oct04.173551.606@hoss.unl.edu>
Organization: IR
Lines: 14

In article <1990Oct04.173551.606@hoss.unl.edu> riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes:
> Whether there was a moral expectation of privacy is another issue, one
> which I think is much more favorable to the employee, but . . . .

True. And the balance swings way back in favor of the machine's owner
when the owner suspects criminal activity on the part of the employee.

In Stoll's case, the criminal wasn't even an employee, so I don't know
how he could expect any privacy at all. It wasn't possible to print out
(or locate) his sessions without also printing out other 1200-baud
sessions; it's like the cop responding to a cry for help and
accidentally discovering a crime in progress.

---Dan