Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lsicom2!netsys!daemon
From: niu.bitnet!TK0JUT2@netsys.NETSYS.COM
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: RE: Mr. Armond's \ campaign\ response
Message-ID: <199@netsys.NETSYS.COM>
Date: 11 Oct 90 09:41:24 GMT
Sender: daemon@netsys.NETSYS.COM
Lines: 53

Let me see if I have John De Armond's letter straight: First, he bitches that
Len Rose "shoots his mouth off," then he says that Len Rose should talk??

First he calls Len naive, then he claims that Len should answer somebody's
charges  who has presented only hearsay rumor?  He wants Len Rose to "come
clean," but acknowledges that this may be dodgy without clearing it with an
attorney whose advice will be to "say nothing?" Mr. Armand seems on one hand
to demand that Len talk, but on the other takes a swipe at him for having
talked in ways that an attorney might find unwise.  C'mon! One is still
innocent in our society until *proven* guilty, and trial by net-threat and
innuendo is reprehensible.

Perhaps John De Armond can answer a couple of questions for the rest of us:

1.  Give us some examples of Len "shooting his mouth off?" His posts on
    eff.talk hardly fit that description, so perhaps it occured
    elsewhere and this info could be passed to us in private mail.

2. When did Len ask for anything on the nets that could be even remotely
   inferred as asking for proprietary source code?  Many of us have missed it,
   so perhaps you could send us via private e-mail the cites to which you
   refer.

Whether Len is innocent or guilty of the current charges will be determined by
the courts, not by smear campaigns.  May I also remind you that Mr. Hough made
a rather ambiguous allusion to the fact that Len had "direct or indirect
dealings" with some of those searched in Operation Sun Devil, although it is
not clear why this is significant. However, if we do grant whatever point he
seems to trying to make (which is guilt by association), Mr. Hough seems to
acknowledge equally direct links: Some of his "close personal friends" have
purchased goods which they had no doubt to being stolen?? Uh, hate to be the
bearer of bad tidings, but in most states this is a felony if known prior to
purchase.  If discovered after the fact they are, in most states, required to
report it, or they may be subject to a variety of felony or misdemeanor
charges, depending on the state (ranging from trafficking/receiving to
concealing a crime).

I am told that, for whatever reasons, Mr. Hough may retract his statement.  If
so, let's put this unfortunate episode behind us and use it as a lesson, one
which Mr. Armand implicitly makes in his final paragraph: The issues some of
us are trying to raise are not about any one individual, so let's not engage
in personality assassination or smear campaigns. The issues are much broader
and involve the relationship between electronic media and Constitutional
protections.  Those who support Len Rose have not, to my knowledge, made any
judgment regarding his innocence, but instead focus on such silly issues as
due process, the ambiguity of statutes that appear to allow extreme
enforcement latitude, and other fundamental principles around which there is
room for legitimate intellectual debate and disagreement. The continued
attempts of some to personalize these issues in the most mean-spirited manner
is counter-productive.


Jim Thomas