Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:71703 misc.legal:22615 alt.censorship:1040 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!dimacs.rutgers.edu!mips!decwrl!world!eff!mnemonic From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,misc.legal,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Do *NOT* reveal or mention "hacking" information (was Re: paper clip trick) Message-ID: <1990Nov14.215205.7454@eff.org> Date: 14 Nov 90 21:52:05 GMT References: <56332@brunix.UUCP> <1990Nov14.183455.1825@eng.umd.edu> <1990Nov14.195928.23480@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> Distribution: usa Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Lines: 31 In article <1990Nov14.195928.23480@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> slfields@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Scott L Fields) writes: >This subject is one that really bothers me from a legal standpoint. How many >people out there are familiar with "conspiracy to commit a felony"? Granted, >this means I can't talk about planning to kill the president but I think this >can be vastly abused as well. Many recent federal actions make some computer >actions a federal offense. In that case, simply talking about these subjects >in the wrong manner can be construed as "conspiracy to commit a felony". My >personal opinion is that that is basically a form of censorship. I am no lawyer >but I don't like the idea of this. Mere advocacy of an illegal activity is not conspiracy. Under federal law, a conspiracy requires two or more people who plan to commit a crime, plus an overt act by one of the people that furthers the plan. Thus, an isolated individual never can be convicted of conspiracy under federal law, even if he creates a plan and acts in furtherance of it. And two or more individuals cannot be convicted of conspiracy unless at least one of them commits an overt act that furthers the plan. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 |"If the doors of perception were cleansed mnemonic@well.sf.ca.us | every thing would appear to man as it is, Electronic Frontier | infinite." Foundation | --Blake