Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple2:8452 comp.sys.amiga:71642 comp.sys.mac.misc:5718 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:3631 misc.legal:22590 rec.music.synth:17091 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!brunix!cs.brown.edu!man From: man@cs.brown.edu (Mark H. Nodine) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2,comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,misc.legal,rec.music.synth Subject: Re: Do *NOT* reveal or mention "hacking" information (was Re: paper clip trick) Message-ID: <56332@brunix.UUCP> Date: 14 Nov 90 15:18:55 GMT References: <14087@arisia.Xerox.COM> Sender: news@brunix.UUCP Reply-To: man@cs.brown.edu (Mark H. Nodine) Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept. Lines: 72 In article <14087@arisia.Xerox.COM>, cooper@arisia.Xerox.COM (Martin F N Cooper) writes: |> In article cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles William Swiger) writes: |> >While the software company might |> >object, it has no legal recourse to have such information removed from |> >either the UseNET or private BBS's. |> > |> |> Sure, but I don't believe the real issue here is a legal one per se. If a |> company discovers that its copy protection mechanisms are being subverted, |> and information on how to do this is being disseminated via the net, then |> they're not likely to be big fans of the net, and may well pull their plug |> on their link. This may have the effect of removing any informative link |> we have with that company because they're on the net, and it may also cause |> a significant net node to go away. Remember, the net exists largely because |> companies and others pay good money to support it. Organisations that see |> what they consider to be subversion of attempts to protect corporate prop- |> erty on the net might pull the plug, thereby reducing the utility of the |> net as a whole, and depriving thousands of netters of what they've grown |> used to. |> |> Before someone suggests that my message is another "scare tactic", let me |> just say that I believe the threat is real, because I've seen it happen in |> private networks before now. And it has nothing to do with the legality or |> otherwise of the situation, only with how it is viewed. I know I'll probably get flamed, but I have to agree with Martin here, that you *NOT* post information about cracking programs on the network (though I have in the past hinted that some programs could be cracked and responded privately by e-mail). The reason is not a legal one, but a practical one. Let me give an example. In March, Steve Jackson Games was raided by the Secret Service and had much of their computer equipment confiscated along with all copies of a book called "GURPS Cyberpunk" and the BBS run by SJG. The reason for the seizure was that one person who worked on the book for a short time had been associated with the Legion of Doom, and the SS believed that he was using the BBS and the book to disseminate information about cracking computer systems. There is, in fact, a section of the book that deals with gaming rules for "cracking" but with no details about how to do it. The last I knew, the equipment has not been returned, even though the SS agreed later that there was no evidence of illegal activity. The loss to the company was substantial, and was almost enough to put them out of business. They are currently involved in a court battle to try to recover damages. If this were the only incident I had heard of where BBSs had been shut down or impounded for the suspicion of spreading cracking information, then I would dismiss it as a fluke. But you have to look at the way the larger culture views the computer network, which it does NOT understand (witness the flap that happened over rec.humor.funny about a year ago that resulted in some very negative press against the net and the moderator of that group). If the media report that the network is a tool of Satan for disseminating pornography, encouraging the use of illegal drugs and gambling, and teaching people how to infiltrate Pentagon computers and fire off nuclear missiles, the vast majority of the public is going to give some credence to the report. Many people will believe it because it makes a good story. If enough people in Congress believe it, perhaps legislation could be passed to "pull the plug" on the net, though I doubt it. One of the changes that has occurred in our culture over the last few years is that people, especially law enforcement officials, are getting much more worried about computer crime and "cracking". When you post cracking information to the net, you give ammunition to those unstable people who do not understand the net, but are looking for some "righteous" cause, or maybe just a good story for their newspaper. So as I say, it has nothing to do with the legality of possessing or spreading the information, although even there one might make a case Free speech is a right under the constitution, but if I use my right of "free speech" to form a conspiracy to overthrow the government, or to slander somebody, then I have still done something illegal. But mostly I am making a plea to protect what freedom we currently have on the network. --Mark