Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 14:13:36 GMT From: William Vajk Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Message-ID: Organization: TELECOM Digest Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 466, Message 6 of 10 Lines: 55 In article Owen M. Hartnett writes: > In article TELECOM Moderator writes: >> When Len is released, he'll be 'allowed to' carry the tag "ex-con" >> with him when he applies for work and tries to make new friends. One >> part of his punishment is that in the future he must reveal his status >> to prospective employers. > Something about the above bothers me, from a legal standpoint. Wasn't > there a movement quite a few years ago that said, in effect, that > since ex-cons have little chance of employment once they've told their > prospective bosses that they're ex-cons, that requirements to do so > were being mitigated, so that they would stand a better chance of > rehabilitating once they got out? > [Moderator's Note: (portion deleted for brevity) > In the case at hand, I quoted the court's decision without really > agreeing with it. If Len goes into non-computer employment, it should > not have to be discussed. If he goes into computer-related employment, > well ... I'd be reluctant to make him wear that ball and chain his > whole life. PAT] One of the discoveries I've made in following the "hacker" discussions on the net in the past couple of years is just how badly misinformed so many people are regarding matters on which they feel it appropriate to comment. It becomes relatively obvious in short order that the press on which we have historically depended for information has, at least in this realm, fallen sadly short of being informative to the level of detail one should be able to expect reliable. It is my understanding that the "reporting bad-boy details" extends past the end of his incarceration only for the duration of probation, a three year period. And if I am not mistaken, the mandate requires Len to divulge this information only to potential employers who have source code on their computers. On the issue of rehabilitation for Len, I don't understand what is being discussed here. Len's case is a direct consequence of his then good friend Rich Andrews being a model citizen and reporting the fact that some troublesome text was on his public access Unix system. I believe something important needs mention here, and that is a review of the cases which stemmed from that incident, and just how it was they were closed out. The only trial in the string of prosecutions was that of Craig Neidorf. That trial ended abruptly when the prosecution folded its tent and went home in the first week. Please take note that in spite of the many issues raised by the cases, none of the important ones has received a proper judicial review. Hardly coincidental, I dare say. Bill Vajk