Xref: utzoo comp.org.eff.talk:2699 comp.admin.policy:467 gnu.misc.discuss:3374
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!earle
From: earle@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Greg Earle (Sun Software))
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Is there an equivalent of "The Anarchist Cookbook" in Cyberspace?
Message-ID: <1991Jun16.202928.21626@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: 16 Jun 91 20:29:28 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems - JPL on-site Software Support
Lines: 51

I have this vague memory of once upon a time hearing that someone had ruled
that it was OK to publish (and sell) the book "The Anarchist Cookbook" because
there was a difference between publishing information which could possibly be
used to perform illegal/immoral/unethical acts, and actually *using* that same
information to perform said illegal/immoral/unethical act.  Is that a correct
recollection?

If so, is there anything similar in the world of computers?  For example, here
is the best example I can think of:

You see an anonymous posting in a random newsgroup, the contents of which are

	From: somebody@somewhere.ORG	(Anonymous)
	Subject: Puzzler

	echo "0x1234?w 0x5678" | adb something -

Is this a posting which acquires culpability by itself?

Let's go one step further.  What if someone figures out what "something" is,
and posts a followup:

	From: joeuser@normal.known.ORG	(Joe User)
	Subject: Re: Puzzler

	Ooh!  Ooh!  I know!  I know!

	That's a patch for the new FrameMaker 3.0 port to the Collossus X-1000!
	It enables the "Save" feature!!

Now there is a tie between the original posting and a piece of commercial
software (e.g.).  How does this change things?  Is the culpability of the
original posting the same, or does the fact that there is now a known
connection to its purpose add to it?  And what about the culpability of the
second poster, for exposing the intended program (note that the original
posting makes no mention of the purpose; this just as an added twist)?

Finally, how does this relate to something like "The Anarchist Cookbook"?
Is the original poster culpable for publishing such information, in the
sense that the "The Anarchist Cookbook" was originally held culpable for also
publishing information?

Lastly, if (e.g.) Frame Technologies determined the original poster's identity
and determined their employer, would they be justified in demanding that the
original poster's employer fire the poster?  Same thing for the followup
poster?  Or justified in demanding damages from the original poster's 
employer?  Etc. etc.

(This is vaguely based on a case I saw on the net, where people posted
a JPEG program in binary form and someone posted a patch for it to
enable large images)