Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: 18 Jun 91 07:01:15 GMT From: "David Burren [Athos]" Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Message-ID: Organization: Expert Solutions Australia 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 481, Message 1 of 7 Lines: 138 In TELECOM Moderator wrote: > In the case at hand, I quoted the court's decision without really > agreeing with it. I'm sorry Pat, but that was NOT the impression I got from reading your original note. True, the paragraph in question did not express any opinion, but taken in context with the rest of the posting it blended with the impression of blind and unthinking condonement for what has been done to Len. I started out reading your article as if it was merely a report, but halfway though had to stop and look at it again. In you wrote: > I wonder if it was all worth it ... if Len had it to do over again if > he would do the same things he did before, or if he might consider the > consequences more carefully. Certainly it makes one wonder. The number of people with unlicensed software is staggering. I'll admit I've been guilty of that myself in the past. As someone who "grew up" in an environment of Apple ][s and PCs, the concept of using pirated software was something I was used to, even though it was clearly known amongst all the "high school hackers" that it was illegal. These days I don't tend to use commercial software (beyond the OS itself :-( so the temptation to have or use unlicensed software is reduced for me, but the thought of what's happened to someone who effectively did what I myself did years ago induces reflection, yes. So who can say they've never seen an unlicensed copy of something like Lotus 1-2-3? No, I'm not addressing here the issue of _distributing_ illegal copies of software (eg. the unpublished submission to {Phrack}) but then, people who copy software are (in my experience) likely to give copies to others. I suspect that people who can truthfully say that they've never broken a law are a rare breed. It's the realization of what governments and companies are willing and able to do to offenders that frightens people. And I think that in many cases it should. > are still those folks around who either (a) don't think it applies to > them, or (b) don't think they will get caught, or (c) don't understand > what the big fuss is all about in the first place. > If you don't think (c) is still possible, consider the recent thread > in comp.org.eff.talk -- yes, I know, *where else* !! -- on the student > who got suspended from school for two quarters after downloading and > distributing the system password file on the machine he had been > entrusted to use. The fact that the debate could go on endlessly for > message after message actually questioning what, if anything the chap > did wrong tells us plenty about the mentality and 'social respsonsi- > bility' of EFF devotees, but that is a whole new topic in itself. As others have already pointed out, your assumption that people who post in comp.org.eff.* implicitly represent the position of the EFF is abominable. It was this paragraph that made me take a step back and look at your posting again. Anyway, I think it's worth pointing out that much of the discussion has been about topics such as whether users should be allowed to run programs such as COPS. The interested reader is advised to read the newsgroup for him/herself, and not rely on the summaries of either Pat or myself. > The point is, some of us are simply getting very tired of the > break-ins, the fraudulent messages, the fact that in order to telnet > to a different site we can no longer do so direct from dialup servers > without a lot of rig-a-ma-role because computer (ab)users have stolen > all the trust which used to exist between sites, and the increasing > scarcity of 'guest' accounts on various sites because the sysadmins > are tired of being eaten alive with fraudulent and destructive usage. Excuse me, but what relevance does this have to the case of Len Rose? Your comments smack of uninformed journalism following the bandwagon of "hacker" scare-stories. That is not to say that the emergence of crackers in today's electronic society has not caused the problems that you mention, but why do you associate Len Rose with this? > Users had better wise up to one fact: the federal government is going > to continue to crack down on abusers of the net and this media. Having _responsible_ watchdogs/authorities discouraging abuse is (IMHO) a good thing. Blindly assuming that said bodies will follow the moral/ethical guidelines that we think they should is (IMHO of course) a BAD thing. > penitentiary can be, and frequently is a therapeutic experience, at > least for the people who think about what it was that caused them to > get there in the first place. I have no direct experience with prisons/penitentiaries/etc, but I hestitate to accept your recommendation that it is "a therapeutic experience". Would you care to point the interested reader to some background for your recommendation? > A US Attorney involved in prosecuting computer crime once said, "users > need an example when they log in of what to expect when they screw up > while on line ..." Indeed we do ... and Len Rose will serve as such. I think Mike Godwin's reply to this sum things up. Is the title "a US Attorney" intended to impart some level of respect for said person's opinions? > And a knowledgeable sysadmin who is quietly cooperating with the > government tells me a federal grand jury is to returning > another cycle of indictments. Need I say more? Yes please. These may be legal actions within the U.S., but the precedents and details will affect technology users the world over! In , Pat continues: > [Moderator's Note: What Len Rose was *convicted* of doing was being in > possession of AT&T computer source code illegally, and transporting > the code across state lines. And Al Capone was sent to prison for > failure to pay his income tax. You imply that Len is/was guilty of much more. Rather than throwing unsubstantiated accusations around, why not produce some explanation of why you think such accusations are justified? As the Moderator of a large and active newsgroup, I remember as a newbie regarding your postings as coming from someone who knew what they were talking about. Sadly, your recent postings have led me to rethink my former opinion of the notes sighed with "PAT". David Burren [Athos] Email: david@bacchus.esa.oz.au Software Development Engineer, Expert Solutions Australia, Hawthorn, VIC - I cut code for ESA, I don't speak for them -