Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 08:24 CDT From: Allen Gwinn Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: These People and Institutions Were Hurt by Len Message-ID: Organization: sulaco 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 496, Message 2 of 7 Lines: 104 In article Mike Godwin writes: > This entire posting is driven by an immense ignorance of the timetable > of events that led to Len Rose's prosecution. Perhaps, then, you would share with us exactly what that timetable was since you seem to have information that those of us right here in the middle of it don't have. > This is false. Steve Jackson Games was investigated because of the > alleged "theft" of the E911 document. Len never possessed that > document. I had information that Len had, in his possession, (at least) the maintenance section of the E911 manual, and uucp'd it across to at least one system that I know of. Is this information incorrect? >> Southwestern Bell - I'd use his name but I don't have his permission. >> He lost his job, for all intent and purposes, despite his *total* >> exhonoration in the matter. He was put under a microscope, >> intimidated, and otherwise mistreated and had to leave the company. >> His only "mistake"? He was honestly and innocently associated with >> Len Rose. [responding to comment about an SWBT employee who had been treated unfairly to the point that he had to leave the company because of his honest association with Len Rose.] > Then the abuse was Southwestern Bell's, not Len's. Nobody forced SW > Bell to act unethically. > If they did nothing wrong, and their employers nevertheless fired > them, it doesn't not take a moral philosopher to figure out that the > responsibility for the firing should not be laid at Len's door. An example: you're staying in a hotel. Your room (or the room across the hall) is burglarized. When the police investigate, they find out that it was a friend of one of the maids ... the one that cleans your room. Question: would the authorities be justified in questioning the maid at all? Would you be concerned about their relationship as a guest of the hotel? If, upon questioning, the maid said that she had no involvement with this "friend's" activities, would you simply drop the matter with no further questions asked? The way I see your claims is that if you even questioned the maid, you would be guilty of unethical practices? My apologies in advance if I am wrong. >> Southwestern Bell who had >> sponsored and underwritten it for years decided to shut it down on >> four days' notice and I can't be convinced that it wasn't realted to >> the internal investigation stimulated by the Len Rose case. > Of course you "can't be convinced" of this. It would require weighing > the facts and going beyond mere speculation. Perhaps you can provide us with the "facts" to "weigh" and show Bill how he can see the light without "speculation". >> He's headed for the hoosegow, but I think he and we would be better >> served if he could get some treatment for what makes him hurt others. > I think you should get treatment for the condition that makes you > ignore facts that don't fit your theories. Look, before we go any further, would you mind answering some questions? If any of these accusations are unfounded, please tell me so, and I'll apologize in advance: Was Len Rose arrested at a California airport for "receiving stolen merchandise"? Did Len Rose have stolen source code in his possession at the time of his arrest during a search? Was Len observed "cracking" his way into at least one system on several occasions, and didn't long-distance records provide evidence linking his phone number to several other "cracked" systems modem lines? If any of these allegations (and others that I may not have mentioned) are true, doesn't this qualify Len as a common criminal? Isn't prison an appropriate place for a common criminal? > The government is not a natural event like a rockslide or hurricane; > government agents bear moral responsibility for their actions. The > same goes for private employers. Holding Len responsible for what the > government and private employers chose stupidly to do is to assume > that only Len is capable of making moral judgments. Even the > defendants in the Steve Jackson Games case deserve a higher estimation > of moral responsibility than that. Look, Mike, I'm not implying that the Government conducted its business squeakily clean. Quite the contrary. They botched several things that they attempted to do, and even openly admitted at one point that they were unprepared for investigating this type of criminal activity. But it looks to me like the fact of the matter remains that Len Rose, almost singlehandedly started all of this. If I am wrong, please correct me, but please provide material to back up the claims that you make rather than just telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.lonestar.org)