Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!rice!flammulated.rice.edu!rickr
From: rickr@flammulated.rice.edu (William Richard Russell)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Was Bill Kennedy Really Out Of Line?
Message-ID: <1991Jun26.221205.21378@rice.edu>
Date: 26 Jun 91 22:12:05 GMT
References: <1991Jun26.132906.3116@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG>
Sender: news@rice.edu (News)
Organization: Rice University
Lines: 75

In article <1991Jun26.132906.3116@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG> allen@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG (Allen Gwinn) writes:

...
>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.

This a joke, right? Do you really think that "questioning" is the
issue at hand here? Take the real world example: SJG and Loyd
Blankenship were not merely "questioned". Their property was taken
away, their right to free press was violated, and their ability to
make a living impinged.

By your example, this might be equivalent to searching the maid's home,
taking her diary and financial records, taking her jewelry (it could
have been stolen, right?), then demoting her to the hotel laundry room.
No questioning, no filing of charges. Is that unethical?
...
>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?

Get a grip! The dispute here has *nothing to do* with Len Rose's
conviction. The question is this: should Len Rose be held responsible
for the government's crackdown on computer crime (involving SJG,
Blankenship, Neidorf, etc etc.)?

Bill Kennedy said that Len Rose's punishment should reflect these
secondary effects (to be specific, Bill's was only a call for
discussion, not some kind of recommendation to the court...);
others have said that Rose should not be held  responsible. No 
matter which side you choose, there is no question of Rose's criminal 
activity, of one form or another.
...

>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.

Is that all you're trying to prove? That Len Rose started it? What's
the point? Whether or not he started it has very little to do with the
government's alleged activity in the matter. It's like everyone in a
barfight pointing to one man and claiming that "he started it". As if
they weren't responsible for their own actions...

>-- 
>Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.lonestar.org)
>"If SCO would like to use this server in one of their products they have to
> pay $100 for every copy they redistribute, cause I don't like this company
> and their braindamaged products." - Thomas Roell on The Santa Cruz Operation

Rick Russell
wruss00@ricevm1.rice.edu