Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att-cb!att-ih!occrsh!occrsh.ATT.COM!rjd
From: rjd@occrsh.ATT.COM
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Site 'killer' update
Message-ID: <142700028@occrsh.ATT.COM>
Date: 4 Apr 88 19:44:00 GMT
References: <653@jclyde.UUCP>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:jclyde.UUCP:-65300:occrsh.ATT.COM:142700028:000:1139
Nf-From: occrsh.ATT.COM!rjd    Apr  4 13:44:00 1988


.judgement on anyone.  However, this certainly sounds heavy-handed.
.Assuming killer's offense was a violation of AT&T source-code trade
.secrets, where do they get the right to seize somebody's private hardware?
.It would be one thing if the moved in, deleted all questionable source
.(after backing it up onto media they handed over to the courts for escrow).
.But seizing the entire machine is a little Big-Brother-ish for my taste.
. [ some deleted ]
.
.	Geoff Kuenning   geoff@ITcorp.com   {uunet,trwrb}!desint!geoff

  Also illegal if the machine were indeed owned privately....  Perhaps
killer is one of the many privately administered, yet AT&T-owned machines
on the net?  Then they are perfectly allowed to shut one of their own
machines off from the outside world until it can be determined that it
is safe to allow outside access.
  But even if killer is not AT&T owned, it was stated in the original that
AT&T supported the machine's comunication links, so it would not be so
"Big-Brother-ish" for them to cut it off IF, as they possibly had good
reason to suspect, it was indeed giving away source code or whatever.
  

Randy