Xref: utzoo news.admin:1901 news.sysadmin:635 comp.unix.wizards:7557 comp.unix.xenix:1843 misc.headlines:2608
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!desint!geoff
From: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.xenix,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Site 'killer' update
Message-ID: <1706@desint.UUCP>
Date: 4 Apr 88 05:24:42 GMT
References: <653@jclyde.UUCP>
Reply-To: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Organization: Interrupt Technology Corp., Manhattan Beach, CA
Lines: 17
Keywords: backbone down update on status

In article <653@jclyde.UUCP> usenet@jclyde.UUCP (Usenet control) writes:

> On Friday, March 18,
> 1988, officials from AT&T Corporate Security moved in and seized the
> machine for reasons proprietary to AT&T.  Their object in doing this was
> not to intentionally harm Usenet or cause inconvenience to anyone, but
> to protect the interests of AT&T.

With such limited information, it is difficult and risky to pass
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.
-- 
	Geoff Kuenning   geoff@ITcorp.com   {uunet,trwrb}!desint!geoff