Xref: utzoo news.admin:1922 news.sysadmin:641 comp.unix.wizards:7610 comp.unix.xenix:1867 misc.headlines:2626
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!umix!umich!mibte!gamma!sabre!sword!faline!bellcore!tness7!petro!swrinde!ut-sally!utastro!bigtex!jclyde!usenet
From: usenet@jclyde.UUCP (Usenet control)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.xenix,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Site 'killer' update
Message-ID: <660@jclyde.UUCP>
Date: 5 Apr 88 20:43:19 GMT
References: <653@jclyde.UUCP> <1706@desint.UUCP>
Reply-To: usenet@jclyde.UUCP (Usenet control)
Organization: Glavnoye Razvedyvatelnoye Upravleniye, Austin, TX
Lines: 21

In article <1706@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes:
>
>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.

First I want to point out that I posted this for the sysops of killer.
Therefore, I am just passing on what has been given to me.  I claim no
responsibility for any of the information contained therein.  I am doing
a favor for allen@sulaco and Charlie Boikon (sp?).

Second, as I understand it, AT&T owns killer.  Therefore, they can do anything
they darned well please with the machine including seizing it.  Now, whether
this is ethical or not is a whole other question.
-- 
John B. Meaders, Jr.  1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX  78752
ATT:  Voice:  +1 (512) 451-5038  Data:  +1 (512) 371-0550
UUCP:   ...!uunet!utastro!bigtex!jclyde!john  or  john@jclyde.UUCP