Xref: utzoo news.admin:1923 news.sysadmin:642 comp.unix.wizards:7617 comp.unix.xenix:1871 misc.headlines:2628
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!elg
From: elg@nuchat.UUCP (Eric Green)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.xenix,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Site 'killer' update
Message-ID: <901@nuchat.UUCP>
Date: 7 Apr 88 07:34:56 GMT
References: <8350@netsys.UUCP>
Organization: Public Access - Houston, Tx
Lines: 49

From article <8350@netsys.UUCP>, by len@netsys.UUCP:
>  After speaking to him for about two hours on the phone,the explicit
> reason was: Charles Boykin was ACCUSED of source piracy,Unix source
> to be explicit.

Note that Charles Boykin is at least peripherally related with AT&T,
so please, before everybody starts flaming AT&T, calm down,  count slowly
from one to ten, and keep your hands off the "f" key. Getting someone
in trouble with their employer is not a good way to earn lasting
friendship.

With that out of the way, back to the main issue at hand. The
problem of BBS systems being accused of harboring pirated software
is not new.  A Baton Rouge computer club, for example, had their
equipment siezed for a few weeks, until the cops detirmined that
the guy who made the complaint was, in fact, the same person that
uploaded the pirated software (he had a history of strife with the
officers of the club). On my BBS system, I have it set up so that
I must personally validate every file before it is made available
for download. For a public access Unix, however, that's out of the
question -- if a person has shell access, he/she can do just about
anything. 
   The "answer", then, is for there to be no shell access. Which means
that it is no longer a public access Unix system. It's just a big
overgrown BBS that happens to run on a Unix system.
   In other words, that's no answer at all. If it is a public access
Unix system, the people who use it must be trusted, somewhat. 
There will always be a potential for abuse, and you must have at
least some means in place for detecting abuse (such as, perhaps,
logging file transfers by modifying the appropriate protocol
programs). Such procedures probably would suffice as a demonstration
that you were acting "in good faith".

Als, note that you don't have to worry about AT&T security busting in 
your door (remember, "killer" was AT&T-supported). Local U.S. Marshals,
maybe, if AT&T decides to press charges in a court of law, and
gets a motion for seizure of appropriate evidence. But I doubt it
would ever get to that point... the most you could probably expect
would be discreet inquiries from AT&T security personel, advising
you to make sure your system has no AT&T source on it, because
"it'd be such a shame to have to seize your system...". 
Even AT&T occasionally worries about bad publicity, such as that
an extended court case would generate in relation to a public
forum such as USENET. The Phone Company of the movie "The President's
Analyst" exists no more.

-- 
Eric Lee Green   P.O. Box 92191  Lafayette, LA 70509
uunet!nuchat!elg  "I survived the Flood of '88"