Hackers Underworld 2: Forbidden Knowledge/Hackers Underworld 2: Forbidden Knowledge.iso/UNDERGRD/VOL_3/CUD325B.TXT

Text File | 1994-11-01 | 10KB | 184 lines

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 91 15:05:10 EST
From: Gene Spafford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Response to Bill Vajk

In an earlier digest, Bill Vajk responded to one of my messages with
lengthy commentary.

I agree with some of his points, disagree with others, and have no
opinion about most.  Most deserve and/or need no comment.  However,
there were a few of his statements (and his overall attitude) I feel I
should respond to somewhat; I won't dignify the obvious personal
insults with commentary, however.

He says: "I am concerned that Spafford's comments can be read to be
forgiving and conciliatory in nature where it regards errors made by
professional law enforcement."  He then goes on to criticize the case
in California described in CUD 3.15.  That juxtaposition was unfair,
and implied that I was in some way trying to excuse the actions of
Office Nemeth & company -- and that is most definitely not the case.
>From what I have heard of that incident, the law enforcement personnel
acted like idiots.

As to being conciliatory and forgiving, I do not believe law
enforcement personnel are basically evil or out to deprive us of our
rights; I believe most law enforcement personnel are poorly educated
in the area and overworked.  I wish to improve that understanding, not
seek to portray law enforcement personnel as "the enemy."  I don't
approve of or agree with some of their actions, but neither do I feel
it inappropriate to try to see things from their point of view.


Later, he says:
>Yes, Gene. In article [e-mail] you misspoke [sic] and assisted
>in proliferation of such incorrect reports :
>
> "The information I have available from various sources
>  indicates that the investigation is continuing, others
>  are likely to be charged, and there MAY be some national
>  security aspects to parts of the discussion that have
>  yet to be disclosed."
>
>Need I voice the obvious and ask how any "responsible" individual should
>handle errors they have made? Need I voice the obvious and ask a simple
>question.  What has Gene Spafford done to correct errors he has made? Has
>his behavior in these matters met the criteria for responsibility he demands
>from others?

Mr. Vajk (and others) appears to misunderstand my usage of words.  My
comment was not a misstatement.  I very carefully qualified it to
indicate that it was based on information available to me, and that it
was an indication, not a certainty.  The investigation did continue.
At the time, it seemed likely to my sources that others would be
charged.  And my use of the word MAY was to indicate that it was far
>from certain.

I don't view this statement on this issue as erroneous, nor do I
believe I have anything to apologize for when making it.  Had I said
"The investigation shows these guys to be traitors and part of a
larger group that will all be arrested and charged." -- that would be
an incorrect statement and something I would need to retract.
However, I didn't make that statement.  I also "demand(s)" nothing of
others.   I admit errors when I make them.

Mr. Vajk then says a great deal about my statement that we should not
believe that everyone charged with computer offenses is innocent.  He
points out (correctly) that *in US law* people are innocent until
proven guilty.  HOWEVER, that does not make them innocent of having
committed an act.  If Joe Random were to shoot someone in front of a
crowd of witnesses, he would be innocent under the law until a jury
returned a verdict in a trial, but he would NOT be innocent of the
act.  Would any witness to the crime, or anyone who spoke to a
witness, then be equally condemned by Mr. Vajk for saying "Joe was not
innocent of murder" before the conclusion of a trial?

My point remains that claiming innocence (in the non-law sense) for
all individuals accused of computer-related crimes is obviously
incorrect and counter-productive.  It may be technically correct to
point out that a court has not convicted them yet, but that does not
mean we should trumpet their innocence.  Furthermore, implying that
law enforcement personnel are all pursuing power-trips and vendettas
against computer users is paranoid.  The law is important, and I
respect it, but I do not need a jury to verify that the sun rose this
morning.  Most people are able to distinguish between convicted and
guily; when too many people believe that the guilty are not being
convicted, repressive measures may get instituted.  If we intend to
fight for appropriate application of the laws to computing, we need to
keep this distinction in mind.

Following more insulting comments, Mr. Vajk then makes some mistaken
comments on copyright and trade secret (proprietary) rights.  Some of
these errors have been addressed already in a previous CUD: copyright
and trade secret rights may both be expressed on a document.

One thing that was not mentioned in the previous comments on copyright
is that there is, indeed, a Federal statute governing copyright
infringement. 2319 USC 18 provides for criminal penalties when a
copyright is infringed.  The copyright must be formally registered and
deposited with the Superintendent of Documents for this to take
effect, however, and the infringement must be willful.  I have heard
directly from Federal attorneys that this law can be used (and has
been used) against people copying source code or documentation (or
chip masks) they do not own.  Copyright is not always strictly a civil
issue.

Mr. Vajk then makes extensive comments on how he thinks copyright
should work, how source code should be valued, and how Federal law
should be applied in cases of interstate traffic in copyrighted
material.  This may or may not be of some interest to some readers,
but it does nothing to change the fact that Len Rose was charged with,
and plead guilty to, an offense based on his trafficking in
proprietary source code.  His attacks on my statement (and me, to some
extent) to that effect are directed at the wrong parties: he seems to
disagree with the way the law is written and/or applied, and that is
not my fault.

He is certainly correct, however, in his observation that the laws are
not adequate for our current technology: this is historically the case
with a great deal of technology, and certainly not restricted to
telecommunications and computing.  I have never disputed this point,
and have often propounded it.

Mr. Vajk continues by criticizing me for (in so many words) "making
statements without knowing the full background."  Interestingly
enough, he does this by assuming he knows what documentation and
information I have accessed, and by assuming that he knows the one,
full truth of the matter of Len Rose's actions and trial.
Furthermore, he then goes on to imply things about AT&T, Tim Foley,
the Illinois (?) prosecutor in the case, and potential witnesses to
the case based on circumstantial evidence.  Am I the only one who
finds such hypocrisy curious?

In the end, there is a fundamental difference of opinion between our
views and our approaches.  Mr. Vajk chose to personally insult me with
remarks in his commentary rather than address that difference.  For
instance, he states: "There has been movement by all branches at the
federal level of law enforcement to assume guilt before investigation
and to trample rights freely utilizing the immunity originally granted
in order to protect officers making honest mistakes as a standard
operating procedure instead of an exceptional circumstance."  I
believe there have been some misguided and ill-informed investigations
and prosecutions; I do not believe it an organized movement as does
(presumably) Mr. Vajk.

I still believe that the common person is not going to find the story
of Robert Morris or Len Rose to be particularly indicative of threats
to their freedoms.  Certainly some of the things done to Len were
inappropriate (the search, for instance).  However, the over-broad
search does not negate his guilty plea to a criminal act.  Although we
wish