usenet@jclyde.UUCP (Usenet control) (04/01/88)
People of the net:
As you are aware, we have been having some "problems" with site
'killer' in Dallas. We are aware that the loss of this site has
caused anywhere from minor to major delays and inconveniences to many of you.
We appologize for this. The following is a statement from Charlie Boykin,
Site Administrator of 'killer':
===============================================================================
From cfbplus!charlie Thu Mar 31 18:49:55 1988
Received: by sulaco.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA11339; 31 Mar 88 18:49:53 CST (Thu)
To: sulaco!allen
Subject: killer
Allen,
Just a note to update you on the status of killer. Things are still
pretty unsure about the system being placed back in service. I had hoped
to hear something today but nothing developed. I do not expect much to
develop for another week or so.
It would take some time to bring the system back on line as it now
stands as apparently there is some hardware failure but from what can be
determined with only a cursory inspection, nothing major. It will take
quite a bit of work to get it all back in condition to perform properly
but a project I am more than willing and ready to undertake with pleasure.
I do offer my apologies for the many problems the down-time has caused
the net and the many users of the system. From the many, many calls I have
received, it did cause a great number of problems from Maryland to Ca with
email and news and I do wish this could have been prevented.
Hopefully, my next update will be from killer with it back in service.
Charlie
email: {ihnp4,decvax,cfbplus,jclyde}!sulaco!cfbplus!root
===============================================================================
Further, I feel that the readers of Usenet are deserving of an explanation
as to why the machine went down in the first place. 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. Unfortunately, neither Charlie nor I can
provide anyone with more information regarding this matter. Any interested
party may contact Mr. James Van Orden at (214) 851-3600 for further
discussion.
Thank you again for your patience. Hopefully 'killer' will be up again
soon and resume service to Usenet.
--Allen Gwinn
{ihnp4,jclyde,decvax,rpp386}!sulaco!allenlen@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) (04/03/88)
Now that someone else has said it,I can also add:
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.
The machine was not confiscated,but he has been strongly urged not
to touch it.They have been over the system with a fine toothed comb,
even to the point of reading user's personal mail..
Since killer was supported by ATT to the point of hardware and
telephone access,I suppose they have some say in the system's status.
Lest I forget to point this out,nothing at all was discovered.All
source online was public domain..
I am sure I don't need to point this out,but something like this
could happen to any "public access site".. All it takes is someone
who wants to set you up..
--
Len Rose
{ames,decuac,ihnp4}!netsys!lengeoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (04/04/88)
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
jhc@mtunx.ATT.COM (Jonathan Hawbrook-Clark) (04/05/88)
In article <1706@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) asks:
"where do they [ AT&T ] get the right to seize somebody's private hardware?"
Just for the record, the machine known as 'killer' is the property of AT&T,
was physically located in an AT&T building, and had been registered as an AT&T
system. Consequently, there is no question of anyone's "rights" being trodden on.
--
Jonathan Clark jonathan.clark@mtune.att.com, attmail!jonathan
Any affiliation is given for identification purposes only.
The Englishman never enjoys himself except for some noble purpose.len@ames.arpa (Len Rose) (04/05/88)
Killer will be back up by the end of the week.. Business as usual for sites who connected in the past.. Contact Charley for more information.. -- Len Rose ..!ames!len
usenet@jclyde.UUCP (Usenet control) (04/06/88)
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
elg@nuchat.UUCP (Eric Green) (04/07/88)
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"