Bill Kennedy <bill@ssbn.wlk.com> (06/20/91)
My concern is strictly for the damage that Len did to people and organizations who were just whooshed into his vortex. > Mr. Rose is on his way to jail for posessing unlicensed source code. > The world is now safer for humanity. The case that I want to plead has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality or lack thereof for which Len Rose is being incarcerated. I want to talk about common courtesy and respect for your fellow man. Not common courtesy or respect for Len, but rather HIS lack of it for others. > One stark bad example. Heading off to jail. Now, let us contrast the > damage done by Mr. Rose to the damage done by the SS to Steve Jackson > Games, and scale an appropriate sentence for them. Tanner makes my point with precision. Let me enumerate the damage done which could have been avoided had Len acted more responsibly: Steve Jackson games - They never would have become vulnerable to SS abuse had Len not made excursions beyond reason and the law. This wasn't Tanner's point, but it's my take on it. Usenet killer/attctc - This invaluable resource and national spoke in the Usenet wheel would not have been shut down had Len not decided to joyride beyond the bounds of propriety and common sense. Southwestern Bell - I'd use his name but I don't have his permission. He lost his job, for all intent and purposes, despite his *total* exhonoration in the matter. He was put under a microscope, intimidated, and otherwise mistreated and had to leave the company. His only "mistake"? He was honestly and innocently associated with Len Rose. AT&T employee - Ditto above. In my view these two people lost their jobs just because they had dealings with Len Rose in all good faith. Had Len Rose remained within the bounds of professionalism they would still be employed by their previous employers (in the SWBT case 22 years went down the drain). I happen to think that they are both better off in their current jobs and they probably agree, but it's not the point. Their careers with their employers were wrecked because Len Rose couldn't behave. Usenet texbell - THE major news and mail site in Texas came under scrutiny as a result of the Len Rose case. Southwestern Bell who had sponsored and underwritten it for years decided to shut it down on four days' notice and I can't be convinced that it wasn't realted to the internal investigation stimulated by the Len Rose case. Unnamed person Austin - I don't have his permission either so he'll have to stay anonymous too. His apartment was raided and all of his electronic stuff confiscated the same day as Steve Jackson Games, same city, Austin, TX. This individual is now having to file a lawsuit to get his gear back (no charges were ever filed) and it costs him money to do that. Len's stuff was returned. Here's my point. I don't care what anyone says or thinks about right or wrong with regard to Len Rose. My animosity and resentment stems from the "collateral damage" caused by a long standing collection of really bone headed things that the man did. I am just as sympathetic as everyone else for what he did to his family (I said "what he did") as I am what he did to the rest of the net at large, examples above. He caused a lot of grief. He grieved some people who could have been spared had he been able to contain himself. He didn't, they weren't spared. He's headed for the hoosegow, but I think he and we would be better served if he could get some treatment for what makes him hurt others. Yes, I'm an injured party too, but stomach acid only, he *HURT* the things I laid out above. Don't slather me with "it was the big bad feds"; had he not attracted their attention they'd have left him (and the rest of us) alone. 'Nuff said, I thought you ought to know. Bill Kennedy internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or ssbn!bill@attmail.COM uucp {att,cs.utexas.edu,pyramid!daver}!ssbn.wlk.com!bill
Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org> (06/25/91)
In article <telecom11.481.6@eecs.nwu.edu> Bill Kennedy writes: > My concern is strictly for the damage that Len did to people and > organizations who were just whooshed into his vortex. This entire posting is driven by an immense ignorance of the timetable of events that led to Len Rose's prosecution. > Not common courtesy or respect for Len, but rather HIS lack of it for > others. It is not a violation of common courtesy to be investigated because one sent a file to Craig Neidorf. This is why Len was investigated. > Steve Jackson games - They never would have become vulnerable to SS > abuse had Len not made excursions beyond reason and the law. This > wasn't Tanner's point, but it's my take on it. This is false. Steve Jackson Games was investigated because of the alleged "theft" of the E911 document. Len never possessed that document. He never had any link with the events at Steve Jackson Games. If Len's reputation had not already been damaged for other reasons, he would be able to sue William Kennedy for this statement alone and win. It is sloppy, reckless, malicious, and ignorant. > Usenet killer/attctc - This invaluable resource and national spoke in > the Usenet wheel would not have been shut down had Len not decided to > joyride beyond the bounds of propriety and common sense. Please explain how Len caused AT&T to shut down Charlie Boykin's system. It is unclear how Len has the power to push AT&T around. > Southwestern Bell - I'd use his name but I don't have his permission. > He lost his job, for all intent and purposes, despite his *total* > exhonoration in the matter. He was put under a microscope, > intimidated, and otherwise mistreated and had to leave the company. > His only "mistake"? He was honestly and innocently associated with > Len Rose. Then the abuse was Southwestern Bell's, not Len's. Nobody forced SW Bell to act unethically. > AT&T employee - Ditto above. In my view these two people lost their > jobs just because they had dealings with Len Rose in all good faith. If they did nothing wrong, and their employers nevertheless fired them, it doesn't not take a moral philosopher to figure out that the responsibility for the firing should not be laid at Len's door. > Southwestern Bell who had > sponsored and underwritten it for years decided to shut it down on > four days' notice and I can't be convinced that it wasn't realted to > the internal investigation stimulated by the Len Rose case. Of course you "can't be convinced" of this. It would require weighing the facts and going beyond mere speculation. It would require risking being proved wrong. It might require a public apology to Len. (You already owe him one for your statement about SJGames.) > Unnamed person Austin - I don't have his permission either so he'll > have to stay anonymous too. His apartment was raided and all of his > electronic stuff confiscated the same day as Steve Jackson Games, same > city, Austin, TX. This individual is now having to file a lawsuit to > get his gear back (no charges were ever filed) and it costs him money > to do that. Len's stuff was returned. Of the people searched in Austin, two had no association with Len's investigation at all, and the third does not blame Len for the abuses inflicted upon him by the federal government. Or, at least, not the last time I spoke with him about Len. > He caused a lot of grief. He grieved some people who could have been > spared had he been able to contain himself. He didn't, they weren't > spared. This is simply raving. Len never forced the government or private companies to fire or harass anyone. Most of the investigations followed from massive mistakes on the part of government investigators and private security agents. Len can't be held responsible for the stupidity of the government. > He's headed for the hoosegow, but I think he and we would be better > served if he could get some treatment for what makes him hurt others. I think you should get treatment for the condition that makes you ignore facts that don't fit your theories. > Don't slather me with "it was the big bad > feds"; had he not attracted their attention they'd have left him (and > the rest of us) alone. The government is not a natural event like a rockslide or hurricane; government agents bear moral responsibility for their actions. The same goes for private employers. Holding Len responsible for what the government and private employers chose stupidly to do is to assume that only Len is capable of making moral judgments. Even the defendants in the Steve Jackson Games case deserve a higher estimation of moral responsibility than that. Mike Godwin, mnemonic@eff.org (617) 864-1550 EFF, Cambridge, MA
gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) (06/26/91)
> Steve Jackson games ... Usenet killer/attctc ... Southwestern Bell ... > AT&T employee ... Usenet texbell ... Unnamed person Austi ... What we have are bunch of people and organizations harmed because of their associations, not because they did anything wrong. We should be condemning the people who have judged people on the basis of association, rather than condemning the associated person for harm caused to those he has associated with. This country is not supposed to be Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. For example, saying that the troubles of Steve Jackson's Games is due to Len Rose rather than to the Secret Service is hogwash. David Gast
Allen Gwinn <allen@sulaco.lonestar.org> (06/26/91)
In article <telecom11.488.3@eecs.nwu.edu> Mike Godwin writes: > This entire posting is driven by an immense ignorance of the timetable > of events that led to Len Rose's prosecution. Perhaps, then, you would share with us exactly what that timetable was since you seem to have information that those of us right here in the middle of it don't have. > This is false. Steve Jackson Games was investigated because of the > alleged "theft" of the E911 document. Len never possessed that > document. I had information that Len had, in his possession, (at least) the maintenance section of the E911 manual, and uucp'd it across to at least one system that I know of. Is this information incorrect? >> Southwestern Bell - I'd use his name but I don't have his permission. >> He lost his job, for all intent and purposes, despite his *total* >> exhonoration in the matter. He was put under a microscope, >> intimidated, and otherwise mistreated and had to leave the company. >> His only "mistake"? He was honestly and innocently associated with >> Len Rose. [responding to comment about an SWBT employee who had been treated unfairly to the point that he had to leave the company because of his honest association with Len Rose.] > Then the abuse was Southwestern Bell's, not Len's. Nobody forced SW > Bell to act unethically. > If they did nothing wrong, and their employers nevertheless fired > them, it doesn't not take a moral philosopher to figure out that the > responsibility for the firing should not be laid at Len's door. An example: you're staying in a hotel. Your room (or the room across the hall) is burglarized. When the police investigate, they find out that it was a friend of one of the maids ... the one that cleans your room. Question: would the authorities be justified in questioning the maid at all? Would you be concerned about their relationship as a guest of the hotel? If, upon questioning, the maid said that she had no involvement with this "friend's" activities, would you simply drop the matter with no further questions asked? The way I see your claims is that if you even questioned the maid, you would be guilty of unethical practices? My apologies in advance if I am wrong. >> Southwestern Bell who had >> sponsored and underwritten it for years decided to shut it down on >> four days' notice and I can't be convinced that it wasn't realted to >> the internal investigation stimulated by the Len Rose case. > Of course you "can't be convinced" of this. It would require weighing > the facts and going beyond mere speculation. Perhaps you can provide us with the "facts" to "weigh" and show Bill how he can see the light without "speculation". >> He's headed for the hoosegow, but I think he and we would be better >> served if he could get some treatment for what makes him hurt others. > I think you should get treatment for the condition that makes you > ignore facts that don't fit your theories. Look, before we go any further, would you mind answering some questions? If any of these accusations are unfounded, please tell me so, and I'll apologize in advance: Was Len Rose arrested at a California airport for "receiving stolen merchandise"? Did Len Rose have stolen source code in his possession at the time of his arrest during a search? Was Len observed "cracking" his way into at least one system on several occasions, and didn't long-distance records provide evidence linking his phone number to several other "cracked" systems modem lines? If any of these allegations (and others that I may not have mentioned) are true, doesn't this qualify Len as a common criminal? Isn't prison an appropriate place for a common criminal? > The government is not a natural event like a rockslide or hurricane; > government agents bear moral responsibility for their actions. The > same goes for private employers. Holding Len responsible for what the > government and private employers chose stupidly to do is to assume > that only Len is capable of making moral judgments. Even the > defendants in the Steve Jackson Games case deserve a higher estimation > of moral responsibility than that. Look, Mike, I'm not implying that the Government conducted its business squeakily clean. Quite the contrary. They botched several things that they attempted to do, and even openly admitted at one point that they were unprepared for investigating this type of criminal activity. But it looks to me like the fact of the matter remains that Len Rose, almost singlehandedly started all of this. If I am wrong, please correct me, but please provide material to back up the claims that you make rather than just telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.lonestar.org)
Colin Plumb <colin@array.uucp> (06/27/91)
In article <telecom11.481.6@eecs.nwu.edu> bill@ssbn.wlk.com (Bill Kennedy) writes: > My concern is strictly for the damage that Len did to people and > organizations who were just whooshed into his vortex. [Many Bad Things described happening to people who Len had contact with.] I still can't blame Len for all that. I can blame the spirit of inquisitions, purges, denunciations, and the U.S. House Un-American Activities Committee everywhere, but I'm not going to blame Marc Lepine's acquaintances for the deaths of the 14 people he shot, nor will I blame feminists in general for attracting his psychosis, nor will I blame Len for guilty-by-association witch hunts his actions sparked. I'll blame the hunters, especially since Len had reason to believe such trivia as the first, fourth and fifth amendments to the U.S. constitution protected his friends. There are similar applicable sections in the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (particualrly Articles 12, 19 and 20), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (Articles 5 and 7), and the British Magna Carta (Articles 20, 38, and 39). They all say either, I can talk with whoever I like, or, I shall not be persecuted without lawful judgement, and not to a greater degree than the offense warrants. You'd think that after 776 years of nominal allegiance to due process of law, it would have sunk in a little ... on the other hand, the fact that people kept putting it on revolutionary documents is some indication that they felt it needed reinforcing. > Tanner makes my point with precision. Let me enumerate the damage > done which could have been avoided had Len acted more responsibly: This same damage could have been avoided if the more direct agents, namely various law-enforcement and telco authorities, had reacted less hysterically. I hold them immediately responsible. > Don't slather me with "it was the big bad feds"; had he not attracted > their attention they'd have left him (and the rest of us) alone. You think you live in a police state. I wonder if it's true. Colin