TK0JUT1@niu.bitnet (jt) (08/13/90)
The issue of Len Rose's 1989 brush with the law continues to be mentioned in various notes in a way that seems to divert attention away from his current problem. In 1989, Len was indicted for stealing computer equipment under circumstances that, while in no way acceptable, where not simply rip-off. Len has not yet been convicted for that offense. He has been offered a plea arrangement which he plans to accept later this month. In my (and others') communications with him, he has never denied that act, he has never condoned it, he has never in anyway tried to justify it. His attitude has been one of accepting responsibility for it and facing the consequences. He has repeatedly expressed shame and remorse for it, but recognizes that it has been done. He cannot undo his action, he can only live with it. The 1989 incident is totally unrelated to the current one in which he is charged with computer fraud and transportation of stolen "property." Continually alluding to the past incident diverts attention from two issues raised in the current case. First, as a "Len Rose" issue, the charges seem to exceed what he is alleged to have done. Information beginning to seep in from related details in the Neidorf trial, from documents known to be evidence in Len's case, and from individuals involved in the case, produces a gnawing feeling of deja vous all over again. Those who read the recent version of the indictment in TELECOM Digest noticed that the violated statutes were omitted. A source who possessed the original copy read the statues in a telephone conversation: Counts 1 and 2: Title 18 Sect. 1030(a)(6) and 18 Sect. 2. Counts 3, 4, and 5: Title 18 Sect. 2314 and Title 18 Sect 2. We will confirm this when we obtain a copy of the original later in the week. The second issue is *NOT* a Len Rose issue and could affect many of us who use a modem. Len is not being charged with theft, but with fraud (for writing a trojan horse program -- he is accused only of writing it, not of using it illegally), for writing a program to capture passwords, and for sending these to another state. Modifications in the trojan horse program are alleged to be on proprietary source code, which was one fraction of a larger program. It should be remembered that in the Neidorf trial, the concept of "proprietary information" was grossly abused by BellSouth. Whether that is the case here remains to be seen, but the apparent similarities between the two cases should cause concern to all of us. Anybody who hangs out on Bulletin Boards or who is familiar with archives on other nets is aware that there are may similar programs in the public domain. If Len is found guilty, what is the status of anybody who possesses or sends a program that crypts/encrypts passwords, or who writes such programs in, for example, California, as a consequence of some legitimate need, then sends them to Michigan? This second issue brings us back to the issue of law-enforcement creativity in distorting law for questionable prosecution. We have seen in the Neidorf case that prosecutors, despite overwhelming evidence, can pursue prosecutions that do not belong in the courts. Subsequent evidence could prove us wrong, but to date, we have neither seen nor heard even the suggestion of any evidence that indicates that U.S. v. Leonard Rose is any different than U.S. v. Craig Neidorf. To raise the issue of the 1989 offense distorts these issues. The outcome of the current case should be on the current issues. If Len is being unjustly prosecuted, it is wrong to raise his 1989 behavior as a way of mitigating this injustice. Let's focus on the current issues avoid red herrings. [Moderator's Note: You got the same copy of the indictment I received. And your note to me indicated you also had to edit the word 'Amerika'. The legal cites were included in a Digest Sunday afternoon. On the subject of Red Herrings, you seem to know quite a bit about how they work. While his previous difficulty will not be considered as evidence in the current matter, it will be considered in any pre-sentence social investigation the court relies upon when imposing punishment. It is not totally irrelevant to the present case. PAT]