telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) (07/20/90)
TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Jul 90 21:53:00 CDT Rebuttals: EFF Comments
Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson
The Roar of the Crowd: Rebuttals to EFF Commentary [Many of You]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 20:28:32 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Subject: The Roar of the Crowd: Rebuttals to EFF Commentary
Numerous replies were received to my message the other day asking if
it seemed strange that Lotus was suing the pants off of everyone and
anyone who had a product remotely similar to 1-2-3, while at the same
time Mitch Kapor's new organization was defending someone accused of
theft of the documentation connected with 911 software.
The responses pointed out that Kapor was no longer involved in any
management capacity with Lotus, and that he had in fact expressed his
disapproval of Lotus' actions.
Most responses stopped at that point, but some went further, and added
additional commentary. Here are a few:
From: jt <TK0JUT1%NIU.BITNET@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Response to Pat Townson's Swipe at the EFF
Pat Townson says:
>I guess as usual I don't know what I'm talking about."
Pat, on this one I agree with you. You don't seem to know what you're
talking about, have read the stuff you print, or keep up on the
issues. Consider:
1. There is *NO* evidence that I know of to be introduced in the
Neidorf trial that claims he distributed software, and as you should
know, the contents of the documents in question can be found in a
library (see CuD 1.19, 1.20). If you read Neidorf's indictment, you
will see that he is not charged with stealing software or with using
it in anyway that would subvert its value.
2. Law can abuse as well as protect. Mitch Kapor has been quite
explicit in distancing himself, and the EFF, from predatory behavior.
The EFF, as the founders have publicly repeated, as their documents
indicate, and as their behavior confirms, is focusing on *CIVIL
LIBERTIES* issues that affect us all, even you. At stake is simply
the legal status of electronic communications and the protections it
will or will not have in the coming decades. Why do you insist,
despite all evidence to the contrary, to reduce this to a "defending
hackers" issue, and then take cheap shots when he doesn't seem to be
defending people you have criticized in the past?
3. The EFF is *NOT* contributing to Craig Neidorf's defense. It is
funding to an amicus brief filed by New York lawyers on Constitutional
issues.
4. Why is it a contradiction to want to see a mugger who mugs you
prosecuted while simultaneously believing that even muggers have
rights, especially if the means of catching or punishing the mugger
threaten law-abiding citizens as well?
5. The Morris case hardly raises any Constitutional issues. But, the
fate of Neidorf also may have consequences for the legal fate of Len
Rose, so what's the problem with putting resources where they're most
useful?
6. Neither the EFF, CuD, 2600, or any other group, to my knowledge,
has made folk heros out of any of the current defendants. If you have
evidence to the contrary, produce it. All that I've read quite
specifically focuses in the *ISSUES*! But, even if they did, so what?
Would this change the principles involved? Why do you find it so
necessary to focus on irelevant, inaccurate, and non-germane points?
There are documents, interviews, facts, and other stuff from which one
can obtain information. One would hope that a moderator would use
his/her position to at least inform an opinion with these rather than
take cheap shots from afar and distort reality for the sake of
blind-siding. The EFF, CuD, and other groups are trying to bridge the
gap and reduce polarization. You, by contrast, seem intent on doing
the opposite.
Jim Thomas
Subject: Re: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>
Hey, Pat, chill out a little. My reading of the EFF announcement says
that the two cases that they are working on have little to do with
theft of anything. In the Steve Jackson Games case, nobody has been
charged with any crime and as far as I can tell, nobody is likely to
be, but they have had most of their business assets confiscated
without a trial. In the Craig Neidorf case, there is considerable
evidence that the worst thing he is guilty of is not knowing the right
way to deal with unsolicited stolen property, sort of like somebody
running past you and throwing you a bag of money, with the cops
showing up shortly thereafter.
Also, keep in mind that Mitch Kapor left Lotus and apparently sold
most or all of his stock several years ago, and there is no reason to
think that he has any influence on what Lotus does, nor that he
benefits from any of their actions.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us,
{spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl
Subject: Re: Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com>
TELECOM Moderator <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu> writes:
> It seems Mr. Kapor can be very aggressive when it comes to protecting
> what he believes is his property. Lotus sues quite frequently when they
> are offended, and they seem to be easily offended. I wonder why Mr.
> Kapor does not feel the same way about software which belongs to
> telcos?
I'm not so sure that Mr. Kapor single-handedly made the policy
decisions to litigate against the look-and-feel offenders--in fact all
that I have been able to uncover indicated that he, personally, was
against that course of action. But the major thrust of the EFF is not
to defend the 911 document-lifters, but rather to inform the public
and our government agencies concerning matters technical and to effect
policies that intelligently deal with them.
> If the documentation for 1-2-3 was distributed far and wide
> you know Lotus would be all over your case in a minute ... why should
> the distribution of 911 documentation be different? Why are the people
> alleged to have ripped off 1-2-3 concepts to be held in contempt and
> sued, while those alleged to have distributed 911 stuff are treated as
> folk-heros? Maybe it has to do with whose money is involved, eh?
To my knowledge, no one was ever threatened with criminal charges,
heavy fines, or jail time for distributing Lotus documentation. On the
other hand, the 911 documentation (which is readily available from
many sources) is threatening to ruin the lives of a number of people.
Those involved with 1-2-3 matters are well acquainted with the issues
involved while those prosecuting the 911 defendants are completely
ignorant. It is time that the police, judges, and especially our
lawmakers learn what is and what is not important when it comes to
technology.
> For next: In the flood of press releases received here last week
> announcing the establishment of the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
> and their plans to defend the civil liberties of computerists -- as
> EFF and Kapor define those things -- not a word was said about a legal
> defense for Len Rose.
As I said, the EFF is not a computer ACLU. Defending people against
no-nothing prosecutions may be incidental to what they are trying to
accomplish, but that isn't their prime purpose. Their stated purpose
is public education and the support of litigation *in the public
interest*.
> And while we are on the subject, Robert Morris could
> probably use a good appellate-level attorney about now.
Mr. Morris intended to create a worm. He worked hard on it. It
performed beyond his wildest expectations. IMHO, he got what he
deserved.
> I guess as usual I don't know what I am talking about.
That's a matter of opinion. But my feathers get a little ruffled when
people are attacked for trying to do something that is sorely needed
in this world: educate the public regarding technology. Whatever his
history or motives, I hardly think it is appropriate to kick Mr. Kapor
in the teeth when he works in partnership with Steve Wozniak in
pursuit of a worthy cause. Do you hold the same reservations about
Woz?
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395
john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
From: kdb@macaw.intercon.com (Kurt Baumann)
Subject: Re: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Herndon, VA
Well I can tell that you read what was said. First at the press
conference several times Mr. Kapor was questioned about the Lotus
suit, and everytime he said that he did not believe that what Lotus
was doing is correct. It is also a fact that Mr. Kapor is now
involved with a new startup company and not involved in Lotus. That
happened several years ago.
About the distribution of the 911 docuementation (if that is really
what it is, do you have a copy of it?), this is very similar to the
printing of the Pentagon papers back in the early 70's. If the
government had come down on the {New York Times} like it did on the
poor person whose BBS contained the 911 document in question (and in
fact this person is the person who blew the whistle on the 911
document and cooperated with the Feds...), what do you think the
response of the public would be? Consider that confiscating the
computer that contained the document is akin to confiscating the
printing presses of the {New York Times}. The publisher is not at
fault, but perhaps the original article author is, if he broke laws in
obtaining the documents. Go read the Pentagon Papers case for further
enlightenment.
Also, no one at the press conference thought that they were
"folk-heros". The whole reason for the foundation is to protect those
basic rights that we all have, and make sure that those rights extend
to cover computers as well. These rights are what give you the
ability to say what you feel in forums like this. The way things are
headed in the future you may not have the right to say on a network
what you just said, after all it might contain something that would
"harm" the government or some large corporation. The idea is to
educate those who make the laws so that they understand what the
technology can and cannot do.
> For next: In the flood of press releases received here last week
> announcing the establishment of the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
> and their plans to defend the civil liberties of computerists -- as
> EFF and Kapor define those things -- not a word was said about a legal
> defense for Len Rose. You'd think he would be a prime candidate for
> their services. And while we are on the subject, Robert Morris could
> probably use a good appellate-level attorney about now.
First, just a question for all of you out there. Why do people feel
that it is ok to take away the rights on someone who we/public feels
is wrong? When those same rights are taken away from someone who
we/public feels is right it is not ok? If we are to have rights they
need to be applied to EVERYONE, don't they?
Len Rose admitted to breaking the law (read the Unix Today article in
which he was interviewed), and is in a different catagory. The intent
of the EFF is to protect those who did not break laws, but whose basic
rights have been infringed. Take for example Steve Jackson of Steve
Jackson Games, whose computers were taken from him because it was
thought that a game he was working on was actually a hacker training
manual. Of course we all know that we can all hook into our computers
by just plugging them into our brain. Here again his First Amendment
right of free speach was infringed upon, as well as several other
rights that were broken in the SS's zeal to get their guy. Robert
Morris did not have any of his basic rights taken away, so this case
is not of concern to the EFF.
The search done on this company basically let them take whatever they
felt like taking. If you tried to get a search warrent that said "I
want to take all of the paperwork in this office" the judge wouldn't
allow it, but they said "I want to take all of the electronic data in
this office" the judge allowed that. What is different between hard
copy and electronic copy? Nothing in my mind, you probably feel the
same way, but to someone who doesn't know anything about computers,
how are they to decide? This is where groups like the EFF come to
bear. If you educate these people that electronic data is no
different than paper data, then they have a handle on how to react to
the above request. I would be willing to bet that if the judge had
thought of it as paperwork he would not have allowed such a broad
warrent. In fact no one knows exactly what was said on the warrant,
all they have said so far is that they were looking for computer/
electronic data. Also, no arrests or charges have been made in this
case to date.
> I guess as usual I don't know what I am talking about.
You know what you feel, but you haven't really taken a close look at what
is being said. A closed mind never learns anything new.
InterCon Systems Corporation
703.709.9890
703.709.9896 FAX
-----------------------------
My thanks to all who wrote, including these folks, who simply noted
that Kapor was no longer with Lotus:
Alan Knight <knight@unipas.fmi.uni-passau.de>
Paul Pomes <paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu>
Dave Platt <dplatt@coherent.com>
David Canzi <dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Lang Zerner <langz@eng.sun.com>
Walter Smith <wrs@apple.com>
James Jones <jejones@mcrware.microware.com>
Fred R. Goldstein <goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com>
Anthony Garcia <UC482529@umcvmb.bitnet>
Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
Tom Betz <betz@marob.masa.com>
Others I may have missed! :(
I'm sure this conversation will continue in CuD, and if you are not
already subscribing, this is a good time to introduce you to the list.
The Computer Underground Digest was started partly because of the
overflow of messages here in telecom relating to the methods employed
in the federal crackdown on computer crime, particularly the 'Sun
Devil' case. To have each issue delivered to your email box, write the
moderators: TK0JUT2.NIU.BITNET.
A final word from Bob Dobbs, founder of the Church of the Sub-Genius:
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that
I'm preaching to" -- J. R. "Bob" Dobbs
Patrick Townson
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest: Rebuttals: EFF Commentary
******************************chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) (07/25/90)
In article <9933@accuvax.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator writes: >To have each issue delivered to your email box, write the >moderators: TK0JUT2.NIU.BITNET. USENET readers can currently receive it as alt.society.cu-digest. Chip Rosenthal chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260 [Moderator's Note: Yes, this is another way of recieving it. And the preferred policy is that when one can receive the same thing via news instead of a mailing list, one should use that option. It does save valuable network resources. Not every site receives the alt groups, of course, so the mailing list also remains available. Like TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom, it is your choice as reader. PT]