allen@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG (Allen Gwinn) (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) "If SCO would like to use this server in one of their products they have to pay $100 for every copy they redistribute, cause I don't like this company and their braindamaged products." - Thomas Roell on The Santa Cruz Operation
rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.132906.3116@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG> allen@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG (Allen Gwinn) writes: > >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. Mike is out of town on EFF business. If you are truly interested in the facts of the case, I will be happy to mail out some materials to you. You can also ftp eff.org and look for information in our archives. Brendan Kehoe also maintains some archives over on cs.widener.edu, I believe. (And the whole thing did not start with Len Rose. Len was implicated through Craig Neidorf, who was implicated through Robert Riggs). Rita Administrator, EFF -- Rita Marie Rouvalis rita@eff.org Electronic Frontier Foundation | A man walked up to me and said,"I'd like to 155 Second Street | change your mind by banging it with a rock, Cambridge, MA 02141 (617)864-0665 | he said, "though I am not unkind." TMBGs
gsh7w@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (06/27/91)
Allen Gwinn writes:
#Look, before we go any further, would you mind answering some questions?
#
#Was Len Rose arrested at a California airport for "receiving stolen
#merchandise"?
#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?
Being arrested by someone does not make them a common criminal, Ed
Meese not withstanding.
Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty?
Len Rose plead guilty to having unliscenced AT&T software.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wrickr@flammulated.rice.edu (William Richard Russell) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.132906.3116@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG> allen@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG (Allen Gwinn) writes: ... >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. This a joke, right? Do you really think that "questioning" is the issue at hand here? Take the real world example: SJG and Loyd Blankenship were not merely "questioned". Their property was taken away, their right to free press was violated, and their ability to make a living impinged. By your example, this might be equivalent to searching the maid's home, taking her diary and financial records, taking her jewelry (it could have been stolen, right?), then demoting her to the hotel laundry room. No questioning, no filing of charges. Is that unethical? ... >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? Get a grip! The dispute here has *nothing to do* with Len Rose's conviction. The question is this: should Len Rose be held responsible for the government's crackdown on computer crime (involving SJG, Blankenship, Neidorf, etc etc.)? Bill Kennedy said that Len Rose's punishment should reflect these secondary effects (to be specific, Bill's was only a call for discussion, not some kind of recommendation to the court...); others have said that Rose should not be held responsible. No matter which side you choose, there is no question of Rose's criminal activity, of one form or another. ... >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. Is that all you're trying to prove? That Len Rose started it? What's the point? Whether or not he started it has very little to do with the government's alleged activity in the matter. It's like everyone in a barfight pointing to one man and claiming that "he started it". As if they weren't responsible for their own actions... >-- >Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.lonestar.org) >"If SCO would like to use this server in one of their products they have to > pay $100 for every copy they redistribute, cause I don't like this company > and their braindamaged products." - Thomas Roell on The Santa Cruz Operation Rick Russell wruss00@ricevm1.rice.edu
ryan@ra.cs.umb.edu (Daniel R. Guilderson) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.132906.3116@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG> allen@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG (Allen Gwinn) writes:
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?
This whole discussion has to do with whether or not Len was
responsible for people being unfairly investigated and mistreated by
government agents. So why are you trying to change the subject?
Let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that Len did
*something* against the law (I won't concede that whatever he did was
deserving of a year in prison).
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.
Why lay it on Len? Why not Neidorf? Why not the guy who actually
snarfed E911? Whoever you finally decide to blame will not change the
fact that the government agents are solely responsible for their own
behaviour. If they mistreat people while making an investigation they
must be made to answer and not the person or persons they are
investigating.
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?
This example has almost nothing to do with the Len Rose case but it is
interesting nonetheless.
They would certainly be justified in asking the maid questions but
unless they had some other evidence which pointed to a conspiracy,
they should not be allowed to investigate her any further.
Now my example: You may have heard about the Charles Stuart case in
Boston. He shot and killed his pregnant wife and then blamed it on an
unknown black man. He gave the police a description of this phantom
assailant and based solely on the description police coerced
statements out of some teenagers implicating a local thug. The police
then proceeded to visit the thug's mother and completely destroy the
interior of her home. Including smashing many holes in the walls and
breaking up furniture. This is not some hypothetical case, it
actually happened. As it turned out the thug was innocent and most
assuredly his mother never had anything to do with any crime. So were
the police justified? If we were to listen to your logic we would
have to conclude that it doesn't matter whether or not they were
justified because it's all the thug's fault for being a common
criminal.campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.132906.3116@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG> allen@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG (Allen Gwinn) writes:
-
-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?
In words of fewer than three syllables: no.
Being "arrested...for receiving stolen merchandise" does not qualify one as
a criminal, common or uncommon. Being *convicted* would.
Having "stolen source code in his possession" does not qualify one as a
criminal (unless one stole the code by climbing in through a window and
snatching a tape). Copyright and trade secret violations are civil
offenses, not criminal.
Being "observed cracking" (by whom?) *might* qualify Len as a criminal,
depending on the state in which the offense allegedly occurred.
If, by some remarkable twist, Len Rose actually did *everything* he's been
accused of on this net, I think a year in jail might be appropriate. I
suspect, however, that reality probably fails to live up to the colorful and
inciting stories we've been hearing on the net lately.
We now return you to our regular witchhunt, which is already in progress.
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc., 120 Fulton Street
campbell@redsox.bsw.com Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (USA)learn@piroska.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo)) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.132906.3116@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG> Allen Gwinn writes: >In article <telecom11.488.3@eecs.nwu.edu> Mike Godwin writes: >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. It isn't worth the effort to me to put it all together in an exact date sequence, but as an overview, here's what happened : 1) Rich Andrews notices the E-911 file on jolnet and starts having trouble sleeping because his system, his hobby, is caught up in something illegal. 2) Rich worries over this for some days, and after discussing what to do with Len (this is Rich's rendition) he sends a copy to Charlie Boykin at system attctc (formerly killer.) Charlie is an AT&T employee. Rich asks Charlie to send it to the appropriate folks for review/disposition of the legalities. 3) Nothing happens for some months. 4) SE Bell contacts Rich and says they lost the copy of the file, did he still have it and if so, could he please send them another copy. Rich does, and he complies. 5) Traffic is traced to and from Rich's system, jolnet, implicating the Atlanta 3 and Neidorf at U of Missouri. The investigation takes on a two front posture. 6) The search of U of Missouri computers turns up Rose and login.c 7) Search warrant against Rose is executed. 8) Rich Andrews and his system are subject of subpoenas, a series apparently, for grand jury activity in Chicago. This note appears in a public record in the affidavit to "search" jolnet. Rich had been cooperating with the authorities when they determined the information they were getting wasn't coming fast enough, so they opted to seize his property although there wasn't anything in the affidavit implicating Andrews with any criminality. This seizure and subsequent activity by the United States Secret Service ended up losing Rich his job and he has had to take on consulting postitions when his preferred employment is a regular check and some level of financial security as he has a wife and five children counting on him. 9) Rose is charged. All charges concern AT&T source code for which he has not paid a license fee. No charges of theft were made at the federal level. A) Riggs, Darden, and Grant plead guilty in Atlanta to charges associated with the E-911 file and there are some agreements to bear witness against Neidorf in his upcoming trial in Chicago. B) Neidorf trial. C) Rose takes an AT&T/Interactive job at Naperville, is arrested and charged, his equipment (newer stuff) is seized. D) Rose plea bargains. >Perhaps you can provide us with the "facts" to "weigh" and show Bill >how he can see the light without "speculation". This little tidbit has to do with the second shutdown of a machine which was supported by AT&T and was offering some pretty nice services. In the first rendition it was called 'killer.' In the latter it was renamed attctc at corporate insistance. Allen, you and Kennedy and John Hough live in the region. In fact, it had come to my attention a couple of years ago thet several of you fellows used to fly over to Dallas for lunch with Charlie Boykin the system administrator at killer/attctc. You fellows were this >< close to Charlie. I heard a rumor I'd like verified or discredited. It has to do with Charlie being fired by AT&T over these incidents, and rehired at union insistence. Charlie went into a low profile mode as a result of all this hooplah, and I for one don't care to make trouble for people as nice and as innocent as Charlie, so I haven't bothered him with mail or phone calls. But you fellows are right there and have information of interest which you could be sharing instead of fussing over Len and his problems. No matter what Charlie told you at the time, it is now obvious that AT&T had no heart in the business of keeping a public access system and usenet hub alive and thriving at corporate expense. There were also some rumors about AT&T security folks diddling the data (let's call it evidence) when killer was taken down. I hope that you, Allen, and Bill Kennedy, are aware that the same department at AT&T has been doing the computer related data retrieval and interpretations on behalf of the US Government in a number of cases. In fact, Maggio duplicated Len Rose's equipment "in the lab" so they could work from data dumps instead of on the original machine which might have been needed as "evidence." AT&T has a history of being self-serving. Nothing's changed. See my comments about incestuous prosecutions in CUD. I can see it now, the prosecution picks up a modem, with cables trailing for showtime effect, "Yes, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. This is the very modem the defendant used to commit this dastardly deed." >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. This biz started in Atlanta, Not in Maryland. In fact, the entire business of discovering Rose was the result, in my opinion, of an overbroad search at the University of Missouri. Your verdict of the government not being 'squeakily clean' hardly begins to cover the filthy way they did conduct business. Before it is all done, Foley, Cook, and others will be before the bar answering for a lot of other infractions of the laws they swore to uphold. And you boys down there in Texas would do well to stop commiserating about how badly you've been treated. It is highly likely that some of the fingerpointing needs be contained within the little circle right in town. Bill Vajk
bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) (06/29/91)
In message <1991Jun26.132906.3116@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG> Allen Gwinn wrote: > Question: would the authorities be justified in questioning the maid at > all? Questioning the maid is fine. Finding out that she was uninvolved and then canning her anyway wouldn't be. Also, we're not talking about a maid here, we're talking about a career guy who was swept out of the company by what was (apparently) found to be a baseless rumor. The affected (whether by Uncle Sam or Len Rose is for the reader to decide) have been pretty mild so far... Throw somebody's job and/or personal property in the toilet, and no payback? Wait'll some "downtown" kinda guy gets treated this way. He or she could be guilty as sin, and still they'd throw every piece of cutlery and furniture in the house at their accusers, and then go for the vital organs. Speaking metaphorically, of course. Who will be the first? -- Bob Opinions expressed in this message are those of its author, except where messages by others are included with attribution. Bob Izenberg [ ] bei@dogface.austin.tx.us home: 512 346 7019 [ ] CIS: 76615.1413@compuserve.com
allen@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG (Allen Gwinn) (07/01/91)
In article <RYAN.91Jun26202439@ra.cs.umb.edu> ryan@ra.cs.umb.edu (Daniel R. Guilderson) writes: >This whole discussion has to do with whether or not Len was >responsible for people being unfairly investigated and mistreated by >government agents. So why are you trying to change the subject? Ok, let's don't. There is nothing that anyone can do that justifies the mistreatment of innocent third-parties by government agents. However, that notwithstanding, had there been no Len Rose investigation, innocent third parties could not have been investigated as to their connection with Len Rose, could they? This, once again, is no excuse for the way people were treated by the Feds--simply a fact. >Let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that Len did >*something* against the law (I won't concede that whatever he did was >deserving of a year in prison). He plead guilty to several charges. I believe that this was done in conjunction with a plea bargain. Any idea of what the things that he plea-bargained away would have been worth? >Why lay it on Len? Why not Neidorf? Why not the guy who actually >snarfed E911? Whoever you finally decide to blame will not change the >fact that the government agents are solely responsible for their own >behaviour. If they mistreat people while making an investigation they >must be made to answer and not the person or persons they are >investigating. I agree. However, you and I both know what the chances are of making people in those positions answer for the wrongs they've done :-) -- Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.lonestar.org) "If SCO would like to use this server in one of their products they have to pay $100 for every copy they redistribute, cause I don't like this company and their braindamaged products." - Thomas Roell on The Santa Cruz Operation
allen@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG (Allen Gwinn) (07/01/91)
In article <1991Jun27.134611.16787@midway.uchicago.edu> learn@piroska.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo)) writes: Thanks, Bill, for posting the timetable. >I heard a rumor I'd like verified or discredited. It has to do with >Charlie being fired by AT&T over these incidents, and rehired at union >insistence. Charlie was never fired... there is so much to this story that I would like to tell, but am not able to for various reasons. There is a chance that all of these reasons will disappear shortly, and at that time, I might be able to be "a little less vague". >No matter what Charlie told you at the time, it is now obvious that AT&T had >no heart in the business of keeping a public access system and usenet hub >alive and thriving at corporate expense. Matter of fact, they did. The regional V.P. was the one that moved it to a more "official" home and sanctioned it (and changed the name to attctc). >There were also some rumors about >AT&T security folks diddling the data (let's call it evidence) when killer >was taken down. This is not true to my knowledge. >I hope that you, Allen, and Bill Kennedy, are aware that >the same department at AT&T has been doing the computer related data >retrieval and interpretations on behalf of the US Government in a number >of cases. That is correct, and I would hope that you or someone would approach Mike Godwin with the details of this, and ask his opinion. -- Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.lonestar.org) "If SCO would like to use this server in one of their products they have to pay $100 for every copy they redistribute, cause I don't like this company and their braindamaged products." - Thomas Roell on The Santa Cruz Operation