llama@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) (06/13/91)
From the New York Times, July 12 (without permission): "A computer hacker was sentenced in a federal court here Monday to a year and a day in prison for stealing information from the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and a subsidiary, Bell Laboratories. The 32-year-old defendant, Leonard Rose Jr., an unemployed computer consultant, pleaded guilty in March to one count of sending A.T.&T. source codes via computer to a hacker in Illinois, and a similar wire fraud charge involving a Chicago hacker." ---------------------------------------------------------------- "Brain! Brain! What is Brain?!" - confused female humanoid alien
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (06/18/91)
Why a year and a day? What is the motive behind this? Why not just a year? So now they can say, "We put him in just, not just for a year, but MORE than a year?" -- The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
ser@netcom.COM (Steve Rubin) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun17.171009.25930@ddsw1.MCS.COM> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: > > Why a year and a day? What is the motive behind this? Why not just >a year? So now they can say, "We put him in just, not just for a year, but >MORE than a year?" (this is real stupid) If they put someone away for more then a year they can put them in a Federal Prison instead of state prison. Stupid ehh? -- Steve Rubin ser@netcom.netcom.com Overfelt High School spam@darkside.com San Jose, California bbs.spam@spies.com "Hawaii IS in the Pacific" -- Dan Quayle
kdenning@genesis.Naitc.Com (Karl Denninger) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun17.182102.9221@netcom.COM> ser@netcom.COM (Steve Rubin) writes: >In article <1991Jun17.171009.25930@ddsw1.MCS.COM> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: >> >> Why a year and a day? What is the motive behind this? Why not just >>a year? So now they can say, "We put him in just, not just for a year, but >>MORE than a year?" > >(this is real stupid) >If they put someone away for more then a year they can put them in a Federal >Prison instead of state prison. Stupid ehh? Unless things have changed drastically in the last many years, there is one important difference: A sentence of more than a year in prison (jail) costs you a good number of your Constitutional rights. A sentence of less typically does not. At least that's how I remember it from Government class. It's been a long time. -- Karl Denninger - AC Nielsen, Bannockburn IL (708) 317-3285 kdenning@nis.naitc.com "The most dangerous command on any computer is the carriage return." Disclaimer: The opinions here are solely mine and may or may not reflect those of the company.
kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ken Dykes) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun17.171009.25930@ddsw1.MCS.COM> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: > > Why a year and a day? What is the motive behind this? Why not just >a year? So now they can say, "We put him in just, not just for a year, but >MORE than a year?" well, i dont know about the USA, but in Canada, plus/minus a day on a year boundary could mean the difference between FEDERAL and provincial/state penitentary. if you must go to jail, a general, but not always accurate :-), rule is a FED *minimum* penn is the least-offensive/least-crowded/safest/etc place to spend time. i believe this is what Len got, FED MINIMUM. the judge did him a *favour* :-) also, again in Canada, no one need serve their whole sentence, usually for minimum security types they get day-passes-to-local-town within a month or two and generally are out on parole in about 1/3 - 1/2 of their sentence. (well more like half-way house by 1/3 and parole at 1/2). -- - Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu [129.97.128.1] watmath!kgdykes B8 P5/5 f+ s m t w e r p less-reliable: uunet!thinkage!kgdykes kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca
kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ken Dykes) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun17.182102.9221@netcom.COM> ser@netcom.COM (Steve Rubin) writes: >In article <1991Jun17.171009.25930@ddsw1.MCS.COM> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: >> >> Why a year and a day? What is the motive behind this? Why not just >>a year? So now they can say, "We put him in just, not just for a year, but >>MORE than a year?" > >(this is real stupid) >If they put someone away for more then a year they can put them in a Federal >Prison instead of state prison. Stupid ehh? > not at all. generally, but not always, prisons run by smaller jurisdictions (tax bases) are more crowded, less equipped and generally LESS NICE PLACES to be. also fed penns are more likely to have "programs" for rehabilition, [well, more like fun & games instead of boredom, rehabilition may be incidental ;-] smaller jurisdictions merely supply a bed for you to pass time. also, do people *really* serve their *whole* sentence? -- - Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu [129.97.128.1] watmath!kgdykes B8 P5/5 f+ s m t w e r p less-reliable: uunet!thinkage!kgdykes kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (06/19/91)
Which rights does one lose? -- The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.193810.5950@ddsw1.MCS.COM> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: > > Which rights does one lose? Unless my Government Class memories are not accurate, two of the most important are the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T, req: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README
peterf@ima.isc.com (Peter Fischman) (06/19/91)
>In article <1991Jun17.171009.25930@ddsw1.MCS.COM> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: >> >> Why a year and a day? What is the motive behind this? Why not just >>a year? So now they can say, "We put him in just, not just for a year, but >>MORE than a year?" > Actually, a year and a day comes from the time when the year was 13 months of 28 days, and the 365th day was kind of new years day. So to send someone away for 365 days, the sentence had to be for a year and a day. Any way, that's what Robert Graves says. peterf
mlc%gva.decnet@CONSRT.ROCKWELL.COM ("GVA::MLC") (06/20/91)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk From: mlc%gva.decnet@consrt.rok.com (Michael Cook) Subject: Re: Len Rose sentenced to Prison Term Sender: news@zoot.avgrp.cr.rok.com Reply-To: MLC%GVA.DECNET@CONSRT.ROK.COM Organization: Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA In article <1991Jun17.171009.25930@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: > Why a year and a day? What is the motive behind this? Why not just > a year? So now they can say, "We put him in just, not just for a year, but > MORE than a year?" The difference of a day is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. A misdemeanor carries a sentence of a year or less. A felony carries a sentence of more (at least by a day) than a year. A felony also can carry loss of some rights or forfeiture of things, as has been pointed out by other posters. -- Michael Cook Internet: mlc%gva.decnet@consrt.rok.com Post in haste, repent in leisure
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.131457.21494@ima.isc.com> peterf@ima.isc.com (Peter Fischman) writes: >>In article <1991Jun17.171009.25930@ddsw1.MCS.COM> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: >>> >>> Why a year and a day? What is the motive behind this? Why not just >>>a year? So now they can say, "We put him in just, not just for a year, but >>>MORE than a year?" >> >Actually, a year and a day comes from the time when the year was 13 months >of 28 days, and the 365th day was kind of new years day. So to send someone >away for 365 days, the sentence had to be for a year and a day. >Any way, that's what Robert Graves says. > Note for the peanut gallery: That was obviously an obscure joke. -- ------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 U.S.A. -------------------------------------------------------
hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson) (06/20/91)
I notice people are fairly upset over the Len Rose sentence. I am too, and can tell you what I did about it. First, who are the bad guys? The SS is a lot more knowledgeable about computers/source code than they were, but without ATT to guide them, they wouldn't have known source code from sausage. ATT could have suied Len, but they chose to get the Feds to deal criminally with what should have been a civil case. At one time, I would have had no more choice in who I did business with then I do with which US government I have to deal with. But this is not the case nowdays, ATT has 60+ percent of the long distance market, but I have found no difference in using MCI (not an endorcement, but money paid to them does not go to ATT.) I wrote a lengthy letter to the ATT chairman about this, because they should know why people are leaving, and switched. I also mentioned that I would do my best to avoid using ATT products (such as Unix) and NCR products (from the merger) as well. If you are upset, this is one way to do something about it. 'Nuff people want it, I will post the letter to ATT. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that ATT has thought through the consequences of pissing off a lot of the technical folks in the country. The marketing effects alone could be staggering. The legal and illegal ways of mucking up a high tech company like ATT would fill a good sized book. Keith Henson (sorry for the spelling errors, my checker is offline)
eck@panix.uucp (Mark Eckenwiler) (06/21/91)
In <9106191748.AA23201@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, mlc%gva.decnet@CONSRT.ROCKWELL.COM stated: > >The difference of a day is the difference between a misdemeanor >and a felony. A misdemeanor carries a sentence of a year or >less. A felony carries a sentence of more (at least by a day) >than a year. A felony also can carry loss of some rights or >forfeiture of things, as has been pointed out by other posters. Close, but not quite. A felony is simply any offense *potentially* punishable by more than a year in prison. You can be convicted of a felony (and subjected to the attendant civil disabilities) without receiving a 1+ year sentence. Recall, for example, that Oliver North was convicted of multiple felonies yet received no jail sentence. (Yes, the convictions have been reversed, but that's beside the point. And yes, his was a pre-Guidelines offense, but it's still possible to get less than a year for a federal felony under the Guidelines.) -- Live by the lawn dart, die by the lawn dart. - Richard Sexton Mark Eckenwiler eck@panix.com ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
ryan@ra.cs.umb.edu (Daniel R. Guilderson) (06/22/91)
In article <1991Jun20.193109.1756@panix.uucp> eck@panix.uucp (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
Recall, for example, that Oliver North was convicted of multiple
felonies yet received no jail sentence.
Thank you for putting this issue in perspective for me. Oliver North
is at least guilty of shredding lots of information that could have
been used to determine what laws were and were not violated. That
would seem to be obstruction of justice to me. Len Rose's actions
pale by comparison.mhitting@lunatix.uucp (Mark Hittinger) (06/22/91)
In article <43487@cup.portal.com> hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson) writes: >I notice people are fairly upset over the Len Rose sentence. I am too, > ... >Frankly, I find it hard to believe that ATT has thought through the >consequences of pissing off a lot of the technical folks in the country. >The marketing effects alone could be staggering. This is a good point. I agree that AT&T has made a serious mistake in claiming such a high value for login.c. I normally don't want to do business with uncompetitive monopoly structures anyway, but a firm that would actually do this is clearly off my list for life. Reply to: an288@freenet.cleveland.edu
wcs) (06/23/91)
In article <1991Jun21.230332.23713@lunatix.uucp> mhitting@lunatix.uucp (Mark Hittinger) writes: ] This is a good point. I agree that AT&T has made a serious mistake in ] claiming such a high value for login.c. I was surprised, especially considering the relative sizes of login.c vs. everything-else.c, but obviously I'm not the one who sets policy around here. Has anyone written a public domain or copylefted login.c? (It's a shame Len hadn't written the whole thing himself.) I've worked with the source, so I'm not in a position to do it, but it's an obvious GNU project. /* gnulogin.c */ login(char *name) { printf("Welcome aboard, %s\n", name); printf("Like the shirt!\n"); return (TRUE); } -- Pray for peace; Bill # Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ # No, that's covered by the Drug Exception to the Fourth Amendment. # You can read it here in the fine print.
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (06/23/91)
If ATT (or Southwestern Bell) published Stephen King novels and someone illegally photocopied one of King's books, ATT would probably claim $1,000,000 damages (the advance they paid to King). - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) (06/25/91)
>This is a good point. I agree that AT&T has made a serious mistake in >claiming such a high value for login.c. Let's make sure that everyone (with particular attention to taxing authorities in charge of things like business inventory taxes) knows exactly how valuable it is. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (06/27/91)
In article <60983@sneaky.lonestar.org> gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) writes: >>... AT&T has made a serious mistake in claiming such a high value for login.c. >Let's make sure that everyone (with particular attention to taxing >authorities in charge of things like business inventory taxes) knows >exactly how valuable it is. OOooooo, I *like* it. -- Mike Van Pelt I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the Headland Technology word 'fair' in connection with income tax policies. mvp@hsv3.lsil.com -- William F. Buckley ...ames!vsi1!hsv3!mvp
habs@panix.uucp (Harry Shapiro) (06/27/91)
In article <60983@sneaky.lonestar.org> gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) writes: >>This is a good point. I agree that AT&T has made a serious mistake in >>claiming such a high value for login.c. > >Let's make sure that everyone (with particular attention to taxing >authorities in charge of things like business inventory taxes) knows >exactly how valuable it is. > > Gordon L. Burditt > sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon This if a enterprize claims something is worth $80,000 or $10,000 etc. and they have many copies in inventory (like books in a book pub's warehouse) then those that Tax should Tax... I like it. habs@panix.com "You can't have a free society without free economics" paraphasized from Milton Freeman Live Free or Die!
wcs) (06/27/91)
In article <9272@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: ]In article <60983@sneaky.lonestar.org> gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org ](Gordon Burditt) writes: ]>>... AT&T has made a serious mistake in claiming such a high value for login.c. ]>Let's make sure that everyone (with particular attention to taxing ]>authorities in charge of things like business inventory taxes) knows ]>exactly how valuable it is. ]OOooooo, I *like* it. Help yourself, dude. AT&T has more accountants, bean counters, bureaucrats, and government regulators running around here than anything else its size, and if they haven't counted something twice then it must not be there. I'm personally surprised that they count login.c as such a high fraction of the total value of UNIX source code, but I doubt they sell it separately anyway - and you put a different value on something that's been ripped off than on something you sell. Back in the robber-baron days at the turn of the century, the Bell telephone companies made a deal with the government that they could have monopoly powers in return for government regulation of our finances, pricing, services, and corporate structure, and even though AT&T isn't a monopoly any more, the regulators haven't left. All in all, I think it was a bad deal, aside from the obviously bogus ethics involved in any monopoly, and it's helped set the precedent for government regulation of broadcast radio and TV, and for monopolies and regulation in even such areas as cable tv which have NO conceivable public-utility legitimacy. -- Pray for peace; Bill # Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ # No, that's covered by the Drug Exception to the Fourth Amendment. # You can read it here in the fine print.
learn@piroska.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo)) (06/28/91)
In article <160030.8689@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> Bill Stewart writes: >I'm personally surprised that they count >login.c as such a high fraction of the total value of UNIX source code, >but I doubt they sell it separately anyway - and you put a different >value on something that's been ripped off than on something you sell. Perjury is perjury, regardless. There is an investigation in progress regarding SE Bell's evaluation of the E-911 file in the Neidorf case. >Back in the robber-baron days at the turn of the century, the Bell >telephone companies made a deal with the government that they could >have monopoly powers in return for government regulation of our >finances, pricing, services, and corporate structure, and even >though AT&T isn't a monopoly any more, the regulators haven't left. AT&T isn't a legal monopoly any longer. There's a difference. >All in all, I think it was a bad deal, aside from the obviously >bogus ethics involved in any monopoly, and it's helped set the precedent for >government regulation of broadcast radio and TV, and for monopolies >and regulation in even such areas as cable tv which have NO >conceivable public-utility legitimacy. This is really funny, Bill, for a number of reasons. In spite of internal rumors, AT&T did not invent 'monopoly.' Either one. Your founders worked quite hard to achieve the status. Pole space, need to build cable networks and infrastructure on an amortizable basis, and all the other stuff that AT&T pioneered was used for cable tv franchising argumentation. Some of that also spilled over into the airline industry, trucking, and so forth. It wasn't a problem of government regulation which permitted those industries to grow as strong as they did (and incidentally, the teamsters union also as a direct consequence.) It was actually the government enforcement of monopoly which gave them the breathing space needed. I'll just understand that it is politically correct inside the AT&T family to decry government "interference" of business these days. But Bill, I want you to please pay close attention to what happens whenever there's a civil infraction regarding a copyright. AT&T pulls government strings to upgrade the infraction to a criminal status, with absolutely no compulsions against lieing as they did about the value of login.c. They go running back to the very same "interfering government" for more protection, a mode they have not yet outgrown. As large as AT&T is, the megalith behaves as a baby. Not much different from SE Bell, a former part of AT&T, who initially valued the E-911 file at $ 77,000 while selling copies for under $ 20. Bill Vajk
karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu (06/29/91)
learn@piroska.uchicago.edu writes: >I'm personally surprised that they count >login.c as such a high fraction of the total value of UNIX source code, >but I doubt they sell it separately anyway - and you put a different >value on something that's been ripped off than on something you sell. Perjury is perjury, regardless. No one at AT&T was ever under oath up to this point, I'm reasonably sure. I don't think you can argue perjury until then. (Possibly Maggio was, by signing the affidavit about what he found on the system. But Maggio didn't ascribe the value to login.c.) ...AT&T pulls government strings to upgrade the infraction to a criminal status, with absolutely no compulsions against lieing as they did about the value of login.c... Not much different from SE Bell, a former part of AT&T, who initially valued the E-911 file at $ 77,000 while selling copies for under $ 20. When I last spoke to one of Len's lawyers, about 4-5 weeks ago and pre-sentencing, we chatted about the login.c valuation question. The line of reasoning behind AT&T's $77K (or whatever the exact figure) value of login.c has to do with the idea of inseparability. When you get login.c via license from AT&T, you can't get _just_ login.c; you necessarily have to get the whole of the SysVRelX.Y core release. They don't sell login.c by itself. Thus, the argument goes, if you have login.c, you necessarily have the rest of the core release. The core release goes for $77K or whatever. This is completely distinct from SE Bell, which was offering the E-911 doc _by_itself_ for under $20. As for "upgrading the infraction" goes...there were other charges along the way which were genuinely criminal. One can say that (well, _I_ would say that), to a certain extent, the login.c charge was just along for the ride. I've seen at least 3 incantations of the indictment (the feds [and AT&T?] seem to have this fascination with updating the indictment for newer and weirder charges with some frequency, thus leaving the defense confused about exactly what is being defended against under the indictment-du-jour, and causing wasted effort on the part of the defense), and while login.c was always mentioned, by the end (and from what I remember of it now -- I last saw an actual indictment in February) it was not a major player in the case. I haven't talked to Len's counsel since sentencing, so I don't know exactly how this worked out at that time. --karl PS- This is just me writing; not Len, and not his legal counsel.
wcs) (06/29/91)
In article <1991Jun28.124441.4768@midway.uchicago.edu> learn@piroska.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo)) writes:
& >Back in the robber-baron days at the turn of the century, the Bell
& >telephone companies made a deal with the government that they could
& >have monopoly powers in return for government regulation of our
& >finances, pricing, services, and corporate structure, and even
& >though AT&T isn't a monopoly any more, the regulators haven't left.
& AT&T isn't a legal monopoly any longer. There's a difference.
Of course not. But the context of my statement was the
suggestion that someone ought to tell the tax auditors how
much we said login.c was worth, and I was saying that we
still have such large herds of government bean-counters
around that they wouldn't have missed counting anything taxable.
& >All in all, I think it was a bad deal, aside from the obviously
& >bogus ethics involved in any monopoly, and it's helped set the precedent for
& >government regulation of broadcast radio and TV, and for monopolies
& >and regulation in even such areas as cable tv which have NO
& >conceivable public-utility legitimacy.
& This is really funny, Bill, for a number of reasons.
& In spite of internal rumors, AT&T did not invent 'monopoly.' Either one.
& Your founders worked quite hard to achieve the status.
Of course not - the idea's as old as monarchy,
though they did invent some new forms of accounting to support it.
But by accepting and promoting monopoly and regulation in
the telephone industry, they strengthened the trend,
and strengthened the government bureaucracy and its ability
to get away with regulating other things.
& I'll just understand that it is politically correct inside the AT&T family
& to decry government "interference" of business these days.
I though I put an adequate disclaimer on my article -
I'm speaking strictly my own opinions here, though as a
stockholder owning N of the ~ 1 billion shares of AT&T stock,
that makes it N*10**-9 of the company's opinion.
In particular, you'll note that my comments about
Theodore Vail and the robber baron movement are
hardly the party line.
As with any large company, there's a general tendency to support
regulating our competitors and oppose being regulated ourselves.
I suspect most of management would prefer to keep the Baby Bells
regulated - I'd prefer they totally stopped regulating us instead.
I'll give some of my opinions on your Len Rose related
comments in a separate posting.
--
Pray for peace; Bill
# Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ
# No, that's covered by the Drug Exception to the Fourth Amendment.
# You can read it here in the fine print.wcs) (06/29/91)
As usual, I've got to make the disclaimer that I'm only speaking my personal opinions, these are not intended to represent AT&T's position, I don't know the AT&T people involved, etc. I'm also not a lawyer, though I sometimes play a politician on TV :-) I have heard Bill Cook speak (he's competent and professional, though his opinions about "freedom of the press" in the context of the electronic press are pretty chilling, and I think he applies them to paper press as well - but he does know that there is a Constitution and thinks it's important) and also the SS agent from Baltimore (I'm about 90% sure it was Tim Foley, but it may have been Jack Lewis or someone named Terry) who was, in my personal and definitely biased opinion, a dangerously incompetent bozo who seemed clueless about the potential that his actions had Constitutional implications or that civil rights existed or mattered. In article <1991Jun28.124441.4768@midway.uchicago.edu> learn@piroska.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo)) writes: V% In article <160030.8689@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> Bill Stewart writes: V% >I'm personally surprised that they count V% >login.c as such a high fraction of the total value of UNIX source code, V% >but I doubt they sell it separately anyway - and you put a different V% >value on something that's been ripped off than on something you sell. V% Perjury is perjury, regardless. There is an investigation in progress V% regarding SE Bell's evaluation of the E-911 file in the Neidorf case. ... V% But Bill, I want you to please pay close attention to what happens whenever V% there's a civil infraction regarding a copyright. AT&T pulls government V% strings to upgrade the infraction to a criminal status, with absolutely no V% compulsions against lieing as they did about the value of login.c. ... V% Not much different from SE Bell, a former part of AT&T, who initially V% valued the E-911 file at $ 77,000 while selling copies for under $ 20. [ Actually $79,449, later reduced to $22,987 and then $13 ] I strongly disagree with your interpretations of the events, in particular "AT&T pulls government strings" and "lieing about the value". AT&T could have done a better job of making the government behave ethically and rationally and use their information correctly, but they're about Nth on the list of blamees, after a whole herd of government people as well as other non-AT&T "experts". First off all, you should review Computer Underground Digest 2.00, which has a copy of Agent Tim Foley's application and affadavit for the search warrant for Len Rose's stuff. The affadavit describes (my description, not his) how Foley, in his gonzo investigation of the E911 affair and repeated interrogations of Craig Neidorf, with the help of several other non-AT&T people, encountered the modified login.c code which Craig said he got from Len. Foley checked with someone at AT&T about whether this really was AT&T UNIX SVR3.2 source code, and what the value was, and was told that it was, and was worth about $75,000. This was NOT AT&T running to the government asking them to turn a copyright-violation civil case into a criminal investigation, this is the government taking a gonzo criminal investigation and bringing AT&T into it as well. Yell at Foley or his helpers. (Please!) (Actually, copyright violation never seems to have been charged, though theft of trade secrets was, ] ~$77,000 is the standard quantity-1 price of a UNIX System V Release 3.2 Operating System source license. I'm not aware that they sell any subset of the source code without the license for the whole thing, so would seem to be the only correct price. (*Price*, not value, which is an entirely different issue - there's what it cost to develop over the years, there's what it's worth to keep it a trade secret, there's $75K*sizeof(login.c)/sizeof(sum(unix)), there's what they'd sell it for if someone convinced us to unbundle it, there's what it would cost to write it yourself, and there are dozens of other possible approaches.) They certainly don't sell a source license without making you sign a contract not to give the source to people who don't have licenses, unless you make a SUBSTANTIALLY higher offer, like $1 Billion ;-) Foley's affadavit refers to "the UNIX SVR3.2 source code" a dozen times, giving the naive reader (e.g. the judge) the impression that it was the whole thing - only one sentence refers to it as the login program, and another refers to "the 19 pages of AT&T UNIX SVR3.2 source code", which a knowledgable person would realize was only a small part. The 3/22/91 DoJ press release which announced Len's plea bargain says: DOJ> The login program is licensed by AT&T at $27,000 per license. The CuD #1.28 issue has an interview with Len, in which Len says the version of login.c he used was obsolete, since 3.2 had included shadow password file. Just guessing from memory, I think the source code for the original AT&T UNIX System V Operating system license was about $27,000 - perhaps the $27K is the entire price of the first source code release containing the actual version of code he had? Calling it a lie by AT&T is unreasonable, especially if you don't know what question the Feds asked AT&T to answer, which I don't. The Feds *certainly* had the responsibility to use a more reasonable price in their affadavits and indictments - even if Rolls Royce won't sell you a Rolls Royce Ignition Key without selling you the whole car, stealing a set of car keys isn't the same as stealing the car - though it IS more serious than stealing a set of blank car keys. The Feds also certainly had the responsibility to explain in their affadavit the fact that they believed that the code Len possessed was stolen or obtained by fraud, as opposed to breach of contract by some unnamed person - otherwise the law probably wouldn't apply - and that the code was the ONLY thing in the long list of items they wanted to seize that they actually contend was stolen property, which is DISTINCTLY not obvious from reading it unless you already know the facts, which the judge presumably didn't. Their justification for the assertion that login.c was an access device as per 18 USC 1030(a) (6) was extremely shady as well, saying it was "specially modified so that it could be inserted by a computer hacker into any computer using a Unix operating system" which was unbelievably incorrect and misleading - I haven't read the law in a while, but the one-sentence description in the affadavit could have applied to almost ANY information that someone could use to help break into a system, such as how ASCII and RS-232 work. Admittedly, the alleged quote from Terminus's comments about "Hacked by Terminus to enable stealing passwords.. This is obviously not a tool for initial system penetration, but instead will allow you to collect passwords and accounts once it's been installed. Ideal for situations where you have a one-shot opportunity for super user privileges.. This source code is not public domain..(so don't get caught with it)." certainly does not add an air of innocence to Rose's image, but a UNIX-knowledgable reader (which one assumes the judge is not), who is maintaining a presumption of innocence (one hopes!), has a non-zero chance of realizing that the events do not indicate that a access information was transmitted "knowingly and with intent to defraud". But it certainly appears that it was intended to give that impression, as well as being presented in the context of AT&T copyright and proprietary information notices. -- Pray for peace; Bill # Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ # No, that's covered by the Drug Exception to the Fourth Amendment. # You can read it here in the fine print.