[comp.org.eff.talk] repost from comp.dcom.telecom: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term?

jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend) (06/18/91)

I DID NOT WRITE THIS!  THIS WAS WRITTEN BY PAT TOWNSON, WHO IS
NO RELATION TO ME! 

That said, have an editorial from the moderator of comp.dcom.telecom.
If I were moderator, and this were submitted to me, I would not
post it.  Would you?  Apparently with the title of "moderator" comes
the priviledge of the bully pulpit.

In article <telecom11.453.1@eecs.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes:
>The Len Rose saga came to an end this past week when a federal judge
>considered the circumstances involved and chose to impose punishment
>by placing Len in the custody of the Attorney General of the United
>States, or his authorized representative for a period of one year.
>As in all such cases where the court finds the defendant poses no
>immediate danger to the community, Len was given a one month period
>from the imposition of punishment to get his personal affairs in order
>before beginning his sentence.  
>
>At some point in time between now and July 10 mutually convenient to
>Len, his attorney and the government, Len will surrender to the United
>States Marshall, and be escorted to the penitentiary.  As the first
>order of business at the penitentiary receiving room, he'll be
>required to submit to a complete strip-search accompanied by a rather
>indelicate probing to insure that he does not have in his possession
>any drugs; weapons with which he might harm himself, the staff or
>other inmates; or other contraband.
>
>He'll surrender his identity completely: driver's license, credit
>cards, social security card -- anything which identifies Len Rose as
>Len Rose will be taken from him and returned when he is released. For
>the time he is incarcerated, he will be a number stamped on the
>uniform he is given to wear. Or, he may be in a minimum security
>institution and be permitted to wear his 'street clothes', but without
>a shred of ID in his wallet. His ID will be his prison serial number.
>But there will still be the initial and occassional thereafter strip
>search and urine test on demand.
>
>Len's wife, who barely speaks English will be left alone to fend for
>herself for several months. She'll raise the two children the best she
>can, on whatever money she has available to her. It won't be easy, but
>then, it wasn't easy when Len was locked up before for a week in the
>Dupage Jail in Wheaton, IL while the state charges were pending here.
>
>Speaking of the kids, I wonder if Len has explained all this to them
>yet. I wonder if they know, or are old enough to understand their dad
>is going to prison, and why ... 
>
>When Len is released, he'll be 'allowed to' carry the tag "ex-con"
>with him when he applies for work and tries to make new friends. One
>part of his punishment is that in the future he must reveal his status
>to prospective employers. Needless to say, the Internal Revenue
>Service and the Justice Department trade files all the time ... so Len
>will want to be super-honest on his federal taxes in the future, since
>he can probably expect to be audited once or twice in the first five
>years or so following his release.
>
>I wonder if it was all worth it ... if Len had it to do over again if
>he would do the same things he did before, or if he might consider the
>consequences more carefully.
>
>Despite the intensive crackdown we have seen by the federal government
>in the past few years against 'white collar' and computer crime, there
>are still those folks around who either (a) don't think it applies to
>them, or (b) don't think they will get caught, or (c) don't understand
>what the big fuss is all about in the first place.
>
>If you don't think (c) is still possible, consider the recent thread
>in comp.org.eff.talk -- yes, I know, *where else* !! -- on the student
>who got suspended from school for two quarters after downloading and
>distributing the system password file on the machine he had been
>entrusted to use. The fact that the debate could go on endlessly for
>message after message actually questioning what, if anything the chap
>did wrong tells us plenty about the mentality and 'social respsonsi-
>bility' of EFF devotees, but that is a whole new topic in itself. 
>
>The point is, some of us are simply getting very tired of the
>break-ins, the fraudulent messages, the fact that in order to telnet
>to a different site we can no longer do so direct from dialup servers
>without a lot of rig-a-ma-role because computer (ab)users have stolen
>all the trust which used to exist between sites, and the increasing
>scarcity of 'guest' accounts on various sites because the sysadmins
>are tired of being eaten alive with fraudulent and destructive usage.
>
>Users had better wise up to one fact: the federal government is going
>to continue to crack down on abusers of the net and this media.  And
>please, none of your hysterical freedom of speech arguments in my
>mail, thank you.  No one gives an iota what you write about, but when
>you get your hands in the password file, rip off root or wheel
>accounts, run programs deceptive to other users designed to rip off
>their accounts also and generally behave like a two-bit burglar or
>con-artist, expect to get treated like one when you get caught.
>
>And you *will* get caught. Then you can go sit and commiserate with
>Len Rose.  If Len Rose has half the brain I think he has, he will come
>out of the penitentiary a better person than when he went in. The
>penitentiary can be, and frequently is a therapeutic experience, at
>least for the people who think about what it was that caused them to
>get there in the first place.
>
>I feel very sorry about what has happened to Len Rose. I feel worse
>about the circumstances his wife and children are in.  But the
>socially irresponsible behavior (which some people who call themselves
>'socially responsible' seem to condone or wink at) has to stop. Now.
>
>A US Attorney involved in prosecuting computer crime once said, "users
>need an example when they log in of what to expect when they screw up
>while on line ..."  Indeed we do ... and Len Rose will serve as such.
>
>And a knowledgeable sysadmin who is quietly cooperating with the
>government tells me a federal grand jury is <thisclose> to returning
>another cycle of indictments.  Need I say more?
>
>So Len, *was* it all worth it?
>
>
>Patrick Townson 


--
J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2126
Skate UNIX! (curb fault: skater dumped)

   --  If you're hacking PowerGloves and Amigas, drop me a line. --

mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (06/18/91)

For those of us who tuned in late: what did Len Rose do?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs
The University of Georgia  |  Athens, GA 30602   U.S.A.
-------------------------------------------------------

jdevoto@Apple.COM (Jeanne A. E. DeVoto) (06/22/91)

In article <1991Jun18.002550.5024@athena.cs.uga.edu>
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>For those of us who tuned in late: what did Len Rose do?

Len Rose was in possession of a copy of ATT UNIX's login.c, without
having a source license authorizing such possession.

He wrote a version of login.c that could be used to collect passwords
from users logging in. (Note that it would not be possible to replace
the standard login.c with the altered version, unless you already had
root privileges on the target system; this would not be a very useful
tool for someone seeking to crack a system, except under unusual
circumstances.)

He emailed a copy of the altered login.c to someone else.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has alleged that Len Rose broke into
any systems, planned to break into any systems, or aided anyone who was
planning to break into any systems.
-- 
========= jeanne a. e. devoto ========================================
 jdevoto@apple.com     |  You may not distribute this article under a
 jdevoto@well.sf.ca.us |  compilation copyright without my permission.
______________________________________________________________________
 Apple Computer and I are not authorized      |        CI$: 72411,165
 to speak for each other.                     |

new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) (06/25/91)

In article <54252@apple.Apple.COM> jdevoto@Apple.COM (Jeanne A. E. DeVoto) writes:
>Len Rose was in possession of a copy of ATT UNIX's login.c, without
>having a source license authorizing such possession.

I've wondered about this.  Not necessarily in the Len Rose case, but
in general, if I have something that requires a liscence, why is it
illegal?  I have no contract with AT&T.  Would they not have to prove
that I was the one who copied it, in violation of copyright law?
How can AT&T make it illegal for me to have a copy of their code?

(Of course, AT&T has enough money to make it illegal for me to
do anything they don't want me to do, but that isn't the point.)
	  -- Darren

-- 
--- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware ---
----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, FDTs -----
+=+ Nails work better than screws, when both are driven with hammers +=+

gsh7w@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (06/25/91)

In article <57081@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes:
#(Of course, AT&T has enough money to make it illegal for me to
#do anything they don't want me to do, but that isn't the point.)

Are you *SURE* that isn't the point?

I'm not.



--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w