earle@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Greg Earle (Sun Software)) (06/17/91)
I have this vague memory of once upon a time hearing that someone had ruled that it was OK to publish (and sell) the book "The Anarchist Cookbook" because there was a difference between publishing information which could possibly be used to perform illegal/immoral/unethical acts, and actually *using* that same information to perform said illegal/immoral/unethical act. Is that a correct recollection? If so, is there anything similar in the world of computers? For example, here is the best example I can think of: You see an anonymous posting in a random newsgroup, the contents of which are From: somebody@somewhere.ORG (Anonymous) Subject: Puzzler echo "0x1234?w 0x5678" | adb something - Is this a posting which acquires culpability by itself? Let's go one step further. What if someone figures out what "something" is, and posts a followup: From: joeuser@normal.known.ORG (Joe User) Subject: Re: Puzzler Ooh! Ooh! I know! I know! That's a patch for the new FrameMaker 3.0 port to the Collossus X-1000! It enables the "Save" feature!! Now there is a tie between the original posting and a piece of commercial software (e.g.). How does this change things? Is the culpability of the original posting the same, or does the fact that there is now a known connection to its purpose add to it? And what about the culpability of the second poster, for exposing the intended program (note that the original posting makes no mention of the purpose; this just as an added twist)? Finally, how does this relate to something like "The Anarchist Cookbook"? Is the original poster culpable for publishing such information, in the sense that the "The Anarchist Cookbook" was originally held culpable for also publishing information? Lastly, if (e.g.) Frame Technologies determined the original poster's identity and determined their employer, would they be justified in demanding that the original poster's employer fire the poster? Same thing for the followup poster? Or justified in demanding damages from the original poster's employer? Etc. etc. (This is vaguely based on a case I saw on the net, where people posted a JPEG program in binary form and someone posted a patch for it to enable large images)
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend) (06/17/91)
In answer to your subject: line question, yes. An of the following are equiv: Any degree in MIS, A CS undergraduate degree from any number of universities, IBM AIX 3.? on-line documentation or SMIT. In article <1991Jun16.202928.21626@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> earle@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Greg Earle (Sun Software)) writes: >used to perform illegal/immoral/unethical acts, and actually *using* that same >information to perform said illegal/immoral/unethical act. Is that a correct >recollection? Yep. >Finally, how does this relate to something like "The Anarchist Cookbook"? >Is the original poster culpable for publishing such information, in the >sense that the "The Anarchist Cookbook" was originally held culpable for also >publishing information? Maybe, maybe not. There's no real record of people getting tossed in jail for publishing dangerous material (there have been attempts at prior restraint, including the plans for an atomic bomb). Rather extreme books have been published, however. There was (is?) a book called _Steal This Book_, later retitled _The "Steal Yourself Rich" Book_, by the late Abbie Hoffman (written in the Cook County Jail, 1970). Where "Anarchist Cookbook" is juvenile, maybe-it'll-work fantasy, STB is full of information related to living underground, based on Hoffman's personal experiences. It's three main topics are "Survive!", "Fight!", and "Liberate!". The information is good (including the forign-coin/american coin conversions, advice on shoplifting, etc) if a bit outdated. It only had one major problem. It's original title, _Steal This Book_, was taken very literally, so the publishers (forced by bookstores) had it changed. I can find no evidence of an attempt by law enforcement to ever ban its publication. Surprising, since it describes great ways to "fuck with the pigs"... >Lastly, if (e.g.) Frame Technologies determined the original poster's identity >and determined their employer, would they be justified in demanding that the Justified is a moral term, not a legal one. Companies yell and scream at one another (and even sue) all of the time. I've gotten more than one nasty letter from a company regarding things I've said about them in public forums. It's usually just along the lines of "Better watch it, or we'll come and get you." >Or justified in demanding damages from the original poster's >employer? Good question. I'm no lawyer (thank earth), but it would seem it would be easier to get moeny from the poster than from the poster's employer. -- 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. --
miron@cs.sfu.ca (Miron Cuperman) (06/17/91)
earle@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Greg Earle (Sun Software)) writes: >Now there is a tie between the original posting and a piece of commercial >software (e.g.). How does this change things? Is the culpability of the >original posting the same, or does the fact that there is now a known >connection to its purpose add to it? And what about the culpability of the >second poster, for exposing the intended program (note that the original >posting makes no mention of the purpose; this just as an added twist)? Well, I can give you a moral answer but I doubt that the current legal system has any strong inclination to be moral. The moral answer is that nobody is responsible for another person's actions. Since the act of publishing information does not in itself cause harm, the poster is not doing anything immoral. If somebody actually uses the information for theft, that is immoral and the user is the only person responsible. >Lastly, if (e.g.) Frame Technologies determined the original poster's identity >and determined their employer, would they be justified in demanding that the >original poster's employer fire the poster? Same thing for the followup >poster? Or justified in demanding damages from the original poster's >employer? Etc. etc. The can demand all they want. -- By Miron Cuperman <miron@cs.sfu.ca>