seals@uncecs.edu (Larry W. Seals) (10/30/90)
I just noted a posting in comp.dcom.telecom concerning more problems
for Len Rose. Apparently he moved to Illinois in response to a job
offer from a software house there. After a week on the job he was
accused of unauthorized access of files and confronted with a certain
posting being circulated on USENET concerning alleged wrongdoings.
According to the post, he has been jailed for "computer tampering".
This whole thing is starting to smell really fishy. Has Mr. Rose
become some sort of fixation for the feds, or is he a warning to the
rest of us to mind our manners and keep our heads down? While what I
know of Len is through the media and on USENET, it appears that
either the powers that be want to break him completely or he is very
self-destructive.
If the former is true then it brings to mind a line I heard in
conjunction with some horror film a while back:
"Be afraid. Be very afraid."
***********************************************************************
Larry Seals @ Trailing Edge Software - "When it doesn't have to be
the very best!"
"I didn't sell my soul, I just took out a loan..." - B. Hornsbykarl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu (10/30/90)
seals@uncecs.edu writes:
... After a week on the job he was
accused of unauthorized access of files and confronted with a certain
posting being circulated on USENET concerning alleged wrongdoings.
According to the post, he has been jailed for "computer tampering".
I hear from Len pretty regularly, or used to. :-( He told me when he
got the new job, and then he told me when he got fired.
________________
UNIX-From: len@cis.ohio-state.edu Mon Oct 22 10:48:56 1990
Received: by giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (5.61-kk/5.900920)
id AA22176; Mon, 22 Oct 90 10:48:56 -0400
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 10:48:56 -0400
From: Len Rose <len@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Message-Id: <9010221448.AA22176@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu>
To: karl@cis.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Back To Philadelphia
Lines: 7
Hi.. I got fired Friday. They had John Haugh's article in their hands
when they told me the pleasant news.
Len
________________
Thanx, Mr Haugh. Thanx a whole bunch. I hope Len quick-fries you to
a crackly crunch. And I hope my chance to testify on Len's behalf
comes through.
--karlsean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (10/30/90)
Congradulations, a Usenet Lynching (tm) ruins yet another person's life. Gosh, isn't it fun! -- *** Sean Casey <sean@s.ms.uky.edu> *** "They probably have a data encryption algorithm. You'll never get in."
larry@belch.Berkeley.EDU (Larry Foard) (10/30/90)
In article <KARL.90Oct29143931@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: [Stuff deleted] >Hi.. I got fired Friday. They had John Haugh's article in their hands >when they told me the pleasant news. > Unless John can back up his accusations I would guess he is leaving himself open for a massive law suit. I do not have enough information to even start to judge the allegations but: 1) If they are false, I hope Len Rose wins a very large judgment against his accusers. It is complete travesty of justice that the government can destroy someones life without even so much as trial. 2) If they are true I would hope that Len Rose would realize the damage done by a bad "test case" and would avoid dragging others down with him.
gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct29.175540.23987@uncecs.edu> seals@uncecs.edu (Larry W. Seals) writes: >After a week on the job he was >accused of unauthorized access of files and confronted with a certain >posting being circulated on USENET concerning alleged wrongdoings. >According to the post, he has been jailed for "computer tampering". Which just goes to show that an apology can never catch up with a rumor. I hope you're happy, Mr. Haugh, and I hope that if Len was fired merely over a rumor, he gets compensation. But I have doubts about either.
seals@uncecs.edu (Larry W. Seals) (10/30/90)
I neglected to mention that the original poster in comp.dcom.telecom
reported that Agent Foley (who I'm sure is familiar to folks in
these parts) came to visit Len just prior to his being fired, having
been alerted by Len's new employer as to the alleged transgressions.
The original author found the whole episode passing strange (as do I).
While my rational being tells me there was no conspiracy, I've read
enough of the government's overreaction to computer security threats
to really begin to wonder. Consider the following:
Len was confronted with a Usenet posting (whatever form it was in) of
alleged wrong-doing. Does the employer have or know someone with access
to Usenet or was the information supplied from somewhere else? If the
employer has access, did he have any knowledge of Len's past brushes
with the law and yet hire him anyway (closely monitoring his activity)?
Possibly the posting came from Foley who just happened to be johnny-on-
the-spot (keeping tabs on Len?).
As I noted before, this whole thing stinks. And as others here have
mentioned, it casts a pall on this particular medium of freedom of
expression. If I can access this forum (and others), so can those who
see this as the new anarchy and who are dedicated to eliminating it. I
have never been one of those who sees a conspiracy behind every act,
but I suddenly feel a cold chill down my spine...
Is the New Inquisition here?
***********************************************************************
Larry Seals @ Trailing Edge Software - "When it doesn't have to be the
very best!"
"It's time to stop... Hey, what's that sound? Everybody look what's
going down..." - Buffalo Springfield
***********************************************************************jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) (10/31/90)
gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >>After a week on the job he was >>accused of unauthorized access of files and confronted with a certain >>posting being circulated on USENET concerning alleged wrongdoings. >>According to the post, he has been jailed for "computer tampering". >Which just goes to show that an apology can never catch up with a >rumor. I hope you're happy, Mr. Haugh, and I hope that if Len was >fired merely over a rumor, he gets compensation. >But I have doubts about either. As long as we are talking about doubts, let me pose a couple. If: John Haugh is accurate in his description of the crimes and/or Len is guilty of the first offense and/or Len was fired because he hacked and/or Len lied on his application regarding being arrested and the company used THAT and not the mere fact that he had been arrested, Then will YOU post an appology to John? And will you publicly admit that you were wrong? Accountability goes both ways, you know. Since very few of us have any firsthand knowledge of any of this, it might be constructive to assume that if John says he has personal knowledge of something, to believe him until proof to the contrary is provided. I don't know John but I suspect that no one short of a madman would take on the liability associated with his accusation unless he has irrefutable proof. Time will tell. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "The truly ignorant in our society are those people Radiation Systems, Inc. | who would throw away the parts of the Constitution Atlanta, Ga | they find inconvenient." -me Defend the 2nd {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd| with the same fervor as you do the 1st.
gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (11/01/90)
In article <4576@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
#As long as we are talking about doubts, let me pose a couple. If:
# Len lied on his application regarding being arrested and the
# company used THAT and not the mere fact that he had been arrested,
I beleive that it is illegal to ask if one has been arrested. Asking
if one has been convicted is a different matter.
If Mr. Rose was fired because he was arrested, and his employers found
out about the arrest from Mr. Hough, then this is a miscarriage of
justice.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wjfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (11/01/90)
In article <4576@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: >gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: [potentially libelous stuff deleted] >>But I have doubts about either. > >As long as we are talking about doubts, let me pose a couple. If: [potentially libelous stuff deleted] first, i would like to state that i'd prefer to be left out of this latest round of len/john bashing. i am certain that len has many friends in this group who would like to see him found innocent, and i can say that continuing to keep the len/john bashing fight alive will only hurt his chances. len cannot comment on his situation for legal reasons, and i will not make any futher comments for the same reasons. second, i would like to repeat the advice of an attorney who told me that repeating a libelous statement is libel. you can attribute it to anyone you want, but you accept the legal liability for your own statements and for repeating the statements of others. mike godwin, the resident EFF attorney, can elaborate on this if you have any questions. i have been collecting postings by those people who continue to re-post information which they allege that i posted, and will use it in my defense should any legal action be brought. by getting involved in this discussion you are making yourself a potential party to a lawsuit. third, i have provided the secret service with the information which i have. merely having information does not make it true or false, i have simply complied with the recommendations of legal counsel. i have no comment on whether the information is true or false, that is for the judicial system to determine. i have no comment as to the content of what i told them, only to say that i believe that i have fulfilled my obligations under the law. fourth, i do not have the time to read every article which appears here, and for that reason will begin archiving them all. it would be wise to refrain from making any statements concerning any of len's or my troubles as they may be used against either len or yourself. do not repeat a statement as being true simply because someone else said it. if the statement is libelous, you have just potentially committed libel. some of you think you may repeat anything which len or i said without fear of being sued, and that just isn't so. this is one of those times when silence is the best course of action. finally, i am sorry that len was arrested recently. it is unfortunate that he continues to have problems. just keep in mind that his being arrested does not mean that he is guilty of anything. i will say that my initial impression of len several years ago was that he was a very friendly and helpful person, and i was shocked when i heard of his arrest and investigation by the secret service. i tend to be very trusting of people and unfortunately may have placed too much trust in what the secret service was telling us. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (11/01/90)
In the middle of all this flaming about whether Len did "it", or didn't do "it", just what is "it" that Len is alleged to have done *at ISC*. Remember, charges were filed by ISC. "It" can't be anything to do with John's article because that happened long before Len moved to the midwest. That just brought Len to ISC's attention. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) (11/01/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >second, i would like to repeat the advice of an attorney who told >me that repeating a libelous statement is libel. you can attribute >it to anyone you want, but you accept the legal liability for your >own statements and for repeating the statements of others. mike >godwin, the resident EFF attorney, can elaborate on this if you >have any questions. i have been collecting postings by those >people who continue to re-post information which they allege that >i posted, and will use it in my defense should any legal action >be brought. by getting involved in this discussion you are making >yourself a potential party to a lawsuit. Sounds like a serious cover your ass operation to me. Mix in a few threats (as if you could prove anyone made a particular posting on Usenet) and you have someone who is seriously sweating a mistake. I suppose the next thing we'll hear is that he didn't post the article that accused Len. What a dweeb. /pbp -- Paul Pomes UUCP: {att,iuvax,uunet}!uiucuxc!paul Internet, BITNET: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu US Mail: UofIllinois, CSO, 1304 W Springfield Ave, Urbana, IL 61801-2910
jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) (11/01/90)
gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >If Mr. Rose was fired because he was arrested, and his employers found >out about the arrest from Mr. Hough, then this is a miscarriage of >justice. Which is really no different than if they had done a background investigation and had gotten it through other means. What is the miscarrige of justice? Two points. First, with a few restrictions, companies can fire for whatever reason they want. I support that concept. Secondly, I very seriously doubt that any company would fire a person based >>solely<< on a single item from usenet or from any other source for that matter. If, on the other hand (hypothetically) his logid showed up in sulog under suspicious circumstances and they found out about his previous problems and they found out about John's allegation and he provided the same kind of "what I did wasn't wrong" drivel like I've gotten from him in E-mail, THEN maybe they decided to fire him. I've expressed my opinion here before that my leaning is toward him not being innocent. And as someone else has pointed out, holding an opinion is a luxury that we Americans still enjoy. Nontheless, I really do hope that he is innocent and that the governemnt is engaged in a big conspiracy. I'm like a lot of Americans in that I love my country bug I fear and loathe its government. I'd love nothing more than to see some SS stormtroopers go to prison over Operation Sundevil and related operations. I just don't think it will happen in this case. My opinion is that they'll get Len on every charge and he will have helped make their case. Which is a pity for the rest of us who are at risk from a government gone wild and spurred on by the likes of Len. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "The truly ignorant in our society are those people Radiation Systems, Inc. | who would throw away the parts of the Constitution Atlanta, Ga | they find inconvenient." -me Defend the 2nd {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd| with the same fervor as you do the 1st.
gsh7w@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (11/01/90)
In article <4583@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
#First, with a few restrictions, companies can fire
#for whatever reason they want. I support that concept.
Well then you are supporting that companies can fire people on any
whim, without regards to the employee. While that may be legal, many
would consider that less than admirable.
If you were my employee, then I could fire you because some third
person said that you were one arrested for speeding. Even if you were
found not guilty does not change the legality of firing.
However, I would consider that a miscarriage of justice, and I think
that many others would also.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wgl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (11/01/90)
In article <4576@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
[ John asks if I will apologise if it turns out Len rose is guilty. ]
No. The article posted to the net was about stuff that Len has not
been convicted of yet. Just like any other American, Len is entitled
to be considered innocent until proven guilty. If he was
hypothetically convicted of those charges someday, it doesn't matter.
Len is still entitled to his rights today. I don't know nor care about
the particular details of this case. I don't know if Len was fired
merely because of hearsay or harrassment, but I can still say "if it
was hearsay or harrassment, that's a bad thing."
If Mr. DeArmond were fired because of a hearsay rumor, he would
probably not hold the views he does.brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/01/90)
In article <1990Oct31.212235.6101@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) writes: >Sounds like a serious cover your ass operation to me. Mix in a few threats >(as if you could prove anyone made a particular posting on Usenet) Actually, I am not so sure about this. If I were a judge, and I understood USENET and I heard testimony that: a) A posting that looked completely like a valid posting from user X was posted, and received on many sites with valid Path: lines for the poster's site b) The posting received mail replies sent over fairly reliable mail paths, as well as followups. c) User X saw these replies and/or followups d) User X, seeing these replies, did not quickly point out to those involved that it was a forgery e) User X was in town, reading the net, and there is no evidence of massive tampering on all the replies and followups. Then I would conclude that it had indeed been proven that User X posted the identified message. The above body of evidence is not hard to gather, particularly if you go out to gather it shortly after the message was posted. If you want to claim that your authorship can't be proven on a message, you had better not leave any evidence that you got replies and did nothing, and you most definitely had better not respond to those replies. Yes, a forgery is still possible even with all the above evidence, but it would require a massive, coordinated, planned effort. It is easier to forge a signature, but they hold up in court. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (11/01/90)
Speculations here about Len's guilt or innocence will only hurt him. No one who has posted so far has the full facts about this case, which makes such speculation particularly irresponsible, in my opinion. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 |"If the doors of perception were cleansed mnemonic@well.sf.ca.us | every thing would appear to man as it is, Electronic Frontier | infinite." Foundation | --Blake
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (11/01/90)
In article <1990Oct31.212235.6101@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) writes: >Sounds like a serious cover your ass operation to me. Mix in a few threats >(as if you could prove anyone made a particular posting on Usenet) and you >have someone who is seriously sweating a mistake. I suppose the next thing >we'll hear is that he didn't post the article that accused Len. No, this is just a gentle reminder to certain people who a). wish to try Len in public and b). wish to try me in public that doing doing so can lead to legal consequences you may not wish to deal with. Ask yourself if you are willing to spend several days or weeks sitting in a courtroom because you just had to get involved in this thread. >What a dweeb. Gee, what an intelligent statement. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
doug@letni.UUCP (Doug Davis) (11/01/90)
In article <1990Oct31.170242.17893@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >I beleive that it is illegal to ask if one has been arrested. Asking >if one has been convicted is a different matter. >If Mr. Rose was fired because he was arrested, and his employers found >out about the arrest from Mr. Hough, then this is a miscarriage of >justice. This is pure speculation on my part, but didn't I read here that Len plead guilty of attempted theft when he was caught attempting to repo some equipment? This would seem that he was convicted of something. Of course you all know that technically if you pay a moving violation traffic ticket you were "arrested" and "convicted." Keep that in mind the next time you fill out a job application..... doug [ I'm no lawyer but I watch the peoples court & LA law a lot ;-) ] __ Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226 {texsun|lawnet|smu}!letni!doug doug@letni.lonestar.org "Be seeing you..."
seals@uncecs.edu (Larry W. Seals) (11/02/90)
Well, now. This thread has turned nasty, hasn't it? When I originally
posted regarding Len's problems, I had no idea it would start a range
war.
I realize my ignorance of libel laws (especially where the net is
concerned) but I really have a tough time with this business. When
does conjecture on a given subject become the factual basis for some
sort of litigation? I have not seen anyone here make any sort of
assertion of fact that Mr. Haugh was in any way responsible for any
of Len's problems. What Mr. Haugh knows is the sole exclusive
province of Mr. Haugh, his attorney and anyone else he makes privy
to it. But I feel that once he intimated to us (via the net) that he
knew something and even disclosed the subject of what he knew, he
opened the door for speculation and conjecture. I may have missed a
posting, but I just don't recall anyone saying that Mr. Haugh caused any
of Len's misfortune.
So... I know you're really busy, Mr. Godwin, but I think we could use
a bit of legal advice here. I thought the purpose of this group was
to foster an understanding of the perils and pitfalls of the "new
frontier" not to contribute to them.
Oh, well. I suppose I'll keep an eye out for the sheriff...
***********************************************************************
Larry Seals @ Trailing Edge Software - "Solving tomorrow's problems
with yesterday's technology."
"I feel the blues tumblin' down like rain..." - Pat Travers
***********************************************************************gsh7w@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (11/02/90)
John F. Haugh II writes:
#No, this is just a gentle reminder to certain people who a). wish to
#try Len in public and b). wish to try me in public that doing doing
#so can lead to legal consequences you may not wish to deal with.
John, how many other people have you accused of libel?
(Note: At least when John accused me of commiting a crime he did it in
private e-mail.)
Are you seriously considering suing people over statements made on
usenet? For the first time ever, I am moved to say,
"Get a life!"
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wkessler@hacketorium.Eng.Sun.COM (Tom Kessler) (11/02/90)
>Of course you all know that technically if you pay a moving violation traffic >ticket you were "arrested" and "convicted." Keep that in mind the >next time you fill out a job application..... It depends on the infraction and the state. e.g. In some states exceeding the speed limit by less than 20 m.p.h. is a civil offense not a criminal one. In other's a "energy conservation fee" is assessed.
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (11/02/90)
In article <1990Nov1.175408.4690@uncecs.edu> seals@uncecs.edu (Larry W. Seals) writes: >So... I know you're really busy, Mr. Godwin, but I think we could use >a bit of legal advice here. I thought the purpose of this group was >to foster an understanding of the perils and pitfalls of the "new >frontier" not to contribute to them. I'm not sure what legal information you're asking for, Larry. And "Mr. Godwin" was my father. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 |"If the doors of perception were cleansed mnemonic@well.sf.ca.us | every thing would appear to man as it is, Electronic Frontier | infinite." Foundation | --Blake
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (11/02/90)
In article <1990Nov1.124525.15730@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes: >Speculations here about Len's guilt or innocence will only hurt >him. No one who has posted so far has the full facts about this >case, which makes such speculation particularly irresponsible, >in my opinion. I'd also like to remind everyone that speculations as to whether or not my alleged article was responsible for Len's firing are similiarly irresponsible and libelous as well. All that we do know is that Len was fired. Also, some persons have tried to link my article with some conspiracy to have Len arrested, this has also not been proven, and is likewise irresponsible and libelous. I'd also like to remind everyone that not only was the article cancelled shortly after it appeared, but a retraction of many of the statements was made as well, in both this group and alt.sources.d. You are all encouraged to cancel your articles and retract any statements concerning either Len or myself. In fact, it would be best if you simply didn't post anything which didn't directly concern you. Just so everyone gets to hear it from me one more time, Len has never been arrested for selling stolen equipment; Len has never been convicted of selling stolen equipment. Len has been investigated for a number of things, none of which implies that he is guilty of anything whatsoever. I have hoped that this entire episode would kindly go away, but with people like the readers of this group dredging it up at every turn, it is no wonder that Len continues to have problems. I at least am trying to be part of the solution, while each and every one of you who continue to post new and unfounded rumors seem bent on being part of the problem. And as always, I'd love to say more, but I can't. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
al@crucible.UUCP (Al Evans) (11/02/90)
In article <18667@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >In >fact, it would be best if you simply didn't post anything which >didn't directly concern you. (Oh boy, my first time to get to say this ... here goes...) If we all take this advice, you know what it'll mean, don't you? THE IMMINENT DEATH OF THE NET AS WE KNOW IT!!! Gee, I sure hope I won't end up on J.E.T.'s list for saying that:-) --Al Evans-- -- Al Evans -- uunet!execu!sequoia!crucible!al Though pride may be the most dangerous of sins, self-righteousness is surely the most obnoxious.
hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) (11/02/90)
In article <18666@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >... >No, this is just a gentle reminder to certain people who a). wish to >try Len in public and b). wish to try me in public that doing doing >so can lead to legal consequences you may not wish to deal with. This appears to be a threat - it may be based on asking people not to say things which would hurt two people, but it still is a threatening people who want to discuss a given topic. >Ask yourself if you are willing to spend several days or weeks >sitting in a courtroom because you just had to get involved in this >thread. However, this now has nothing to do with anything such as libeling someone. It is using a threat of legal action against people simply to keep them from discussing the topic. It would appear that my posting under this heading (so I am now "involved in this thread") is causing me to be threatened. I probably should be trembling with fear, but somehow I get this feeling that I'm really being threatened with the boogy-man. And I'm about as fearful as I normally am about such idiotic threats. > ... A previous threat on this subject from the same party: In article <18663@rpp386.cactus.org> he wrote: > ... by getting involved in this discussion you are making >yourself a potential party to a lawsuit. > ... Oh OH! --henry schaffer n c state univ
gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (11/02/90)
John F. Haugh II writes:
#You are all encouraged to cancel your articles
#and retract any statements concerning either Len or myself. In
#fact, it would be best if you simply didn't post anything which
#didn't directly concern you.
Interesting attitude, considering what you have posted about Len in
the past.
I have not canceled my article, nor will I.
I am getting sick of your repeated threats to sue me. You have
threatened me with a lawsuit three times in the past 72 hours.
Either sue me, or shut the hell up.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wmbrown@tonic.osf.org (Mark Brown) (11/03/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: |> I'd also like to remind everyone that speculations as to whether |> or not my alleged article was responsible [for a firing]... Hmmm. Some idle speculation about whether something someone said affected someone else's action doesn't seem like libel to me. |> Also, some persons have tried to |> link my article with some conspiracy BUT, posts linking you you to a "conspiracy" (like some of the posts I've seen on here) *are* pretty irresponsible. |> I'd also like to remind everyone that not only was the article |> cancelled shortly after it appeared, but a retraction of many So there *was* an article. You never admitted to this before. |> Just so everyone gets to hear it from me one more time, Len |> has never been arrested for selling stolen equipment; Len has |> never been convicted of selling stolen equipment. Len has been |> investigated for a number of things, none of which implies |> that he is guilty of anything whatsoever. I have hoped that Nice retraction, in plain English. |> this entire episode would kindly go away, but with people like |> the readers of this group dredging it up at every turn, it is |> no wonder that Len continues to have problems. I at least am |> trying to be part of the solution, while each and every one of |> you who continue to post new and unfounded rumors seem bent |> on being part of the problem. All you had to do was re-post the above retraction. No need for lectures on libel, John. Mark Brown IBM AWD / OSF | I feel a hot wind, on my shoulder, The Good mbrown@osf.org | I dial it in from south-of-the-border The Bad uunet!osf!mbrown| I hear the talking, of the dj, The Ugly (617) 621-8981 | can't understand *just what does he say?*
ereiamjh@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Tom B. O'Toole) (11/03/90)
If you want to be part of the solution John, why don't you stop continuing to post incessantly?? -- Tom O'Toole - ecf_stbo@jhuvms.bitnet - JHUVMS system programmer Homewood Computing Facilities, Johns Hopkins University, Balto. Md. 21218 ease!Trim!eeeaaaassse!trimtrimtrimeeeeeeaaaaassetrimease!trim!ease!trimeaase
gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (11/03/90)
In article <18667@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >I'd also like to remind everyone that speculations as to whether >or not my alleged article was responsible for Len's firing are >similiarly irresponsible and libelous as well. Amusingly enough, jfh seems to feel that postings of the form if X really is true, then it's bad to constitute speculation as to whether or not X is true. This is only something an ambulance-chasing lawyer would think. People make statements like this all the time and don't get sued for it. >I'd also like to remind everyone that not only was the article >cancelled shortly after it appeared, but a retraction of many >of the statements was made as well, in both this group and >alt.sources.d. This is a good thing. Mailing notices attempting to keep people from discussing interesting legal issues by threatening to sue them isn't. I expect I'll now receive mail from jfh claiming I committed libel and asking me to cancel my message. John: conserve electrons, and go ahead and file suit before you mail me. Thanks.
stm@torsqnt.UUCP (Scott "Worf" MacQuarrie) (11/03/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >In article <1990Oct31.212235.6101@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) writes: >>Sounds like a serious cover your ass operation to me. Mix in a few threats >>(as if you could prove anyone made a particular posting on Usenet) and you >>have someone who is seriously sweating a mistake. I suppose the next thing >>we'll hear is that he didn't post the article that accused Len. >No, this is just a gentle reminder to certain people who a). wish to >try Len in public and b). wish to try me in public that doing doing >so can lead to legal consequences you may not wish to deal with. >Ask yourself if you are willing to spend several days or weeks >sitting in a courtroom because you just had to get involved in this >thread. I don't know if you have really thought about this, but those of us who are not citzens of the same copuntry as you are soemwhat amused by your threats of lawsuit or litigation. Are you planning on launching into international legal proceedings? [Mike...Can you give us some idea as to the legal implications of international postings?] For someone who is not going to comment on this matter for legal reasons, you do a lot of postings regarding this thread. >>What a dweeb. >Gee, what an intelligent statement. ..but it might be accurate, nontheless.. -- Scott T. MacQuarrie Systems Analyst, Sequent Computer Systems (Canada) Ltd. Toronto, Ont. 416-733-9200
seals@uncecs.edu (Larry W. Seals) (11/03/90)
Thanks for the email, John! It livened up what was previously a dull morning. I always enjoy talk of lawsuits and liability before my first cup o' joe. In article <18667@rpp386.cactus.org>, jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > I'd also like to remind everyone that speculations as to whether > or not my alleged article was responsible for Len's firing are ^^^^^^^ ??????? Upon reviewing my previous posts (particularly the first one) I have noted: A. I didn't identify anyone other than Len by name or inference. B. I believe my specualtion has been confined to how USENET and Agent Foley came to be involved. C. I did not defame Mr. Haugh in any fashion. D. I don't believe I have commented on Len's guilt/innocence for any deeds past or present. After receiving Mr. Haugh's missive this a.m. and thinking about it for a few minutes, I posted a retraction but with some reservations. Now I feel I may have been too hasty. It occurs to me that if we all have to submit our postings to a review panel (or an attorney) to be scrutinized for anything that will annoy or cause anguish to anyone who might ever read and/or post anything then we can stop worrying about censorship from the government or the takeover of USENET by big business interest or about anything else! We'll be self-censoring. *********************************************************************** Larry Seals @ Who Cares Anyway - "The place where freedom comes to die." "I didn't sell my soul, I just took out a loan..." - B. Hornsby ***********************************************************************
wex@pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) (11/03/90)
In article <18666@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > > Ask yourself if you are willing to spend several days or weeks > sitting in a courtroom because you just had to get involved in this > thread. I try hard not to get involved in these discussions. I have my own opinions about Rose and Haugh. I also have a First Amendment sitting in front of me to remind me how important freedom of speech was to the founders of this country and how highly we should treasure it. I also remember a number of cases where the threat of libel was used in an attempt to stifle that freedom (the Westmoreland case comes to mind). John, please don't try stifling me. I, and the rest of the ignorami around here, are entitled to have, hold, and express opinions. At least for now. No, I didn't *have* to get involved. But rights are retained only when we fight for them. That's more or less what the EFF is about, n'est ce pas? -- --Alan Wexelblat phone: (508)294-7485 Bull Worldwide Information Systems internet: wex@pws.bull.com Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's supposed to do.
gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (11/03/90)
I wrote: #(Note: At least when John accused me of commiting a crime he did it in #private e-mail.) I beleive that this statement of mine is in error, and as such, I apologize to John. John accused me of libel, which I beleive I should have referred to that as a tort, not a crime. John did not accuse me of a crime, but of libel. -- -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (11/03/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >I'd also like to remind everyone that not only was the article >cancelled shortly after it appeared, but a retraction of many >of the statements was made as well, in both this group and >alt.sources.d. You are all encouraged to cancel your articles >and retract any statements concerning either Len or myself. In >fact, it would be best if you simply didn't post anything which >didn't directly concern you. I canceled my article at your behest once, and I now think it was a mistake. At the time, I was somewhat concerned that you would do something rash and attempt to sue me for whatever reason, and I also took into account that you would have your hands full without a reply from me. While both may be true, my overriding concern is that you will have legally bullied people, suppressing discussion that has no better forum than this group. It is certainly not unreasonable for one to be held accountable for what one says or writes. However, I take exception to you attempting to decide for this group what does and does not concern us. Whether you like it or not, the actions you are alleged to have taken have struck a nerve in this community. For example, when has one gone too far on USENET, both legally and ethically? Where does one draw the line? Did the person who posted those messages consider the ramifications of his actions beforehand? System and site administrators have to deal with legal and ethical issues regarding questionable messages passing through their sites. For example, in California would a netnews message containing sexual references become ensnared in sexual harassment laws? To top it off, at least conceptually, we all will run into a freedom of speech argument. None of these topics are new, as they have all been discussed in many different forums. That they have been brought to the forefront by this incident, and again by your legal threats, indicates just how important they are to our community, and how important it is that we not only see some of the issues resolved but actually take part in the effort to resolve them. After all, is that not the purpose of EFF? Who better to explore the ethics of computers than those who use and manage them? If not us, then some congressman or law enforcement agency. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
joe@zitt (Joe Zitt) (11/03/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > know is that Len was fired. Also, some persons have tried to > link my article with some conspiracy to have Len arrested, this > has also not been proven, and is likewise irresponsible and > libelous. Gee, if it were to turn out that supposedly trying to link the article with some conspiracy, were >not< libel, would the accusation of libel above be, itself, considered libelous? Joe Zitt ...cs.utexas.edu!kvue!zitt!joe (512)450-1916
john@qip.UUCP (John Moore) (11/04/90)
In article <1990Nov2.155040.479@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
[referring to he who cannot be mentioned on the net except by danger of
lawsuit - I got threatened too!]
]I have not canceled my article, nor will I.
]
]I am getting sick of your repeated threats to sue me. You have
]threatened me with a lawsuit three times in the past 72 hours.
I should point out, once again, that if one says "DO/DON'T DO x or
I will sue you," that one can be prosecuted for extortion. Recently,
one of our governor's aids was prosecuted for extortion for threatening
to fire a state employer. A state senator has been accused of extortion
for threatening (in his private capacity) to sue a late payer. The state
attorney general is currently investigating.
In other words, the legal system can be used to harrass damn near anyone for
damn near anything. Threat of doing so can be prosecuted as extortion. If
two people are involved in the threatening, it can be prosecuted as a
criminal conspiracy (RICO, conspiracy in interstate commerce, etc, ad
nauseum).
So folks, let's quit slinging lawyers around and advising each other of
our legal liability - it gets really boring!
--
John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john
USnail: 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale,AZ 85253 anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Voice: (602) 951-9326 Wishful Thinking: Long palladium, Short Petroleum
Opinion: Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment!
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are all my fault, and no one elses.rbc@cuuxb.ATT.COM (~XT6561210~Rick Clark~C24~H15~6011~) (11/05/90)
In article <1990Nov01.065845.19367@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: +In article <1990Oct31.212235.6101@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) writes: +>Sounds like a serious cover your ass operation to me. Mix in a few threats +>(as if you could prove anyone made a particular posting on Usenet) +Actually, I am not so sure about this. If I were a judge, and I understood +USENET and I heard testimony that: [ List of strong evidence a given poster made a given post ] +Then I would conclude that it had indeed been proven that User X posted the +identified message. Isn't this much more proof than necessary? Someone correct me if I am wrong. I thought in a libel (is that the same as slander?) suit, the person accused of libel did not have to prove what they said was true. I thought the accuser had to prove what was said was false, that the libeler had reason to doubt that it was true, and that the libeler had malicious intent. -- =Richard B. Clark Lisle, IL ...!{att,lll-crg}!cuuxb!rbc OR cuuxb!rbc@arpa.att.com
harkcom@potato.pa.Yokogawa.Co.jp (Alton Harkcom) (11/08/90)
In article <4576@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
=}As long as we are talking about doubts, let me pose a couple. If:
=}
=} [Mr. Haugh's libelous statements are even partially correct]
=}
=}Then will YOU post an appology to John?
I wouldn't. Whatever the outcome of Mr.Rose's court battle, Mr. Haugh
was wrong in posting libelous statements about Mr. Rose. If those libelous
statements were the real reason for Mr. Rose losing a job, then Mr. Haugh
at least owes Mr. Rose an apology. And IMHO Mr. Rose should demand
compensation from Mr. Haugh for the wrong he has suffered.
I know almost nothing of Mr. Rose's situation, but reading the posts of
the main people involved in this discussion has left me with a definite lack
of respect (and currently approaching antipathy) for many them. They seem
to be screaming out at the government "Please take away all of the freedoms
involved with using computers! But don't take mine! Just those lousy people
who aren't as good as I am. You know the ones, the ones who aren't me." And
there are some people out there saying "I don't know what that Len did, but
I hope he fries because it's people like him that make UNIX so insecure.
Why if everybody were rightminded like I am, then we wouldn't even have
to worry about UNIX being secure!"
(Sorry to bring up an old post, but our feed is still in time warp ;-)
--
--
$@2#2OEE5!3t<02q<R(J PA$@#15;#22](J
TEL 0422-52-5748 FAX 0422-55-1728
E-mail harkcom@pa.yokogawa.co.jp