TK0JUT2@netsys.NETSYS.COM (10/08/90)
A recent commentator responded with the following to a post: >Look, Len, I know you're pissed at being railroaded. I would be, too. But >how about reading what I wrote instead of what you want me to have written? >That's more of the "us versus them" mentality that motivated the suits at >AT&T, you know. > Well, I read what both Len and the respondent wrote, and it sure looked like Len hit it on the money. The commenator said in the first post that he had never been part of....and list a number of broad groups, including the "computer underground" and "pirates." Then he turns around and acknowledges that he shared codes and participated in the sharing of codes. He neglects to say if he in any way, even indirectly, participated in sharing copyright codes. If so, seems he was wrong in his first post and it is he, not Len, who has missed the point. Len's comment has nothing to do with his current situation, so why raise such a cheap tacky shot? It's one thing to flame on legitimate issues, but to raise it as a way of dismissing (and personalizing) the issue is a bit mean spirited. Len (and others) are saying that if the law were fully enforced, few of us could withstand scrutiny and could find ourselves in deep shit. Keep in mind that, in California, if you send a friend an autodialer (whether across the lines or simply hand them a disk)--or if you even possess one--under the 1990 statute your could be prosecuted for a felony. The point is that definitions have been badly abused by law enforcement. "Whining" over these definitions is not a matter of maturity, but a matter of law! "Hacking" is now illegal, and if your license plate says something like "IMA HACKER," it can be adduced as evidence in court. Check out the evidence presented in the Craig Neidorf trial--the prosecution resorted to creative intellectual aerobics to twist meanings to its advantage. So, Peter, in a sense you have made our point...the computer underground is a diverse group, and your original unintended irony and subsequent response indicates that you are a participant in computer underground activities. Unless, of course, you are going to claim that now only the law enforcement defintion of *that* term is the >>real<< one! So, c'mon, address these issues and quit being so personal and defensive (and, it seems, a bit self-righteous).
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (10/08/90)
In article <194@netsys.NETSYS.COM> niu.bitnet!TK0JUT2@netsys.NETSYS.COM writes: > A recent commentator Hi! > Well, I read what both Len and the respondent wrote, and it sure looked like > Len hit it on the money. Read Len's followup yet? Here's an important mantra for you. "Just because one does not identify themselves with a group should not be taken to imply that one opposes that group." If everyone who isn't an acknowledged phreak is the enemy, you're going to find it hard to win. You need to find new support, and attacking folks isn't going to do that. Y'all didn't show much sympathy when we protested that you were changing the meaning of the word. So don't get so outraged now the shoe's on the other foot. -- peter@sugar.hackercorp.com --