russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (11/15/90)
In article <56332@brunix.UUCP> man@cs.brown.edu (Mark H. Nodine) writes: >I know I'll probably get flamed, but I have to agree with Martin here, that >you *NOT* post information about cracking programs on the network (though I >have in the past hinted that some programs could be cracked and responded >privately by e-mail). The reason is not a legal one, but a practical one. >Let me give an example. > >In March, Steve Jackson Games was raided by the Secret Service and had much >of their computer equipment confiscated along with all copies of a book called >"GURPS Cyberpunk" and the BBS run by SJG. The reason for the seizure was that >one person who worked on the book for a short time had been associated with >the Legion of Doom, and the SS believed that he was using the BBS and the book >to disseminate information about cracking computer systems. There is, in fact, >a section of the book that deals with gaming rules for "cracking" but with no >details about how to do it. The last I knew, the equipment has not been >returned, even though the SS agreed later that there was no evidence of illegal >activity. The loss to the company was substantial, and was almost enough to >put them out of business. They are currently involved in a court battle to >try to recover damages. > >If this were the only incident I had heard of where BBSs had been shut down or >impounded for the suspicion of spreading cracking information, then I would >dismiss it as a fluke. Steve Jackson Games was raided and the BBS impounded due to a warrant issued relating to the BellSouth E911 papers. Not due to 'suspicion of spreading cracking information) > But you have to look at the way the larger culture views >the computer network, which it does NOT understand (witness the flap that happened >over rec.humor.funny about a year ago that resulted in some very negative press >against the net and the moderator of that group). He's still there, isn't he? > If the media report that the >network is a tool of Satan for disseminating pornography, encouraging the use >of illegal drugs and gambling, and teaching people how to infiltrate Pentagon >computers and fire off nuclear missiles, the vast majority of the public is going >to give some credence to the report. Many people will believe it because it >makes a good story. If enough people in Congress believe it, perhaps legislation >could be passed to "pull the plug" on the net, though I doubt it. WARNING: IMMINENT DEATH OF USENET PREDICTED > >One of the changes that has occurred in our culture over the last few years is >that people, especially law enforcement officials, are getting much more worried >about computer crime and "cracking". When you post cracking information to the >net, you give ammunition to those unstable people who do not understand the net, >but are looking for some "righteous" cause, or maybe just a good story for their >newspaper. This is no reason to give in. >So as I say, it has nothing to do with the legality of possessing or spreading >the information, although even there one might make a case Free speech is a right >under the constitution, but if I use my right of "free speech" to form a >conspiracy to overthrow the government ^^^^^ requires an overt act against the government. Just talk won't cut it. , or to slander somebody, then I have still >done something illegal. But mostly I am making a plea to protect what freedom we >currently have on the network. We can't protect freedom by guessing what the censors would do if they found out, and acting as if they had censored us. That is simply acting like a sheep. ---- The software which came with The Recognizer, used a wierd scheme that didn't seem to use sync bytes, and was slow and unreliable. I was unable to read the disk directly. However, all the programs could be transfered by saving them to cassette tape, rebooting under standard DOS, and re-loading them. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
slfields@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Scott L Fields) (11/15/90)
In article <1990Nov14.183455.1825@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >In article <56332@brunix.UUCP> man@cs.brown.edu (Mark H. Nodine) writes: >>So as I say, it has nothing to do with the legality of possessing or spreading >>the information, although even there one might make a case Free speech is a right >>under the constitution, but if I use my right of "free speech" to form a >>conspiracy to overthrow the government > ^^^^^ requires an overt act against the government. Just talk won't cut it. > >, or to slander somebody, then I have still >>done something illegal. But mostly I am making a plea to protect what freedom we >>currently have on the network. This subject is one that really bothers me from a legal standpoint. How many people out there are familiar with "conspiracy to commit a felony"? Granted, this means I can't talk about planning to kill the president but I think this can be vastly abused as well. Many recent federal actions make some computer actions a federal offense. In that case, simply talking about these subjects in the wrong manner can be construed as "conspiracy to commit a felony". My personal opinion is that that is basically a form of censorship. I am no lawyer but I don't like the idea of this.
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (11/15/90)
In article <1990Nov14.195928.23480@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> slfields@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Scott L Fields) writes: >This subject is one that really bothers me from a legal standpoint. How many >people out there are familiar with "conspiracy to commit a felony"? Granted, >this means I can't talk about planning to kill the president but I think this >can be vastly abused as well. Many recent federal actions make some computer >actions a federal offense. In that case, simply talking about these subjects >in the wrong manner can be construed as "conspiracy to commit a felony". My >personal opinion is that that is basically a form of censorship. I am no lawyer >but I don't like the idea of this. Mere advocacy of an illegal activity is not conspiracy. Under federal law, a conspiracy requires two or more people who plan to commit a crime, plus an overt act by one of the people that furthers the plan. Thus, an isolated individual never can be convicted of conspiracy under federal law, even if he creates a plan and acts in furtherance of it. And two or more individuals cannot be convicted of conspiracy unless at least one of them commits an overt act that furthers the plan. --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
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (11/16/90)
In article <PATRICK.HAYES.90Nov14114729@troy.cediag.bull.fr> Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr (Patrick Hayes) writes: >(seems to be crossposted a bit too widely -- note the Followups-To) >One of the assumptions implicit in the majority of postings in this thread >seems to be that USENET is limited to the USA, and that American laws are the >only ones that hold jurisdiction. However, most USENET posts do not have a usa >distribution and thus are distributed in other countries where laws can be >quite different. > >Re: posting copy-protection info Legal or Illegal >US law (Copyright law of '76) states that this information cannot be legally >restrained. Well and good (IMO), but French law, based on different legal >principles considers this kind of thing to be "unfair competition" >(Concurrence Deloyal). Judgements have been handed down to the detriment of >companies that distribute software like copyIIpc which bypass copy-protection >schemes including heavy monetary damages. As EEC copyright laws are being >debated right now and at present appear to be much closer to French laws than >their American counterparts, the legality of distributing this kind >information throughout USENET is murkier than at first sight. Then have big brother become the administrator of your gateway, and let them decide exactly which messages go through and which get stopped at the border. If usenet is restricted to those topics which are legal to discuss in all countries Usenet passes through, it will be a very empty place. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (11/18/90)
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes: |In article <1990Nov14.195928.23480@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> slfields@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Scott L Fields) writes: |>but I don't like the idea of this. |Mere advocacy of an illegal activity is not conspiracy. Under federal |law, a conspiracy requires two or more people who plan to commit a crime, |plus an overt act by one of the people that furthers the plan. |Thus, an isolated individual never can be convicted of conspiracy under |federal law, even if he creates a plan and acts in furtherance of it. |And two or more individuals cannot be convicted of conspiracy unless at |least one of them commits an overt act that furthers the plan. So if we discuss ways to break software and one of us uses this knowledge to pirate software, then the feds can throw us all in jail for conspiracy. At least that is the way I read what you just said. -- John Sparks |D.I.S.K. Public Access Unix System| Multi-User Games, Email sparks@corpane.UUCP |PH: (502) 968-DISK 24Hrs/2400BPS | Usenet, Chatting, =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|7 line Multi-User system. | Downloads & more. A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of----Ogden Nash