Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
im4u!ut-sally!ut-emx!juniper!bigtex!jclyde!usenet
From: use...@jclyde.UUCP (Usenet control)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.xenix,
misc.headlines
Subject: Site 'killer' update
Message-ID: <653@jclyde.UUCP>
Date: 1 Apr 88 15:23:42 GMT
Organization: The Unix(tm) Connection BBS, Dallas, TX
Lines: 55
Keywords: backbone down update on status


People of the net:  

   As you are aware, we have been having some "problems" with site 
'killer' in Dallas.  We are aware that the loss of this site has
caused anywhere from minor to major delays and inconveniences to many of you.
We appologize for this.  The following is a statement from Charlie Boykin,
Site Administrator of 'killer':

===============================================================================

From cfbplus!charlie Thu Mar 31 18:49:55 1988
Received: by sulaco.UUCP (smail2.5)
	id AA11339; 31 Mar 88 18:49:53 CST (Thu)
To: sulaco!allen
Subject: killer


Allen,

     Just a note to update you on the status of killer. Things are still
pretty unsure about the system being placed back in service. I had hoped
to hear something today but nothing developed. I do not expect much to 
develop for another week or so.
     It would take some time to bring the system back on line as it now
stands as apparently there is some hardware failure but from what can be
determined with only a cursory inspection, nothing major. It will take 
quite a bit of work to get it all back in condition to perform properly
but a project I am more than willing and ready to undertake with pleasure.
     I do offer my apologies for the many problems the down-time has caused
the net and the many users of the system. From the many, many calls I have
received, it did cause a great number of problems from Maryland to Ca with
email and news and I do wish this could have been prevented.
     Hopefully, my next update will be from killer with it back in service.

                                               Charlie

email: {ihnp4,decvax,cfbplus,jclyde}!sulaco!cfbplus!root

===============================================================================

Further, I feel that the readers of Usenet are deserving of an explanation 
as to why the machine went down in the first place.  On Friday, March 18,
1988, officials from AT&T Corporate Security moved in and seized the
machine for reasons proprietary to AT&T.  Their object in doing this was
not to intentionally harm Usenet or cause inconvenience to anyone, but
to protect the interests of AT&T.  Unfortunately, neither Charlie nor I can
provide anyone with more information regarding this matter.  Any interested
party may contact Mr. James Van Orden at (214) 851-3600 for further
discussion.

Thank you again for your patience.  Hopefully 'killer' will be up again
soon and resume service to Usenet.

--Allen Gwinn
  {ihnp4,jclyde,decvax,rpp386}!sulaco!allen

Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!att-ih!pacbell!ames!netsys!len
From: l...@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.xenix,
misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Site 'killer' update
Keywords: backbone down update on status
Message-ID: <8350@netsys.UUCP>
Date: 3 Apr 88 03:03:23 GMT
References: <653@jclyde.UUCP>
Reply-To: l...@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose)
Organization: NetSys Public Access NetWork,Germantown,Md.
Lines: 21

Now that someone else has said it,I can also add:

 After speaking to him for about two hours on the phone,the explicit
reason was: Charles Boykin was ACCUSED of source piracy,Unix source
to be explicit.
 The machine was not confiscated,but he has been strongly urged not
to touch it.They have been over the system with a fine toothed comb,
even to the point of reading user's personal mail..
 Since killer was supported by ATT to the point of hardware and 
telephone access,I suppose they have some say in the system's status.
 Lest I forget to point this out,nothing at all was discovered.All
source online was public domain..

 I am sure I don't need to point this out,but something like this
could happen to any "public access site".. All it takes is someone
who wants to set you up..


-- 
Len Rose
{ames,decuac,ihnp4}!netsys!len

Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!
sdcrdcf!trwrb!desint!geoff
From: ge...@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.xenix,
misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Site 'killer' update
Message-ID: <1706@desint.UUCP>
Date: 4 Apr 88 05:24:42 GMT
References: <653@jclyde.UUCP>
Reply-To: ge...@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Organization: Interrupt Technology Corp., Manhattan Beach, CA
Lines: 17
Keywords: backbone down update on status

In article <6...@jclyde.UUCP> use...@jclyde.UUCP (Usenet control) writes:

> On Friday, March 18,
> 1988, officials from AT&T Corporate Security moved in and seized the
> machine for reasons proprietary to AT&T.  Their object in doing this was
> not to intentionally harm Usenet or cause inconvenience to anyone, but
> to protect the interests of AT&T.

With such limited information, it is difficult and risky to pass
judgement on anyone.  However, this certainly sounds heavy-handed.
Assuming killer's offense was a violation of AT&T source-code trade
secrets, where do they get the right to seize somebody's private hardware?
It would be one thing if the moved in, deleted all questionable source
(after backing it up onto media they handed over to the courts for escrow).
But seizing the entire machine is a little Big-Brother-ish for my taste.
-- 
	Geoff Kuenning   ge...@ITcorp.com   {uunet,trwrb}!desint!geoff

Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!rutgers!mtunx!jhc
From: j...@mtunx.ATT.COM (Jonathan Hawbrook-Clark)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.xenix,
misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Site 'killer' update
Message-ID: <2164@mtunx.ATT.COM>
Date: 4 Apr 88 18:37:09 GMT
References: <653@jclyde.UUCP> <1706@desint.UUCP>
Reply-To: j...@mtunx.ATT.COM (Jonathan Clark)
Organization: AT&T ISL Middletown NJ USA
Lines: 11
Keywords: backbone down update on status

In article <1...@desint.UUCP> ge...@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) asks:
"where do they [ AT&T ] get the right to seize somebody's private hardware?"

Just for the record, the machine known as 'killer' is the property of AT&T,
was physically located in an AT&T building, and had been registered as an AT&T
system. Consequently, there is no question of anyone's "rights" being trodden on.
-- 
Jonathan Clark		jonathan.cl...@mtune.att.com, attmail!jonathan
Any affiliation is given for identification purposes only.

The Englishman never enjoys himself except for some noble purpose.

Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!
att-cb!att-ih!occrsh!occrsh.ATT.COM!rjd
From: r...@occrsh.ATT.COM
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Site 'killer' update
Message-ID: <142700028@occrsh.ATT.COM>
Date: 4 Apr 88 19:44:00 GMT
References: <653@jclyde.UUCP>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:jclyde.UUCP:-65300:occrsh.ATT.COM:142700028:000:1139
Nf-From: occrsh.ATT.COM!rjd    Apr  4 13:44:00 1988


.judgement on anyone.  However, this certainly sounds heavy-handed.
.Assuming killer's offense was a violation of AT&T source-code trade
.secrets, where do they get the right to seize somebody's private hardware?
.It would be one thing if the moved in, deleted all questionable source
.(after backing it up onto media they handed over to the courts for escrow).
.But seizing the entire machine is a little Big-Brother-ish for my taste.
. [ some deleted ]
.
.	Geoff Kuenning   ge...@ITcorp.com   {uunet,trwrb}!desint!geoff

  Also illegal if the machine were indeed owned privately....  Perhaps
killer is one of the many privately administered, yet AT&T-owned machines
on the net?  Then they are perfectly allowed to shut one of their own
machines off from the outside world until it can be determined that it
is safe to allow outside access.
  But even if killer is not AT&T owned, it was stated in the original that
AT&T supported the machine's comunication links, so it would not be so
"Big-Brother-ish" for them to cut it off IF, as they possibly had good
reason to suspect, it was indeed giving away source code or whatever.
  

Randy

Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!umix!umich!mibte!
gamma!sabre!sword!faline!bellcore!tness7!petro!swrinde!ut-sally!utastro!
bigtex!jclyde!root
From: r...@jclyde.UUCP (The Super User)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin,comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Site 'killer' is returning to service
Message-ID: <659@jclyde.UUCP>
Date: 5 Apr 88 03:56:49 GMT
Reply-To: al...@sulcao.UUCP (Allen Gwinn)
Organization: Glavnoye Razvedyvatelnoye Upravleniye, Austin, TX
Lines: 7

With a little luck, 'killer' should be back on line within the next
2 or 3 days.  All of us wish to express our heartfelt gratitude to all
of you who have supported the effort to get killer back on line.  We
also, once again, wish to appologize to all of you who were inconvenienced.
We hope this kind of thing never happens again.  Thanks again to everyone
for your patience.
---
Allen Gwinn {ihnp4,decvax,jclyde,bigtex,rpp386,killer :-)}!sulaco!allen

Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!len
From: l...@ames.arpa (Len Rose)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.xenix,
misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Site 'killer' update
Message-ID: <6932@ames.arpa>
Date: 5 Apr 88 04:45:22 GMT
References: <653@jclyde.UUCP> <1706@desint.UUCP>
Reply-To: l...@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Len Rose)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
Lines: 8
Keywords: backbone down update on status

Killer will be back up by the end of the week.. Business as usual 
for sites who connected in the past.. Contact Charley for more
information..



-- 
Len Rose
..!ames!len

Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!umix!umich!mibte!
gamma!sabre!sword!faline!bellcore!tness7!petro!swrinde!ut-sally!utastro!
bigtex!
jclyde!usenet
From: use...@jclyde.UUCP (Usenet control)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.xenix,
misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Site 'killer' update
Message-ID: <660@jclyde.UUCP>
Date: 5 Apr 88 20:43:19 GMT
References: <653@jclyde.UUCP> <1706@desint.UUCP>
Reply-To: use...@jclyde.UUCP (Usenet control)
Organization: Glavnoye Razvedyvatelnoye Upravleniye, Austin, TX
Lines: 21

In article <1...@desint.UUCP> ge...@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes:
>
>With such limited information, it is difficult and risky to pass
>judgement on anyone.  However, this certainly sounds heavy-handed.
>Assuming killer's offense was a violation of AT&T source-code trade
>secrets, where do they get the right to seize somebody's private hardware?
>It would be one thing if the moved in, deleted all questionable source
>(after backing it up onto media they handed over to the courts for escrow).
>But seizing the entire machine is a little Big-Brother-ish for my taste.

First I want to point out that I posted this for the sysops of killer.
Therefore, I am just passing on what has been given to me.  I claim no
responsibility for any of the information contained therein.  I am doing
a favor for allen@sulaco and Charlie Boikon (sp?).

Second, as I understand it, AT&T owns killer.  Therefore, they can do anything
they darned well please with the machine including seizing it.  Now, whether
this is ethical or not is a whole other question.
-- 
John B. Meaders, Jr.  1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX  78752
ATT:  Voice:  +1 (512) 451-5038  Data:  +1 (512) 371-0550
UUCP:   ...!uunet!utastro!bigtex!jclyde!john  or  j...@jclyde.UUCP

Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!umix!umich!mibte!
gamma!ulysses!thumper!faline!bellcore!tness7!tness1!mechjgh
From: mech...@tness1.UUCP (Greg Hackney 214+464-2771)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.config
Subject: Re: Site 'killer' update
Message-ID: <722@tness1.UUCP>
Date: 6 Apr 88 00:33:16 GMT
References: <653@jclyde.UUCP> <1706@desint.UUCP>
Reply-To: mech...@tness1.UUCP (Greg Hackney 214+464-2771)
Organization: S.W. Bell, Network Engineering, Dallas
Lines: 37
Keywords: memo to at&t employees

In article <1...@desint.UUCP> ge...@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes:
>In article <6...@jclyde.UUCP> use...@jclyde.UUCP (Usenet control) writes:
>> On Friday, March 18,
>> 1988, officials from AT&T Corporate Security moved in and seized the
>> machine
>
> where do they get the right to seize somebody's private hardware?

It is at&t's property, not private hardware.

I don't know which (if any) of the rumors are true (I even
heard it caught fire) but, I'd like to make a statement (knowing
that there are hundreds of at&t folks out there....

I have a regular account on killer (versus a BBS account), and
have browsed the file systems fairly well, and have never seen
anything there that could be construed as proprietory.

I have always had respect for at&t company in their willingness
to support the USENET as a public service, and for killer's
role in almost singlehandedly delivering netnews to the
Dallas/Ft Worth area.

I have seen nothing offensive there. (Except maybe postings
in the "Mark Ethan Smith" category). :-)

                                      ^
                                      |
                              corporate execs,
                              this is a funny face.
--
Greg Hackney
(20 years service in at&t and the bell system)
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
Dallas, Texas
r...@tness1.UUCP

"What hath God wrought?"

Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!elg
From: e...@nuchat.UUCP (Eric Green)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.xenix,
misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Site 'killer' update
Message-ID: <901@nuchat.UUCP>
Date: 7 Apr 88 07:34:56 GMT
References: <8350@netsys.UUCP>
Organization: Public Access - Houston, Tx
Lines: 49

From article <8...@netsys.UUCP>, by l...@netsys.UUCP:
>  After speaking to him for about two hours on the phone,the explicit
> reason was: Charles Boykin was ACCUSED of source piracy,Unix source
> to be explicit.

Note that Charles Boykin is at least peripherally related with AT&T,
so please, before everybody starts flaming AT&T, calm down,  count slowly
from one to ten, and keep your hands off the "f" key. Getting someone
in trouble with their employer is not a good way to earn lasting
friendship.

With that out of the way, back to the main issue at hand. The
problem of BBS systems being accused of harboring pirated software
is not new.  A Baton Rouge computer club, for example, had their
equipment siezed for a few weeks, until the cops detirmined that
the guy who made the complaint was, in fact, the same person that
uploaded the pirated software (he had a history of strife with the
officers of the club). On my BBS system, I have it set up so that
I must personally validate every file before it is made available
for download. For a public access Unix, however, that's out of the
question -- if a person has shell access, he/she can do just about
anything. 
   The "answer", then, is for there to be no shell access. Which means
that it is no longer a public access Unix system. It's just a big
overgrown BBS that happens to run on a Unix system.
   In other words, that's no answer at all. If it is a public access
Unix system, the people who use it must be trusted, somewhat. 
There will always be a potential for abuse, and you must have at
least some means in place for detecting abuse (such as, perhaps,
logging file transfers by modifying the appropriate protocol
programs). Such procedures probably would suffice as a demonstration
that you were acting "in good faith".

Als, note that you don't have to worry about AT&T security busting in 
your door (remember, "killer" was AT&T-supported). Local U.S. Marshals,
maybe, if AT&T decides to press charges in a court of law, and
gets a motion for seizure of appropriate evidence. But I doubt it
would ever get to that point... the most you could probably expect
would be discreet inquiries from AT&T security personel, advising
you to make sure your system has no AT&T source on it, because
"it'd be such a shame to have to seize your system...". 
Even AT&T occasionally worries about bad publicity, such as that
an extended court case would generate in relation to a public
forum such as USENET. The Phone Company of the movie "The President's
Analyst" exists no more.

-- 
Eric Lee Green   P.O. Box 92191  Lafayette, LA 70509
uunet!nuchat!elg  "I survived the Flood of '88"

Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ames!pacbell!hoptoad!
dasys1!patth
From: pa...@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin,comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Site 'killer' is returning to service
Message-ID: <3867@dasys1.UUCP>
Date: 12 Apr 88 20:01:20 GMT
References: <659@jclyde.UUCP>
Organization: The Big Electric Cat
Lines: 21
Summary: Charles Boykin
	 Sysop Of Killer

In article <6...@jclyde.UUCP>, r...@jclyde.UUCP (The Super User) writes:
> With a little luck, 'killer' should be back on line within the next
> 2 or 3 days.  All of us wish to express our heartfelt gratitude to all
> of you who have supported the effort to get killer back on line.  We
> also, once again, wish to appologize to all of you who were inconvenienced.
    
  
     We'll all be glad to see Charles Boykin and killer back online;
it was rather disheartening to read about the user(s) who set
the system up to be investigated for pirated software.
  
     Jealousy is a disease some unfortunate people have to
live with.
 
     Nice guys like Charles Boykin shouldn't have to be subjected
to the nasty users.
 
-- 
Patt Haring                 {sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!patth
Big Electric Cat Public Access Unix (212) 879-9031 - System Operator

Three aspects of wisdom:  intelligence, justice & kindness.

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO v IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/