------------------------------
Date: 11 August, 1990
From: Jim Thomas
Subject: Len Rose Interview
********************************************************************
*** CuD #1.28: File 2 of 4: Len Rose Interview ***
********************************************************************
The Len Rose case seems to present problems for many people. Some, who
ordinarily support Constitutional rights, seem to have backed away from
this case, perhaps because of the seriousness of the charges, or perhaps
because his case does not seem as "pure" as those of some other defendants.
Some people are also concerned that Len's brush with the law "taints" him.
We feel that Len's case deserves attention comparable to other recent
cases. The charges in the indictment, as explained to us, are no more
serious than those in the indictment's of others, and the charges do not
seem to be as serious as the media depicts them. More importantly, the duel
model process of justice that ostensibly guides criminal proceedings must
be applied to all equally, whether the defendant is squeaky clean or a
homicidal maniac. We are troubled by those who think that, because Len has
had a previous legal problem, he is less deserving of legal help. Often, it
is precisely those whose image is the most tarnished who are most at risk
in the judicial process. If the issues are worthy and potentially affect
others, then it is in everybody's interests to assure that justice is
served.
CuD recently talked at length with Len about his current situation. We
have not talked with Len's attorney nor have we seen copies of motions or
of the evidence. Len's current attorney is a public defender who has been
busy in the multiple calls we made daily for three days. He has not
returned our calls. Those who have the time to try to obtain information
from him may contact him at:
Jim Kraft (the attorney)
Kraft, Balcerzak and Bartlett
7050 Oakland Mills Road
Columbia, MD 21046 (phone: 301-381-4646).
Len informs us that the case number is CR-90-0202, Federal Court, Baltimore.
*******************************************************************
WHO IS LEN ROSE?
Len Rose is a 31 year old computer programmer who lives in Pennsylvania.
He has been married for 10 years and has a son, five years old, and a two
year old daughter. He served six years in the army and, he informed us,
received the highest peacetime medal and "held a top secret clearance until
this happened." Len broke his leg in three places in early August during a
fishing outing with his son when he fell off a 35 foot cliff, "but at least
I kept my son from falling," he said. Prior to his arrest, Len operated
his own computer system and was a computer consultant. One specialty area
was Unix systems.
WHAT IS LEN CHARGED WITH?
Len told us that there are five counts against him under Title 18. Two are
for computer fraud and three are for transporting allegedly stolen goods in
excess of $5,000 across state lines. (See File 3, this issue, for a copy
of the indictment).
According to Len, the two fraud counts were for allegedly altering
"login.c," which is source code for unix login programs, which was modified
to perform a trojan horse function to record login names and passwords and
store them in a file system. Len said he wrote the program because
somebody was attacking his own system, and he installed the program on his
system to see what accounts were being attacked. He indicated that login.c
is being valued in the indictment at $75,000, a value reminiscent of the
inflated E911 file charges that federal prosecutors in Chicago charged was
worth over $79,000. Under cross-examination, it was determined that the
information in the E911 files could be obtained in a $13 manual. The other
fraud count was for sending out a password scanner that he wrote himself
that scans passwords and tries to decrypt them. "You can find more powerful
programs n the net," he said, "such as Crypt Breakers Workbench and COPS,
which are archived on uunet to name just two %sources%."
According to Len, "The things I wrote were so trivial, a first year
computer science student could have written them. What it did was take a
word out of a dictionary file and encrypt it, and it compared the encrypted
form to the encrypted password in the password file. It was a very mindless
program. I had written it a long time ago, and used it many times myself
and when I was doing it for security %consulting%. That's all I used it
for, on any system concerned with security. In fact, it was obsolete,
because when ATT released system V 3.2 backin 1988, they stopped using the
file /etc/password and went to the /etc/shadow which was only readable by
the root account or super user accounts. This program %in question% can't
be installed without being able to control the system. I couldn't be used
by a normal user."
The three transportation counts apparently stemmed from multiple sendings
of this file. He sent the program to an e-mail publication, but the
program did not arrive intact, so he re-sent it, which, he said, was the
basis of the second count. The final count, for the same program,
occured because he deleted his own program and received a copy of the
program he had previously sent.
Len related a story that sounded similar to SS Agent Timothy Foley's
account of the initial questioning of Craig Neidorf. Len said he was
originally asked about the E911 files, and that the agents told him that he
was not in any trouble. Len said, "I told them everything I knew. I
cooperated with them to the fullest extent possible, because I trusted
them. I didn't try to hide anything. I told them everything, and they were
after this 911 stuff. They said I wouldn't be prosecuted if I told them
everything, but they did. They told me to tell them now and it won't
matter, but if it came out later.....I told him about the source code."
Len emphasized that he did not steal the source code and that he used it
only to learn Unix.
Contrary to some reports both in the media and circulating on the nets, Len
adamantly denies ever being a member of the Legion of Doom, a denial
confirmed by LoD members and a recent LoD listing of participants. "I never
said I was a member of LoD, that was nothing out of my mouth. I never had
any association with them, and only knew some of the people. I considered
it a kids group, immature, and I never had any involvement with any group
anywhere. I was not a joiner," he said.
WHAT WAS LEN'S PREVIOUS OFFENSE?
Because of the rumors circulating about an earlier offense, we asked Len to
tell us what he could. The case has not yet been resolved, although it will
be concluded within the next few days. It occured in 1989, and was
unrelated to the current situation. It was a state offense for felony
theft, which resulted from an attempt to recover computer equipment that he
believed at the time to be rightfully his, and was the consequence of a
dispute between himself and a company he felt had "ripped him off." On the
streets, we called this "midnight repossession." "It was very stupid. I had
never been n trouble before that and I am very ashamed," he said. The
details of the case can be more fully elaborated after it is fully
resolved.
WHAT'S LEN'S STATUS NOW?
The trial was originally scheduled for August 20, but it appears now that
it may be postponed until February. Until then, Len has no computer
equipment, and he said that the judge would not consider a motion to return
it because the judge perceived that he could use it to commit further
crime. As a consequence, Len has no source of income, and said that he has
lost his home, his credit rating and credit cards, his business, and some
of his friends. "I've lost everything." He is currently immobilized because
of his leg fracture, and will be in casts of various types for at least
eight weeks and may require surgery. His situation has put severe strains
on his finances, psyche, and domestic life. He indicated that he could no
longer afford to retain his original attorney, Carlos Recio of Deso and
Greenberg in Washington, D.C., and was currently represented by a public
defender. His income was slashed by one-twentieth, and he estimated he has
barely made $5,000 this year. He lost his office and currently works from a
single room in a friend's company. He feels that his reputation has been
unjustifiably destroyed, largely by distorted media representations and
rumors and added, "The press has been as damaging as the Secret Service."
If Len's account is accurate, then it would seem to raise many of the same
questions addressed by the EFF, CuD, 2600 Magazine, and others interested
in protecting the Constitutional rights of computerists. Len is not being
charged with theft, but with violations that raise the definition of
property, the legal rights of programmers, the status of source could that
seems to be fairly accessible, and other evolving issues in the
still-tenuous relationship between technology and law. It also raises the
issue of "cruel and unusual punishment." If the summary of the indictment
is correct, it would appear that the consequences resulting from Len's
situation far exceed the crime, and any additional sanctions, especially if
they involve incarceration, will be neither in the interests of Len, or,
ultimately, of society. To deprive an individual who has been a
contributing member to society of a means of livelihood would seem to serve
little purpose in this or any other case. Some argue that the courts are
the best forum to decide both the guilt/innocence and the fate of
defendants. But, justice is not always served in the legal process,
especially in the grey area of ambiguous laws enforced by technologically
untrained investigators and prosecutors. Regardless of what one might
think of Len's judgment in some of his behaviors, we must nonetheless ask:
If Len's account is accurate, at what point does the punishment become too
great? For Len Rose, the immediate goal is modest: "I just want to get my
home back again."
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************