Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!spool.mu.edu!telecom-request
From: tele...@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term?
Message-ID: <telecom11.453.1@eecs.nwu.edu>
Date: 15 Jun 91 01:41:43 GMT
Sender: Tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 108
Approved: Tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-requ...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 453, Message 1 of 5
The Len Rose saga came to an end this past week when a federal judge
considered the circumstances involved and chose to impose punishment
by placing Len in the custody of the Attorney General of the United
States, or his authorized representative for a period of one year.
As in all such cases where the court finds the defendant poses no
immediate danger to the community, Len was given a one month period
from the imposition of punishment to get his personal affairs in order
before beginning his sentence.
At some point in time between now and July 10 mutually convenient to
Len, his attorney and the government, Len will surrender to the United
States Marshall, and be escorted to the penitentiary. As the first
order of business at the penitentiary receiving room, he'll be
required to submit to a complete strip-search accompanied by a rather
indelicate probing to insure that he does not have in his possession
any drugs; weapons with which he might harm himself, the staff or
other inmates; or other contraband.
He'll surrender his identity completely: driver's license, credit
cards, social security card -- anything which identifies Len Rose as
Len Rose will be taken from him and returned when he is released. For
the time he is incarcerated, he will be a number stamped on the
uniform he is given to wear. Or, he may be in a minimum security
institution and be permitted to wear his 'street clothes', but without
a shred of ID in his wallet. His ID will be his prison serial number.
But there will still be the initial and occassional thereafter strip
search and urine test on demand.
Len's wife, who barely speaks English will be left alone to fend for
herself for several months. She'll raise the two children the best she
can, on whatever money she has available to her. It won't be easy, but
then, it wasn't easy when Len was locked up before for a week in the
Dupage Jail in Wheaton, IL while the state charges were pending here.
Speaking of the kids, I wonder if Len has explained all this to them
yet. I wonder if they know, or are old enough to understand their dad
is going to prison, and why ...
When Len is released, he'll be 'allowed to' carry the tag "ex-con"
with him when he applies for work and tries to make new friends. One
part of his punishment is that in the future he must reveal his status
to prospective employers. Needless to say, the Internal Revenue
Service and the Justice Department trade files all the time ... so Len
will want to be super-honest on his federal taxes in the future, since
he can probably expect to be audited once or twice in the first five
years or so following his release.
I wonder if it was all worth it ... if Len had it to do over again if
he would do the same things he did before, or if he might consider the
consequences more carefully.
Despite the intensive crackdown we have seen by the federal government
in the past few years against 'white collar' and computer crime, there
are still those folks around who either (a) don't think it applies to
them, or (b) don't think they will get caught, or (c) don't understand
what the big fuss is all about in the first place.
If you don't think (c) is still possible, consider the recent thread
in comp.org.eff.talk -- yes, I know, *where else* !! -- on the student
who got suspended from school for two quarters after downloading and
distributing the system password file on the machine he had been
entrusted to use. The fact that the debate could go on endlessly for
message after message actually questioning what, if anything the chap
did wrong tells us plenty about the mentality and 'social respsonsi-
bility' of EFF devotees, but that is a whole new topic in itself.
The point is, some of us are simply getting very tired of the
break-ins, the fraudulent messages, the fact that in order to telnet
to a different site we can no longer do so direct from dialup servers
without a lot of rig-a-ma-role because computer (ab)users have stolen
all the trust which used to exist between sites, and the increasing
scarcity of 'guest' accounts on various sites because the sysadmins
are tired of being eaten alive with fraudulent and destructive usage.
Users had better wise up to one fact: the federal government is going
to continue to crack down on abusers of the net and this media. And
please, none of your hysterical freedom of speech arguments in my
mail, thank you. No one gives an iota what you write about, but when
you get your hands in the password file, rip off root or wheel
accounts, run programs deceptive to other users designed to rip off
their accounts also and generally behave like a two-bit burglar or
con-artist, expect to get treated like one when you get caught.
And you *will* get caught. Then you can go sit and commiserate with
Len Rose. If Len Rose has half the brain I think he has, he will come
out of the penitentiary a better person than when he went in. The
penitentiary can be, and frequently is a therapeutic experience, at
least for the people who think about what it was that caused them to
get there in the first place.
I feel very sorry about what has happened to Len Rose. I feel worse
about the circumstances his wife and children are in. But the
socially irresponsible behavior (which some people who call themselves
'socially responsible' seem to condone or wink at) has to stop. Now.
A US Attorney involved in prosecuting computer crime once said, "users
need an example when they log in of what to expect when they screw up
while on line ..." Indeed we do ... and Len Rose will serve as such.
And a knowledgeable sysadmin who is quietly cooperating with the
government tells me a federal grand jury is <thisclose> to returning
another cycle of indictments. Need I say more?
So Len, *was* it all worth it?
Patrick Townson
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!telecom-request
From: TK0J...@mvs.cso.niu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term?
Message-ID: <telecom11.459.2@eecs.nwu.edu>
Date: 15 Jun 91 06:15:00 GMT
Sender: Tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 55
Approved: Tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-requ...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 459, Message 2 of 5
The Moderator's comments in TELECOM Digest #453 giving his view of the
Len Rose sentencing are disingenuous. After some moralizing about Len,
the Moderator leaps to examples of hackers and other intruders, then
adduces these examples as justification for Len's sentencing. Len
*WAS NOT* busted for hacking, but for possession of AT&T source code
and for sending it across state lines. Check the evidence and charges.
He did not send this stuff to a "hacker" in Illinois. Rich Andrews,
the Illinois recipient, was not accused of hacking. Two programs,
including login.c were sent to {Phrack}, but the {Phrack} editor was
never accused of being, nor is there any evidence that he ever was, a
hacker. And, contrary to another post in the same issue of TCD, there
is no evidence that the programs Len possessed or sent were ever used
in criminal activity.
Both public and non-public court records and documents indicate that
the issue was explicitly one of unauthorized possession of proprietary
software. Counter-assertions by Len's critics will not change this.
There is little disagreement that Len may have acted unwisely. The
question is whether his actions justify a prison sentence, and to my
mind the answer is an emphatic *NO!*.
It is absurd to imply that somehow Len failed to learn from a
"crackdown." The case was the beginning of the so-called "crackdowns,"
and his actions are no more a message to "hackers" and "phreaks" than
double-parking tickets are to auto thieves.
There are six levels of prisons in the federal system, with level-1
being the most minimum of the bunch. Len will most likely be sentenced
to one of these as a first-time, minor, non-violent offender. But,
despite the term "country club prison," there is no such thing as an
easy-time prison. Contrary to the Moderator's comment, prisons are
rarely "therapeutic" places. I've been in and around them since 1980,
and the number of offenders coming out the better because of their
prison experience are few.
Len's ten month stay and subsequent probation period will cost the
tax-payers upwards of $30,000. There are alternatives to incarceration
that are less costly while simultaneously serving the ends of the need
for sanctions. Even if we assume that Len is guilty of all the charges
invented by his critics, his incarceration is simply not worth it for
society.
To answer the Moderator's question about whether "it was worth it:"
No, an unjust sentence never is. Nor is anything served by
exaggeration and hyperbole that, in this case, attempts to claim
otherwise.
Jim Thomas Sociology / Criminal Justice Northern Illinois University
[Moderator's Note: Jim Thomas is one of the Moderators of Computer
Underground Digest, a mailing list on the internet with roots going
back to 'hacker' discussions in TELECOM Digest in the past. PAT]
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!telecom-request
From: mnemo...@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term?
Message-ID: <telecom11.459.1@eecs.nwu.edu>
Date: 15 Jun 91 15:54:24 GMT
Sender: Tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Lines: 169
Approved: Tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-requ...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 459, Message 1 of 5
I have to say that in all the postings I have ever seen Pat Townson
write, his posting about Len Rose is the most shameful and morally
indefensible.
I find it incredibly ironic that Townson, after all this time, seems
to have so little sense of what Len Rose actually *did* and of what he
didn't do.
Let's detail some of Pat's many, many factual and moral errors:
In article <telecom11.45...@eecs.nwu.edu> tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
(TELECOM Moderator) writes:
> The Len Rose saga came to an end this past week when a federal judge
> considered the circumstances involved and chose to impose punishment
> by placing Len in the custody of the Attorney General of the United
> States, or his authorized representative for a period of one year.
The judge didn't decide to give Rose a year in prison. That was a
product of the plea agreement between the government and Rose's
attorney.
> Speaking of the kids, I wonder if Len has explained all this to them
> yet. I wonder if they know, or are old enough to understand their dad
> is going to prison, and why ...
"Dear children,
"Your father is going to prison because he possessed and transmitted
unlicensed source code. Hundreds of other Unix consultants have done
the same thing, but I was targeted because I wrote an article for
{Phrack Magazine} about how to modify login.c for hacking purposes,
and that article, while never published, was found in a search of
Craig Neidorf's room. The prosecutor and the phone company tried to
put Neidorf into prison, but when their distortions came to light they
dropped the case. They searched my system for the same E911 document,
but when they didn't find it, they decided to find something else to
prosecute me for -- namely, the unlicensed Unix source code.
"Children, lots of people, including Patrick Townson, will call me a
hacker and say I got convicted because of breakins into other people's
computers. Patrick Townson lies if he says this. I never broke in to
anyone's computer. I was always given access to systems by sysadmins
who were authorized to give me that access.
"My children, as I spend that time in prison, be aware that some
people will, without shame, distort the facts of my case in order to
use me as a cheap moral lesson. If you must hate them, don't hate them
because of what they say, but because they have chosen to be
hypocritical. Hate them because they have friends who possess
unlicensed source code, but they've never reported those friends to
the U.S. Attorney. Hate them because they make blanket condemnations
without bothering to learn the facts."
> I wonder if it was all worth it ... if Len had it to do over again if
> he would do the same things he did before, or if he might consider the
> consequences more carefully.
Have you asked this question of all Unix consultants who possess
unlicensed source code, Pat? No, I didn't think so.
> If you don't think (c) is still possible, consider the recent thread
> in comp.org.eff.talk -- yes, I know, *where else* !! -- on the student
> who got suspended from school for two quarters after downloading and
> distributing the system password file on the machine he had been
> entrusted to use. The fact that the debate could go on endlessly for
> message after message actually questioning what, if anything the chap
> did wrong tells us plenty about the mentality and 'social respsonsi-
> bility' of EFF devotees, but that is a whole new topic in itself.
This is a particularly contemptible slam at EFF, which is as concerned
with your rights as it is of those who are self-proclaimed hackers.
EFF has never approved of unauthorized computer intrusion, and we have
never doubted that the Georgia student who distributed the password
file was wrong to do so.
Pat, up until this point, I regarded you as something of a friend.
I've spoken to you on the phone, asked for your help, and been willing
to offer mine.
But this whole paragraph about "EFF devotees" convinces me that you
really have no moral center, and no ability to distinguish between
what some people write and what other people believe. I would never
dream of attributing every opinion posted in your newsgroup to
"comp.dcom.telecom devotees."
Of course, that's because I actually consider the moral consequences
of labelling people.
> The point is, some of us are simply getting very tired of the
> break-ins, the fraudulent messages, the fact that in order to telnet
> to a different site we can no longer do so direct from dialup servers
> without a lot of rig-a-ma-role because computer (ab)users have stolen
> all the trust which used to exist between sites, and the increasing
> scarcity of 'guest' accounts on various sites because the sysadmins
> are tired of being eaten alive with fraudulent and destructive usage.
Len Rose never did a breakin, and never took any action that limited
the use of telnet or guest accounts. Neither has EFF.
> Users had better wise up to one fact: the federal government is going
> to continue to crack down on abusers of the net and this media. And
> please, none of your hysterical freedom of speech arguments in my
> mail, thank you. No one gives an iota what you write about, but when
> you get your hands in the password file, rip off root or wheel
> accounts, run programs deceptive to other users designed to rip off
> their accounts also and generally behave like a two-bit burglar or
> con-artist, expect to get treated like one when you get caught.
Who is the "you" in this paragraph, Pat? EFF? You were just talking
about EFF. Has anyone at EFF *ever* said that "freedom of speech"
encompasses breakins?
No. It is your contemptible distortion to attribute that view to us.
> And you *will* get caught. Then you can go sit and commiserate with
> Len Rose. If Len Rose has half the brain I think he has, he will
> come out of the penitentiary a better person than when he went in.
> The penitentiary can be, and frequently is a therapeutic experience,
> at least for the people who think about what it was that caused them
> to get there in the first place.
What do you think caused Len Rose to get there, Pat?
> I feel very sorry about what has happened to Len Rose.
This seems two-faced after you've spent a whole posting gloating about
it.
> I feel worse about the circumstances his wife and children are in.
> But the socially irresponsible behavior (which some people who call
> themselves 'socially responsible' seem to condone or wink at) has to
> stop. Now.
First of all, there is no statute outlawing "social irresponsibility."
If there were, you would have committed a felony with your distortions
in this posting.
> A US Attorney involved in prosecuting computer crime once said, "users
> need an example when they log in of what to expect when they screw up
> while on line ..." Indeed we do ... and Len Rose will serve as such.
Is the U.S. Attorney Bill Cook, Pat? The AUSA who cost Craig Neidorf
$100,000 because he didn't know that the E911 document was not a
program, and that the information in it was publicly available and not
a trade secret? Bill Cook has never been held accountable for what he
did to Craig Neidorf.
> And a knowledgeable sysadmin who is quietly cooperating with the
> government tells me a federal grand jury is <thisclose> to returning
> another cycle of indictments. Need I say more?
Yes, you need to say more. This time around there are forces in the
community that, unlike you, will act to keep both the government and
the phone companies honest.
> So Len, *was* it all worth it?
Len no doubt thanks you for the charity you have shown him in kicking
him when he is down.
Was it worth it, Pat, to take still another slam at Len, and to
alienate people who are working to preserve *your* rights in the
process?
Mike Godwin, mnemo...@eff.org
(617) 864-1550 EFF, Cambridge, MA
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!telecom-request
From: fleck...@plains.nodak.edu (Clint Fleckenstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term?
Message-ID: <telecom11.459.5@eecs.nwu.edu>
Date: 15 Jun 91 23:30:03 GMT
Sender: Tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
Organization: North Dakota Higher Ed Computing Network
Lines: 19
Approved: Tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-requ...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 459, Message 5 of 5
Sorry to ask a stupid question, but what did he do? :)
It's been a while. I got in a lot of trouble on the net myself back
in 1987, and got bounced out of school.
Clint Fleckenstein DoD #5150 fleck...@plains.nodak.edu
[Moderator's Note: What Len Rose was *convicted* of doing was being in
possession of AT&T computer source code illegally, and transporting
the code across state lines. And Al Capone was sent to prison for
failure to pay his income tax. Would you care to discuss your case
with us here?
Thanks to all who wrote me on this issue; I've got more articles in
the queue to continue this thread tomorrow, and will summarize a
rebuttal of my own, also probably tomorrow space permitting. PAT]
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!hp4nl!telecom-request
From: mnemo...@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term?
Message-ID: <telecom11.462.2@eecs.nwu.edu>
Date: 16 Jun 91 05:35:45 GMT
Sender: Tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Lines: 36
Approved: Tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-requ...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 462, Message 2 of 7
Our Moderator demonstrates his moral sensibility with the following
comment:
> [Moderator's Note: What Len Rose was *convicted* of doing was being in
> possession of AT&T computer source code illegally, and transporting
> the code across state lines. And Al Capone was sent to prison for
> failure to pay his income tax.
This is a contemptible comparison. Len Rose is Al Capone?
Capone committed thousands of crimes. All Rose did was write an article
showing how to hack login.c to enable the capturing of passwords. Did
Rose ever use this program to gain unauthorized entry? No. Did anyone
else ever use it? No.
Is it ever allowable to show how code can be modified to break system
security? Yes.
Does Pat Townson have any moral perspective at all? Read his comparison
of Len Rose to Al Capone and draw your own conclusions. I think you
should be ashamed, Pat. But the kind of people who make such comments
typically know no shame.
> Thanks to all who wrote me on this issue; I've got more articles in
> the queue to continue this thread tomorrow, and will summarize a
> rebuttal of my own, also probably tomorrow space permitting. PAT]
The "rebuttal" should include apologies: to Len Rose, whose worst sin
was bragging in an article about his ability to modify login.c, and to
"EFF supporters," who do not approve of system breakins and who have a
little more regard for the First Amendment than Townson does.
Mike Godwin, mnemo...@eff.org
(617) 864-1550 EFF, Cambridge, MA
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!lll-winken!telecom-request
From: tan...@ki4pv.compu.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term?
Message-ID: <telecom11.469.12@eecs.nwu.edu>
Date: 18 Jun 91 08:05:00 GMT
Sender: Tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand
Lines: 13
Approved: Tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-requ...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 469, Message 12 of 15
[Moderator's Note: Even though I wanted to close out this thread here
in the Digest, I had the late arrivals which follow below. PAT]
Mr. Rose is on his way to jail for posessing unlicensed source code.
The world is now safer for humanity.
One stark bad example. Heading off to jail. Now, let us contrast the
damage done by Mr. Rose to the damage done by the SS to Steve Jackson
Games, and scale an appropriate sentence for them.
...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
lll-winken!telecom-request
From: b...@ssbn.wlk.com (Bill Kennedy)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: These People and Institutions Were Hurt by Len
Message-ID: <telecom11.481.6@eecs.nwu.edu>
Date: 20 Jun 91 01:26:00 GMT
Sender: Tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
Organization: W.L. Kennedy Jr. and Associates, Pipe Creek, TX
Lines: 77
Approved: Tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-requ...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 481, Message 6 of 7
My concern is strictly for the damage that Len did to people and
organizations who were just whooshed into his vortex.
> Mr. Rose is on his way to jail for posessing unlicensed source code.
> The world is now safer for humanity.
The case that I want to plead has nothing whatsoever to do with the
legality or lack thereof for which Len Rose is being incarcerated. I
want to talk about common courtesy and respect for your fellow man.
Not common courtesy or respect for Len, but rather HIS lack of it for
others.
> One stark bad example. Heading off to jail. Now, let us contrast the
> damage done by Mr. Rose to the damage done by the SS to Steve Jackson
> Games, and scale an appropriate sentence for them.
Tanner makes my point with precision. Let me enumerate the damage
done which could have been avoided had Len acted more responsibly:
Steve Jackson games - They never would have become vulnerable to SS
abuse had Len not made excursions beyond reason and the law. This
wasn't Tanner's point, but it's my take on it.
Usenet killer/attctc - This invaluable resource and national spoke in
the Usenet wheel would not have been shut down had Len not decided to
joyride beyond the bounds of propriety and common sense.
Southwestern Bell - I'd use his name but I don't have his permission.
He lost his job, for all intent and purposes, despite his *total*
exhonoration in the matter. He was put under a microscope,
intimidated, and otherwise mistreated and had to leave the company.
His only "mistake"? He was honestly and innocently associated with
Len Rose.
AT&T employee - Ditto above. In my view these two people lost their
jobs just because they had dealings with Len Rose in all good faith.
Had Len Rose remained within the bounds of professionalism they would
still be employed by their previous employers (in the SWBT case 22
years went down the drain). I happen to think that they are both
better off in their current jobs and they probably agree, but it's not
the point. Their careers with their employers were wrecked because
Len Rose couldn't behave.
Usenet texbell - THE major news and mail site in Texas came under
scrutiny as a result of the Len Rose case. Southwestern Bell who had
sponsored and underwritten it for years decided to shut it down on
four days' notice and I can't be convinced that it wasn't realted to
the internal investigation stimulated by the Len Rose case.
Unnamed person Austin - I don't have his permission either so he'll
have to stay anonymous too. His apartment was raided and all of his
electronic stuff confiscated the same day as Steve Jackson Games, same
city, Austin, TX. This individual is now having to file a lawsuit to
get his gear back (no charges were ever filed) and it costs him money
to do that. Len's stuff was returned.
Here's my point. I don't care what anyone says or thinks about right
or wrong with regard to Len Rose. My animosity and resentment stems
from the "collateral damage" caused by a long standing collection of
really bone headed things that the man did. I am just as sympathetic
as everyone else for what he did to his family (I said "what he did")
as I am what he did to the rest of the net at large, examples above.
He caused a lot of grief. He grieved some people who could have been
spared had he been able to contain himself. He didn't, they weren't
spared.
He's headed for the hoosegow, but I think he and we would be better
served if he could get some treatment for what makes him hurt others.
Yes, I'm an injured party too, but stomach acid only, he *HURT* the
things I laid out above. Don't slather me with "it was the big bad
feds"; had he not attracted their attention they'd have left him (and
the rest of us) alone. 'Nuff said, I thought you ought to know.
Bill Kennedy internet b...@ssbn.WLK.COM or ssbn!b...@attmail.COM
uucp {att,cs.utexas.edu,pyramid!daver}!ssbn.wlk.com!bill
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!
telecom-request
From: mnemo...@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: These People and Institutions Were Hurt by Len
Message-ID: <telecom11.488.3@eecs.nwu.edu>
Date: 25 Jun 91 01:24:56 GMT
Sender: Tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Lines: 103
Approved: Tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: tele...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-requ...@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 488, Message 3 of 7
In article <telecom11.48...@eecs.nwu.edu> Bill Kennedy writes:
> My concern is strictly for the damage that Len did to people and
> organizations who were just whooshed into his vortex.
This entire posting is driven by an immense ignorance of the timetable
of events that led to Len Rose's prosecution.
> Not common courtesy or respect for Len, but rather HIS lack of it for
> others.
It is not a violation of common courtesy to be investigated because
one sent a file to Craig Neidorf. This is why Len was investigated.
> Steve Jackson games - They never would have become vulnerable to SS
> abuse had Len not made excursions beyond reason and the law. This
> wasn't Tanner's point, but it's my take on it.
This is false. Steve Jackson Games was investigated because of the
alleged "theft" of the E911 document. Len never possessed that
document. He never had any link with the events at Steve Jackson
Games. If Len's reputation had not already been damaged for other
reasons, he would be able to sue William Kennedy for this statement
alone and win. It is sloppy, reckless, malicious, and ignorant.
> Usenet killer/attctc - This invaluable resource and national spoke in
> the Usenet wheel would not have been shut down had Len not decided to
> joyride beyond the bounds of propriety and common sense.
Please explain how Len caused AT&T to shut down Charlie Boykin's
system. It is unclear how Len has the power to push AT&T around.
> Southwestern Bell - I'd use his name but I don't have his permission.
> He lost his job, for all intent and purposes, despite his *total*
> exhonoration in the matter. He was put under a microscope,
> intimidated, and otherwise mistreated and had to leave the company.
> His only "mistake"? He was honestly and innocently associated with
> Len Rose.
Then the abuse was Southwestern Bell's, not Len's. Nobody forced SW
Bell to act unethically.
> AT&T employee - Ditto above. In my view these two people lost their
> jobs just because they had dealings with Len Rose in all good faith.
If they did nothing wrong, and their employers nevertheless fired
them, it doesn't not take a moral philosopher to figure out that the
responsibility for the firing should not be laid at Len's door.
> Southwestern Bell who had
> sponsored and underwritten it for years decided to shut it down on
> four days' notice and I can't be convinced that it wasn't realted to
> the internal investigation stimulated by the Len Rose case.
Of course you "can't be convinced" of this. It would require weighing
the facts and going beyond mere speculation. It would require risking
being proved wrong. It might require a public apology to Len. (You
already owe him one for your statement about SJGames.)
> Unnamed person Austin - I don't have his permission either so he'll
> have to stay anonymous too. His apartment was raided and all of his
> electronic stuff confiscated the same day as Steve Jackson Games, same
> city, Austin, TX. This individual is now having to file a lawsuit to
> get his gear back (no charges were ever filed) and it costs him money
> to do that. Len's stuff was returned.
Of the people searched in Austin, two had no association with Len's
investigation at all, and the third does not blame Len for the abuses
inflicted upon him by the federal government. Or, at least, not the
last time I spoke with him about Len.
> He caused a lot of grief. He grieved some people who could have been
> spared had he been able to contain himself. He didn't, they weren't
> spared.
This is simply raving. Len never forced the government or private
companies to fire or harass anyone. Most of the investigations
followed from massive mistakes on the part of government investigators
and private security agents. Len can't be held responsible for the
stupidity of the government.
> He's headed for the hoosegow, but I think he and we would be better
> served if he could get some treatment for what makes him hurt others.
I think you should get treatment for the condition that makes you
ignore facts that don't fit your theories.
> Don't slather me with "it was the big bad
> feds"; had he not attracted their attention they'd have left him (and
> the rest of us) alone.
The government is not a natural event like a rockslide or hurricane;
government agents bear moral responsibility for their actions. The
same goes for private employers. Holding Len responsible for what the
government and private employers chose stupidly to do is to assume
that only Len is capable of making moral judgments. Even the
defendants in the Steve Jackson Games case deserve a higher estimation
of moral responsibility than that.
Mike Godwin, mnemo...@eff.org
(617) 864-1550 EFF, Cambridge, MA