[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Schwartz VS. Intel

In <3u0ts8$8qr@reuter.cse.ogi.edu> biggs@helix.cse.ogi.edu (John Biggs) writes:

>If you haven't read it already, check out the front
>page of the Oregonian's business section. I wont 
>bore anyone with the details - go read it first.

The details are quite interesting. Not boring at all.

>The defense has it pretty easy.  They just say things like:
>Schwartz is a nice guy, He likes to ski, play this, play that,
>and he really likes to mess around with computers.  He was
>just too darned industrious and PLAYED with the wrong computer
>system.  Yes, he is guilty but hey, he was just playing around.
>Jury's eat this up!  
>...
>My opinion?  Im on Schwartz's side.  I believe there is a limit
>as to how much our society should rely on computers.  You cant 
>stop hackers/crackers and the more we rely on computers, the
>greater the risk of computer thieving.

Let me get this straight. (Based on Oregonian article). Intel brings
Schwartz in as a contractor. He and Intel have at least one disagreement
as to the scope of his computer activities. Intel tells him not to do
certain things.

Then, Intel finds him sucking up their CPU cycles running "crack" on
their password file. He doesn't even have the brains to download the
file to his Powerbook and run crack there. He just uses their CPU
cycles. Intel is upset.

And you are on Schwartz's side? In return for taking Intel's money,
doesn't Schwartz have a fiduciary responsibility to Intel not to act
like an asshole and not to do things they ask him not to? This mess
is all of Randal's making. He's not some high school kid with a modem
and too much time on his hands. He's a professional. He's being PAID
by Intel to behave like a professional.

Something I can sympathize with is the nature of the charges. I don't
have the Oregonian article in front of me any more. But from my
recollection of the facts as presented there, Randal should have been
charged with the misdemeanor of inappropriate computer use, not with
the felony. There's a big difference between them.

>From the newspaper article, it doesn't look like he has any chance of
serious jail time even if convicted. But I think that someone decided
to teach him a financial lesson. I think that his whining of having
over $60K in legal bills to this point is EXACTLY why this prosecution
is occuring. Now that is something else I can sympathize with. The
government will always have more money than the average defendant.
OJ is the exception that proves the rule.

-- 
Bohdan       The Failed Clinton Presidency - America Held Hostage - Day 905
Follow-Ups: References: