Re: Perl Co-inventor Convicted

• Subject: Re: Perl Co-inventor Convicted
• From: zen@bi.fish.com (d)
• Date: 30 Jul 95 03:41:13
• In-reply-to: durrell@innocence.eng.sun.com's message of 28 Jul 1995 16:41:26 GMT
• Newsgroups: comp.security.unix, misc.legal.computing
• Organization: FISH
• References: <wsandersDCE99K.3DH@netcom.com> <3vaunk$4u4@hpindda.cup.hp.com> <3vav1t$4u4@hpindda.cup.hp.com> <3vb3vm$llj@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>
• Xref: nntp.teleport.com comp.security.unix:17664 misc.legal.computing:14829

In article <3vb3vm$llj@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> durrell@innocence.eng.sun.com (Bryant Durrell [Contractor]) writes:
> >Gosh.  If I run Crack, does that make me a criminal in Oregon?
> It's generally unprofessional to run crack on your employer's password
> files without prior authorization.  I believe that Randal didn't have
> malicious intent, but I can't blame Intel for being paranoid.

I can - they're being fucking idiots, and the law has been even worse
in this case, with all the bullshit they let people get away with, to
nail randal on this lunacy.  All IMNSHO, of course.

 -- d

• Re: Perl Co-inventor Convicted
• From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
• RE: PERL CO-INVENTOR CONV
• From: david.lloyd-jones@canrem.com (David Lloyd-Jones)

• Perl Co-inventor Convicted
• From: wsanders@netcom.com (Wiley Sanders)
• Re: Perl Co-inventor Convicted
• From: bkelley@cup.hp.com (Bob Kelley)
• Re: Perl Co-inventor Convicted
• From: bkelley@cup.hp.com (Bob Kelley)
• Re: Perl Co-inventor Convicted
• From: durrell@innocence.eng.sun.com (Bryant Durrell [Contractor])

• Prev: Re: Perl Co-inventor Convicted
• Next: Perl Co-inventor Convicted
• Index: Mail Index
• Thread: Mail Thread Index