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

Re: Intel v. Randal Schwartz: Why care?

[long post not included]

I hate revisiting old issues. But here goes...

There are so many flaws with the notion of "computer crime" that I can
hardly keep myself civil. Crimes are specific ACTS. Compare "computer
crime" to "filing cabinet crime" to see the inherent absurdity of
the notion. The crime is THEFT or MURDER or FRAUD or whatever, whether 
one uses a piece of paper, a chair, or a computer. Computer crime laws
confuse the instrument of the act with the act itself.

Yes, yes, yes. Some laws include the instrument of an act as an 
enhancing factor in the seriousness of a crime. Assault with a 
gun is more serious than assault with a pea shooter. Nevertheless,
it is the ACT that is prohibited, not the instrument.

Computer crime laws are fundamentally flawed in that there is no
requirement of showing harm or damage. I don't know all the details
of the Schwartz case, but from what I have read, Intel was NOT DAMAGED
in any way. In contrast, in most criminal law, there is the notion 
that some degree of harm must occur before the act is criminal.

This is a fatal flaw that makes the law abusive. Basically, the entire
criminal machinery is brought to bear on an employee who has pissed off
his employer. This is a misuse of the justice system. And it is not
necessary. Companies have all the power they need to discipline 
erring employees without bringing in the armed might of the state.
Intel could have given Schwartz a formal reprimand. Intel could have
fired him. Intel might even have sued him if there were a tort. From
what I understand from public sources, there was absolutely no need
to prosecute him on criminal charges.

Damn it! Would Intel like it if Unions were strong enough to write
criminal law then used it against Intel to jail the CEO? Criminal
law is just totally unsuitable for employer/employee relations. Isn't
that obvious?

There are many more objections, and I have made them formally. See
my papers in Computer/Law Journal (no I have no machine readable 
copies).
	1. "On Computer Crime: Senate Bill S. 240 _Computer/Law
	   Journal_; Vol 1, Winter 1979, No 3.
	2. "A Survey of Computer Crime Studies" _Computer/Law
	   Journal_; Vol II, Spring 1980, No 2
You should be able to find copies through interlibrary loan.

I did my best as an individual to kill these damn laws in that time.
But I was only one person (John James gave me a lot of help and
encouragement) and could not be everywhere. At the time, the
trade press, the media, and the politicians had gone crazy on
computer crime. 

They should be repealed. Every one of them is flawed criminal
law lurking in the penal codes like land mines.

-- 
John K. Taber
PGP Key fingerprint =  B5 49 65 B5 42 54 14 D3	B4 9F B4 D3 AE 59 C2 A3
=======================================================================
The "work ethic" was originally not a prescription for happiness, but a
diagnosis of a neurosis. --Richard Todd in _Worth_
References: