Re: Intel v. Randal Schwartz: Why care?

• Subject: Re: Intel v. Randal Schwartz: Why care?
• From: ram@mbisgi.umd.edu (Ram Samudrala)
• Date: 5 Jan 1996 22:20:58 GMT
• Distribution: inet
• Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk, comp.security.unix, comp.security.misc, misc.legal.computing, comp.sys.intel
• Organization: The Centre for Advanced Research in Biotechnology
• Reply-To: me@ram.org
• Xref: nntp.teleport.com comp.org.eff.talk:68974 comp.security.unix:23509 comp.security.misc:24502 misc.legal.computing:18612 comp.sys.intel:71024

Anthony D. Tribelli (adt@netcom.com) wrote:

>Cracking passwords is a behaviour that can be part of industrial
>espionage and other white-collar crimes that may lead to huge
>finanical losses.

"Can" and "may".

Any moron with half a brain examining this SPECIFIC case in detail
(which I presume the Jury did) could've easily reached the conclusion
that this was not the case.  Why did they not?   It takes two seconds
to realise that if Schwartz really meant harm, he'd have hidden
everything. 

Schwartz, as far as I know, wasn't charged for "industrial espionage".
As such, your point is only detracting from the argument. 

The system of law fails for this very reason: it generalises far too
much.  Who was the victim in this case?

--Ram

me@ram.org  ||  http://www.ram.org  ||  http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
 The view they once knew made our nooses too tight. 
 This justice in swine, this devil in god.   So god bless my soul---
 I've got total control and the crosshairs lined up dead in my sight... 
 I'm voting with a bullet!                     ---Corrosion of Conformity

• Re: Intel v. Randal Schwartz: Why care?
• From: cor@xs4all.nl (Cor Bosman)
• Re: Intel v. Randal Schwartz: Why care?
• From: adt@netcom.com (Anthony D. Tribelli)

• Prev: Re: Intel v. Randal Schwartz: Why care?
• Next: Re: Intel v. Randal Schwartz: Why care?
• Index: Mail Index
• Thread: Mail Thread Index