[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Intel v. Randal Schwartz: Why care?
Randal L. Schwartz (merlyn@stonehenge.com) wrote:
: >>>>> "Michael" == Michael Sierchio <kudzu@dnai.com> writes:
:
: Michael> No offense intended to Randal's defenders, but he has been known for
: Michael> a long time to make a hobby of trying to crack passwords and gain
: Michael> access to systems where he's been a contractor -- including places
: Michael> where he had no sysad duties, but was hired to teach Perl (of
: Michael> all things!:-)
:
: Your statement is fiction, having no basis in fact. And I would
: caution you from passing around fiction on the net in the guise of
: *fact*... such actions might very well land *you* in a position of
: having to tangle with *my* lawyers.
Most of the debate on this thread has been over the inappropriateness of
a company prosecuting an employee in a criminal court. Personally I find
Intel's action much more appropriate that what I just read Mr. Schwartz
write in the above paragraph. I can understand his anger, but give me a
break... Are you honestly saying that you would prosecute someone for
saying untruthful things on the Internet? Most of the posts on the
Internet have little basis in fact.
Most people would just flame the guy to hell and back, but no, let's
threaten the guy with legal action. The courts are full of enough silly
cases. Mr. Schwartz, you have lost the little sympathy I had for your
plight.
: For the details of my story, see
: http://www.lightlink.com/spacenka/fors, or send a message to my email
: replybot at fund@stonehenge.com (content will be mostly ignored).
No doubt slightly biased. A better suggestion would be pulling up
old copies of the business section of the San Jose Mercury News
during June-Sept at www.sjmercury.com. Or the Time magazine Internet
archive...
Just my $0.02.
Patrick Mahoney
Follow-Ups:
References: