Input from professional bodies is crucial in any good law affecting areas the jurists might not have experience of. I would suggest apprpriate bodies is theis case include SAGE and the EFF.
Randal meant well.
Clearly, ORS 164.377 is a poorly worded, ill defined law similar to the CDA, that gives any service provider a right to prosecute any of their users or employees under any circumstances. Possibility of conviction aside, this law creates an enormous potential financial burden due to court costs on all of those who might be within its reach. This law is not aimed at protecting the computer using public but at extorting them for legal fees. This takes ""authorization"" out of the realm of common sense and places it within the domain of the lawyers, where it may be abused in a different fashion on each contract. The wording of the Nevada laws proves that there is a preferable alternative that creates an atmosphere of fair play for both the service provider and the user. With the weight of the law for employers to swing blindly at their employees, and a hoard of lawyers eager to exploit this new arena, it is a wonder that every computer professional in Oregon hasn't left.
The law as currently practiced allows companies to beat employees over the head legally for something resulting out of internal corporate politics and games playing. It allows managers to drag programmers into court for violating vague or undesclosed rules or even for the ""crime"" of making the management look incompetent.
It is a very bad precident.
People should not be imprisoned for things happening inside a computer.
If I'm not mistaken, isn't any person who accesses a web site physically located in Oregon using ""computers situated in the State of Oregon?"" Hmm... Accessing that web server probably adds to a log file, altering the computer. ;-) Quite silly...
I am a former (taxpaying) resident of Oregon. This case was a significant factor in my decision to leave Oregon and the only reason I will not return.
As a former Oregon resident, I'm ashamed on behalf of Oregon. I had thought of moving back, but ...
Its very clear from Randal's case that he had no malice intentions. If you ask any person who understands what he did, he would agree that Randal is innocent. He should have been thanked and honored for being such an honest and professional person. Yes, he did log on to somebody's account, but that is the only way you can verify for sure. If he really wanted to do some damage then he could have done it and nobody could have even tracked it. I come from India, the largest democracy in World. First principle of our constituion is that: ""Our law should be such that even if 100 criminals get away, not a single innocent should be punished"". You have already burnt a genius like Randal a lot. You have taken away five precious years + whatever time it takes for him to recover from his life. Please don't do it anymore. Don't be so thick skinned. You are discouraging all of us, computer professionals, from contributing to the society.
This law is typical of the stupidity of politicians who bow down to corporate greed and deceipt. A reasoned approach would save everyone from the legal nightmares and inject a little common sense into our everyday life.
It would seem that from the text of the law as it stands, any person using the web to access information, whether deliberately or inadvertantly published through an HTTP or FTP server, might run afoul of the law. Since web sites are located in the State of Oregon, including those maintained by Intel, every Internet user can be said to use or potentially use computers situated in the State of Oregon. Knowing this, it might be wise to avoid using Oregon web sites in general, since any malicious entity within its borders might use to law to persecute, harass, or annoy perfectly innocent parties or any individual with whom it disagreed or had a grievance.
After having heard Randal speak at SANS, I'm even more outraged that Intel saw fit to press criminal charges for an offense that caused them no loss. I offer my support for your case against Oregon, and hope that you will consider pressing civil charges against Intel should you win your case. This is an area that is sadly lacking in precedents that indicate that the US judicial system has *any* understanding of computing technology.
As I was born and raised in Oregon, this situation as it exists today is intolerable: I find myself thinking, did I do something between the law's passage and my most recent departure from the state (June 1987) that would allow someone to bring the force of this law down upon me, like Randal?
This cannot continue.
The law definately needs to be re-worded. If you take this law literally, I am just as guitly as Randall is. My situation is frightenly similiar - I am a contractor doing sys admin work at a large corporation. I have little communication with my boss, as long as I 'get the job done'. That job is make sure the systems are running - and secure. The law must be clear to make sure 'doing one's job' is not illegal. And this isn't just Oregon - it's nation-wide and must be addressed - soon. I am in full support of Randall. He made some mistakes, but his intentions (the security of Intel) were good. Re-word the law before another contractor has to suffer and is mis-labeled a felon.
As a manager at a large multinational corporation, I have on occassion detected or had to deal with employees carrying out similar activities. In all cases this was dealt with internally, without need for criminal proceedings or dismissal, (although I am aware of more serious activities having resulted in both). The perpetrators went on to be fine upstanding engineers.
This case demonstrates the horrid lag between technology and legislation, often with the innocent being made to suffer. Intel is asking for an even worse public opinion.
unless the technical and legal communities work out the language of this legislation in cooperation, the result will please no one.
Injustice of a serious nature. I support you 100%+.
I've followed the Randall Schwarz case on the internet, and I consider it a travesty of justice. The response is certainly inconsistent with the problem.
Surely there must be a better way -- I think this petition clarifies some of the issues that I've been most concerned about.
How can Randall Schwarz be a felon when he hasn't hurt anyone (or even tried to)?
I live across the river from Portland (in Vancouver). Anything that happens in Portland affects us here in Vancouver.
Doesn't it fit within Oregon law that anyone who connects to Randal's Web site or sends email to him ""uses"" computers situated in the State of Oregon?
Good luck, Randall! The Oregon law is ridiculous!
One thing that was left out of this horrible law is the general legal principle that there must be criminal intent before an action can be considered a crime. Any law that does not address intent doesn't belong in the category of criminal law.
Doesn't it fit within Oregon law that anyone who connects to Randal's Web site or sends email to him ""uses"" computers situated in the State of Oregon?
As a computer user and a resident of Oregon, I must say I am appalled by this law which can declare acts as ""crimes"" and convict individuals that in no way harm any individual, corporation, or other entity.
Randal L. Schwartz is a good guy. He took time out of his day to answer questions for an interview I did. I'm 16, and he had no problem with helping me out. Intel acts like they're about 6 years younger then I am.
At this point, I can't understand why any computer professional would do any work on a computer located in the state of Oregon when an employer's least displeasure can result in a felony conviction. I am most pleased to be working in a more enlightened state.
As a computer sales and repair professional this law holds many concerns. As I read it I can be prosecuted if I accidentially damage data on a customers computer. To that end I require customers to sign a disclaimer. Hopefully this will provide authorization.
I was made aware of this law when I was called as an expert witness in a computer crime case. The research I have undertaken is frightening to asy the least.
Hopefully something can be done to make this law less vague.
I would not consider working in the State of Oregon, while this statute is in force.
As clearly evident from the procedings involving Oregon v. Schwartz, current Oregon computer law is lacking in many respects. It should also be clear that the proceedings and in fact the entire case against Mr. Schwartz was based on the States (and Particularly Washington Counties) interest in regards to corporate holdings. How can the citizens of Oregon (myself included) feel comfortable with their own Inalienable Rights with regard to their work environment when our interests are not even remotely considered by the State. This is a serious situation and only by implementing laws which are fair and JUST can it be rectified.
URL:
http://www.lightlink.com/fors/us2oregon/ore-comments.html
WWW site contact: Steve
Pacenka, spacenka@mail.lightlink.com.
Page last updated January 20, 1999.