------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Jul 91 15:05:10 EST From: Gene Spafford Subject: Response to Bill Vajk In an earlier digest, Bill Vajk responded to one of my messages with lengthy commentary. I agree with some of his points, disagree with others, and have no opinion about most. Most deserve and/or need no comment. However, there were a few of his statements (and his overall attitude) I feel I should respond to somewhat; I won't dignify the obvious personal insults with commentary, however. He says: "I am concerned that Spafford's comments can be read to be forgiving and conciliatory in nature where it regards errors made by professional law enforcement." He then goes on to criticize the case in California described in CUD 3.15. That juxtaposition was unfair, and implied that I was in some way trying to excuse the actions of Office Nemeth & company -- and that is most definitely not the case. >From what I have heard of that incident, the law enforcement personnel acted like idiots. As to being conciliatory and forgiving, I do not believe law enforcement personnel are basically evil or out to deprive us of our rights; I believe most law enforcement personnel are poorly educated in the area and overworked. I wish to improve that understanding, not seek to portray law enforcement personnel as "the enemy." I don't approve of or agree with some of their actions, but neither do I feel it inappropriate to try to see things from their point of view. Later, he says: >Yes, Gene. In article 5462@accuvax.nwu.edu you misspoke [sic] and assisted >in proliferation of such incorrect reports : > > "The information I have available from various sources > indicates that the investigation is continuing, others > are likely to be charged, and there MAY be some national > security aspects to parts of the discussion that have > yet to be disclosed." > >Need I voice the obvious and ask how any "responsible" individual should >handle errors they have made? Need I voice the obvious and ask a simple >question. What has Gene Spafford done to correct errors he has made? Has >his behavior in these matters met the criteria for responsibility he demands >from others? Mr. Vajk (and others) appears to misunderstand my usage of words. My comment was not a misstatement. I very carefully qualified it to indicate that it was based on information available to me, and that it was an indication, not a certainty. The investigation did continue. At the time, it seemed likely to my sources that others would be charged. And my use of the word MAY was to indicate that it was far >from certain. I don't view this statement on this issue as erroneous, nor do I believe I have anything to apologize for when making it. Had I said "The investigation shows these guys to be traitors and part of a larger group that will all be arrested and charged." -- that would be an incorrect statement and something I would need to retract. However, I didn't make that statement. I also "demand(s)" nothing of others. I admit errors when I make them. Mr. Vajk then says a great deal about my statement that we should not believe that everyone charged with computer offenses is innocent. He points out (correctly) that *in US law* people are innocent until proven guilty. HOWEVER, that does not make them innocent of having committed an act. If Joe Random were to shoot someone in front of a crowd of witnesses, he would be innocent under the law until a jury returned a verdict in a trial, but he would NOT be innocent of the act. Would any witness to the crime, or anyone who spoke to a witness, then be equally condemned by Mr. Vajk for saying "Joe was not innocent of murder" before the conclusion of a trial? My point remains that claiming innocence (in the non-law sense) for all individuals accused of computer-related crimes is obviously incorrect and counter-productive. It may be technically correct to point out that a court has not convicted them yet, but that does not mean we should trumpet their innocence. Furthermore, implying that law enforcement personnel are all pursuing power-trips and vendettas against computer users is paranoid. The law is important, and I respect it, but I do not need a jury to verify that the sun rose this morning. Most people are able to distinguish between convicted and guily; when too many people believe that the guilty are not being convicted, repressive measures may get instituted. If we intend to fight for appropriate application of the laws to computing, we need to keep this distinction in mind. Following more insulting comments, Mr. Vajk then makes some mistaken comments on copyright and trade secret (proprietary) rights. Some of these errors have been addressed already in a previous CUD: copyright and trade secret rights may both be expressed on a document. One thing that was not mentioned in the previous comments on copyright is that there is, indeed, a Federal statute governing copyright infringement. 2319 USC 18 provides for criminal penalties when a copyright is infringed. The copyright must be formally registered and deposited with the Superintendent of Documents for this to take effect, however, and the infringement must be willful. I have heard directly from Federal attorneys that this law can be used (and has been used) against people copying source code or documentation (or chip masks) they do not own. Copyright is not always strictly a civil issue. Mr. Vajk then makes extensive comments on how he thinks copyright should work, how source code should be valued, and how Federal law should be applied in cases of interstate traffic in copyrighted material. This may or may not be of some interest to some readers, but it does nothing to change the fact that Len Rose was charged with, and plead guilty to, an offense based on his trafficking in proprietary source code. His attacks on my statement (and me, to some extent) to that effect are directed at the wrong parties: he seems to disagree with the way the law is written and/or applied, and that is not my fault. He is certainly correct, however, in his observation that the laws are not adequate for our current technology: this is historically the case with a great deal of technology, and certainly not restricted to telecommunications and computing. I have never disputed this point, and have often propounded it. Mr. Vajk continues by criticizing me for (in so many words) "making statements without knowing the full background." Interestingly enough, he does this by assuming he knows what documentation and information I have accessed, and by assuming that he knows the one, full truth of the matter of Len Rose's actions and trial. Furthermore, he then goes on to imply things about AT&T, Tim Foley, the Illinois (?) prosecutor in the case, and potential witnesses to the case based on circumstantial evidence. Am I the only one who finds such hypocrisy curious? In the end, there is a fundamental difference of opinion between our views and our approaches. Mr. Vajk chose to personally insult me with remarks in his commentary rather than address that difference. For instance, he states: "There has been movement by all branches at the federal level of law enforcement to assume guilt before investigation and to trample rights freely utilizing the immunity originally granted in order to protect officers making honest mistakes as a standard operating procedure instead of an exceptional circumstance." I believe there have been some misguided and ill-informed investigations and prosecutions; I do not believe it an organized movement as does (presumably) Mr. Vajk. I still believe that the common person is not going to find the story of Robert Morris or Len Rose to be particularly indicative of threats to their freedoms. Certainly some of the things done to Len were inappropriate (the search, for instance). However, the over-broad search does not negate his guilty plea to a criminal act. Although we wish to guarantee the same Constitutional rights to everyone, we should be somewhat cautious about the examples we pick to hold as standards, and I do not believe Len is a particular good standard for us to raise. I also believe that rude behavior and insults directed towards people with different opinions than one's own is counterproductive to having one's own views respected and listened to with attentiveness. Appeals to reason are more likely to sway people to one's views. That was the central thesis of my original comments, and still is. For us to secure a reasonable set of rights for all computer users, we must realize that the issue is complex and has many different perspectives, the legal community is not well-equipped to deal with the issues based on prior experience, and that not everyone on the electronic frontier is heroic in stature. Most of us are still learning as the situation changes. (My views on many things have changed in the last few years, thankfully, and continues to evolve as I learn more; we shouldn't criticize someone for developing new attitudes with experience.). Sometimes we will make mistakes as we go along, but some mistakes we can avoid if we think about them first. One common mistake in such highly-charged issues is attributing to malice what may be caused by ignorance. Another is being abusive to others for having a different set of views; one cannot champion the legal right to free speech without also embracing the responsibility to respect others who choose to exercise that right -- disagreement with views should not become contempt for the people who (appear to) espouse them. ------------------------------