He Who Must Not Be Named wrote:

Have you actually read any of the documents surrounding this case?

Well, here we have the pot and kettle all over again. Have you paid attention to the controversy at hand? Now, I'll be the first to admit that what Randal did could be seen in a dubious light. The question, though, is about the law. Let me repeat that: the question is about the law.

The question is about the law.

Sorry if I seem carried away, but so many people seem to miss this point. The law has nothing to do with right or wrong (though they often overlap); it has everything to do with legal or illegal and the question in this case is exactly what is illegal. Here are Randal's felony convictions:

1. Mr. Schwartz unlawfully, knowingly and without authorization altered a computer and computer network consisting of Intel computers Mink and Brillig.
2. Mr. Schwartz unlawfully, and knowingly access and use a computer and computer network for the purpose of committing theft of the Intel SSD's password file.
3. Mr. Schwartz unlawfully, knowingly access and use a computer and computer system for the purpose of committing theft of the Intel SSD individual user's passwords.

Those convictions are a load of horse pucky. See the word "computer" up there, repeated so many times? Randal was convicted of a computer crime. What's a computer crime? At the time of his trial, Oregon law was pretty ridiculous. Here are some excertps:

"Computer" means, but is not limited to, an electronic device which performs logical, arithmetic or memory functions by the manipulations of electronic, magnetic or optical signals or impulses, and includes all input, output, processing, storage, software or communication facilities which are connected or related to such a device in a system or network.

By the definition of Oregon state law, my coffee pot is a computer. Here's what "access" means (remember, that's what got Randal in trouble):

To "access" means to instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve data from or otherwise make use of any resources of a computer, computer system or computer network.

Now for the coup de grace:

Any person who knowingly and without authorization uses, accesses or attempts to access any computer, computer system, computer network, or any computer software, program, documentation or data contained in such computer, computer system or computer network, commits computer crime.

You should read the entire law. It's pretty stupid. It's written by well-intentioned people who don't have a clue what they're doing. Under the law, let's say that I an ex-girlfriend who tells me never to call her again. I find that she left some clothes at my apartment, so I leave a message on her answering machine to that effect.

Since her answering machine is a computer (164.377.1.b) and I since I have knowlingly altered the contents of its memory (164.377.3), I am guilty of a Class C felony (164.377.5) (and perhaps a Class A misdemeanor (164.377.5) for leaving a message (164.377.4)).

That's a friggin' joke. The law is stupid. The lawmakers are ignorant. For the court to refuse to hear such a patently aburd case is a threat to all who work around computers. I suppose that technically, I might be guilty of crimes for using the Internet if someone posts a notice on their site that you're not allowed to surf their without authorization.

Of course, that was back in 1993 when lawmakers were still coming to grips with things. The 1995 revision to that law is no better (and it's what we currently have to put up with).

I don't care whether or not you think Randal did anything wrong. The law is an abomination and that is what this is about. If a law is this rotten, it needs to be thrown out. That anyone could think this is acceptable is puzzling to me.

Cheers,
Ovid

Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats.