textfiles/law/forbes.txt

107 lines
5.1 KiB
Plaintext

"A Little Perspective, Please"
by Mitchell Kapor
Forbes Magazine
June 21, 1993
(Permission granted for electronic redistribution)
In Its Dec.21, 1992 cover story, headlined "The playground
bullies are learning how to type," FORBES perpetuated a
dangerous myth. This magazine blamed a new generation of
"hacker hoods" for an epidemic of computer crime. It grates on
me to see these two words- hacker and hood - used together.
I'll begin by agreeing that computer crime is a real and serious
problem. But the FORBES cover seemed to blur the distinction
between theft and free speech, between adventuresome
teenagers and crooks. Most hackers are just playing around or
swapping information; only a minority are out to steal it.
Hackers are not hoods, though a few may be.
If I sound sensitive on this point, I have good reason. In the
summer of 1990 John Perry Barlow and I founded the
Electronic Frontier Foundation to challenge Secret Service
seizures of computer bulletin board systems. Our goal was
simple enough. We wanted to establish that the Bill of Rights
applies in cyberspace as well as on Main Street. We wanted to
help assure that law enforcement people, while fighting crime,
do not violate the free speech and privacy rights of computer
bulletin board users. We made one principle clear from the
start: "Unauthorized entry into computer systems is wrong and
should be illegal."
Big high-tech rip-offs these days have to do with the theft of
cellular and PBX codes. These can run up victims' phone bills
into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. According to Donald
Delaney, a New York State Police investigator who specializes in
this area, major telecom fraud is typically committed by career
criminals in their 30s, many of whom see it as more lucrative
and safer than the drug business. Hardly your typical hacker.
If the typical 17- year old hacker, gets caught stealing small
amounts of phone service or breaking into a computer system
where he has no business being, he's scared as hell, and ready
to confess.. He's highly unlikely to do it again. These first-time
offenders don't usually end up ever again on the business end
of one of Dectective Delaney's warrants. There is no reason for
bringing the full force of the law down on kids like this.
So I was peeved at a FORBES cover that seemed to lump these
kid pranksters in with hardened crooks. Such broad bracketing
leads to excesses like those of the Secret Service in the recently
decided Steve Jackson Games case. Federal Judge Sam Sparks
found that the Secret Service illegally seized the private
electronic mail of users of a customer relations bulletin board
system operated by the Jackson firm.. At the trial, Judge Sparks
roasted Secret Service agent Tim Foley for not making a simple
investigation in advance that would have shown there was no
cause to snoop on E-mail. The case demonstrates that
accusations of computer crimes should be limited to cases
involving seriously harmful behavior and injurious intent, not
the mere suspicious use of a computer or a network.
In Massachusetts, efforts to put such a balanced perspective
into law are now under way. Governor William Weld has
submitted computer crime legislation based on a report of his
Commission on Computer Technology & Law, which I chaired.
Commission members included law enforcement officials, such
as a bulletin board-system literate district attorney,
representatives from the computer and telecommunications
industries and civil libertarians.
The commission determined that much of what is labeled
"Computer crime" would constitute a crime regardless of the
particular means of accomplishment. Theft of a lot of money
funds through manipulation of computer accounts is grand
theft. Does the computer make it any grander?
Our commission reported, and Governor Weld agreed, that
changes to the law, where needed to plug gaps, are best
accomplished by modifying existing law and building off
familiar legal principles, not by passing overly broad and
untested laws specifically covering computer crime.
We found, for instance, that unauthorized access to a computer
system is not, by itself, a violation of Massachusetts law. It
should be. We therefore recommended an addition to the
criminal law covering electronic trespass with penalties of up
to $1,000 in fines or 30 days in jail. The proposed statute states
that the requirement of a password constitutes the equivalent
of a posted "No Trespassing" sign.
The Massachusetts experience shows that it's possible for civil
libertarians, law enforcers and industry experts to find
common ground; they can address problems created by the
spread of computers without compromising rights. This is the
stroy the media ought to pay more attention to. Enough of
these fantasies about dangerous teenagers stealing big money
and compromising national security.
---------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Kapor, Electronic Frontier Foundation Note permanent
new email address for all correspondence as of 6/1/93
mkapor@kei.com