Re: [TUHS] Happy birthday, Morris Worm!

I just ran across this in my old email archives, Mike Godwin’s reaction to Philip Dorn’s Final Word column in the November 11 issue of Information Week ("Morris Got What He Deserved"): Return-Path: &lt;eff-news-request(a)eff.org&gt; Reply-To: eff-news(a)eff.org Precedence: bulk To: eff-news(a)eff.org From: Rita Marie Rouvalis &lt;rita(a)eff.org&gt; Subject: EFFector2.02 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 15:25:23 EST ########## ########## ########## | THE GREAT WORK:| ########## ########## ########## | By John Perry Barlow| #### #### #### | | ######## ######## ######## | HACKER MANIA CONTINUES!| ######## ######## ######## | Excerpts from the Geraldo Circus| #### #### #### | | ########## #### #### | DID MORRIS "GET WHAT HE DESERVED?"| ########## #### #### | A Letter to InfoWeek| =====================================================================| EFFector Online November 27,1992 Volume 2, Number 2| =====================================================================| IN THIS ISSUE: THE GREAT WORK by John Perry Barlow GETTING WHAT HE DESERVED? by Mike Godwin MCI FRIENDS & FAMILY by Craig Neidorf GERALDO! HACKER! MANIA! CONTINUES! […] -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- GETTING WHAT HE DESERVED? An Open Letter to Information Week by Mike Godwin mnemonic(a)eff.org Information Week 600 Community Drive Manhasset, N.Y. 11030 Dear editors: Philip Dorn's Final Word column in the November 11 issue of Information Week ("Morris Got What He Deserved") is, sadly, only the latest example of the kind of irrational and uninformed discourse that too often colors public-policy discussions about computer crime. It is a shame that Dorn did not think it worthwhile to get his facts straight--if he had, he might have written a very different column. The following are only a few of Dorn's major factual errors: He writes that "It is sophistry to claim [Internet Worm author Robert] Morris did not know what he was doing--his mistake was being slovenly." Yet even the most casual reading of the case, and of most of the news coverage of the case, makes eminently clear that the sophists Dorn decries don't exist--no one has argued that Morris didn't know what he was doing. This was never even an issue in the Morris case. Dorn also writes that "Any effort to break into a system by an unauthorized person, or one authorized only to do certain things only to do certain things, should per se be illegal." This is also the position of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which Dorn nevertheless criticizes for being "out of step with the industry." Yet the issue of whether unauthorized computer access should be illegal also was never an issue in the Morris case. Dorn writes that "Those defending Morris squirm when trying to explain why his actions were harmless." No doubt such defenders would squirm, if they existed. But none of the people or organizations Dorn quotes has ever claimed that his actions were harmless. This too was never an issue in the Morris case. Dorn makes much of the fact that Morris received only "a trivial fine and community service." But the focus both in the trial and in its appeal was never on the severity of Morris's sentence, but on whether the law distinguished between malicious computer vandalism and accidental damaged caused by an intrusion. EFF's position has been that the law should be construed to make such a distinction. Dorn writes that "To say that those who intrude and do no lasting damage are harmless is to pervert what Congress and those who drafted the legislation sought to do: penalize hackers." Indeed, this would be a perversion, if anyone were making that argument. Unfortunately, Dorn seems unwilling to see the arguments that were made. "It is sickening," writes Dorn, "to hear sobbing voices from the ACLU, the gnashing of teeth from Mitch Kapor's Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and caterwauling from the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility--all out of step with the industry. They seem so frightened that the law may reach them that they elected to defend Morris's indefensible actions." Dorn's distortions here verge on libel, since we neither defend Morris's actions nor are motivated out of fear that the law will apply to us. Instead, we are concerned, as all citizens should be, that the law make appropriate distinctions between intentional and unintentional harms in the computer arena, just as it does in all other realms of human endeavor. A more glaring factual error occurs one paragraph later, when he writes that "The Supreme Court says intruders can be convicted under the law because by definition an intrusion shows an intent to do harm. That takes care of Morris." The Supreme Court has never said any such thing--after all, the Court declined to hear the case. Even the lower courts in the Morris case made no such claim. What is far more "sickening" than even Dorn's imaginary versions of our concerns about the Morris case is his irresponsibility in making unsubstantiated charges that even a cursory familiarity with the facts could have prevented. In the course of his article, Dorn manages to get one thing right--he writes that "The law is not perfect--it needs clarification and reworking." This has been our position all along, and it is the basis for our support of Morris's appeal. It is also public knowledge--Dorn could have found out our position if he had bothered to ask us. Mike Godwin Staff Counsel EFF