Oregon Supreme Court Declines To Hear Schwartz Case

merlyn writes "The Oregon Supreme Court declined to hear my case, leaving standing the unfavorable decision of the Oregon Appeals Court as the final authority on this eight-year-long case, well known to many sysadmin and Perl hacker alike. Details at my fors-announce posting." If you're not sure what that means, you probably want to read at least this site which offers a straightforwardly partisan look at the complicated case of Intel vs. Schwartz as well as Schwartz's own page; it's a strange world where programmers and sysadmins can be convicted for seemingly innocent activities.

Comments

Re:and since when is...

[swm]

...cracking passwords an innocent activity?

Up until 10 or 20 years ago, all computer programs were, so to speak, innocent. The execution of a computer program per se had no legal, ethical, or moral consequences.

Now we have software patents, and computer crime laws, and the DMCA, and (shudder) the SSSCA, all making it a crime to execute one or another kind of program.

People who used computers before around 1990 typically regard these laws as unnecessary, unnatural, and offensive to their own rights.

Breaking into systems is not a minor infraction.

[zerofoo]

OK, going someplace you don't belong is not a minor infraction it is trespassing. I've heard many people say...well he didn't hurt anyone....that is not the point.

Would you like any stranger walking into your house, sitting on you couch watching TV and eating potato chips? The intruder isn't hurting anyone right????

We don't need any new cyber-space, techno laws for this type of activity, we have ample existing legislation...it's called trespasing and property law. You shouldn't go someplace that isn't yours or you aren't authorized to use.....period.

-ted

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:FYI about Oregon courts

[Phroggy]

Actually, the Oregon Supreme Court's ruling in the case that you're mentioning was eminently reasonable. The measure on the ballot *clearly* addressed separate issues, and the Oreogn Constitution is veyr clear on the issue.

OK, I'm not actually familiar with the issue, aside from the article that I didn't re-read until after posting. I've been living out-of-state until recently (glad to be home!).

The reason why this is important is that they put up tax-cutting measures that then have unrelated stuff tacked on in a single ballot measure. They hope that the promise of lower taxes will attract enough votes to pass the ballot measure regardless of whatever else they stuff into it.

I agree 100% that tacking on multiple unrelated issues on a single ballot measure, bill, or whatever is a very bad thing, and it pisses me off when this happens. I don't mind related issues being lumped together so much.

I personally think that those who write my state's Constitution were wise to specify that every initiative ballot measure must address one, and only one, issue. (it is incredibly easy to put a ballot measure up here, popular democracy at its best, the least we can ask is to be given one question at a time to vote on).

Yeah, and the voter information booklets they send out kick ass.