If he was not asked to crack the password file, and it was against Intel's policy, how did he expect not to be convicted?
This is some serious confusion here. Since when does Intel policy == law? Crimminal charges were brought against Randal. Did you read the relevant sections of Oregon law that he was convicted under? Heck almost anybody using the Internet in Oregon could be convicted under the same law.
I know this topic has been talked to death, but here's an analogy that illustrates the situation I think: posters to slashdot.org are authors/publishers and slashdot.org is a bookstore.
If I write and publish a book that has copyrighted material who should the lawyers come after when it's discovered? Me. If a bookstore sells (or gives away in this case) copies of my book, is it their job to police the content of my book? I don't think so.
what should slashdot do? Nothing. They aren't editors, they're service providers. The service is providing a medium for people to post their comments.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this topic has been talked to death, but here's an analogy that illustrates the situation I think: posters to slashdot.org are authors/publishers and slashdot.org is a bookstore.
If I write and publish a book that has copyrighted material who should the lawyers come after when it's discovered? Me. If a bookstore sells (or gives away in this case) copies of my book, is it their job to police the content of my book? I don't think so.
what should slashdot do? Nothing. They aren't editors, they're service providers. The service is providing a medium for people to post their comments.
Anyway, that's my opinion.