Is Distributed Computing a Crime?

From http://www.securityfocus.com/news/300:
A computer network administrator faces multiple felony charges and years in a Georgia prison for allegedly installing Distributed.net clients without permission. Prosecutors say its justice, others aren't so sure
By Ann Harrison
Dec 20 2001 12:44AM PT

A college computer technician who offered his school's unused computer processing power for an encryption research project will be tried next month in Georgia for computer theft and trespassing charges that carry a potential total of 120 years in jail.

The closely-watched case if one of the first in which state prosecutors have lodged felony charges for allegedly downloading third-party software without permission.

David McOwen was working as a PC specialist at the state-run DeKalb Technical Institute in 1998, when he learned about a project by the non-profit organization distributed.net that allowed computer users to donate their unused processing power to test the RC5 encryption algorithm. Noticing that many of the machines he maintained on the seven DeKalb campuses sat idle for long periods, McOwen installed distributed.net clients at several of those locations while performing a Y2K upgrade on the machines in 1999.

According to McOwen, during the Christmas holidays in 1999 school administrators noticed that unused machines were sending and receiving the distributed.net data -- about the equivalent of one email a day. The school sent McOwen a letter of suspension in January of 2000, without specifying a grievance, and McOwen resigned shortly afterwards, believing that he had put the incident behind him.

Instead, in June of 2001 McOwen was contacted by an investigator from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation who informed him that he was the subject of an 18-month computer crime investigation. In October, prosecutors from the Georgia state attorney general's office charged McOwen with eight violations of Georgia's tough computer crime law: one count of computer theft, and seven counts of computer trespass -- one for each of the school offices where McOwen downloaded the distributed.net client.

Read more at the site above...

Anyways, I'd like to know what you guys think. Given that there's a reward involved, do you think he committed a crime, and why?

I think 120 years in prison might be a little too long for this type of incident. I'm not completely sure if this is even a good enough reason for loosing his job.

I don't know how the program behaves, but I guess there's some chance it might contain a security hole, and therefore could be a threat to the network. And that could be a reason for fireing someone.

I've heard people have gotten fired for using peer-to-peer software like Morpheus, because of possible security threats.

Quote:

---

"This is a hacking statute," says McOwen, "but obviously this is not hacking."

---

Do you see how rediculous computer laws are getting? This is probably the guys first offence. He gets a harsher sentence than ALOT of other more serious criminals get. If the gov. would put as much forensics and effort into other crime as they do in computer crimes then we would have alot lower crime rate. IMO, it's bullsh*t..

Quote:

---

A $1,000 prize goes to the individual contributor who recovers the RC5 encryption key.

---

If you offered a reward to every witness of a crime scene, there would be alot of $$$ wasted for information that should be freely given with out charge.

Quote:

---

"I think the prosecutor's office needs some lessons in computer science," says Farber. "If you want to make a point, there are much better examples than this guy."

---

Thats correct. CHSH tell him what he's won! Nothing. Why not? 'Cause the prosecutors don't need to know anything about computer science. All they do is suck the $$$ out of your wallet.. I hate lawyers..

The case is set for trial on January 28th.

Remote_Access_

This is madness, ok if the boss is mad about it just yell at the employee. But dragging him to court?

This is just another step to 1984 guys. But it is really insane that they can drag you to court for cooperating with distributed.net. Firing him, well, maybe. But he faces up to 120 years. That's *****in crazy man.

I say long live distributed computing!
.. and a short one to all the bureaucrats that are buzy making the USA unliveable.

Grtz,

________________________________________
The indictment also calls for restitution equal to the amount of money paid to state workers to uninstall the programs from 500 PCs.
________________________________________

Come on!, use ghost and it will be done in 20 minutes.

If we let them do this to McOwen, they are gonna do worse things to each and everyone of us. Computer law is getting more than stupid!!!

I think that up to 120 years in prison is nuts for a case like this.

So do something about it. You elect the dumb assh#$%s that put these laws in. Vote them out. Run yourself.
Quit whining about 1984 It'll never happen, the reason for this is simple. Most people would freely give up their "rights" for the new SEEN ON TV gimmick. You should read "amusing ourselves to death". By Neil Postman Good book. NOW GO READ.

P.S. They should fire him, not jail him. I think they'll have a hard time proving malicious intent. Good luck

Democracy is useless when you are outnumbered
:cool:

Hi All;

I have seen dumb stuff before but this ices the cake!
Most DA's and Cops should stay out of the computer
law enforcement end, all they do is cost poor Joes who
are trying to scratch out a living in this industry
many thousands of dollars in legal fees because
of no understanding of computers.

Maybe he was wrong but 120 years, Heck OJ
got away with murder if do not beleve the defense
side of things. I guess the more money in lawers
you spend the more Justice.

I system admin for a company who's boss has that on
his computer... And this company is a multi-million dollar
outfit.

I think this is silly 120 years... What I would like to know is if this is more tied to distributed.net and what they are trying to do or if this is attempting to control computer "hackers". Either way I disagree, but thats life in our political system...you have to pick the best of the dregs. If we had some real leaders, ones with computer skills the world might be a nicer place


Ruffasdagut

distributed computing is a godsend for small collages and buisness that dont have the funds to aquire *Super*computers

yes he should of checked with his boss, fire him maybey but drag his ass into court, i say give em a pat on the back he was saving some research dept. money the can now allocate elseware

Looks like another instance where:

The people in charge don't have a clue, and over-react.

The guy should have at least gone thru the motions of asking permission before installing ANY software.

The prosecutor(s) and Feds only use thermo-nuclear devices to hunt any size fish in the barrel!

I think losing your job should be tough enough, you still have to look in the mirror to shave.:dunce:

When is some one going to start makeing "Free McOwen" bumper stickers? Heh, I'd even buy a t-shirt if they made one. They benifits can go to McOwen for bond and some to the companies for makeing the merchandice.

Remote_Access_

I tell you what, this is truely sad to hear how our goverment can spend millions of dollars on makeing computer laws and yet they cant even get guns off the streets. I know that computers and the internet have come far in the past few years and there needs to be some set rules and guide lines so that everyone can get along in this cyberworld we live in. There needs to be a better solution to the internet laws and violations, expecialy if the goverment is going to brake them also. If anyone has a link to this news artical could you post it up so we can read more into this. I hope this man doesnt get any jail time for this mistake he made. good post, thanks...

Here is some master reciever code for DAMMPclass ResultsReceiver implements Runnable, CommonConstants {

// Master Control Program, the parent to give the results back to.

JobMaster mcp; // callback hook

int udpPortNum; // the UDP port this receiver listens on.

int resultsSize; // # of bytes in a results packet
int receiverID; // a tag to uniquely ID this thread

DatagramSocket dgSocket; // this thread's receive socket

static PrintStream o = System.out; // convenient shorthand

//-------------------------------------------------------------------
// ResultsReceiver Constructor
//-------------------------------------------------------------------
public ResultsReceiver ( int receiverID, int resultsSize, JobMaster mcp ) {

this.udpPortNum = RESULTS_BASE_UDP_PORT + receiverID;
this.resultsSize= resultsSize;
this.receiverID = receiverID;
this.mcp = mcp;

try {
dgSocket = new DatagramSocket(udpPortNum);

if (dgSocket == null) {
throw new SocketException("Null socket!");
}
} catch (SocketException noSock) {
o.println("Failed to create ResultsReceiver because " +
"could not create its UDP receive port: " + udpPortNum);
return;
} catch (IOException badIO) {
o.println("IO Exception in ResultsReceiver constructor." + badIO);
}

new Thread(this).start(); // continue running in run()
}

//-------------------------------------------------------------------
// ResultsReceiver infinite loop:
// - catch result packet from applet
// - pass results up to JobMaster
//-------------------------------------------------------------------
public void run () {
byte[] results = new byte[resultsSize];

while(true) {
DatagramPacket dg = new DatagramPacket(results, resultsSize);

try {
dgSocket.receive(dg);
} catch (IOException rcvError) {
continue; // just ignore and wait for a new packet.
}

mcp.collateResults( dg.getData(), receiverID );
}
}

} // End of Class ResultsReceiver

Let's face it, computers are too dangerous to
be operated by unlicensed people.
In fact, maybe we should abolish free speech.
We shouldn't let just anybody have his own
private opinions.
Every time guns are gratuitously brought
into the discussion, I'm reminded
that Hitler didn't kill all those people
with a gun. He did it with speech.
:cool: