Viewpoints : The Rights of Computer Users

A s authorities fight computer crime with well-publicized raids and prosecutions, a small but vocal group of computer enthusiasts has raised probing questions about the long-term ramifications of this crackdown. The key issue, they say, is whether electronic communications and the use of computers are being afforded the same constitutional protections as other activities.

Leading the crusade is Mitchell D. Kapor , the 39-year-old founder of Lotus Development Corp. and creator of the best-selling spreadsheet program Lotus 1-2-3. Citing a handful of recent searches and seizures of teen-age computer users’ homes, Kapor is clearly disturbed by a turn of events that he believes has made few, if any, distinctions between hardened criminal and youthful prankster.

With the backing of fellow personal computer pioneer Steve Wozniak, creator of the first Apple computer, and a small band of others, Kapor last month announced creation of the Electronic Frontier Foundation to study the legal and social issues spawned by the growing use of computers to generate and distribute information. In a recent interview with Times Staff Writer Carla Lazzareschi , Kapor talked about his concerns and how he hopes the new foundation can address them.

What broad reforms are needed to address the changes and issues created by the growing use of electronic communications?

The massive societal shift we’re undergoing today is from hard goods you can touch and feel to information, intellectual property. This means we must have notions of property that fit this new type of goods. Unlike hard goods, information can’t be used up. Information can be copied and many people can possess it simultaneously, so use and ownership are distinct.

The computer is the 21st Century printing press. So we are talking about insuring the freedom of the 21st Century printing press. Further, the constitutional protections of privacy and due process should apply in general to users of digital media and the materials they create.

It is critical that users of these media be afforded the same protections as publishers of newspapers and other printed material. The critical test should be whether the material passed over the electronic media could be printed in a newspaper. If so, it should have the same constitutional protections. Further, electronic mail (computerized correspondence) should clearly and unambiguously be afforded the same privileges as regular postal mail.

Also, we believe all citizens should have equal, open access into a national public network linking computers. As a nation, we have a policy of providing inexpensive telephone service to everyone. Similarly, we think there should be comparable access to computer networks, a kind of computer lifeline service that should be affordable to all.

There are a whole host of problems in society today that show that the recent series of advances made in electronic and digital technology have outstripped the ability of our societal fabric and the law enforcement community to keep pace. Some of the more obvious problems are the debates surrounding the application of traditional patent and copyright protections to software products, and the difficulties most people have in operating the new technology--a process that often leaves them feeling stupid, intimidated and suspicious of the technology.

Finally there is a misunderstanding of mythic proportions on the part of some law enforcement officials about what “hackers” are and what they do. That the perception and the reality about hackers could diverge so far, so quickly, only shows how fearful people are about new technology. For example, one prosecuting attorney has equated a teen-ager with modem to a teen-ager with a gun. That’s just absurd.

You’ve been accused of romanticizing computer hackers, and at times you’ve admitted a certain affinity with teens who push the limits of electronics. Exactly where do you stand on hackers and hacking?

Unauthorized entry into a computer system is not a proper act. It ought to be illegal, and it is. Any damage or tampering that results from unauthorized entry should be dealt with appropriately.

However, it is a well-known fact that laws are not evenly enforced. Just look at traffic violations. There are lots of laws against jaywalking and littering, but everyone knows that they are selectively enforced. Further, we recognize various and appropriate degrees of severity of crimes. There’s a big difference between joy riding and grand theft auto. Intent plays a major role in determining the degree of guilt. The legal system is remarkably complex, and it offers lots of different ways of handling transgressions. And that exact same approach should apply to the digital world.

With respect to hacking, an unauthorized entry into a computer system could be considered akin to trespassing. But there are lots of different degrees of trespassing, and some important issues in sorting among them are whether signs were posted and what happened when you were where you were not supposed to be.

It is well known that teen-agers do things that they are not supposed to do. That’s known as “limits testing.” And that’s why the law treats juveniles differently. But so far, we haven’t seen laws with this complexity and sensitivity for electronic communication. They ought to be passed, but they won’t if we continue this witch hunt.

Have the constitutional rights of hackers been violated?

We have a serious concern that the government has violated hackers’ rights on equipment seizures in certain cases, specifically Steve Jackson Games (an Austin, Tex., producer of fantasy role-playing games) and two other smaller firms in Chicago and New York.

Further, in the case of Craig Neidorf (a University of Missouri student whose electronic newsletter published a private telephone company document with information about the telephone system), it was unfair that he had to spend thousands of dollars to defend himself against charges that were ultimately dropped by the government, charges that should never have been brought.

There have been no outlandish punishments yet, but we feel that in some instances the rules of seizure have been violated and, in other cases, the least restrictive means of gathering evidence were not used. These are the cases we want the Electronic Frontier Foundation to get involved in, and, in the immediate term, we will have the most visibility and impact on these sorts of matters.

We are not a hackers’ defense fund, as has been written, because we are not defending peoples’ rights to break into computers and systems. However, we are saying that in some cases hackers are getting a raw deal.

Can any societal good come of hacking?

If we have people who want to understand how things work, we need to channel their energies into useful areas. Some may be future Steve Wozniaks. Frankly, I don’t think the problems with hackers are as serious as people think. The actual acts aren’t as serious as the suspicions. The fears are greatly exaggerated by concern over what could be done to a computer system--as opposed to what is done. Until we have a clear understanding and ability to separate myth from reality, I don’t think we are ready to make any firm judgments.

The Morris incident (when Robert T. Morris unleashed a computer “worm” program that shut down thousands of computers linked on a nationwide network in November, 1988) heightened fears. But what he did was to underscore the vulnerability of that system, which is not representative of all computer networks. Then critics leap from that event to a kid shutting down the Federal Aviation Administration’s air traffic control system because he just saw Die Hard 2. It’s just not legitimate.

People accept unquestioningly faulty information. Our goal is to find good, valid information to replace the faulty information.