[RC5] 120 years prison for running d.net?

blitz blitz at macronet.net
Mon Dec 24 15:42:50 EST 2001


First off Scott, I take umbrage at the "idiot" remark. I firstly am NOT a 
d.net spokesperson nor do I make any representation to that effect.

Second, I am only re-iterating what has been posted many, many times by the 
d.net crew, and can be found in the policy document at: 
http://www.distributed.net/legal/policy.html

Therefore one can reasonably make the assumption that IF this person did 
what he was alleged to have done, and he is convicted, he will for all 
intents and purpose, "be hung out to dry", as 120 years is quite 
unreasonable for such a "crime".

I certainly do not agree with the prosecution, but IF he did not have 
authorization, then he is in trouble by his own hand.

Simple statements of fact, and nothing "idiotic" about it.


At 10:38 12/24/01 -0600, you wrote:
>At 02:49 AM 12/24/2001 -0500, some idiot wrote:
>
>>So as i see it, he's on his own to hang out to dry...obviously he didn't 
>>have permission.
>
>The question of permission is one of the facts of the case
>that is under dispute. By the way, Christian, it was the
>DeKalb Technical College in DeKalb County Georgia, not the
>University of Georgia.
>
>You may recognize DeKalb County Georgia from other news:
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>DeKalb County Sheriff Pat Jarvis entered a guilty plea to one
>count of federal mail fraud for using his office to profit off
>contracts the county made with various companies.
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>A former DeKalb County sheriff was arrested and charged in the
>assassination of Sheriff-elect Derwin Brown, a break in a murder
>case that frustrated investigators for nearly a year. Former
>Sheriff Sidney Dorsey, who lost his re-election bid to Brown,
>was arrested and charged along with two others.
>---------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like a wonderful place.
What the hell does that have to do with this case?


>The official word from Distributed.net was that they could not
>comment on the case other than to condemn unauthorized use of
>their client (in general, since Dave has not been convicted of
>anything). Then some representatives of d.net made uninformed,
>disparaging remarks - similar to the one above - in a number
>of public forums.

This is the only "forum" I have commented on, one I consider insiders of 
d.net, and not in  "public" forum like newsgroups.


>Maly people have stmpped aracking RC5 due to the unprofessional
>behavior of some key d.net people. Others, including myself,
>continue to crack despite our disappointment in d.net because
>we consider the cause (RC5) to be too important to abandon.

Opinions...youre entitled to yours as well. Others quit one could assume 
because they upgraded their machines and failed up install the client on 
the new machine. Both reasons are about as valid for one dropping out. 
Perhaps their hearts couldn't take all the excitement....




>--
>To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
>rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
>

--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest



More information about the rc5 mailing list