Y Combinator cofounder was convicted under CFAA in 1990

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Tappan_Morris

by twoodfin • 14 years ago

171 71 14 years ago

en.wikipedia.org

twoodfin2• 14 years ago

I've been following most of the Aaron Swartz threads and have been surprised that rtm's name hasn't come up more often, if at all.

Curious what hn thinks of his case in the light of the current firestorm.

djt• 14 years ago

I'd be interested to hear from anyone at y combinator.

DanBC22• 14 years ago

This is briefly mentioned in Clifford Stoll's book "The Cuckoo's Egg" (which is great read).

It's a fascinating story. I also like his father's (or maybe it was his?) idea for a spellchecker - using statistical analysis.

mpyne• 14 years ago

It really is a great read, and it shows the other side of the story: When there was very little, if any, idea of computer crime enforcement in the Federal government.

Back then there was an a hacker running amok on the Berkeley (yes, that Berkeley) network. Even when they managed to prove that the hacker was coming from overseas (definitely making it a Federal case) they were met with a big giant MEH from everyone they talked to. FBI didn't handle it. USSS didn't care. And on and on it went, until they managed to drag the government (and other parties besides) kicking and screaming into helping them out.

jacquesm9• 14 years ago

Things haven't changed that much. If you have a case and it does not involve one or more of:

  - child porn

  - someone famous 

  - a large amount of money

There is not all that much chance you'll get any cooperation.

leejoramo• 14 years ago

"The Cuckoo's Egg" is one of the defining books of history of the Internet. Anybody in this field really should read it, and it is an exciting story.

ck2• 14 years ago

Gates, Jobs and Wozniak were all criminals too, they just did it before anyone could catch them or the laws set them up for felonies.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5078351

Far less noble crimes than what Aaron was trying to do though.

sentenced to three years of probation, 400 hours of community service, a fine of $10,050

I dare to say Aaron might still be around if that was what he was facing too.

jacquesm9• 14 years ago

> I dare to say Aaron might still be around if that was what he was facing too.

Probably. But, and this is a very big but: Aaron was encouraged by every victory (and the coverage of those victories) to shoot for an even bigger target.

In spite of being very sympathetic to Aaron, the goals he fought for and what he stood for, sooner or later that was going to lead to a confrontation. And he was encouraged by the public response to his deeds as well.

So even if everything in this particular case is as bad as it looks Aaron definitely was not one to say 'that one is in the bag' and call it quits. If he had stopped after the PACER incident it would have been a very worthy achievement. Serially taking on entrenched interests of this magnitude will sooner or later have consequences, it is as far as I can see unavoidable. The fact that he did that makes me admire him even more but I fear that for someone of his self evidenced emotional make-up this was not a long term sustainable recipe.

larrys• 14 years ago

"And he was encouraged by the public response to his deeds as well."

People are usually eager to cheer you on when they don't have to clean up the mess or suffer the downside.

rhizome3• 14 years ago

With a goal of "increasing freedom," there is no line to be drawn, and the confrontations you predict are a signal of decreased freedom. One can call it a perverse incentive, but to the point he had reached, the confrontation was way out of proportion to the acts. You can call this unsustainable, but what other choice is there? "Welp, the interests of less-freedom don't want this, so I guess I shouldn't do it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre

However, that the hammer was brought down so heavily tells me that on the part of the status quo there is a real weakness and a real fear that people might go in the directions he did.

Like the Boston Massacre, we will soon find ourselves in a propaganda battle. Ortiz' husband's mockery of Aaron Swartz's supporters, and her hardening of her stance (while parrying responsibility) is just the first step in circling the wagons.

Sen. John Cornyn is now asking questions of the Attorney General about all this, so now we know the people at the top have heard the call. Prepare for additions to this story.

twoodfin2• 14 years ago

Who really knows what he would have gotten. rtm could have faced jail time, and the prosecutors apparently wanted it according to this contemporaneous essay:

http://potifos.com/morris.html

koide9• 14 years ago

Key point regarding Aaron: "It is hard to imagine Morris doing anything like the Internet worm again, so the need to lock him up is anything but pressing."

rmc3• 14 years ago

sentenced to three years of probation, 400 hours of community service, a fine of $10,050

I dare to say Aaron might still be around if that was what he was facing too.

Or, y'know you could listen to charities who work with suicide and do what they request and avoid blaming a suicide on one external cause? Often it's more complicated than that.

sp4rki• 14 years ago

Exactly! We don't know what Aaron would have been sentenced to, and it would probably have been a mere fraction of the maximum penalty. There was something else going on in his life that we don't and most probably won't know or ever understand that lead him to take his own life. Regardless the world would have been a better place with him around, and it's a sad state of affairs that the rules and laws regarding computer crimes are so out of context and maybe even unjust. That being said, it was Aaron who took his own life, not the justice system regardless of how fucked up we believe it to be.

rhizome3• 14 years ago

There's a difference between contributing factors and proximate cause.

crusso• 14 years ago

Gates, Jobs and Wozniak were all criminals too, they just did it before anyone could catch them or the laws set them up for felonies.

To be objective, they also did things back when the damage you could do was fairly limited because of our lack of reliance on computer infrastructure.

The growth in punishment for computer crimes has grown with the importance of computers to modern society.

gamache• 14 years ago

Jobs and Wozniak were phreakers. America relied on the phone system at that time.

billsix• 14 years ago

> I dare to say Aaron might still be around if that was what he was facing too.

That's not all RTM was facing.

"Morris pleaded not guilty on Aug. 2. He could face five years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000 and an order to make restitution to anyone adversely affected by the incident.". http://articles.latimes.com/1989-11-04/news/mn-223_1_compute...

"Under a second law being studied by Federal officials, the use of a Government computer to commit fraud is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and up to 20 years in prison." http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/08/us/fbi-begins-investigatio...

jacquesm9• 14 years ago

The law has tried to keep pace with the technological changes since then. This has resulted in the laws being reflective of the economic impact of networks and computing, rather than of the social impact of the various crimes and the punishments are accordingly severe. The real problem is how to make sure that actual crime can be punished hard enough that the punishments serve as a deterrent while at the same time allowing for activism and other reasonably benign (or even positive) transgressions of those same laws without allowing prosecutors to nail those same activists to a tree as an example using laws intended for the former group.

This is a hard problem to solve.

Woz, Gates, Jobs (and me too...) all profited from being born when this stuff was not as much on the political and social radar as it is today.

rikacomet2• 14 years ago

back then, making a worm was way different than it is today. Today, most of them are intended to do damage today, back then, it was a technical feat to be able to write something like that. Look for the good part as well, like his the son of a UNIX co-founder.

AndyNemmity• 14 years ago

when i was younger we did the same thing, and everyone I knew did as well. It wasn't ever intended to do damage.

the incredible level of trouble that I could have gotten into would have dwarfed my imagination. thankfully this was before anyone significantly cared.

I'm not even old. Then again, now there are tons of outlets to learn and play with things. breaking bbs's and other random things was a lot of my childhood simply because I lacked real outlets to learn. although a lot of that time seems wasted as being particularly good at taking efnet channels doesn't really translate into much but problem solving technique.

today i imagine i'd be working on yet another javascript framework.

rikacomet2• 14 years ago

indeed, today, criminal hacking is more clearly defined, compared to back then. Perhaps something we do today would be illegal tomorrow :P

denzil_correa2• 14 years ago

I am a bit surprised Richard Feynman does not figure in this discussion possibly because he existed "before PC". Paul Graham in his essay "The Word 'hacker'" writes [0]

    Believe it or not, the two senses of "hack" are also 
    connected. Ugly and imaginative solutions have something 
    in common: they both break the rules. And there is a 
    gradual  continuum between rule breaking that's merely 
    ugly (using duct tape to attach something to your bike) 
    and rule breaking that is brilliantly imaginative 
    (discarding Euclidean space).


    Hacking predates computers. When he was working on the
    Manhattan Project, Richard Feynman used to amuse himself 
    by breaking into safes containing secret documents. This 
    tradition continues today. When we were in grad school, a 
    hacker friend of mine who spent too much time around MIT 
    had his own lock picking kit. (He now runs a hedge fund, 
    a not unrelated enterprise.)

[0] http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html

glurgh• 14 years ago

possibly because he existed "before PC"

Or more likely because the situation, context and Feynman's actions were highly dissimilar. If you haven't had a chance, take a look at the story in the original source, it's a lot more detailed than an aside in a PG essay.

http://www.amazon.com/Surely-Feynman-Adventures-Curious-Char...

Shenglong• 14 years ago

Locks in themselves are quite interesting mechanisms, and I'm not surprised that people find breaking them exciting. I bought a lockpicking set a few years ago, and the first thing I do whenever I move into a new house/apartment is pick my own locks.

Keys are able to open tumbler locks almost because of the imperfection of the lock itself, and lock picks just exploit that fact. I don't know - I think the whole concept is very beautiful.

As for usefulness, I've saved several friends a couple hundred dollars by opening their doors when they're locked out. :)

denzil_correa2• 14 years ago

Which sets do you recommend to open various types of locks?

jere2• 14 years ago

Does anyone have details on how he was caught? Reading about it leads me to believe he acted covertly:

>He released the worm from MIT to conceal the fact that it actually originated from Cornell.

DanBC22• 14 years ago

He crashed significant parts of the Internet, causing considerable alarm amongst sysadmins. His father was working for NSA at the time. I seem to remember he went to his father and was persuaded to own up, but maybe I misremember.

Here's Eugene Spafford's write up: (http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1701&...)

Page 26

> However. at a recent meeting, Professor Rick Rashid of Carnegie-Mellon University was heard to claim that Robert T. Morris, the alleged author of the Wann, had revealed the jingerd bug to system administmtivc staff at eMU well over a year ago.

Here's Seely's "Tour of the Worm" (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~jeffay/courses/nidsS05/attacks/seely-...)

> These notes describe how the design of TCP/IP and the 4.2BSD implementation allow users on untrusted and possibly very distant hosts to masquerade as users on trusted hosts. [Robert T. Morris, "A Weakness in the 4.2BSD Unix TCP/IP Software"]

Here's Mark W. Eichin's and Jon A. Rochlis' "With Microscope and Tweezers" (http://www.mit.edu/~eichin/virus/main.html)

jere2• 14 years ago

Thanks. Quite interesting reads.

andrewcooke• 14 years ago

it's amusing that a yc member doesn't (or, at least, didn't) understand exponential growth ;o)

[i assume there's more technical details somewhere than given in that article - anyone have them?]

jacquesm9• 14 years ago

I'm pretty sure that since his sorcerers apprentice moment RTM learned a thing or two.

mathattack• 14 years ago

This is an interesting story. I remember when the worm happened, and never followed up with, "Whatever happened to him?"

_b8r0• 14 years ago

This shocking new revelation no doubt completely undermines the integrity of Y Combinator. I for one am off to update Sendmail accordingly in disgust ;)

fwr• 14 years ago

    Graham also lists Morris as one of his personal heroes, saying "He's never wrong."[citation needed]

Haha, it almost looks like [citation needed] is the part of the quote.

Techasura• 14 years ago

If robert dint do what he has done, then microsoft wouldn't be what it is today. Hackers fine holes that needs to be filled. Companies patch those and then they file a complaint against hackers. So, unacceptable.

Some news here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...

tlrobinson• 14 years ago

Not only that, but he was the first person to be convicted under CFAA.

martinced• 14 years ago

The first time I read that pg's acolyte what that dude I honestly thought life wasn't fair ; )

phil• 14 years ago

I've always liked the way this is described on his YC bio page (http://ycombinator.com/people.html):

In 1988 his discovery of buffer overflow first brought the Internet to the attention of the general public.

Y Combinator cofounder was convicted under CFAA in 1990

Related Stories