received word that there were some videotapes.
Now this was very odd because we had filed motions back in April
that, you know, for the government to turn over any and all electronic surveillance of me that they had.
This motion was granted, you know, meaning that they had to do so.
They had nothing to turn over.
All of a sudden, they had a videotape, 15 hours of videotape,
that took place from a hotel room at the Ramada Inn in Westport.
It's part of St. Louis County, where on July 22nd of 1988,
I and several others had held a convention that we called SummerCon.
And it was mostly a gathering of, you know, hackers and the like.
What was pointed out later was ironic about that date is because on July 22nd, 1988,
in the New York Times, reporter John Markoff had received an article
about some internal workings of a Pacific Bell telephone out in California.
He'd received that from a hacker and printed that, I believe, on the front page of the New York Times.
You know, almost identical to what happened with my situation.
While that was going on, they were secretly videotaping our convention,
you know, by drilling a hole through from one hotel room wall into the next
and hiding three video cameras behind a mirror.
Well, how did they get you into that hotel room with the hole in it?
Or did they do it after you checked in?
Well, see, that's another story as well.
And I hate to keep jumping around through time like this.
But we had reserved a room, we being the organizers of the convention,
for that date under one of the names of the organizers.
And for some reason, when we got to the hotel that day, the room had been canceled.
Now, the staff at the desk said it was some sort of computer error.
But, you know, I didn't really think that was an acceptable answer.
Interesting choice of words, though.
Right. It's a kind of ironic choice of words.
In the meantime, there was a very young man who had appeared in the lobby
who had been sort of, I guess, waiting for us to a certain extent.
He asked if we were the guys there for summer con, and we said yes.
And so he started kind of hearing about our dilemma and offered to allow us to use his room.
So who did that friendly person later turn out to be?
Well, you know, I'm still not clear 100% on who he is.
He was either an agent of the Secret Service,
or just someone, you know, an informant of somebody that was working with the Secret Service.
He was from Phoenix, Arizona, where Gale Thackeray is located.
I don't know if there's any kind of connection between that.
I would imagine there is.
So we got in there, and what makes this taping...
See, the government got out of not, you know...
Technically, in my opinion, they violated the court order.
The reason they got out of it is because they said they didn't intend to use any of the videotape at trial,
and there's a very good reason for this.
The reason being, of course, that there's absolutely nothing illegal
on these videotapes taking place whatsoever,
with the exception of there are some minors drinking some beer.
Maybe a curfew violation or two. I don't know how that would apply.
What do you suppose they thought they were going to see in that hotel room?
I can't even begin to speculate on, you know, what they thought they would see.
At one point, we were having quite a party in there.
Somehow, some of us that lived in St. Louis, we'd invite a lot of girls over,
and there must have been 30 people jumping around in the room.
The agents next door had called the room, spoken to their man inside,
gotten him to clear the room out.
Apparently, they couldn't pick up anything other than, you know, too much talking going on,
so they couldn't distinguish any individual conversations.
So they must have gotten upset by this idea.
I mean, I've had a chance to view all 15 hours of this tape,
you know, when it was turned over to us before the trial.
We weren't allowed to use it either. We had asked to be able to use it, but...
So you wanted to use their evidence against them?
That's right. The government objected violently, and the judge sided with them on this.
I can see the judge's point.
Well, the reason we wanted to use it was because July 22, 1988, is a very important date.
I mentioned actually in the indictment, you know, as a date that I supposedly began
what they called the fraud scheme, you know, right on that date.
And considering I'm on 15 hours of videotape on that date, not doing anything illegal,
not talking about any kind of fraud or planning any kind of scheme whatsoever,
we thought this was fairly important, because, you know, how many hours are there in a day?
But because it's 15 hours and not, like, 24 hours, the...
I guess the idea was that, well, maybe it wasn't doing anything in these 15 hours,
but maybe it's some other point on that day, or something like that.
Well, now, how did they allege to know that you were scheming on that day if they don't have any proof?
Well, I believe that that comes from an article I'd written announcing the convention,
that convention, saying it was going to take place starting on that day.
Uh-huh.
So it's very shaky at best.
Yeah, I agree with that.
So we weren't allowed to use the videotapes either.
And, let's see, the trial, you know, proceeded with different witnesses testifying.
What was kind of weird about this was that the trial almost seemed not to be about me,
because the witnesses that took the stand were led into talking about the three hackers
that live in Atlanta, Georgia, members of the so-called Legion,
who had just earlier that month pled guilty to having gotten into computers owned by Bell South Corporation.
And so the security experts that were called talked all about how these guys got into the Bell South computers.
But when, under cross-examination, they were asked if there was, you know,
anything to even suggest remotely that I'd entered into any of these systems,
they all replied that no, there wasn't anything to suggest that.
You know, so really, it was confusing as to what the prosecution was trying to prove.
It appeared as though they were trying to prove that the guys in Atlanta had broken into things and they were criminals,
which really wasn't a matter of debate anymore since they'd pled guilty.
But then it was just a matter of trying to link me to them for knowing them.
It was a guilt by association kind of thing.
And it eventually failed, correct?
Well, yeah, I think the most important element of the trial came when one of their experts, you know,
admitted to the fact that the information contained in the frac file was, you know,
even less than information you could get from this $13 pamphlet that's published and freely available,
well, publicly available by Bell Corp in New Jersey.
Because at that point, the value, because under the federal law governing interstate transportation as stolen property,
the property in question has to be worth at least $5,000.
So I think that's what...
That's what got the price up there.
Right.
The price of the document.
That might have been one of the things that led them to dropping the case
because I don't think they would have been able to, you know,
get anyone to believe that the value was over $5,000 after that.
You know, and rightfully so because they shouldn't have believed that.
We're talking with Craig Neidorf, former publisher of Frac Magazine,
an electronic publication that was, in effect, shut down by the government earlier this year for publishing
what they said was sensitive information was later proved not to be.
However, the magazine remains shut down,
and Craig Neidorf has huge legal bills to deal with and a life to put back together.
We're also talking with Julian DeBell, reporter from The Village Voice.
And we're going to take a very short break and come back.
You'll have a chance to give us a call, too.
But we do need your help at 212-279-3400 to keep programs like this on the air,
to keep ideas like this coming,
and to be able to continue educating people as to what is happening out there.
We want to hear all sides of the story.
Right now, it seems as if only one side has been presented.
212-279-3400, for a pledge of $55, you'll get a full year of 2600, the Hacker Quarterly,
and you can keep up to date on what is now an extremely hectic way of life.
Anyone who calls himself a computer hacker has got a lot of things on their minds
that computer hackers of the past just would not have worried about.
Computer hackers of the past would be interested in getting information about computer systems
and figuring out how everything ties together.
Now, if you call the wrong phone number, you could have the secret service at your door
in a matter of days, weeks, who knows.
We're going to take a very short break here.
I'm going to wander over into the tally room and see how we're doing.
And if we're doing good, then we'll come right back and take some phone calls
and talk some more with Craig and Julian.
If not, I'm going to have to beg a little bit more in the air, but keep those calls coming in.
We just need a couple more, I understand.
212-279-3400, and take advantage of this special offer only being made tonight
to receive the Hacker Quarterly.
We'll be right back.
1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4.
It's all alive when the air is high.
Just pull some squatters in the slide
and get that gold on your helmet guy.
Just do one quarter to lose a life.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
There's no time without pity, there is no time.
No signing an apology from us.
Cause you pay your money and you take your chance.
And there's damn time to pay in advance.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
2 on 2.
He shoots a 3.
He shoots a 4.
He shoots a 5.
He shoots a 6.
He shoots a 7.
He shoots an 8, and it's much too late.
He comes and he's ready to shoot
with a .38 stuck in his boot.
Cause he's loaded with bin and he's loaded with boots.
Cause the stinker he get, the sharper he shoot.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Well, if you see this man, don't hesitate.
Just make your break and don't be late.
Cause you're way too drunk and you're way too late.
When all your money goes down when he gets to you.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
Talkin' about poolside, poolside, poolside, poolside.
279-3400, Craig and Julian, are you still there?
Yup.
Okay, Julian, I'd like to sort of bounce off you for a moment
to reflect upon what Craig has told us so far.
And do you have any kind of feeling as to that electronic media?
Do you think because FRAC was an electronic publication,
it was that much more of a target?
Well, yeah, I mean, as I pointed out before,
there is a venerable tradition in this country
of using technological innovation as an excuse
to start roping off types of communication
from the protection of the First Amendment.
We saw it in the medium that you all are listening to right now.
When radio first came out, Congress said,
well, radio isn't the press.
It's a whole different technology,
and it has a whole different set of rules.
So we're going to let government regulate
what can and cannot be said over the airwaves.
So now there are certain words that if I said over the air,
then the AI could lose its license.
And that wouldn't be the case with any kind of print medium.
And that's something that's been in effect for quite some time.
Can you think of current-day parallels
to what's happening with the electronic media?
Well, FRAC, for instance, is an obvious parallel.
And just the fact that a lot of communication takes place
over telephone lines.
Telephone lines are not censored, but they are taxed,
which is something the Constitution prohibits,
any special taxes on newspapers and publications of any kind.
The use of the telephone is taxed,
and therefore the use of telephone lines
can be regulated by the government.
These are getting into subtle areas.
The case of FRAC, though,
clearly there's been an attempt to use the public's confusion.
And it's not just a question of manipulation.
People in power, just because they're in power,
doesn't mean they understand the technologies
that are helping them run things.
They just don't see that a computer is a printing press, and it is.
And it's going to become so much more of a printing press in the future.
That's what worries me so much.
FRAC is only the beginning.
It's one of the first electronic journals to exist.
But I'm convinced that it's the way of the future.
Most Americans will probably wind up getting news electronically.
And if electronic media is subject to different rules than printed media,
then we're in for a lot of trouble ahead.
What's going on already?
I'm sorry to cut in on you, but, for example,
Associated Press stories are regularly circulated through CompuServe,
and New York Times has a subscription service
for people on the computer networks.
And they can get those stories sent to them on whatever topics they define
the day before they're printed.
Now, is that entitled to the same protection,
same First Amendment protection as a newspaper?
Those are the questions that we're asking here.
And, Craig, let me ask you, do you think this would have happened to you
if your magazine was a printed magazine?
I'm not really sure.
I think the other side to this happening
was more than just that it was an electronic magazine,
but quite possibly was that it was a magazine run just by two college students,
not by a big firm that had a lot of money
and could theoretically afford to have a big legal staff.
So basically you were an easy target.
Yeah, that's, I think, what it would come down to.
And that's an important dimension, that the technology, as it gets cheaper,
is going to make it easier and easier for common citizens to just set up shop.
And there will be more easy targets out there the easier it becomes
to set yourself up as a publisher.
So that's why I would imagine it's important for those people
that are worried about this, worried about the threat of all these independent publishers
that they clamp down now and prevent it from, quote-unquote,
getting out of hand in the future.
Yeah.
That's the ominous tone I see here.
It's been referred to as the chilling effect.
Yeah, quite a few times, the chilling effect.
If we have to label this year, it's going to be the chilling year of 1990.
So, Craig, tell us, we're up to, I guess, the last part of the trial now.
Well, I'll just kind of wrap things up a little.
On the fourth night of the trial, I believe it was Thursday, July 26th,
my attorney received a call from the prosecuting attorney.
And it was at this point that they decided they wanted to start talking about
working out a plea bargain.
I wasn't informed about any of this until very early on Friday morning.
And from the moment I heard it, my answer was no.
I wasn't going to let this happen.
I wasn't going to cop out like that.
What they had on the table was the idea that I would plead to a misdemeanor charge
having something to do with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,
which are, of course, the same charges that were dropped originally
from the first indictment into the second.
And my lawyer, Sheldon Zenner, he asked me to take some time and think it over,
and I did it with each of my parents first.
He wasn't advocating that I do it, but he gave me the rundown of what the difference
between a misdemeanor conviction and a felony conviction are,
the general statistics about the rates of conviction on people that get indicted,
the common idea that jurors, I mean, if they're there, they're in court,
the authority figures, the government, are saying that I did something bad.
They're going to be up there saying, well, he had to do something, otherwise he wouldn't be here,
never really coming into the idea that the government was just,
it shouldn't have happened in the first place.
So basically you were facing, I mean, you could have taken the offer and faced a misdemeanor.
What would be the maximum penalty you would have faced if you had accepted that?
I'm not certain.
I don't believe I would have had to do any jail time necessarily.
Well, I'll put it to you this way.
In accepting a misdemeanor count, I'll make it this way.
The felony counts would not have allowed for probation or anything of the kind.
With those charges, because of certain federal sentencing guidelines,
to get convicted on any of those felonies would have meant jail time for certain.
There's just no way out of it.
The judge's hands are kind of tied when it comes down to sentencing on these kind of issues.
There's a margin where he can go within, but there would be some jail time.
Okay, so you were presented with a choice in saying, okay, I'll take the misdemeanor and just swallow my pride,
but I won't go to jail, or saying, no, I'm sticking with this and I'm prepared to go to jail.
You chose the latter.
You actually were facing going to jail.
Why? Why did you do that?
I didn't feel comfortable with the idea of pleading guilty to something I knew I didn't do.
And that was part of it.
I wouldn't do that.
The idea that this wasn't a one-time deal, this was something that would follow me the rest of my life.
My credibility always called into question, always having to explain what was this conviction on my record.
I couldn't deal with the idea of having a whole—I'm fairly young,
and the whole rest of my life having to have that thrown in my face.
Do you think most people would do that, though?
Would risk going to jail to clear their name rather than take the easy way out?
If they were in the same exact circumstance as me, I would think they would have done what I did.
Because I had a lot of supporters by this time,
with people in the organization of the EFF and amicus briefs being written.
And the issues were coming out.
There were more articles.
The article in the Village Voice had just come out that week.
There were other articles, like the Christian Science Monitor.
People were understanding that this was a First Amendment, freedom of the press issue.
And I felt that if this case was going to set a precedent, it should be a positive precedent,
and I was going to make sure it happened that way.
As it turned out, it didn't really set a legal precedent,
because the government just withdrew the charges, so it's not a case that was decided.
It's kind of unfortunate in that respect.
I see.
Your initial reaction when you realized they were dropping the charges, did you feel like victory at that point?
At that moment, I did.
For the first time, while in the courtroom, I could smile, a real smile,
instead of the ones I tried to paint it on for my parents so they wouldn't be as worried,
which didn't really make a difference anyway.
I mean, they were worried.
But I kind of knew what was about to happen, and I just couldn't believe it when it was over.
The scariest part, I think, was that I had gotten used to the reality of the situation I was in,
and to suddenly have that weight lifted, it didn't sink in immediately.
But what pains me most is just, you know, when I put my family through,
although, as a lot of people have pointed out, it really was beyond my control.
It's not something that I did that was wrong that caused this to happen.
This was clearly caused by outside forces.
Did you say most people understand that?
Some people understand only what they want to.
You know, just that, well, the government raided you, so you were messing around with something.
So the government would not do this to you if you had not done something in the first place.
Is there a rationale?
Right.
Whether it be just the fact that I was messing with something,
you know, perhaps that I shouldn't have been.
You know, I wasn't messing around with something I shouldn't have been.
I was doing what the Constitution allows me to do.
But a lot of people just don't understand it because they don't understand electronic media.
Craig, for you to go through this and to defend yourself and stand up for what you believe in,
it's nothing short of courageous, and I really don't think most people would have gone as far as you went,
as demanding that your name be cleared.
Are you aware of other cases in the country of similar kinds of things going on?
Well, just touching on something else, a lot of people, I don't know from person to person who thinks what,
but some people have looked at me as some sort of, perhaps, I'm not sure, a martyr or a hero in respect to that.
But, you know, it's not fun.
I mean, I would gladly trade away the stardom that followed and everything else
for having to have this never happen ever in the first place.
If you had it to do over again, would you have ever started the magazine that got you into trouble?
Well, knowing that this would have happened, I have to say no.
I mean, you know, to cause the kind of emotional and financial stress on my family,
I mean, I practically pulled my entire family into bankruptcy.
I mean, we haven't paid this bill.
If we had to pay it, like, tomorrow, we'd have nothing left.
I mean, we'd have less than nothing left.
We're working out some sort of a very long-term payment plan
that I'm not sure how comfortable the law firm is with.
But if I knew back when I was 16 years old the effect that this would have had later,
in good conscience, I would have to say that there's no way I could have done it
if I would have started this magazine.
You have to wonder, too, what kind of effect this has on other 16-year-olds out there now
that see what happened to you, who started a magazine that the government didn't like the contents of.
I mean, do you think other people will curtail their plans for publishing because of what happened to you?
I've seen it happen already.
How so?
People that were intending on starting newsletters saw what I went through.
Despite the fact that I was correct, just the toll it took,
and decided that despite what they wanted to do and that it was perfectly legal,
they couldn't afford to go through what I went through.
So the result, then, is that these magazines won't be written, won't be published.
That's right.
And you mentioned something about some other cases going on.
In relation to the same, I guess, master plan of the government, what they call Operation Sun Devil,
there was a bulletin board shutdown in Chicago.
I mean, I think there was a number of bulletin board shutdowns,
which, in a sense, is just the same as running a newsletter, in that it's electronic publishing of information.
Probably four or five bulletin boards across the country were shut down in this fashion,
and none of these people have even been charged with any kind of crimes.
But the boards have been shut down.
Some by the government, coming in and taking their equipment away,
and some just out of fear that it could happen to them.
A shocking situation.
Julian, you work for the Village Voice.
Is there much concern at that publication of such actions?
Could something like that affect the Voice?
Well, no.
The print media are pretty complacent about this.
Everybody knows the place of the print media, and they feel that it's pretty secure.
When you have a situation where even people in the press aren't sensitive to the issues brought up by these new media,
by bulletin boards and electronic newsletters, we're in pretty sorry shape.
So that gives the government pretty free reign.
When you present it to them, though, when you say,
look, we're a newspaper, and this electronic publication is basically the same thing as a newspaper,
except it comes out in a different form, does it click?
Do they see it then, or do you still have to argue the point?
Well, I didn't have to argue the point too hard with my editors.
But as for their feeling threatened themselves, the print media are relatively safe in this country.
Relatively.
Because we have all kinds of problems all the time.
But it takes only a few people to really see what kinds of threats the new media are introducing.
Well, are you saying you don't think this could happen to a printed publication?
Even a small one.
Let's say two 16-year-old kids decide to start a newspaper, a real newspaper that comes out on printed paper.
Do you think they'd be as safe as The Voice and all the other newspapers around here are?
Well, see, that's the other element of it that Craig was getting into.
That, yeah, for instance, with desktop publishing in the state that it is,
with computers making it very easy for, for instance, two 16-year-olds to just whip it out on their Commodores,
put together a decent newsletter and feel like, yeah, let's get into the publishing business.
More and more people who are more vulnerable from a political standpoint may be getting into publishing.
So that's not an issue directly of the technology itself, but of what kinds of demographics the new technology opens up.
So yeah, but the larger press, because of the money and status that have accrued to them over the years,
yeah, I think they're still relatively safe because of the politics of who gets abused.
You have to also remember prosecutors have discretion over who they want to pursue.
If you make a paper like The Voice, if something happened to them, maybe let's say they were even shut down,
there's probably 10 other papers that would see that and just start writing all sorts of articles about it,
a lot of publicity, positive for The Voice, negative against the government.
And the government can't afford to have that kind of bad image.
Whereas electronic media, you wouldn't see the same thing?
I'm back to the second point I made concerning the size of publication.
The Voice has been around a while. It's well known.
And you'd probably, I guess, have the New York Post start talking about it if The Voice got shut down.
I don't know if we'd want that.
They might be a dance on our grave, perhaps, but then they might see that similar could happen to them.
It's interesting. The Post just faced a major crisis.
The Post went out of business two weeks ago.
And I found myself even saying, you know, I don't want The Post to go out of business.
I don't want there to be one less newspaper.
I mean, maybe the only thing I agree with in the whole newspaper is the comic pages, but still, we need that other voice.
We need to have variety on the newsstands.
And I think the same thing holds true of any form of media.
Was that a pun?
Where?
That other voice?
No, but once I said it, I realized it was.
We are speaking with Craig Neidorf, the former publisher of the now defunct magazine called Frack Electronic Magazine
that was shut down by the government.
The government lost the case.
However, the magazine has been shut down, and Craig has been plunged into debt as a result of this ordeal.
And perhaps, Craig, that would be a good opportunity for you to give out the address for your defense fund one more time.
Yeah, okay.
You have to look it up, huh?
It's kind of a complicated address, and maybe if you had a simpler one, more people would write.
Right now, it's in kind of dismal shape, I might add, and hopefully we can pick that up a little bit here.
Yeah, I think in total, I'm not going to drop names or amounts here.
I'll just tell you that we've had, I think, four people send in some contributions.
Four people in the whole world.
I mean, your case has been bandied about all throughout the world.
For only four people to respond, there's got to be something wrong there.
I don't know if people are afraid.
It's possible people think that if they contribute to your defense fund, then they'll become targets too.
But for God's sake, folks, the case was dropped.
He's not guilty of anything, yet he's facing all these incredible penalties.
It just doesn't seem right.
I mean, I know it's not right.
Right.
Well, anyway, that address one more time is in care of Sheldon Zenner.
And the next line is the law from here.
Katten, K-A-T-T-E-N, Muchen, M-U-C-H-I-N, and Zavis, Z-A-V-I-S.
In Chicago, Illinois, 60606.
And if anyone would send in a money order or check or something like that,
those would have to be made out to Katten, Muchen, and Zavis.
But there should be some sort of notation, whether it be in the memo of the check or a letter,
stating where that money is to be allocated, to whom, to my account.
Because otherwise it'll just end up going anywhere.
Right.
And I believe Craig writes personal thank you notes to everybody that sends in their contributions.
That is true.
So if you don't get a personal thank you note from Craig, then something's gone wrong with the check,
and you should find out where it went.
But, yeah, it's important that it goes to the right place and not to defend somebody else.
So do write Craig Neidorf's name in prominent letters all throughout that.
And perhaps you should spell your name, too.
Right. That spelling is N-E-I-D-O-R-F. F as in Frank.
Okay. Now when we come back, our listeners will have a chance to call up and ask questions.
However, we only have one line for call-ins tonight because, well, we're taking pledges.
Hopefully we'll take more pledges.
So that line is occupied right now.
We're going to go to that call.
We're going to ask people that call in on that line, 212-279-3407,
to make it very short to give everybody a chance and just ask your question.
Listen to the answer on the radio.
And for everybody else that is either just tuning in or has been listening for a while,
if you have not done so already, please give a call to our pledge line
and show your support for this radio station because, as we were saying,
variety in media is extremely important, and WBAI is one media source that is unique.
We want to keep it that way.
We want to keep stories like this coming to you.
But the only way we can do that is if we meet our expenses.
And since we don't have commercials, we must turn to you as our sponsors.
That number is 212-279-3400 to make a pledge.
And for pledges of $55, you will get a full year of 2600, the Hacker Quarterly.
A few people have been taking advantage of that offer, and that's good to see.
We at the magazine are donating these subscriptions to WBAI.
It's kind of our contribution to the radio station,
and we're happy to do this because we're all in this together, folks.
We're all in this as a group of people that want to see freedom of the press survive,
freedom of speech.
So by calling up 212-279-3400, showing your support at this time,
you're also joining that group of people saying that freedom of speech is important to you,
and yes, here is my contribution to keep you guys going.
And as a special thank you, we'll send you a full year of 2600 magazine
and also the WBAI folio.
So again, that number is 212-279-3400.
Please call now, show your support.
We do need to get a couple more calls to remain on schedule
as far as what we are expected to bring in for this program.
And again, to talk to our guests, Craig Neidorf,
former publisher of Frack Magazine in St. Louis,
and Julian DeBell, also of The Village Voice.
So to speak to our guests, Craig Neidorf and Julian DeBell of The Village Voice,
give us a call at 212-279-3407.
Again, though, we only have one line, so you'll get a busy signal
unless you have some sort of a redialer on your phone.
So we'll be right back after this.
If you let me take your heart I will prove to you
We will never be apart If I'm part of you
Open up your eyes now Tell me what you see
It is no surprise now What you see is me
Big and black the clouds may be Time will pass away
If you put your trust in me I'll make bright your day
Look into these eyes now Tell me what you see
Don't you realize now What you see is me
Tell me what you see
Listen to me one more time How can I get through
Can't you try to see That I'm trying to get to you
Open up your eyes now Tell me what you see
It is no surprise now What you see is me
Tell me what you see
Listen to me one more time How can I get through
Can't you try to see That I'm trying to get to you
Open up your eyes now Tell me what you see
It is no surprise now What you see is me
If you'd like the dead tune in in just about an hour and a half from now for live air.
Or is it dead air? Anyway, music and live stuff with partners in crime David Nolan and Doug Cheeseman.
And we'll have all kinds of music that you can really sit down and understand.
We're here live at WBAI in New York. We're still asking for your support.
We want to see one more phone call come in at 279-3400.
Not just a phone call. Somebody picking up and hanging up. We've all done that before.
Someone who feels seriously about this and wants to contribute and keep this radio station going and show your support.
212-279-3400. We have at this moment three levels of support.
$45 for those of you who consider yourselves students and senior citizens or senior citizen students or what have you.
$45 if you think you're a regular person. That's kind of offensive, I guess.
It's sort of assuming that students and senior citizens aren't regular people.
Many students and senior citizens are about the most regular people I know.
But we'll take that up at the next board meeting.
$45 for the regular level. But if you wanted the super extra supreme unleaded version of being a BAI person, pledge $55.
And you will get, as a very special thank you, a one year of 2600 magazine, The Hacker Quarterly.
And if, by the way, you already get that magazine or if you don't want that magazine, there's all kinds of other things you can get for that price level.
For any price level, give a call. 212-279-3400.
Talk to our friendly Tally people who are sitting twiddling their thumbs.
I went down there before and that's what they were doing.
I never actually saw people twiddling their thumbs before, but that's what they were doing.
We don't want them to do that.
We don't pay them, but we don't want them to sit around talking to each other or playing cards or whatever they do when calls don't come in.
So make those calls come in.
212-279-3400. You'll be making a lot of people happy, directly and indirectly.
We're with Craig Neidorf, former publisher of Frack Magazine, and Julian DeBell, writer for The Village Voice.
And we are going to be taking phone calls at 212-279-3407.
And are you folks ready to speak to the public of New York?
You bet. Bring it on.
Okay, again, we must ask that those of you calling in, since we only have one line due to the marathon, we only have one incoming line,
ask a question and listen to the answer on the radio and give someone else a chance to call in.
Good morning. Is anyone there?
No one's there. Okay, let's let that line open up again.
That's funny, because that line was ringing for a good hour and a half, and apparently the person fell asleep as they were waiting.
212-279-3407. Wait for that to disengage. Okay, just disengage and see if a call comes in.
Yes, all throughout New York and Connecticut, people are scrambling for that one open line, and someone has already gotten it.
212-279-3407. Good morning.
Are we on delay?
Yes, well, you're on delay. I'm here live.
You plan to take a civil suit which you are entitled to because of false arrest or false imprisonment or malicious prosecution.
I think it's Section 1983 of the federal statute which allows you that right, because I know several politicians who have taken it.
Have you talked with your lawyer, or would you like to talk with your lawyer about that?
Okay, and you'll listen to the answer on your radio. Thank you for calling.
It was difficult to hear the question, but my understanding of it is that we don't plan to file any kind of lawsuit against the United States government, if that was the question.
And there's a couple reasons for this, one of which is just known as sovereign immunity, where the government just has a protection against a lawsuit unless they consent to being sued.
And the other part of that is that more than likely the government's stance on the issue would be that they believed that they were acting in good faith.
And, you know, that's just something that may be true, it may not be true, I don't know.
Considering they dropped the case, it lends credibility to that statement.
However, we are seriously preparing to file a lawsuit against some of the Bell operating companies, but I really can't discuss that right now since it's still pending.
For obvious reasons.
We just had a call that hung up, so we have the line open, 212-279-3407, may the best man win.
So, basically, what came out of that was, and I didn't know this, that you were not allowed to sue the U.S. government unless they tell you you can do it.
Well, there are certain instances I think that you can.
Now, keep in mind, I want to go to law school, I'm not there yet, so I don't know a lot about this.
But my lawyer has told me that there just wouldn't be a way to sue the government right now.
Uh-huh.
Okay, let's go to the next call, 212-279-3407.
Good morning.
Yes.
I was wondering what the ACLU has said about it and if they offered any help.
Okay, thanks for calling.
Okay.
Actually, I didn't have any contact with the ACLU whatsoever.
I've been told a lot of people said, you know, you should contact the ACLU, the ACLU is interested.
But I don't think they ever actually contacted my attorney in Chicago, so we didn't have anything to do with them.
I mean, we would have appreciated their help.
In a lot of ways, the EFF, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, sort of served in a very similar capacity to the ACLU
when they had some law briefs filed called amicus briefs, which is Latin for friend of the court, on my behalf.
So perhaps they were sort of a substitute for the ACLU in this case.
Uh-huh, except one important thing that the ACLU provides is free legal service, and that's something you certainly didn't get.
Well, that's true, but I was not charged by the EFF for their services.
Uh-huh.
Okay, that's important to know.
And as long as we're mentioning the EFF, and by the way, that phone line is open again, 212-279-3407,
if you want to speak to Craig Neidorf and Julian DeBell of the Village Voice and myself, Emmanuel Goldstein here.
The address for the Electronic Frontier Foundation is 155 2nd Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02142.
And if you want to write to them and get more information on their views on this whole matter, that would be an appropriate thing to do.
Julian, any comments from you at this point?
Nope.
Okay.
You know, the line keeps lighting, and I don't know if there's something on our phone here or what,
but right now it's open, 212-279-3407.
We only have one line, but don't let that discourage you.
It's open right now, so if somebody wants to call in with a question, we're speaking to Craig Neidorf,
the publisher of Frack Magazine, that was shut down by the government earlier this year,
and the magazine is pretty much dead, is it not?
It is.
Yes.
That's regrettable, to say the least.
It just shows you the extent to which this goes beyond successful prosecution,
the degree to which intimidation is part of the whole strategy.
I mean, the fact that they tried to get a guilty plea out of Craig on the eve of dropping the case,
I mean, they basically already had all the information they were going to get that ultimately convinced them to drop the case,
and they asked him to cop a plea.
I mean, there's a certain extent to which the momentum behind this whole anti-hacker hysteria
just carries people beyond just the sort of ideal pursuit of justice,
and then intimidation becomes a factor, trying to achieve your goals outside of the rules of the justice system.
And this has happened in a lot of the raids where people haven't even been charged.
Craig's experience with the Secret Service seems pretty amicable,
and a lot of people have been woken up at dawn with guns held to their heads,
14-year-olds coming out of the shower and having a shotgun pointed at them by the Secret Service.
That already just makes you think, hey, this isn't worth it.
And that actually happened here in New York this summer.
Wasn't that in Brooklyn?
No, it was in New York City this summer, a 14-year-old coming out of the shower,
having a shotgun pointed to his head,
and having, I believe, 20 people from various law enforcement agencies,
Secret Service and whatever other agencies took part in that, New York State Police, I believe,
storming through the house, turning over everything.
It's scary.
This is 1990 in the USA, yet these kind of things are happening.
It's a justice system gone mad, in my opinion.
212-279-3407, we have a call.
Good morning.
Okay, we don't have time for prerecorded calls there,
and you just tied up the line for everybody else in New York City that wanted to get through.
So 212-279-3407, good morning.
Yes, we're on delay. Go ahead.
Hello?
Yeah, go ahead.
Okay.
Let me turn down my radio.
Good idea.
In fact, I should say that to all the people out there.
Turn down your radio when you get a ring on the phone.
That avoids confusion.
Hello?
Yeah, go ahead.
Okay.
The computer show had a whole broadcast for half an hour plus half an hour of phone calls,
a whole hour show about the case where, I don't know,
like 23 people were arrested one night by the Secret Service.
You mentioned that it had something to do with that company that had a game,
some kind of a game product.
That was Steve Jackson Games.
Yeah, that took place earlier this year.
Could you talk about that?
Because I'd like to know what happened with that.
Okay.
Thanks for calling.
212-279-3407.
And yes, that was the beginning of it all.
Maybe Julian can.
Yeah, Julian, you're as good a person to speak about this as anybody.
Well, actually, it's hard to say what the beginning of this all was,
but that was because Craig was charged at the beginning of the year,
as were three people in Atlanta, Legion of Doom members.
Oh, my God.
And then two more hackers were targeted in the Austin region,
and that's where they were raided in March, March 1st, I believe.
One of them was an employee of Steve Jackson Games.
So at about the same time that these two young men were being raided in their homes,
both of them approached with guns and a number of things confiscated from their homes.
One of them lost an arcade version of the Pac-Man game
and some Legion of Doom stationary.
The Legion of Doom had stationary?
Well, you know, he might have made it himself, but yeah.
And at the same time,
the Secret Service was also raiding the place of employment of one of these guys,
which was Steve Jackson Games.
It had the place locked up when all the employees showed up
and said no one could go in.
And when they finally let them in, the place was a shambles
Most of the computer equipment was gone.
And significantly, the files containing the rule book for a game
that Steve Jackson had been working on with this guy that worked for him that was raided
called Cyberpunk,
which was a role-playing game based on some very fantasized version of hacking
taking place in the near future.
So that was all confiscated.
And when Steve Jackson went down to the Secret Service headquarters the next day,
they wouldn't tell him why.
The only clue they gave him as to the raid was that this Cyberpunk rule book
was a hacker handbook, a guide to hacking, which is ridiculous.
So Steve Jackson spent the better part of six months, I believe,
without his... trying to get his equipment returned,
working on a new version of the rule book,
losing business all the while and operating completely in the red.
And I believe he's in the clear now.
Well, I believe he got most of his equipment back,
however some of it was damaged beyond repair from what I have heard.
But you know what's interesting about that particular aspect of this case?
Steve Jackson Games was a publisher.
The thing that was confiscated was a book, a printed book.
Which brings us back to this whole printed versus electronic argument
that we're engaged in.
And, you know, I still think that the printed media is a lot more endangered
than we might believe, whether it's people that print books
or people that print newspapers.
If the electronic media is dealt with in a certain harsh way,
that's only one step away from the printed media.
And I think in this particular case, that line was crossed.
Emmanuel, this really was a lot more of an even closer similarity
to the Pentagon Papers case,
in that this was a prior restraint on a printed material.
They actually prevented him from publishing his book
by taking away his equipment, his computers,
and the files of information stored on them.
Well, in July, I myself received a copy of this book.
So I've had a chance to look at it.
And essentially, it's just sort of a way,
it's kind of definitions and strategies
for sort of a Dungeons & Dragons style of game.
You kind of have to imagine different aspects of it.
And as far as being Emmanuel and how to hack into computers,
how you would break into a computer in this game is not,
and I don't know if I'm quoting somebody here exactly,
but it's been referred to as you roll a dice.
And I suppose if you get a six or something,
that means that you got in.
But if you get a one, it means that you didn't.
It's something like that.
You don't have to actually enter a password anywhere.
You don't call anything.
But you see, the idea is there that you hack into a computer.
Apparently, this was enough.
The fact that there was an idea that hacking was a method.
Well, you know, the funny thing is,
there is already a precedent for a certain paranoia
with regard to role-playing games.
Further out on the nut job fringe,
there have always been Christian groups,
fundamentalist Christian groups,
who say that these role-playing games, Dungeons & Dragons,
in which people are going around, quote-unquote, casting spells,
are really gateways into Satanism.
So it's interesting that the federal government now
is buying into this paranoia about a role-playing game.
I don't think that's what happened.
I think they went down there expecting to try and find something else
about this guy, about the employee of Steve Jackson Games.
And finding nothing, they said,
well, we're just going to have to go for broke.
They said, oh, well, this manual is to computer crime.
As far as I understand it, I've heard that the warrants issued,
the search warrants issued for that were unsigned,
and that a large part of it is still sealed.
In fact, no one has been able to find out
what was the justification for getting that warrant
on the officers of Steve Jackson Games.
Hopefully that's something we'll find out if we keep pushing for it.
Let's go back to the phones. 212-279-3407.
Good morning.
Good morning. Hi.
Yeah, go ahead.
I agree with the last call.
Sorry?
He makes excellent points.
Sir, are you on a cordless phone?
Are you on a cordless phone, by chance?
The amount of exercise of a man's cock.
I didn't understand a word he said.
Yeah, I'd repeat it, but I think you might get thrown off the air.
Ah.
Well, I wish I could have understood that, but 212-279-3407.
Don't use cordless phones, folks.
It makes it very hard to understand what you're saying.
I'm sorry, did I interrupt somebody before?
My eagerness to take that stupid call?
Yeah, he was talking about the size of his bed.
Uh-huh.
Yeah, or he referred to it as a cot.
Uh-huh.
Yeah.
Oh, I see. Okay.
Now I understand perfectly.
Good morning.
Cock.
Right.
Why is it those people dial faster than anybody else?
Come on, folks.
Are you out there?
212-279-3407.
We only have one line,
so the person with the fastest dialer gets there first, obviously.
212-279-3407.
And for those of you that are shy and don't want to speak on the air,
well, you can speak with your wallet by calling our pledge line at 212-279-3400,
showing your support for WBAI,
and keeping stories like this coming your way,
assuming stories like this are happening in the first place,
and keeping free speech a little safer.
Your money can help keep free speech just a little bit more protected.
212-279-3400 for pledging.
And, again, for $55, you'll get a full year of 2600 magazine.
The hack accordingly.
Good morning.
Hi.
I called earlier, but I saw the type of calls you were getting.
I had another question.
Okay.
I think that I really think, Mr. Nerdoff,
that your lawyer has given you incorrect information
because there have been hundreds of cases of people successfully suing the federal government for false arrests,
and it would be an absolute sin to see you get cheated out of perhaps several hundred thousand dollars
of compensatory impugnative damages that you could be getting because of ill advice.
And what also disturbs me was the fact that, I don't know if I'm recapping this absolutely perfectly,
but when the lawyer was alerting you to the possible advantages of pleading guilty to a misdemeanor,
he also gave you some sort of statistics about the ratio of guilty pleas and acquittals on the federal level,
which, you know, just going by what you said, that borders on malpractice
because everybody knows that each case individually is based on probable cause.
I didn't quite finish discussing that.
He had summed up when we had that conversation to the effect that he was glad that I decided the way I did
because he would have been very uncomfortable with the idea of allowing me to plead guilty to something I hadn't done.
He was not, you know, moving me towards the idea of a guilty plea,
but he wanted me to fully understand the differences and not to make any hasty decisions.
Also, I just think that you should consider getting several alternate opinions on your prerogative of suing federally
because there have been many, many cases, well-publicized cases, of people who have successfully sued for false arrest.
Instinctively, I'm sure that you would know that a society such as ours, if that prohibition was enacted,
it would have been almost an avalanche of people trying to get legislation to address it.
So just instinctively, you know that that preclusion that he told you about does not exist.
It is a preclusion under certain circumstances where the federal government has a discretionary immunity.
For example, you can't sue the prosecutor himself, and that is not only under the federal statute.
That's also the state statute.
You can't sue the district attorney.
But the law always allows for citizens to redress when they have been a victim of civil rights violations,
including civil rights violations by the system as well as civil rights violations by an employee of the system.
All right, thank you.
Okay, thanks very much for calling.
Craig, do you have any response to that?
Well, like I said, I don't know enough about it.
I will be meeting with my attorney next week, actually.
So I'll be able to voice those questions with him once more and see, you know.
Yeah, and that's something I guess we should touch upon, folks.
If you have any particular expertise or opinions on these kind of things, yes, we do need to hear those as well.
I mean, financial support is very important, but also any kind of moral support you can lend makes a world of difference.
So send that along too if you want to write to the address we gave out earlier for Craig's Defense Fund
or if you want to write to me here at the radio station, I can forward it on to him here at WBAI 505 8th Avenue, New York 10018.
And yeah, you know, there's a lot of knowledge out there, a lot of opinions.
And we need to tap the sources and see just, you know, how this situation can be prevented from happening again
and how we can repair the damage that has occurred as a result of what has happened to you.
Anyway, our telephone number is 212-279-3407 and 212-279-3400 for pledges.
Good morning.
Hi. I'm a little surprised at how Craig Neidorf, having won his case...
Well, I don't know if you want to use the word won. The case was dropped, but...
Yeah, I guess I wouldn't want to use that word.
I'm surprised that... I mean, if the case was dropped, doesn't that mean that his attorney's fee should be paid?
I mean, he's been plunged into debt.
Shouldn't the government or the other side, whatever, how it manifests itself,
shouldn't they be or can't they be made responsible to pay his attorney's fees or whatever?
Sounds reasonable to me, but that's not the way it works, is it, Craig?
Well, I think the concept of that comes from civil cases, where if one party sues another and the lawsuit fails,
then they're responsible for the fees because they made that person go get counsel to represent them.
And yours was a criminal case?
That's correct.
And this does not apply in criminal cases?
Pardon?
This doesn't apply, then, in criminal cases?
That's right. I think it should apply.
Absolutely.
It's just something, you know, there's just something really wacky about the whole thing,
and the fact that you've had to put all this money into your defense,
they drop the case, and you're stuck with the bill.
You know, this... I don't know, I mean, I guess...
Have you continued to contact all of these?
I mean, I know there's the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild, and what's Wayne Kunstler's organization, CC...
Does anybody know?
It's in New York. There's another lawyers...
I think what we're dealing with here is ignorance on the part of what it is we're talking about.
We're talking about, you know, computer law and electronic publishing, and, you know,
I've talked to the ACLU many times, and literally every time you talk to a branch office,
you have to educate them as to just what it is we're talking about and why it's important.
You have to tell them why it's important, and then, you know,
hopefully they'll tell their superiors it's important, and it's just, you know, it's a battle.
It's an ongoing battle.
What I'm wondering, though, is apart from the aspect of people having limited knowledge, as of yet,
about computer issues as they relate to law...
Hello?
Yeah, I think that's just somebody's call waiting.
Is this aspect, this part, this thing of, you know, just being stuck with the bill like this.
It just seems amazing, you know, it just seems outrageous.
Well, what's the scariest thing about that is a prosecutor can bring charges on anybody, you know,
more or less, and cause them to have to seek counsel,
and there's a lot of lawyers having instant fees right from the start,
and it's a matter of, like I said before, it's how much justice can you afford.
If you don't have money, you know, you can apply for a type of public defender,
although at the federal level I think it's more of an assigning of a regular attorney
to sort of be your public defender as opposed to an actual office.
But then, you know, and I don't mean to put down the public defender's office
or people that take these types of cases.
They're usually overwhelmed, and what happens is mostly they are working to get you
as opposed to getting you off.
It's a shame that, you know, that legal defense, like education,
has become a commodity in this country where, you know,
the more money you have, the better product you get.
You know, it should be equal rights for everybody.
That's how I understood it when I was born into this country.
Anyway, thanks very much for your call.
Yeah, sure, yeah, and thanks for what you're doing too.
And let's open up the line to some more people.
212-279-3407.
You know, I think when you explain what's happening here, you know,
people just naturally say that's not right, you know, and it's an instinct.
You know, the arguments everyone's been making tonight about, you know,
going after the government for the legal fees,
they're not arguments I haven't made before.
And I've talked to my attorney about it, and I really,
I still just don't understand it myself,
which is why I can't explain it to everybody that's listening.
But that's just what I've been told.
Well, there's a practical element, as you pointed out,
that, you know, given that they did drop the charges,
there's sort of a, you know, a presumption of good faith there
that they could very easily argue that
Bell South simply misrepresented the situation.
Nonetheless, I'm a little baffled too, because, you know,
if your lawyer, Sheldon Zenner, you know, he is an excellent lawyer.
He's also a former United States attorney himself.
Right.
He's been eight years there.
So, you know, if someone with similar training and background
could find this, you know, this very simple, you know, piece of information out
that the damn thing was only worth $13,
why couldn't, you know, the feds have done that, too?
And isn't it, you know,
isn't the burden on them to have done that in the first place?
What's especially interesting about that was that it was one of the prosecution witnesses
that actually revealed the fact that it was available for $13.
Under extreme pressure from Sheldon Zenner.
Exactly.
And I think we should also give credit to Craig's lawyer, Sheldon Zenner, for
I believe he was not really computer literate at the beginning of all this,
yet he learned quite a bit throughout
and now can almost be considered an expert in the field.
I don't know if I'd go that far.
Okay, let's say an expert in comparison to all the other lawyers that are out there
that know virtually nothing about this.
Yeah, I'd say he's got to be one of the, you know,
extremely more literate attorneys as far as computers go.
Now, if other people in various fields of knowledge can, you know,
can learn as much and be able to talk to other people,
we're making great progress if that happens.
You know, if people, in a way,
I see Julian DeBell here from The Voice
and your lawyer, Sheldon Zenner, are kind of parallels
because they both started out knowing very little about what it was they were covering
and they both learned tremendously
and now, you know, are at the forefront of it all.
So a few more of those and I think we'll be in good shape.
Yeah, I'm not a person who, you know,
who knows a lot about computers, you know, inside and out.
You know, on the one hand, we talk about how depressing it is that, you know,
people in the media, people in law enforcement
don't really understand this stuff,
but, you know, there's hope too.
I mean, it's not that hard to come to grips with the issues
that are raised by these new technologies.
Yeah, I think also once you say to yourself
you don't have to know all this about computers,
it becomes a lot easier because you don't have to know a lot about computers
to see, you know, what First Amendment rights we're talking about
and what is fair and what is not fair.
You know, computers are just the instruments being used.
You don't have to be experts.
Yeah, that's one of the arguments I've said about this case for a very long time
is that this case was not about computers
and it really, as much...