🚀 go-pugleaf

George Leach suggests:

> Dr Eugene H.  Spafford of Purdue University.  Dr. Spafford has published 
> a number of papers and spoken a great deal on the Internet Worm incident 
> as well as the ethics of such acts.

I have one question for Mr. Spafford.  He was quoted in the telecom-digest
(unfortunately, I don't have the exact citation handy) as saying something
to the effect that anyone who does not think Craig Neidorf is guilty should
wait until the trial.  Well, the trial came, and the prosecution dropped
its case in mid trial.  What exactly was he expecting from the trial?

I think that he is an excellent authority on the Morris/Internet worm
incident, but I wonder how he has become an ethicist?  Perhaps what
Neidorf did was legal but unethical, but I have not seen any evidence
of any claims of unethical behavior.

Why were we supposed to think Neidorf was guilty, particularly since the
constitution says that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty?
What proof did Spafford have that the Feds did not have?

David Gast