March 3, 2007 4:00 PM PST
Intel 'hacker' sentence expunged
- Related Stories
-
Pentium III: How bad is privacy threat?
March 26, 1999 -
Descartes targets vertical markets
November 6, 1998
Randall Schwartz had his arrest and conviction for bypassing Intel security systems "set aside" at the beginning of February, legally giving him a clean slate.
Schwartz was arrested in 1993 after using a program called "Crack" to find out the passwords of various former colleagues in the Intel Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD). Schwartz had left SSD under a cloud, and told the court he decided to crack the Intel passwords to show that SSD's security had gone downhill since he had left, and to reestablish respect he said he had lost when he left SSD.
In late 1995, Schwartz was convicted of three counts of computer crime and ordered to pay Intel $68,000 restitution. His sentence also included five years of probation, 480 hours of community service and 90 days of deferred (cancelable) jail time. His legal bill exceeded $170,000 by the end of 1995.
Schwartz has argued that his conviction was unfair, as he had not intended to cause any malicious damage. After an appeal, the restitution was dropped in 1999.
In October 2006, Schwartz appealed for clemency from a Democratic governor who "had already granted a few pardons," Schwartz explained on the Yahoo Tech Groups site. At the beginning of February 2007, an Oregon court ordered an expungement of his conviction.
Schwartz said that it will take a while for him to absorb the result.
"Even a few weeks later, I'm still in a bit of shock that I've reached this point in this over-13-year journey," Schwartz said. "It probably won't fully sink in until the first time I travel freely into Canada, or fill out a contractor form that asks the question about criminal history, or apply for a Small Business Administration program that was formerly unavailable to me."
Tom Espiner reported from London for ZDNet UK.
See more CNET content tagged:
conviction, supercomputer, contractor, sentence, Intel
22 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
The point is, these cases are often more complicated than simple right and wrong.
There is a lot more to the story than what this CNet entry goes into. In fact, most people after reading the full details, are absolutely amazed Randall was charged at all. Bottom line is that some Intel higher-ups who had idiotic passwords decided to make themselves look even more idiotic by stirring up the ants in '93.
Like I said, read the story.
taxes. Most are back on the street the same day. Or does computer
crime scare you more? This country needs a real wake up call!
here.
My understanding of Randal v Intel is Randal was a serious security guy surrounded by bozos. When he tried to get them to fix their broken security, he embarrassed some bozos and they started persecuting him through office politics. When he blew the whistle in-house, they chased him out. When he blew the whistle outside, they sued him as a "hacker." (Cracker.)
Crack is a standard utility for finding weak passwords in a unix encrypted password file. It doesn't break into anything. If Randal is guilty of something, it's general poor judgement and stealing a password file. He should have just left Intel with their lousy security, and let the criminals break in and embarrass the bozos. He wasn't a big enough stockholder to have a personal interest in Intel's network security, and it wasn't his job to reform an IT empire full of bozos.
its pretty sad that he can find a job now!
employers need to wake up
Randall isn't one of these though. My memory is that he got into a lunchroom fight w/ some senior Intel guy about how easy it'd be to steal passwords. He was attempting to convince them to require stronger passwords.
In a fit he ran some type of common dictionary attach that hashed common words, compared to a password file, and when they matched showed the plain-text password. He gave them the list -- without logging in as anybody or giving it away (or threatening to do so) -- with a strong "told ya' so" 'tude.
Rather than admit to Intel senior managers that they'd configured their password policy poorly they called Randall some sort of unstable hacker and prosecuted him.
This was basically a case of office politics turned into trumped-up charges. There are plenty of "real" (and real-bad) computer criminals. Wasting time processing and prosecuting Randall was time that could and should have been better spent on them.
I certainly would want to hire a person like that... not.
being an ex-ex-con. :)
I see why not let him go free. Only two things remaining. Why did his lawyer fees run up to $170,000 and who's going to refund that?
Averaged out, that comes up to approx $12,000/year for the past 14 years.
What ever happened to the right to a speedy trial?
FWIW