🚀 go-pugleaf

In <5kkoVB3w165w@bluemoon.use.com> cmcurtin@bluemoon.use.com (Matthew Curtin) writes:

>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>> In <R8qkVB7w165w@bluemoon.use.com> cmcurtin@bluemoon.use.com (Matthew Curtin)
>> 
>> >As much as we'd like for everyone to be a perfect example of what everyone 
>> >else should be like, we're going to have to come to grips with the reality 
>> >that people will do irresponsible things from time to time. No one is 
>> >about to stand up and say that they have never done anything that they 
>> >should not have, they've never caused anyone else any grief, etc.
>> 
>> Quite true.  And when people demonstrate a lack of judgement like
>> that, we generally try not to put them in a position to repeat it
>> until we've been reassured that they do indeed understand just what
>> the problem was.  A lot of people here don't seem to get that even if
>> Morris' Worm had worked as intended, RELEASING IT INTO OTHER PEOPLES'
>> SYSTEMS WITHOUT PERMISSION is the problem -- not whether it messed up
>> and hurt things worse than intended.

>But how is he supposed to reassure us that he indeed understands what the 
>problem is? Do we give him the opportunity to work with us in making 
>computer security, in this case, better, or do we send him off to the 
>slammer?

Well, I wouldn't trust him with implementation of anything having to
do with security, so if those are the only two choices (and they
aren't), I would vote for the slammer.

>> >Many of the people that have made computing what it is today - the people 
>> >that have pushed further and discovered new things - are people who have 
>> >"done things they should not have."
>> 
>> Yes, and various great men throughout the world have broken varoius
>> laws at one point or another.  Does this reasoning imply that we
>> should do away with courts and prisons because of that?

>No; that would be goint to too much of an extreme. Some things that should 
>be considered when sentencing these people are: intent, damage done, and 
>what kind of person the offender is. Morris was a gifted grad student who, 
>in the course of experimenting, did a naughty thing; he should not receive 
>the same sort of sentance that Joe Data-diddler would get.

Really?  Why not? 

Actually, I do agree with you somewhat.  He should receive a HARSHER
sentence, because someone with that kind of background should have
known better.

>> >To cite just one example, let me remind you of Steve Wozniak. He created 
>> >the Apple II computer, which gave birth to the "computer revolution", 
>> >bringing computers to everyone. The Apple II was the first "open system," 
>> >a term which we hear a lot about nowadays. I doubt that anyone would argue 
>> >that Woz was crucial in helping make the computer industry what it is 
>> >today. Yet, in getting experience which no doubt helped him create the 
>> >Apple II, he had a friend help him to sneak into the Sylvania company to 
>> >use thier timesharing computer. He built blue boxes and sold them from 
>> >door to door in college. These are bad things - he stole time from 
>> >Sylvania's computer, he stole - and helped others to steal - the services 
>> >of ma bell.
>> 
>> >If Woz had been caught, and intolerant utopians had put him away, never to 
>> >think another electronic thought, we would be years behind our current 
>> >technology. You would be sitting in your office playing with your brand 
>> >new CoCo right now.
>> 
>> Gee, I don't recall anyone saying we should shoot Morris.  Did I miss
>> something? 

>Last time I checked, "putting someone away" didn't imply shooting him...

Last time I checked, "putting someone away" neither keeps anyone from
contributing "an electronic thought", nor would having Woz disappear
have damaged anyone very much except people who own Apple stock.

>> >Instead of angrily trying to get revenge on those who have created 
>> >headaches and frustrations to us, it would seem to be in everyone's best 
>> >interest to learn from those who have something to teach us.
>> 
>> Yes, it would be in everyone's best interest.  The first thing for you
>> to learn is that people can disagree with you without necessarily
>> having all these 'evil' motives that you want to attribute to them and
>> then chastise them for having.  I'm not particularly angry, nor am I
>> interested in 'revenge'.  Two mistakes in a single sentence would seem
>> to invalidate your entire premise.

>I'm not attempting to attribute evil motives to anyone who disagrees with 
>my point of view (the net would be pretty darn boring if everyone agreed:)

You don't consider "angrily trying to get revenge" to be a somewhat
unfavorable characterization of those who disagree with you?

>What I'm saying is that there are people out there who want to keep Morris 
>from ever touching a computer again, and that that wouldn't do anyone any 
>good. My point is that a great number of people want to react too quickly, 
>without considering the reprocussions of the action they propose, and 
>would do damage without realizing it.

I think making that part of a probation or parole agreement makes
perfect sense.  Of course, we don't put people on probation or parole
for life, and if I was a company I would definitely have second
thoughts about hiring him anyway.  

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.