🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1gfh4sINNb91@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> honey@citi.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman) writes:

>fred j mccall writes:
>|> >I would still ask you why if someone gets busted for fraud using a telephone,
>|> >should his phone privs be taken away? 
>|> 
>|> No, but if the fraud involves things like wiretaps and such, I'd sure
>|> think twice about putting them into a position as a telephone
>|> maintenanceman or operator.

>robert's position was not "telephone maintenanceman or operator" or
>any sort of computer professional.  it was "graduate student."  is
>your argument that he should be kept out of graduate school?  that's
>in fact how cornell saw it; would you take that decision out of their
>hands and cast it into law?

He wasn't just "graduate student".  He was graduate student in a
particular discipline.  It is the discipline and not the student bit
of that that is germane.  I would take the decision out of their hands
to the point of saying that he wouldn't be able to study C.S. for a
while (because he wouldn't be able to do the computer bit for a
while).  

Can someone convicted of drug traficking become a doctor?  Can someone
convicted of felonious assault become a policeman (or legally buy a
weapon) in most states?  How is this so awfully different.

Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to require him to pay the
damages, including denial of service costs, caused by his 'accident'?
I believe the law often requires this in cases of 'accident'.

-- 
"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.