🚀 go-pugleaf

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

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

I'm not calling for him to singlehandedly redesign UNIX security. However, 
if I were in the business of employing researchers, I would certainly give 
Morris a call. In order for him to prove that his little prank in 1988 was 
an isolated incedent, he needs to work in the industry; he needs to do 
something with computers. However, I would agree that he should be working 
with other people, as a member of a group, until such a point when his 
employer feels that he is trustworthy. (Although, I'd say that it's pretty 
likely he'd end up working as a member of a group anyway, just because 
that's how most things get done nowadays...)

> >> 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? 

Based on intent, damage done, and the kind of person that Joe Data-diddler 
is, vs. Morris, we can see these are two completely different types of 
people...

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

I see your point, but I disagree. And we're back to where we started :)

> >> >If Woz had been caught, and intolerant utopians had put him away, never t
> >> >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.

Considering that there was no such thing as Apple, much less Apple stock, 
at this point, the damage done would be to the development of the computer 
explosion. But, this is getting off the subject, so I'll stop spewing 
about that...

> >> >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?

"somewhat unfavorable" - yes. "evil" - no.

> >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.  

I think that this is probably the crux of our entire disagreement. It seems
that we both agree that Morris should have an eye kept on him for a while, 
but the difference of opinion is whose eye should watch him. Should it be 
the watchful eye of the government, or someone else at the order of the 
government, or should that be at the discretion of his employer? As any 
employer, at least those who would even hire him, would almost certainly 
watch him pretty closely anyway, I think that having someone mandate that 
Morris should be watched until some random date is a moot point.

 __________________________________________________________________________
| C. Matthew Curtin             ! "But I am the enlightened one, they are  |
| P.O. Box 27081                ! but mere sheep, following each other in  |
| Columbus, OH 43227-0081       ! the name of compatibility." -B. Heineman |
| 614/365-3272 (voice mail)     !              Apple II Forever!           |
|_cmcurtin@bluemoon.use.com_____!_____________GNO_your_AppleIIGS!__________|