🚀 go-pugleaf

This article is from seismo!isis!aburt (Andrew Burt)
 and was received on  Thu Nov 20 07:48:14 1986
 

>>                             The Night of the Hackers

>That these parents have provided entertaining, powerful toys for their 
>children does not relieve them of their responsibilities to guide the 
>children in the civil use of those toys.

This sounds terrific, but a root of the problem is in parental apathy.  Too
many couples in the past have borne and "raised" children without either (a)
knowing exactly how to do it or (b) simply caring how to do it.  The typical
human being is rather lazy.  We tend only to do what we have to do; with
parenting there is no set standard of what "must" be done (as far as what
responsibilties and ethics to instill into the children).  Plus the fact that
children gain their basic attitudes during the first six (or so) years of
life by observation means parents can't really have philosophical discussions
with their kids (should they even want to; if they don't care they won't
even bother).  Behind most "messed up" kids I suspect you'll find parents
who don't care or otherwise are poor parents.

As far as hacking being seen as ok, I would surmise the kids justify it
as mostly harmless.  From the standpoint of physical well-being, hackers
do no real harm to people or property (you could make a point that the
mental distress can lead to physical distress, but that thought probably
doesn't cross these kids' minds either often or persuasively).  As
toddlers most of us no doubt were exposed to our parents "little white
lies" and other acts that are also "mostly harmless".  We grow up
believe such acts are "ok".  Thus the extension to the harmlessness of
hacking is fairly easy.

A second factor to consider is adult computer literacy.  In a country where
just plain literacy isn't what it ought to be, expecting parents to watch
what their children do with the computers is totally unrealistic.  Even if
they do watch, they still have to *understand*.  Most adults wouldn't know
where to begin when looking for something out-of-place on their kids' screens.

>I believe the parents of these persons should be held financially responsible 
>for any and all losses or inconveniences suffered by the victims.

Nice, but idealistic.  If Joey Hacker accidentally crashes a Wall Street
computer and somehow causes a $10,000,000 loss (let's not argue how, just
suppose), it is not very reasonable to ask his father the janitor to
cough up $1,000,000 a year for the next 10 years (plus interest)...

Regarding the comment that parents always support their children, of
course they will.  If the kid is a major troublemaker, chances are it's
because of his poor parents.  Now, the parents don't want to admit this,
so instead of agreeing the kid should take his medicine and maybe that
will straighten him out, they side with him.  Defending their children
makes them feel like they're being good parents.
-- 

Andrew Burt 				   isis!aburt / aburt@isis.cs.du.edu