home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
- Date: July 31, 1991
- From: jthomas@well.sf.ca.us
- Subject: File 4--Reply to Tom Forester Article
-
- The post by Tom Forester is surprising both for its strident tone and
- ill-conceived agenda. Normally, there will be consistency between
- scholars' findings and the pronouncements they make derived from such
- findings. This is not simply an intellectually ethical practice, but
- responsible discourse as well. We all succumb to occasional
- hyperbole, factual faux pas, or miswordings that create ambiguity or
- misunderstandings--a gap between what we intend to say and what we
- actually do say. However, the Forester article is recklessly flawed
- and is compounded by the fact that his errors are in an area in which
- he claims special expertise. His claims require a detailed response
- lest his readers grant the post more credibility than is justified.
-
- It appears that the letter is quite at odds with his book,
- (co-authored with Perry Morrison). It is always possible that the
- co-author wrote the passages cited below, but when any work
- is co-authored, the norm is to assume joint responsibility for
- the entirety unless otherwise indicated. There is no indication
- that Tom Forester detached himself from any of the book's contents.
- What is troublesome is not that Forester seems to disassociate
- himself from passages in the work, but that he actually seems
- unaware of arguments that bear his name.
-
- The post, as it appeared publicly in several sources on the net,
- began as follows:
-
- >A colleague recently published this article in the computer section
- >of 'The Australian' newspaper last week. He thought it might interest
- >newspaper form.
- >
- >George Bray [posting for Tom Forester]
- >
- >
- >
- >Opinion: "Hackers: 'Clamp Down Now' "
- >
- >The Australian, 2 July 1991, page 34.
- >
-
- Forester's point is quite clear:
-
- >It's about time we got tough with hackers and exposed them for
- >the irresponsible electronic vandals they really are.
- >
- >Jailing a few of these malicious meddlers would set an example to
- >other would-be data thieves and help stem the tide of
- >computerized anarchism which is threatening to engulf the IT
- >industry.
-
- In the space of a few sentences, Forester categorically reduces the
- meaning of the term "hacker" to one denoting "vandals," "meddlers,"
- "data thieves," and "anarchism." "Hackers" is a broad term referring
- on one hand to what Bob Bickford describes as "any person who derives
- joy from discovering ways to circumvent limitations" to, on the other,
- the cybervandals who trash systems. The broad use of the term to
- define any computer behavior that displeases us contributes to public
- misunderstanding and to law-enforcement excesses by expanding
- categories of people eligible for prosecution. For example, if I have
- committed no violation of law, but publicly call myself a "hacker" in
- Bob Bickford's sense, such a claim could be adduced as evidence
- against me in the event I were to come under investigation.
-
- No definitions are written in stone. However, words have meanings, and
- meanings connote images and metaphors. Forester's metaphors reinforce
- the ill-considered images reflected in the most abusive search
- warrants in several 1990 raids in the U.S. (e.g., Craig Neidorf, Steve
- Jackson Games, Len Rose, Ripco BBS). The hacker imagery painted by
- Forester has no hues or shades--only black and white icons reflecting
- the ancient battle between the forces of light and darkness.
- Most hackers aren't "meddlers" or data thieves. Like most crimes,
- there is a continuum ranging from simple curiosity to harmful intrusion.
-
- Forester also fails to mention that, whatever the excesses of even the
- most malicious intruders, "hackers" are not responsible for the bulk
- of computer crime. According to virtually all studies, most "computer
- crime" is done from the inside (estimates range from 60-80 pct). A
- significant proportion of the remainder is done by computer literate
- rip-off artists whose purpose is larceny rather than exploratory
- curiosity or illicit--but still relatively benign--behavior. One need
- not approve of intrusions to recognize that there are differences
- between types of abuse and methods of responding to these different
- types.
-
- In his article, Forester makes no distinctions between categories of
- "hacker" or types of hacks. He refers simply to "electronic vandals,"
- hardly a value-neutral (or accurate) label. This is a radical
- departure from _Computer Ethics_ (pp 40-44), in which clear distinctions
- are made, an even-handed treatment of the risks and problems is
- presented, and "hacking is explicitly distinguished from computer
- crime, something not done in his article.
-
- >Breaking into a computer is no different from breaking into your
- >neighbour's house. It is burglary plain and simple--though often
- >accompanied by malicious damage and theft of information.
- >Sometimes--as in the case of stolen credit card numbers--it is
- >followed by fraud.
- >
- >The essence of hacking is that it is about gaining unauthorized
- >access to other peoples' systems. It is an activity which has not
- >been sanctioned by or approved of by the system's owner, be they
- >private or public.
-
- The phrase "plain and simple" usually reflects an attempt to silence
- differing views by rejecting at the outset any possibility of
- alternative meanings or points of view. The complexity of computer
- abuse and the failure of law to catch up with rapidly changing
- technology and the problems this creates for law enforcement and
- others is plainly obvious but hardly simply resolved by crude
- categories and retributionist thinking. Forester forces extreme
- examples of disparate behavior into neat bundles, forces a metaphor
- (breaking and entering) onto them, and then argues from the metaphor,
- not the original behavior. This is legitimate when metaphors are used
- to make something unfamiliar more understandable, but when the
- metaphor is flawed, or when the metaphor becomes the thing itself,
- distortion results. Computer invasion, even in the worst case, is not
- analogous to home invasion. Physical presence of an offender and the
- corresponding dangers it poses is absent.
-
- A better analogy would be a kid setting up a lemonade stand on
- your yard when you weren't looking, or somebody peeking through your
- window from their own property across the street with binoculars. The
- problem with viewing all inappropriate computer behavior as of the same
- magnitude is that it leads to silly analogies. Consider "automotive
- technology." We don't have a general category of crime called "auto
- crime" and argue that we should lock "auto offenders up." There are
- many "auto offenses," ranging from parking tickets, moving violations,
- auto-theft, burglarizing autos, using autos in the commission of
- another crime, stealing the trade-secrets of auto manufacturers, and
- as most teenaged minors know, getting it on in the back seats of them.
- Some of these auto-related acts are simply nuisances, others are quite
- serious. We distinguish between them and don't call for "setting
- examples" by jailing young lovers in a back seat *as well as* drunk
- drivers or auto thieves.
-
- Instead of the term "hacker," Forester's argument would be better
- served by term "computer intruder," which would allow him to make
- distinctions between kinds of intrusion. In law, there are similar
- distinctions, and there is nothing *PLAIN AND SIMPLE* about such acts.
- Computer intrusion is *NOT* burglarly, even if information is copied.
- Forester's inaccurate analogy reflects either the incompetence of one
- ignorant of law--rather strange for a self-styled expert on "computer
- ethics"--or a cavalier disregard for accuracy which is anathema to
- responsible scholarship.
-
- Forester again seems to ignore his own book, which explicitly
- challenges such a "plain and simple" analogy:
-
- "Unfortunately, the legal basis of system break-ins
- languishes in the dark ages of real locks and doors and
- physical forms of information such as blueprints and
- contracts. Equally, the law as it applies to breaking and
- entering--the destruction of physical locks--and the theft
- of information a it exists in paper form, IS A POOR ANALOGY
- WHEN APPLIED TO THE ELECTRONIC LOCKS THAT MODEMS AND
- PASSWORD SYSTEMS PROVIDE AND THE HIGHLY MUTABLE FORMS OF
- INFORMATION THAT COMPUTER FILES REPRESENT <emphasis
- added--jt >. After all, when one 'breaks' into a system,
- nothing has been broken at all--hence there is no obvious
- intent to cause harm (p. 60)."
-
- Forester's intent here is hardly to justify hacking, but in context,
- he is attempting to raise questions by showing the complexity of
- computer intrusion and the gap between law and new technology. By
- contrast, his letter reflects the reverse. Which Tom Forester should
- we take seriously? The one who writes thoughtfully for academics, or
- the one who incites the public with supercilious rhetoric that is
- totally at odds with his scholarly discourse?
-
- >Hackers are often portrayed as 'brilliant' or glamourized in the
- >media as 'whiz-kids,' but often they are only mediocre
- >programmers. Most 'great' hacks have in fact involved very little
- >in the way of intellectual ability--you don't have to be an
- >expert to work an autodialler and Unix systems--a favourite
- >target of the hacker--have notoriously poor security.
- >
- >Far from being budding computer geniuses, hackers are often so
- >incompetent and clumsy that they frequently cause more
- >unintentional damage than intentional damage when blundering
- >around inside someone else's system.
- >
- >Far from being heroes of the computer revolution, hackers are
- >little more than common thieves. Their modus operandi involves
- >stealing log-in names and passwords and then stealing information
- >expensively collected by the victim.
-
- The author confuses the term "hacker" with "phreaks," those who
- attempt to avoid toll charges. The author displays no knowledge of his
- topic or of the diversity of hacker activities, and seems totally
- unaware that "hackers" who explore systems generally oppose predatory
- behavior of any kind. Further, in his book, Forester does not equate
- "great hacks" with auto-dialing or mundane incidents, as he does in
- his letter. By "great hack" he seems to mean "publicized hacks,"
- because the examples of "great hacks" in the book (p. 51-52) refer to
- Marcus Hess and the Chaos Computer Club, and a group of British
- hackers who penetrated a license centre. These would hardly be
- described as "great hacks" by most observers, although they did
- captivate media attention. I can recall no media story in the U.S. in
- recent years that has portrayed hackers, as a category, as uniformally
- "brilliant" or as "whiz kids." This claim is simply a straw icon
- Forester sets up for purposes of hacker-bashing. Further, Forester is
- as guilty as those he criticizes for alluding to the "brilliance" of
- hackers. In his book, he attempts to account for the shift from licit
- to illicit computer activity by "THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST" (p. 43)
- and suggests the emergence of value conflict that the current breed of
- hacker as made more sinister. Granted, Forester was alluding to a
- different crop of computerists with his term, but so to are most
- others who have used that description in the past. Forester seems to
- want to hold others responsible for past laudatory language, but is
- unwilling to hold himself to that same standard.
-
- With the expansion of computer users, some hackers, like some
- scholars, will be bright, principled, and imaginative. Others won't.
- As in any distribution of valued characteristics, there will be far
- more of the latter than the former. If Forester's point is that we
- should not romanticize predators, then he should be willing to provide
- examples and examine his own role in perpetuating those images he
- criticizes. If, however, he merely intends to say that most "hackers"
- possess modest talent, then this is a truism that few would dispute
- and one wonders: So what?
-
- >Some hackers have even become infamous by betraying their
- >country. Members of the Chaos Computer Club of Hamburg, in then
- >West Germany,were caught selling United States military secrets
- >to the KGB--the charred body of one of their number, Karl Koch,
- >was later found in a forest outside Hanover.
-
- If Forester refers here to Pengo, Hess, and the others, this claim is
- false. Despite the espionage element, there was no evidence that this
- group betrayed its country, Germany, by selling German military
- secrets. Nor is there evidence that they sold U.S. military secrets.
- In fact, I can think of no "hacker" known to have sold military
- secrets in the U.S. According to the Hafner and Markoff book,
- _Cyberpunk_, the Soviets received commercial software and some
- relatively inconsequential other files, and according to one source
- they cited, the Soviets "got rooked." The author's statement is pure
- hyperbole. While it is fully appropriate to identify the dangers of
- computer intrusion to national security, to raise it as a way of
- stigmatizing all forms of intrusion and to justify a "crackdown" by
- incarcerating a few examples moves from reasonable concern to
- unthinking hysteria. And, what is the point of mentioning Hagbard's
- charred body? Is this apparent suicide supposed to show that hacking
- leads to violence? To murder? Hagbard, according to all accounts, was
- a psychologically unstable substance abuser. Images of violence make
- good copy, no matter how irrelevant, and perhaps charred bodies just
- go with the territory. Forester's swipe at Chaos Computer Club also
- seems at odds with his book (p. 49), in which he, with seeming
- approval, observes:
-
- Indeed, we now know that at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear
- power station disaster in the Soviet Union, hackers from the
- Chaos COmputer Club released more information to the public
- about developments than did the West German government
- itself. All of this information was gained by illegal
- break-ins carried out in government computer installations.
-
- >Other hackers, such as the group that infiltrated six London
- >banks in 1989, have swiftly turned to blackmail. Yet some
- >misguided persons have sought to justify this despicable crime by
- >claiming hackers are really only helping 'test system security.'
-
- Can Forester name anybody who claims that blackmail, ripping of money
- from banks, or similar kinds of behavior is justifiable as a security
- test? I have never heard a single instance of such a justification of
- this type of predatory behavior, other than, perhaps, by the culprits
- as a defense during trial. But, then, I've also heard murderers claim
- that junkfood made them kill, a defense hardly supported
- by "some misguided persons". Some may attempt to justify computer
- intrusion by appealing to "security interests," "freedom of
- information," or other grounds. But there is near universal loathing
- for predators of this type. Forester moves from justifying computer
- intrusion to justifying bank robbery quite easily, proving that the
- shallower the water, the quicker the pace.
-
- >A second justification of hacking is that hackers safeguard our
- >civil liberties by keeping a check on the activities of
- >governments. I know of no cases where revealing the contents of a
- >state database has done good rather than harm.
-
- Is this the *same* Tom Forester who wrote:
-
- "We might therefore ask ourselves whether, for the sake of
- balance, a truly democratic society should possess a core of
- technically gifted but recalcitrant people. Given that more and
- more information about individuals is now being stored on
- computers, often without our knowledge or consent, is it not
- reassuring that some citizens are able to penetrate
- these databases to find out what is going on? Thus it
- could be argued that hackers represent one way in which we
- can help avoid the creation of a more centralized, even
- totalitarian government (p. 49).
- . . .
- Given this background and the possibility of terrorist acts
- becoming more and more technologically sophisticated,
- perhaps we can look to hackers as a resource to be used to
- foil such acts and to improve our existing security
- arrangements. TO SOME EXTENT, THIS IS ALREADY HAPPENING:
- <emphasis added> (p. 49).
-
- Poor Tom. He doesn't seem to be able to figure out what position he
- wants to take. The danger is not that he selects one over the other,
- but that he seems to continually contradict himself. The
- contradictions lead to public statements that do no service to
- clarifying the issues in ways that result in resolving the risks of
- computer intruders in a just, yet effective way.
-
- >If hacking cannot be defended, then virus creation is wholly
- >unforgivable. Enormous time and effort has been spent in recent
- >years making good the damage caused by the pranksters who gave us
- >the 'Stoned,' 'Bouncing Ball,' 'Pakistani Brain' and 'Israeli'
- >viruses, to name but a few.
- >
- >Such computer anarchists have caused mayhem in recent years in
- >the US. The famous Internet worm let loose by Cornell University
- >student Robert Morris in late 1988 infected no less than 6,000
- >systems and cost thousands of dollars to contain.
-
- In his book, Forester offers a defense of hackers as well as posing
- some of their dangers. As a consequence, his "if-then" logic seems
- odd. Has he recanted? Has he elsewhere offered a reasoned treatise
- defending the "if" premise? Nobody defends viruses, a very special and
- destructive form of computer intrusion. His statement is analogous to
- saying, "If trespassing cannot be defended, then arson is
- unforgivable." Trespassing can be forgiven (if we are in metaphysical,
- rather than legal mode), but arson cannot be. Whether hacking is
- defensible or not, it has no bearing on the claim that computer
- viruses are indefensible. To say that we should jail hackers because
- those who spread computer viruses are highly destructive is a major
- non sequitor. They are different sorts of acts with different
- consequences. Viruses are made for one purpose only: To disrupt or
- destroy. The Morris worm, although disruptive and totally
- irresponsible, was not so-intended, and it was hardly the result of a
- "computer anarchist." Forester seems to be grabbing any and all
- examples to justify his claim that hackers should be jailed. No
- matter that these examples reflect behaviors ranging from benign
- innocence to conscious malice. Just lump 'em all together in a barrel
- and chuck 'em into the fire.
-
- >Last year, the so-called 'Legion of Doom' managed to completely
- >stuff up the 911 emergency phone system in nine US states, thus
- >endangering human life. They were also later charged with trading
- >in stolen credit card numbers, long-distance phone card numbers
- >
- >In another case, Leonard DeCicco was charged with stealing US $1
- >million worth of security software from Digital Equipment
- >Corporation. Leonard Rose Jr. was charged with selling illegal
- >copies of a US $77,000 AT&T operating system.
- >
- >One group of phone hackers was charged with stealing more than US
- >$1.6 million worth of free long-distance phone calls, while
- >another group was caught manipulating voice-mail boxes and 008
- >toll-free numbers to the tune of millions of dollars.
-
- These claims are totally false. As Mike Godwin (above) notes, the
- "Atlanta 3" were not charged with "stuffing up" the E911 system,
- period. Nor were they charged with the other allegations. Leonard
- "DeCicco" presumably refers to Kevin Mitnick's confederate described
- in the Hafner/Markoff book who cooperated with the FBI in apprehending
- Mitnick. Spokespersons at DEC had no knowledge of any such infraction
- by DiCicco. Los Angeles U.S. Attorney's Office spokesperson Carole
- Levitzky indicated that there were no such federal charges against
- him, and that if he were involved in a subsequent offense of such
- magnitude after the Mitnick affair, it would show up in their records.
- DiCicco pleaded guilty on Nov. 29, 1989, to one count of aiding and
- abetting Mitnick's theft and was sentenced to five years probation,
- 750 hours of community service, and restitution of $13,000. If
- Forester refers to the DiCicco of the Mitnick and DiCicco incident,
- this claim is blatantly false. If there is a similarly named "Leonard
- DeCicco" who has stolen $1 million from DEC, Forester seems to be the
- only one who knows about it.
- apprehend Kevin Mitnick and they make no mention of Forester's
- charges, nor have such charges been made public. Leonard Rose was not
- charged with stealing but with possession of unlicensed UNIX software,
- not uncommon among some programmers. Phone phreaks and others have,
- indeed, freely utilized illicit means of avoiding long distance
- charges. Such acts are wrong, but, as Gail Thackeray, a prosecutor of
- computer crime, has convincingly argued, jail is not necessarily the
- best sanction for these delinquents.
-
- What's troublesome here is that Forester seems to have no grasp of
- facts and is not troubled by generalizations based on inaccuracies. He
- nonetheless calls for changes in public policy on the basis of his
- errors. If Forester were a common citizen, these flaws would be
- understandable. But, because he claims to be knowledgeable in the area
- of computer ethics and crime, his misinformation borders on
- professional negligence. These are not just small matters of detail:
- His errors reflect consistent lack of knowledge of the most basic
- information accessible in media and across the nets.
-
- >Unfortunately, attempts by US authorities to nail these delinquent
- >nerds have not always been successful. This is because the law is
- >unclear, and police lack the expertise in dealing with the
- >crimes.
- >
- >For example, last year's Operation Sun Devil, which involved
- >raids in 14 cities and the seizure of 42 systems and 23, 000
- >disks, has yet to result in any major prosecutions.
- >
- >Robert Morris, who launched the disastrous Internet worm, got a
- >mere slap on the wrist in the form of a US $10,000 fine and 400
- >hours' community service Only in Britain--where the
- >Computer Misuse Act became law in 1990--do the authorities seem
- >to winning the war against hackers: 'mad' hacker Nicholas
- >Whiteley was recently jailed for four months for a series of
- >malicious attacks on university computers.
-
- Perhaps in Forester's logic a single example of a four month sentence
- for attacks on university computers signifies "winning a war" in a
- country with a much smaller population and proportionately fewer
- personal computers. Perhaps he actually believes in the power of such
- a superficial example, or perhaps he is just an Anglophile who is too
- lazy to ferret out the successful intervention of law enforcement and
- others in responding to "hacking" related crimes in the U.S. That
- quibble aside, Mike Godwin (above) addressed the Morris sentence.
- Operation Sun Devil was not successful largely because it was
- ill-conceived, poorly executed and misdirected. By contrast,
- prosecutors such as Gail Thackeray, Ken Rosenblatt, and Don Ingraham
- have all had considerable success prosecuting computer crime.
- Forester also fails to explain how a single example of a four month
- jail sentence, relatively short, reflects more success than the
- sentences of imprisonment given to Riggs, Darden, Grant, Rose, Zinn, and
- others, the imprisonment of non-hacking computer criminals, and the
- substantial probations given to many, many others (including Mitnick,
- Majette, DiCicco, Morris, Goldman, and countless others). Whether we
- agree with each individual indictment or sentence, the fact is that U.S.
- law enforcement is prosecuting and prosecuting successfully in most
- cases. The trend also seems to be that U.S. law enforcement, thanks
- largely to the efforts of EFF and prosecutors such as Don Ingraham,
- Gail Thackeray, and others, are--despite whatever other criticisms
- some may have--demonstrating an explicit willingness to move away from
- the Draconian measurese espoused by Forester and balance the needs of
- law enforcement and security with those of Constitutional protections
- against First and Fourth Amendment abuses and "justice as fairness."
- It is true that law enforcement is not particularly knowledgeable and
- that laws are vague, but they are vague on the side of
- over-criminalization. Nonetheless, the primary answer to resolving the
- problem of computer abuse does not lie in strengthening law
- enforcement, but rather in expanding public education and awareness.
- There are an overwhelming number of cases in the U.S. in which
- computer and telephone abusers have been apprehended, either by law
- enforcement or by other officials. Forester's implied claim that
- somehow law enforcement needs to be tougher, rather than wiser,
- is--like the rest of his article--totally inaccurate.
-
- >To some extent hacking has attracted individuals who are not at
- >ease socially--the classic "nerd," if you like. They may relate
- >better to machines than other humans.
- >
- >One image of the hacker is of an adolescent male, who, for
- >reasons of shyness or "spots" does not get on with girls.
- >
- >Instead, he tends to spend his time with the computer, rising at
- >2pm, then working right through to 6am,, consuming mountains of
- >delivered pizza and gallons of soft drink.
- >
- >Some suffer from what Danish doctors are now calling "computer
- >psychosis"--an inability to distinguish between the real world
- >and the world inside the screen.
- >
- >For the hacker, the machine becomes a substitute for human
- >contact, because it responds in rational manner, uncomplicated by
- >feelings and emotions.
-
- Again, Forester is at odds with his own work, where he indicates that
- there are different types of hackers and motivations. He seems to
- draw from Sherry Turkle's _The Second Self_, in his cartoon depiction
- of hackers. Turkle's data were limited to MIT students and a few
- interviews from Internet users. Turkle's study, published in 1984,
- well before the "hacking craze" of the late 1980s, was more a study of
- computer enthusiasts rather than "hackers," and her descriptions were
- partly ironic and hardly "scientific," although this did not undermine
- the value of her book.
-
- The "hackers" depicted in in _Cyberpunk_ range from seemingly normal
- (whatever that might mean) to certifiably loony, much as participants
- in any other collection of avid enthusiasts, including sports fans or
- researchers. From our own (Gordon Meyer and Jim Thomas) studies of
- the computer underground, "hackers" are a diverse lot, and Forester's
- grotesque imagery is as simplistic as would be dismissing his article
- because of Australian inbreeding from the days when it was a penal
- colony. Psychological explanations for any behavior can be helpful in
- contributing to our understanding, but data-free generalizations that
- reduce complex behaviors to simple-minded categories, especially when
- done by one who makes a living as a scholar, do a disservice to the
- scholarly community.
-
- >In some senses, one can't help but feel sorry for hackers, but by
- >taking out their hang-ups on society they do enormous damage and
- >we all end up paying for their anarchic antics.
- >
- >One day, these meddlers will hack into a vital military, utility
- >or comms system and cause a human and social catastrophe. It's
- >time we put a stop to their adolescent games right now.
- >
- >TOM FORESTER
- >
- >
- >
- >*Tom Forester is co-author, with Perry Morrison, of Computer
- >Ethics: Cautionary Tales and Ethical Dilemmas in Computing
- >(Blackwell / Allen & Unwin, 1990,).
- <end of article >
-
- Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce argued in their 1988 article in
- _Criminology_ that legislative testimony leading to anti-computer
- abuse law relied heavily on anecdotal evidence, hyperbolic assertions
- lacking empirical support, and media accounts. For this reason,
- Forester's letter, which fits all three categories, subverts the
- problem-solving process and hampers effective legislation and
- sanctions intended to address the problem of technologically-created
- offenses. Few people justify indiscriminate computer intrusions, so
- the question does not center on a defense of computer abuse. The
- issue is what do we do about it. Forester argues for increased
- criminalization and incarceration. There is little evidence that
- incarceration deters crime. It is unlikely that "setting examples"
- will resolve anything. Those most likely to be deterred those not
- engaged in serious misbehavior and are therefore the least risk to
- society. In the US, at least, sentencing is supposed to be
- "offense-drive," not "policy-driven." We sanction on the basis of an
- act, not on the basis of establishing social a political policy.
- "Setting examples" is not justice, but a political policy.
-
- Neither Forester's call for heavier example-setting sanctions nor the
- logic of his call serve the debates surrounding the problem of
- computer abuse. He muddies the waters, inflames the passions of the
- non-computer literate public with false information, and apparently
- fails to recognize the lesson of his own writing, which is that
- reasoned dialogue rather than strident demagoguery is the ethical
- approach to problem solving. This seems a rather glaring lapse for one
- who writes on computer ethics.
-
- Former prosecutor Gail Thackeray, in an interview with NEWSBYTES,
- offered a sound justification for temperance in incarceration to
- explain her reasons for opposing a five year prison sentence for "Doc
- Savage:"
-
- "Usually computer hackers who get into trouble for activities of
- this nature are kids or young adults who are not the type to be
- in trouble for any other criminal activities. The point of
- sentencing in these cases should be rehabilitation. If we can
- break the pattern of illegal behavior, society will benefit from
- Majette's participation. If we simply locked him up for 5 years,
- neither he nor society would benefit."
-
- None can doubt her passion for deterring computer abuse, but she also
- recognizes the complexity of the problems and the value of social
- responses that benefit society, set *productive* examples, and
- simultaneously improve the security and harmony of the nets. The
- views reflected in the Forester post would return us to the dark ages
- of repression based on ignorance. Perhaps somebody should send
- Forester a copy of _Computer Ethics_ along with the suggestion that he
- read it.
-
- Jim Thomas is a professor of sociology/criminal justice at
- Northern Illinois University. With Gordon Meyer, he has conducted
- research on the computer underground culture. His specialty is
- the culture of the dreadful enclosures that we call prisons, where
- some feel hackers belong.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- End of Computer Underground Digest #3.28
- ************************************
-
- =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
- + END THIS FILE +
- +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=