Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 23:26:21 cdt
From:
[email protected](Steve Jackson)
Subject: Reply to Gene Spafford
I was sorry to see Gene Spafford's comments in CuD 3.24. Can anything
be more divisive, more likely to widen the gulf between the talented
outlaw and the rest of the electronic community, than to say that the
ex-cracker will NEVER be allowed to use his skills honestly? What
happened to "paying your debt" and re-entering society? Never mind
that some of these people have never been charged with any crime, let
alone convicted!
Spafford says that "to prefer confessed crackers over honorable
professionals is quite an insult." It can't possibly be an insult
unless the so-called professionals have equal or better skills. And
perhaps they don't! Given their backgrounds, there's every reason to
think that Comsec can provide valuable advice to those who will
listen. If not, they'll soon vanish from the marketplace. But Dr.
Spafford would deny them the chance to compete. He thinks that
Comsec's attempt to use their skills honestly is an "insult,"
regardless of how great those skills might be, and anyone utilizing
them is a traitor to the legitimate establishment.
Spafford's argument can just as easily embrace the proposition that NO
ex-criminal should ever be hired for ANY job. To his credit, he
expressly denies that he'd go that far. But it follows from his logic.
Why not just brand their foreheads with a big red H, and cut off their
thumbs so they can't type?
By contrast, Gail Thackeray, who has talked on both sides of the Evil
Hacker issue, now takes a stand in the clearest possible way. I
applaud her part in the Majette sentencing. She didn't ask for
revenge; she didn't try to "make an example"; she didn't exaggerate
Majette's exploits and grab press. She calmly pointed out that he
wasn't dangerous and wasn't the criminal type outside of this
particular behavior, and asked for a rehabilitative sentence. And the
judge agreed with her. Thanks, Gail. I hope your peers notice, too.
------------------------------
