RE: Re: Ethics, morality, and mental retardation

[MHawkins () TULLIB COM]

Hi Miha,

you said: "Yes, a criminal looses his rights when he is in jail, but he gets
them back when he does his time. Including the right to have a job he likes,
not a job someone else thinks he ought to have."

That's not exactly true. Many courts around the world impose various
measures to ensure that people do not repeat offend and or that they do not
endanger society, the public and or individuals. The idea that people are
completely free of any incumbrance the moment they walk out of jail is
simply untrue.

Some examples:

Pedarists are required to stay atleast X yards away from schools.
Some drunk drivers who kill on the road do time and THEN are only permitted
to drive to work.
Armed robbers are NOT permitted to own a gun - EVER.
Company office holders cannot become incorporated and cannot hold public
company positions.
Lawyers are disbarred.
Politicians must resign and cannot hold public office again.

And the list goes on.

I wrote a virus myself once (of the MS word macro variety) and could have
unleashed it on the unsuspecting world. I have had many, many HUGE
opportunities to hack into external systems. I have had many many
opportunities to leave time bombs over the years. I have had the opportunity
to access the systems of past employers and do untold damage. However, by
NOT doing these things I demonstrated strong ethical judgement and
responsibility as most of us in the networking/infosce community do.

Mitnick and co. demonstrated poor ethical judgement and carried out illegal
activities which they, for the most part and to this day, consider a public
service.

In my opinion, having been convicted of perpetrating an information crime,
these people should be required to find alternative employment. If the
courts (who are simply behind the eight ball on this) won't apply such
punitive and or corrective action then our voices in the wider infosec
community are needed to ensure that our own industry does not fall into
disrepute and is discredited. The corruptive influence of establishing
former convicted felons as luminaries in our industry is dangerous and
cannot be advocated.

Mike Hawkins
(The opinions presented in this email are my own and reflect no opinion held
by any other party or individual, implied or inferred).


-----Original Message-----
From: firewall-wizards-admin () honor icsalabs com
[mailto:firewall-wizards-admin () honor icsalabs com]On Behalf Of Miha
Vitorovic
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 5:44 AM
To: firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com;
firewall-wizards-admin () honor icsalabs com
Subject: RE: [fw-wiz] Re: Ethics, morality, and mental retardation


>     I am concerned by your argument that a criminal should be able 
> to profit from their crime instead of being forced to find another 
> way to make a living.  Mr. Mitnik could make a living selling cars, 
> for example.  I also think that you are off when describing Mr. 
> Ranum as a one-trick pony.  I suspect that he would have been quite 
> successful in other businesses (though I don't envision him selling 
> cars--maybe raising trick ponies). 

I see this point come up again and again throughout this thread. "Mitnik 
should choose another line of work, for me, _the security expert_, to be 
happy." Why? Why don't we all start selling cars? Because we don't want 
to. But Mitnik has to? Why? Yes, a criminal looses his rights when he is 
in jail, but he gets them back when he does his time. Including the right 
to have a job he likes, not a job someone else thinks he ought to have.

And another thing I see in most of the letters is: "My security advice is 
just as good as Mitnik's." Which to me, also means, "Well, obviously then, 
his advice is just as good as yours.", but the authors somehow think that 
theirs is better. And, some of them are right. But, all of them? Hmm...

And, again and again, in the end it comes down to money. "Hey, he's making 
money! Stop him! That's money I was supposed to make!" But, people with 
money choose to give it to him. Again, it's their money, they can give it 
to anyone they like.

What I'm trying to say is, that so far, I haven't seen a single point that 
would convince me that having Mitnik as a speaker is a bad thing. But I 
have seen an awful lot of bruised egos.

Party on, 

Miha Vitorovic
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards