RE: Re: Ethics, morality, and mental retardation

[Miha Vitorovic <mvitorovic () nil si>]

>     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