Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!topaz!thomas
From: thomas@topaz.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Thomas)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: RE Feedback on Computer Crime - Apology
Message-ID: <4678@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Date: 27 Aug 90 16:56:16 GMT
References: <4c517e56.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> <9008210016.AA14566@world.std.com> <1990Aug22.033411.3601@looking.on.ca>
Sender: news@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
Reply-To: thomas@topaz.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Peter Thomas)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 31

Brad Templeton writes:
     >a) Property is misappropriated
     >b) Real monetary value is involved
     >c) Enforcement is possible at a reasonable cost
     >then it is the duty of the police to protect that property.

Brad,
To some extent this is like asking "How many hostages do we let
them take before we go to war?"  There are two ethical positions
possible.  One is the pragmatic view, which you have chosen, and
the other is the principled.  I think perhaps we spend much to
much time thinking of the amount of damage caused and whether it
is "worth it" to pursue wrong-doing.  I agree with making the
punishment fit the crime--so perhaps a tiny crime should result
in little more than a harsh word of warning. . .but it
definitely should not be ignored as if it didn't happen.

Looking the other way is one of the worst ways we can invalidate
a principle.  The instant we do, we are no longer defending
principle, but are rather buttressing up a "grey" or
"wishy-washy" set of individual cases.  Is it any wonder our
legal system is in such a mess?  We have been doing this for so
many years that it is now almost impossible to distinguish wrong
from right--and just about possible to sue anyone over anything
and at least have some legal precedent as a leg to stand on.

If we are truly looking towards building a better
_future_society_ perhaps we should put a greater emphasis on
principled and reasoned action.

--Pete