Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!ucsd!ucbvax!CYBER.WIDENER.EDU!Joshua.R.Poulson
From: Joshua.R.Poulson@CYBER.WIDENER.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: A lot of stuff that's been happening lately.
Message-ID: <5A081B0E041502F3-MTABWIDENER*Joshua.R.Poulson@cyber.widener.edu>
Date: 27 Aug 90 19:26:45 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 73

I said:
> Since the use of a computer is a service that is not provided to the users,
> when someone extracts usage that he or she is not supposed to extract, we
> consider that THEFT of that service.  This is similar to the people that
> mess with cable TV lines to get pay services.

peter@ferranti.com said:
> Fair enough. Now what would you think if the government "cracked down" on
> a bunch of guys who were messing with cable-TV lines, and:
> [a pile of nasty stuff deleted]

I have to agree with the Constitution on this one.  What I've heard about
this sort of thing makes me think a jury would throw these actions out.  We
have a Bill of Rights that protects us from cruel and unusual punishment as
well as illegal search and seisure.  However, there is no precedent and the
executive branch, in a savvy effort, is going as far as it can so that the
things they ARE allowed to do (which they wanted in the first place) will
seem fair and reasonable after these cases are ruled upon.

Lots of people do things by going to far and then conceding to a nicer
place.  The barter system gives us lots of examples.

What's going to come out of all of this is that the first people will
escape from the police getting carried away (admittedly they'll be pretty
scared), and a precedent will be set for all the other cases that will be
coming up soon.

I said:
> However, I support the idea that a
> harder stance has to be taken against people who misuse or abuse the equipment
> they're provided.

Peter said:
> A *harder* stance? Maybe. But a sudden change from looking the other way
> (read "The Cuckoo's Egg" for details) to massive overkill is a bit beyond
> the pale.

I think that by being tough on these Frontier outlaws we can increase awareness
and scare the bad guys.  I also support the Electronic Frontier Foundation's
efforts to organize the legal effort.  Only by carefully building a legal
foundation can a lot of suffering be avoided.

The current stance on hackers is "they're cute and harmless." I personally
think that many can be dangerous and damaging.  The people writing viruses,
worms, trojans, or other clearly damaging programs, are not getting praise
from me, no matter how nice their code is.  It's just as interesting, to
me, to write useful code that does something for society.

I said:
> Unix boxes with X Windows are CHEAP, compared
> to the DOS/Windows/OS-2 nightmare.

Peter said:
> I don't know about that. X is pretty much a nightmare, too. UNIX is great,
> but X is a step backwards to the monitor/ROM library approach to O/S design.

I've coded for many different types of windowing systems.  I've also seen
what products are out there.  Would somebody pay $500 to get an X-Windows
toolkit?  Some would, I guess.  How about $3000?

I like the modern GUI's.  I just wish someone would make a simple language
for them (ALL platforms!) like C was to programming a while ago...

I guess the futures list is a great place for a dream like that...

> --
> Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
> +1 713 274 5180.
> peter@ferranti.com

Thanks for the comments.

--JRP [.signature withheld for taxes]