Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: hacker = computer criminal
Message-ID: <5628:Oct421:22:1090@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 4 Oct 90 21:22:10 GMT
References: <30571@netnews.upenn.edu>
Organization: IR
Lines: 9

In article <30571@netnews.upenn.edu> kehoe@scotty.dccs.upenn.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:
> This doesn't quite ring true with me. Sure, a company might pay closer 
> attention to an employee that's suspected of that -- but they wouldn't have
> *every* employee tailed, or install cameras in *every* employee's cubicle.

That's true. They'd try to record only as much as would reasonably cover
where they expected the criminal to go. That's exactly what Stoll did.

---Dan