Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!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 --- (argh)
Message-ID: <5523:Oct421:18:3590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 4 Oct 90 21:18:35 GMT
References: <185@netsys.NETSYS.COM>
Organization: IR
Lines: 20

In article <185@netsys.NETSYS.COM> niu.bitnet!TK0JUT2@netsys.NETSYS.COM writes:
> Further,
> as Stoll notes in his book, he did not have authorization for much of this
> activity.

That's a good point. However, you don't need authorization to carry out
your job duties; and presumably Stoll's duties as a system manager could
have been interpreted to include monitoring Hess's activities. In fact,
I get the impression from the book that his boss made exactly that
interpretation. It's always a judgment call...

> Nova failed to address these distinctions. The similarities between
> Stoll's behavior and the hacker(s) he was pursuing were ignored, and Nova
> treated the chase uncritically.

What similarities are you talking about? That they both recorded the
sessions---on computers Stoll was responsible for? That they both used
computers? That they both breathe? Come on.

---Dan