Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!netsys!daemon
From: TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: A Super(cilious)Nova
Message-ID: <188@netsys.NETSYS.COM>
Date: 5 Oct 90 09:28:18 GMT
Sender: daemon@netsys.NETSYS.COM
Lines: 55

Seems some of our modem cowpokes out there prefer dismissing issues out of
hand rather than addressing them, and about all one can say to Eli after
reading his post is: "dipshit" should be hyphenated.

Now, let's try again more slowly. The issue isn't whether we like or dislike
Cliff Stoll, and judging from the posts, some of those railing against critics
of the Nova program seem not to have read Cuckoo's Egg. It was a first-rate
"mystery," captivating, and difficult to put down once begun. Stoll also came
across quite well in the Nova program---entertaining, lively, and quite
photogenic. But, these aren't the issues.

The Nova program had the opportunity to clarify for the non-computer literate
audience the nature of the hacking community and computer underground. It
failed. It re-inforced the image of great danger, distorted the hacking
enterprise, and at a time when the Constitutional issues surrounding
computerized information is a crucial legal and public issue, presented a set
of images that would justify such represesive actions as Operation Sun Devil.
The point is not that the Nova producers failed to defend the CU, but rather
that--for a Nova program--we should expect something a bit more intellectually
stimulating than an uncritical apologia for hacker-hunting.

The Cuckoo's Egg, entertaining as it was, presented what can easily be argued
as a misinformed attack on the hacker community. The book has been cited and
used by law enforcement agencies to justify crackdowns againt the hacker
menace. It hardly seems unreasonable to judge a person by the degree of
reflection on past statements that have had such an affect, and there was not
an iota of evidence from the Nova program that Cliff has had any second
thoughts about the impact of his statements. One person may claim he was
demonstrably wrong. Another may disagree. This provides the opportunity for
dialogue, but dismissing the issue with a silly "get serious" comment is one
reason why undergraduates should be required to take a few courses in
humanities, especially philosophy.

The similarities between Cliff and hackers is not necessarily bad, but rather
ironic: Both seem a a bit obsessive, both possess a love of technological
problem solving, both are quite adept at "social engineering" to obtain
information useful to their purpose. Re-read the Cuckoo's Egg, and, if you
taped Nova, re-run it. Is "liberating" equipment from offices any more or less
benign than entering a university mainframe without permission?  You may think
it is, but the fact remains that there is considerable room for honest
intellectual disagreement. Also keep in mind that Hess was not a typical
hacker, and Stoll made a number of global statements about hackers, not just
Hess.

It's hardly "whining" to complain about misuse of the term hacker, and it's
hardly "old news," at least not to the law enforcement types who define the
term as an illegal activity.  Check out the indictments from Sun Devil and
you'll see how the meaning of the word can be used in a highly prejudicial
way.

Many of us, including me, would have acted just Stoll acted in tracking down
his invader. Hopefully, however, most of us would also reflect on the ethical
and other issues raised during a period when technology challenges
conventional notions of privacy, freedeom of speech, proprietary information,
and other neat stuff that was *totally* ignored in the Nova program.