Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: A Super(cilious)Nova
Message-ID: <21747:Oct606:05:1090@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 6 Oct 90 06:05:10 GMT
References: <188@netsys.NETSYS.COM>
Organization: IR
Lines: 75

In article <188@netsys.NETSYS.COM> TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu writes:
> 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.

But that wasn't what it tried to do. I much prefer a program that tells
the story first. Other people might like to talk about ethical issues
without any facts to base their opinions on, but NOVA did a good job of
letting people know what's happened in the real world. You can only put
so much information into a television program.

> The Cuckoo's Egg, entertaining as it was, presented what can easily be argued
> as a misinformed attack on the hacker community.

Misinformed? I can't take this statement seriously unless you can say
exactly what misiniformation you're referring to. Well?

> 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.

Yes, perhaps you should.

> 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.

These are similarities? I don't know anyone who isn't a bit obsessive---
though I'm surrounded by mathematicians and computer scientists, so this
may not be surprising. Who doesn't appreciate the value of technology?
And what do you mean by social engineering?

A few articles ago, I thought you saw a real similarity in *behavior*
between Stoll and Hess, but you just didn't know how to express it. But
you haven't said much more than ``they're both programmers who live in
the real world.'' Big deal.

> Is "liberating" equipment from offices any more or less
> benign than entering a university mainframe without permission?

You seriously believe that Stoll's behavior that weekend is in the least
comparable to, say, providing the KGB with complete source to a major
operating system, or changing the system software on a medical computer?
I admit that I wouldn't have taken the equipment, but you keep harping
on this one incident as if it justifies your cracking someone else's
computer. It doesn't.

I might install a security camera in my apartment. A thief might
videotape my apartment to get an idea of my schedule, so that he can
break in at a ``good'' time. You find some similarity between these
actions? Grow up.

> Also keep in mind that Hess was not a typical
> hacker, and Stoll made a number of global statements about hackers, not just
> Hess.

Let's keep straight that Stoll uses the ambiguous word ``hacker'' the
way that some of us use ``cracker.'' Hess was perhaps a better-funded,
more determined cracker than usual, but he wasn't really atypical.

> 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.

How sweet. Yes, I've reflected on these issues, and like anyone else
who's responsible for protecting his users' privacy, I don't need much
reflection to conclude that recording the activities of a system cracker
is ethically sound. I also don't find it surprising that NOVA puts facts
before philosophical crap.

---Dan