Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!caen!Firewall!ddsw1!learn
From: learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: I Accuse (the New Gestappo...)
Message-ID: <1991Jun18.023039.10671@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 18 Jun 91 02:30:39 GMT
References: <1637@lehi3b15.csee.Lehigh.EDU> <1991Jun16.032125.19880@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <1991Jun16.171754.24492@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization
Lines: 115

In article <24492@athena.cs.uga.edu>  Michael A. Covington writes:

>Concerning the choice of punishment and the ultimate fate of this student,
>here are some details.

>The University had two concerns:
>  (1) To get this student to grow up and understand his ethical obligations;
>  (2) To deter others from attempting computer break-ins.

With all due respect, I agree with precept #1, and disagree totally with
precept #2.

You here admit that your concern for punishment includes what someone else
might do. With this mindset, it is impossible for you to do justice to
precept #1, and you end up imposing a much harsher punishment than the
misbehavior deserves.

I remember my high school days. Student teacher days, in fact. We were in
class, and some one of the students made a loud noise, slamming a desktop
while we were all busy with our heads down minding our own business. Teacher
demanded to know who made the noise, and with no volunteers, and no tattlers
(because we were too busy to notice) the entire class was punished for the
misbehavior of one. 

What happens when punishment incorporates a deterrent value is really not
different. One is being punished for the misbehaviors of others, although
those other misbehaviors haven't even happened yet.

>On point (1), we chose to use the Student Judiciary rather than bring
>criminal charges, precisely so this fellow would not have a criminal record
>and so his name would be kept confidential.
>We felt that he was not a hardened criminal, but rather a basically immature
>person who failed to understand his responsibilities and was too easily
>influenced by others.

Student judiciaries are almost always rubber stamps for administration
wishes. And they are used, as it is being used in this instance, to
deflect blame from the administration.

>The only penalties the Student Judiciary can impose are expulsion, suspension,
>or community service. 

These powers are established by the administration. What else is new ?

>As witness for the prosecution, I asked for a light sentence because I thought
>it would best serve both (1) and (2). Many crackers believe they will never
>suffer _any_ punishment for computer break-ins, so even a relatively light
>punishment will have a substantial deterrent effect.

Aha, you finally agree that the student is being punished. Not at all
a "learning experience" with positive overtones.

>My own feeling is that 2 quarters' suspension is exactly right. It's
>desirable to get this person away from the University's computers for a
>while, and away from the small circle of crackers that he was apparently
>associating with. I don't think this will make him a college dropout.

YOU don't think? Who the hell appointed you to make this decision ? You
have single handedly taken this student's entire academic, and perhaps
professional life, and made this decision in the matter of minutes. Did
you call the parents ? Did you review his records, all of them, even
back to High School. Did you discuss this with other facalty members ?
You know, Spafford discusses responsibility as part of the realm, a level 
of responsibility which I see as becoming more and more a unidirectional 
demand than a universal reality. 

I accuse you of seeing very little past the precious computer system which 
you see "attacked." I accuse you of putting your precious computer above the 
human understanding and compassion. I accuse you of not noticing this student,
and perhaps others like him, who within your academic environment of learning
has without a doubt given more than one indication of needing a little help
to mature. And when you finally do notice him it is because your little
world has been "invaded" by some nasty outsiders. And you respond with the
heavy hand of self-righteousness. I accuse you, and the Georgia Tech
administration of failing at the most elementary levels to be educators in
the true sense.

>We especially ruled out computer-related community service (e.g., making him
>work, unpaid, at a help desk) because of the widespread myth that if you get
>caught cracking passwords, some employers will view this as proof that you
>are a computer genius. We wanted to make it clear that unethical behavior is
>never a qualification for a technical job, paid or unpaid.

Once more you are more concerned about what others might think. What 
business is it of yours to be concerned with anything other than doing
those things necessary to do justice to this student.

>I would like to hear from others who have more specific ideas of how
>crackers should be punished. During this particular case I found that
>almost everybody wanted to be harsher than I did. Widespread sentiment
>was that he should have been expelled.

Those who believed he should be expelled are doubtless undereducated
in human respect and understanding.

Those who would punish to the detrement of a student instead of making
the outcome a positive learning experience lack the imaginaton necessary
to be a good educator. And to take this one step further, why is it that
you are here NOW, when the decisions have been made, asking such questions?
They should have been asked, since you NOW realize there's some question
regarding the wisdom of the episode and administrative handling of it,
before decisions were reached. The fact that you and the administration 
were hell bent to reach a solution, even a bad one, adds credence to my
accusations. Further, this bit is a clear indication to me that you
personally are just now coming off the high brought on by the discovery
of the "attack" on your baby. And we all know what riding on such a high 
does to wisdom and good judgement.

I suggest you get in touch with Mike Meyers, the former owner and system
administrator of M-net, a public access system in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Mike's
solution to bad behavior was to give the individual some responsibility
on the system, and some support. His 100% positive results would doubtless 
amaze you. If you're really interested, I'll e-mail you his phone number.

Bill Vajk