Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watdcsu!magore From: magore@watdcsu.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Balance of social responsibilities [ was Re: Hacker Scholarship ] Message-ID: <3552@watdcsu.UUCP> Date: Mon, 29-Jun-87 12:36:51 EDT Article-I.D.: watdcsu.3552 Posted: Mon Jun 29 12:36:51 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Jun-87 02:39:48 EDT References: <2757@mtgzz.UUCP> <140200002@tiger.UUCP> <7232@mimsy.UUCP> Reply-To: magore@watdcsu.UUCP (Mike Gore, Institute Computer Research - ICR) Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 69 Hello Charley, In article <7232@mimsy.UUCP> mangoe@mimsy.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > >From this point of view, ALL systems have a "flashing light on top". >Security holes don't create break-ins; people create break-ins. The >attitude that "someone is asking for it" is one of the things that help >raise the crime rate. > >C. Wingate I do fully agree with what you are saying but only _if_ that is the 'real' attitude that exists - but I think not. I dispute that is particularthat on average attitude we see today is an attempt to protect criminals but rather more of an attempt to examine the possible ignorance of some people who fail to protect themselves in a society with _known_ crime rate. Let me see if I can offer a possible perspective on my reasoning in this matter . I am not trying to direct my comments at anything you have said in in what follows. I just want to examine some new [?] ideas... [ enter soapbox mode :) ] What of institutions that due to _willful_ ignorance _fail_ to protect people because of an assumption that law in and of itself will protect their clients? I see the issue at hand as if a persons bank kept it's money in a shoe box in the center of a park with no one watching. I would just as much DEMAND that laws protect people against THAT kind of stupidity as I would crime in general because crime is _known_ to exist. It is _not_ a matter of protecting the criminal at all but one of protecting people against criminal stupidity _and_ criminals. Consider, what would people think if the USA [ or your country here] disbanded it's law enforcement and all of it's military in favor of laws that made crime and international crime illegal :-)? Yes that analogy isn't that good but it does sort of ask people to consider the division of responsibilities. -I believe ideas at least roughly like that are the real points to be addressed. We _know_ we can not expect to have a man in uniform at every house on the planet unless everyone is a policeman to some extent. We have to help victims of crime just as much as we need to educate them how to better protect themselves when the law is unable to impress the wouldbe criminal to give up his ways... I personally find that some laws that fail to have institutions also handle some responsibility to protect it's clients, as in the case of the recent ECPA and radio telephones, are just about as criminal as the very criminal it considers to be targeted for - roughly similar in manner as if the USA disbanded it military in favor of civil laws when considering _known_ factors - and this _is_ silly in many ways... So, if we _fail_ to have certain institutions take measures to protect their clients from criminal activities we in a very real way end up _protecting_ the criminal - as we _know_ we can not expect the present day law enforcement system to hold our hands _around_the_clock_ but we _can_ make the job of the legal system _much_ easier to do by bearing _some_ kind of resonsibility in protecting social interests on our own.... I feel it is a great public service to inform people how to better protect themselves from common crime. One can talk about the responsibility of law enforcement all one wants but if everyone in north America left their house unlocked I would say that someone isn't pulling their fair share. Indeed one could look at this as if society itself were placing a burden it's own law enforcement system and reducing it's very ability to even keep up with it's real job of attempting to protect people. But just what is it we are protecting people from ? Crime or their own ignorance ??? I would only want that those attempting to find weaknesses in the system were on our side rather then on the criminals... Hope this makes some sense,... Comments ??? Best Regards, # Mike Gore # Institute for Computer Research. ( watmath!mgvax!root - at home ) # These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.