Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!sri-unix!sri-spam!mordor!lll-tis!ames!sdcsvax!nosc!cod!rupp
From: rupp@cod.UUCP (William L. Rupp)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Re: PhonePhreaking in Europe
Message-ID: <813@cod.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Sep-87 11:27:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: cod.813
Posted: Thu Sep  3 11:27:29 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Sep-87 10:56:44 EDT
References: <812@cod.UUCP> <2133@eecae.UUCP>
Reply-To: rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp)
Organization: Computer Sciences Corp., San Diego
Lines: 45

In article <2133@eecae.UUCP> lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) writes:
   >> 
   >> I find this discussion of phone phreaking a bit disturbing.  Hey,
   >
   >While, I do not condon the activity, phone phreaking does have a 
   >legitimate place in the legend and folklore of programmer histories
   >and as such contemporary discussions of the topic should be allowed
   >to take place.
   >
   >-- 
   >John H. Lawitzke                 UUCP: ...ihnp4!msudoc!eecae!lawitzke

Point one:

The First Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the poster's
right to discuss what he wants to discuss.  I did not say that he should
not be allowed to do so.

Point two:

I do not know what you mean by having "a legitimate place in the
legend and folklore of programmer history."  That statement sounds to me
like semantic nonsense.  "Legend" and "folklore" are two warm, fuzzy
words that are usually associated with benign activities, not crimes.
Would you speak of the "legend and folklore of Hitler's Wafen SS Deathshead
Dvision"?  Not if you were sensitive to the activities of that unit in
World War II, I'll bet.  Which brings me to...

Point three:

My original concern was not so much that telephone phreaking was
discussed as it was that the poster discussed the topic as blandly as he
might have shared information about a statistical algorithm.  Some
computer enthusiasts seem to be oblivious to the immoral and criminal
nature of certain types of hacker activity.  I therefore felt obliged
to criticize what I interpreted as a lack of sensitivity on the part of
the original poster.  If nothing else, I hoped to point out to that
poster that his article sounded value neutral on a topic that all
computer users should condemn for a variety of reasons.


======================================================================
I speak for myself, and not on behalf of any other person or organization
.........................How's that, Gary?
======================================================================