Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pyrdc!pyrnj!rutgers!ucla-cs!cc1
From: cc1@valhalla.cs.ucla.edu (R...for Rabbit)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Getting Even
Message-ID: <17699@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 9 Nov 88 03:13:35 GMT
References: <367@execu.UUCP> <265@acheron.UUCP> <1636@pikes.Colorado.EDU> <5343@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <10520@ncc.Nexus.CA>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: cc1@cs.ucla.edu (R...for Rabbit)
Organization: UCLA Computer Club
Lines: 25

In article <10520@ncc.Nexus.CA> lyndon@nexus.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes:
^In article <5343@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, spaf@cs (Gene Spafford) writes:
^   [Gene's lock analogy deleted]
^Gene, we have to (at least partially) excuse him, because WE gave
^him the key! The person who needs "prosecuted" is the person who
^hardwired the "wizards" password into sendmail. For accomplaces, round
^up every sys admin who didn't change it from the default.
^Does you car insurance cover theft of contents when you leave the
^doors unlocked?

But is the guy who did it still a criminal?  Hell yes, he stole your
stuff.  Maybe you are at fault, but that doesn't make him any less
criminal in his actions.  If someone can effortlessly rip off stuff
from a store, does that mean that they're not really stealing, because
the store owners made it so easy?

But enough of arguing analogies; we could do this all day.  The point 
is, it doesn't matter how easy or hard it was for him to accomplish
this, the point is that he did it.  The question is, what should be
done to him?  I think you can't remove the blame from him, because
the programmers made it easy for him to accomplish this.  The ease
of doing something doesn't determine if someone is guilty or not
guilty.

				--R for Rabbit