From: peter at bank-connect.com (Peter van den Heuvel)
Subject: USDOJ BRAINWASHING TECHNIQUES

Not the fact that somehow that web page is trying to promote any 
particular opinion on "hacking into" is disturbing to me. What did raise 
my eyebrows was the fact that it bluntly promoted "why don't you spy on 
your friends for us and turn in every suspect"; the governmental fear 
and obedience factors.

Such is their opinion; allas. But I firmly beleive that morality is born 
from day to day personal judgement of all factors; not from strict 
obedience to church and government rules. Such rules simply provide the 
stable framework that allow complex societies to function, and would of 
course cease to be effective when they were not enforced.

 From my personal moral perspective it would make a lot more sense to 
"tell an adult you trust, who would tell the owner of the system that 
they are being hacked by little kids, who would plug the system, and 
everybody would leave Quentin alone". Someone might even warn the fella 
that he's getting a bit obvious and that it might well get him into 
trouble. After all, and specially so for vital systems, if Quentin can 
make his way in, then any party of significance would already have 
intalled itself quite comfortably.

As far as Quentin himself is concerned, and using it as a metafor for 
hackers, one could consider the difference between breaking the law and 
commiting a crime. These are not the same. It is the moral application 
of the law that can turn one into the other. I would not consider 
research and publication of weaknesses in the type of lock I have on my 
front door as illegal. On the other hand, I would probably know 
everybody over the head whom I found inside my house having exploited 
that weakness and i would probably appriciate early warning about my 
vulnerable lock.

It would be quite silly to legalize "hacking into" as well as it would 
be silly to convict anyone who walked into an open door. Somewhere 
in-between is the gray area where where penalties become a desired 
measure. An intelligent discussion of that area still seems to be 
benificial as both the makers as well as the appliers of law seem to be 
quite confused. Like to illegalize screwdrivers because sometimes they 
are used to break into houses or stab persons. And to prevent anybody 
from publishing the fact that a specific kind of lock is worthless 
because the manufacturer prefers not to change it. Or to convict anybody 
from making a call from a phone booth because it could make him an 
anonymous caller. Allas...

Peter

Powered by blists - more mailing lists