Message-ID: <20030611032754.27302.qmail@email.com>
From: sockz at email.com (sockz loves you)
Subject: USDOJ BRAINWASHING TECHNIQUES

----- Original Message -----
From: Darren Reed <avalon@...igula.anu.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:05:07 +1000 (Australia/ACT) 
To: dotslash@...soft.com (KF)
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] USDOJ BRAINWASHING TECHNIQUES

> 1.
> Hacking *IS* bad and if children for some reason think it is cool
> then they need to be educated so that they understand it is NOT.
> There is no two ways about it.  At the small end of the scale, I
> don't even view unauthorised port scanning as morally acceptable
> (even if the courts don't find it illegal), never mind actually
> breaking into one.  It is an invasion of privacy, no two ways about
> it.  The presence of software bugs is not an excuse to exploit them.

wow thats really sad.  i'm sorry you feel that way darren :*(
"It is an invasion of privacy" wow, and this is so rare these days too.
tell me, darren, how do you think the DOJ finds out shit about hackers?
they invade the privacy of their targets.  how do journalists find out
about movie stars fucking politicians.  they invade privacy.  there is
no privacy, darren.  there never has been.  it is only an illusion.

you mention morals and hacking.  what morals?  hacking is about as
immoral as speeding down a freeway.  i have more moral issues with
taking dying pets to the vet to be put down than i do with destroying
someone's system.  people these days just dont give a fuck about anyone
else.  the DOJ doesn't care about your feelings either, which is why
they're trying to influence children to make their own job easier in
the future.

> 2.
> Secure progamming is something that needs to be taught at a level
> that is appropriate and that is definately not primary school or
> maybe even grade school.  The problem is children who think they
> can program teach themselves bad habits and these bad habits do
> not get corrected later as they go on to become professional
> programmers.  Regardless of talent, you should not be allowed to
> develop commercial applications as a programmer unless you have
> been properly schooled and thereafter stay current.  That aside,
> security bugs can be much more than just a buffer overflow.  What
> is really being said here is that software is not tested/evaluated
> to a high enough standard before being sold/shipped - this includes
> open source products.

The highest sounds are hardest to hear.
Going forward is a way to retreat.
Great talent shows itself late in life.
Even a perfect program still has bugs. 

it is the principle of yin and yang, darren.  it applies to everything.
there is no such thing as perfect coding.  just very ugly and less ugly.


i say the DOJ should stop giving Quentin shit and start rewarding his
genius.  let his skills in information retrieval grow so that one day
he can flourish in a promising career as an industrial spy, a terrorist,
or perhaps even working with the DOD or CIA to spy on people in rival
nations.  this is where Quentin will be able to make some real money.
much more than he ever would as a simple-minded morally-challenged
perfectionist programmer.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Powered by blists - more mailing lists