Re: [fw-wiz] Re: Ethics, morality, and mental retardation
From: Scott Stursa (stursa_at_mailer.fsu.edu)
Date: 10/29/04
- Previous message: Ames, Neil: "RE: [fw-wiz] Re: Ethics, morality, and mental retardation"
- In reply to: J. Oquendo: "[fw-wiz] Re: Ethics, morality, and mental retardation"
- Next in thread: Marcus J. Ranum: "[fw-wiz] Re: Ethics, morality, and mental retardation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: "J. Oquendo" <sil@politrix.org> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:20:01 -0400 (EDT)
Jeez, what a subject to delurk on. Particularly since I don't really have
time for this today.
Let me offer the perspective of someone who did a couple of years of grad
study in psychology (dropped out when I decided electronic brains were
more interesting), and, more relevant, has spent several years working
with law-enforcement folks on cases which involved this university's IT
resources (not just hacking, but identity-theft and other crimes).
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, J. Oquendo wrote:
> You're quite right Mr. Ranum, I say sentence everyone for the rest of
> their lives to rot in a prison at your taxpayer expense.
He did not suggest that, nor has anyone else.
> Why not there is no such thing as reform.
I'm not sure there is, but more on that later.
> A lifetime sentence to walk in the park. Tennis,
> volleyball, basketball, baseball, lifting weights, listening to music,
> watching weekly videos, and sneaking of the compound when the guards
> aren't looking, all at your expense.
You obviously haven't spent any time in an American prison, or personally
know anyone who has.
> Punish EVERYONE to a lifetime sentence. There is no reform for anyone
> who's committed a crime, or who has been charged with one in society even
> when found innocent. Their lives are shattered forever without apologies
> or double takes. All that is remembered was the negativity.
The U.S. criminal justice system is far from perfect, but the fact is that
most of those convicted are guilty, and most of those innocent are
acquitted. FYI, the only jury on which I've ever served took all of ten
minutes to acquit the defendent (who was obviously being framed by someone
who didn't like him, and prosecuted by a ambitious young state attorney).
I encountered this individual several years later, introduced myself,
accepted his thanks and was pleased to hear that he'd not experienced any
lasting effects (job loss, social stigmatization, etc.)
> You seem to
> forget without a criminally malicious "hacker" you would have no career,
> nor business for that matter. While I respect your work from the
> background to the utmost extreme, I find your view humorous and
> disturbing. Did you ever consider that most of the black/greyhat community
> keeps the security world on its toes with discoveries that put food on
> your table?
Oh, *that* one. Try that on a cop some time. The response you'll get is
that most of them would happily do something else, but since nothing short
of divine intervention is going to stop people from commiting crimes, then
it's necessary for *someone* to step up to the plate and make an effort
to prevent and/or solve crime. If you happen to be more effective than
others at this, then to some degree it becomes a matter of concience that
you do so.
I got into this line of work because I seem to be better at it than most
of my local peers. For this reason I continue with it, despite the fact
that for two years now my real estate investments have generated more
income than my salary.
> Has it occurred to you that via someone's dabbling with the unthinkable
> they've perhaps prevented something even more unthinkable? Money isn't
> everything in this world. There are a lot of people who have paid their
> dues in society whether you realize it or not, so your view of
> sentencing someone to a lifetime of punishment is flawed, and ridiculous.
A couple of fallacies here. The first is that you seem to equate
"not rewarding" with "punishment". Refusing to pay a convicted hacker to
give a keynote speech is is a long way from tossing him in a cell and
throwing away the key. Get real.
The other is this the naive notion that a criminal who's served his
sentence is "reformed". At best they understand that they're not as smart
as they thought they were and are as likely to get caught the next time as
the last time. Even then, most don't get that and eventually end up back
behind bars.
There's been some comments in this discussion regarding the value of
"knowing how they think". There's no mystery here - it boils down to two
core beliefs that they have, which are 1) they think they're too smart to
get caught, and 2) they engage in blame-the-victim-think.
Ever wonder how someone can bilk some little-old-lady out of her life
savings yet feel absolutely no guilt? Simple - they put it on her, as in
"she should have known better than to believe the line I gave her". This
is their standard rationale. The victim had a mis-configured
firewall/flimsy front door lock/overly revealing dress, and therefore
"deserved" to be hacked/robbed/raped.
I've busted a number of local script kiddies over the years and this is
invariably the argument they offer.
If you bother to go research "anti-social personality disorder"
(criminologyese for "criminal mind") and do a little reading on
developmental psychology, what you'll learn is that if someone has not
grown themselves a concience by their early teens then it's unlikely that
they ever will. A prison sentence is not going to fix that - it
just keeps them out of circulation for a while. If they continue to commit
crime, then you take them out of circulation permanently (this is the
basis for the "three strikes - you're out" laws passed in many of the
United States).
> Have you not seen recent stats? You know the one that shows 1 in every 37
> Americans has at some point gone through the "machines" of justice. Or did
> that elude you in your quest to punish people forever?
>
> Why not just make the US one big prison system you would be a nice
> Warden. (http://www.bop.gov/hrmpg/hrmcurrent.html)
Again, you are engaging in simple-minded binomial-think. Refusing to
reward someone for criminal behavior is not equivalent to imprisoning
them. What part of that do you not understand?
In my view, an ex-hacker who accepts payment so that he may publicly
promote his crime-enabling rationale ("it's your fault for being
hacked - never mind that I made the immoral choice to hack you")
does not qualify as "reformed", and being someone with a concience I could
never condemm someone for refusing to participate in such a scam.
- SLS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott L. Stursa 850/645-2397
Network Security Assessment stursa@mailer.fsu.edu
Technology Integration/User Services Florida State University
- No good deed goes unpunished -
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- Previous message: Ames, Neil: "RE: [fw-wiz] Re: Ethics, morality, and mental retardation"
- In reply to: J. Oquendo: "[fw-wiz] Re: Ethics, morality, and mental retardation"
- Next in thread: Marcus J. Ranum: "[fw-wiz] Re: Ethics, morality, and mental retardation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
