Shane's point is important. The old question whose ox is being gored can never be avoided.
I have heard applause for the government-sponsored hackers who destroyed many of the centrifuges the Iranian government is/was using to separate uranium isotopes. Or again, It is no secret that the 'supersecret' agencies of every major power have plans for disrupting, among other things, the electricity-distribution grids and telephone networks of their enemies in time of war (and in circumstances short of war too). One of the problems that has not been much addressed is that of legitimating---training, licensing, and supervising---hackers. At least in societies that use many locks, locksmiths are essential; and this analogy is a useful one. Licensed locksmiths seldom burgle, even though their skills would make it easy for them to do so. They have other, societally legitimized uses for these skills. Finally, there are the large issues of what classes of information it is legitimate to sequester, protect, and charge for access to, of where this "business model" is appropriate and should be protected by the machinery of the law. The American editions of this week's Economist contain an obituary for Aaron Schwartz, an enormously talented programmer and attractive human being; and the charges, "hugely disproportionate to what he had done", brought by federal prosecutors here in Massachusetts certainly contributed to the tragedy of his suicide. In sum, this is a knotty set of issues for which there is no simplistic resolution available. Revulsion from some of these exploits is inevitable and appropriate, but moralism will not take us far in dealing with them John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
