[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-elitists
Subject:    [linux-elitists] Re: Strategy
From:       Ben Finney <bignose () zip ! com ! au>
Date:       2003-01-23 0:02:56
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Karsten M. Self said:
> > Point 1. is that cracking is almost always negligence on the part of
> > the cracked site (and coverup).


On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Karsten M. Self said:
> on Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:52:15AM -0500, Shawn McMahon (smcmahon@eiv.com) wrote:
> > We don't accept this defense for any crime; why should we accept it
> > for vandalism just because it's committed with and on a computer
> > instead of a brick wall?
> 
> Shawn:  stop being reasonable.
> The problem isn't the sensible cases.  It's the Jackson Games ones.

In that case, your "Point 1" above is far too broad.  You either believe
that "cracking is almost always negligence on the part of the cracked
site", or you believe that "the problem isn't the sensible cases".  Most
cases of cracking are vandalism, pure and simple (and "sensible" in the
sense of your later qualification above).

Identify the problem correctly so that it can be addressed, or you have
no chance convincing reasonable people.  Rail against injustice, but
don't make false sweeping generalisations.

-- 
 \       "If you define cowardice as running away at the first sign of |
  `\   danger, screaming and tripping and begging for mercy, then yes, |
_o__)            Mr. Brave man, I guess I'm a coward."  -- Jack Handey |
bignose@zip.com.au  F'print 9CFE12B0 791A4267 887F520C B7AC2E51 BD41714B
_______________________________________________
linux-elitists 
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]