From the original, Ken on the press lionizing hackers:
"I have watched kids testifying before Congress. It is clear that they are completely unaware of the seriousness of their acts. There is obviously a cultural gap. The act of breaking into a computer system has to have the same social stigma as breaking into a neighbor's house. It should not matter that the neighbor's door is unlocked. The press must learn that misguided use of a computer is no more amazing than drunk driving of an automobile."
Nowadays, I here more about the opposite problem -- using overly broad, non-technical legalese to convict kids of "hacks" that aren't really hacks. I wonder what Ken would think of Snowden, Barrett Brown, weev et al?
Question: if we investigated these people, and found out that they had some 'bad' ritual practice like female circumcision or human sacrifice -- would we have a moral obligation to intervene and stop them? Or would we have a moral obligation to leave them the fuck alone?
"I have watched kids testifying before Congress. It is clear that they are completely unaware of the seriousness of their acts. There is obviously a cultural gap. The act of breaking into a computer system has to have the same social stigma as breaking into a neighbor's house. It should not matter that the neighbor's door is unlocked. The press must learn that misguided use of a computer is no more amazing than drunk driving of an automobile."
Nowadays, I here more about the opposite problem -- using overly broad, non-technical legalese to convict kids of "hacks" that aren't really hacks. I wonder what Ken would think of Snowden, Barrett Brown, weev et al?