CS 10: Too Stupid For Their Own Good?

Too Stupid For Their Own Good?

Letter from Cybersalem #10

The Oregonian article announcing Randal Schwartz's conviction opened with these words:

"Randal L. Schwartz has always known he was smart. What he had trouble grasping is that a person can be too smart for his own good." [1]

Those of us in lines of business which depend on intellectual capital forget that large segments of society hate smart people for no better reason than that they are smart. It is useful to be reminded that misology is far from rare. As Bertrand Russell's oft-quoted remark puts it,

"most people would die sooner than think -- in fact, they do so." [2]

The Oregonian sounds like it was crowing over a triumph for itself. It had every right to do so, as it can claim much of the "credit" for Randal's plight. It was quite an accomplishment. Randal was charged with disobeying Intel's work rules, which most Americans will not approve of. But when disobeying the boss is a crime, "America" will be simply a real estate term to its residents. And even if Americans are willing to debase themselves to consider the charges against Randal crimes, the evidence was not there. So there is lots of "credit" to go around.

The Oregonian pursued Randal's conviction fiercely on four fronts. First, it presented personal abuse as news. Randal was a "cocky computer geek" [3] and a "social misfit" [4], with a "perhaps justifiable ego" [5]. This personal vilification was not in quote marks, not attributed to a source, not in an editorial, not in a opinion piece, not prefixed with "allegedly". It was presented as objective fact in news articles.

Randal's lawyer dealt with this abuse by warning the jury,

"You will hear he's very bright, inquisitive, creative, and with exceptional talent in this particular area. Somebody, as I expect you will hear, who is irritating and arrogant ..." [6]

The Oregonian turned these remarks on their head, telling its readers that Randal's personality is so awful his own attorney could not keep from criticizing it:

"Even his defense lawyer, Marc A. Sussman, asked jurors not to judge Schwartz's sometimes 'irritating or arrogant' personality." [7]

If you suspect that The Oregonian resented the braininess not only of Randal, but of his whole profession, you have guessed right. The Oregonian made clear its target was not just Randal but the whole "computer programming subculture". [8]

"To security-minded business people, no such thing as a harmless hacker exists." [9]

"... many computer professionals are sympathetic to Schwartz." [10]

"While fellow hackers may sympathize with Schwartz, to others, that kind of 'testing' is clearly criminal. The law says so." [11]

The second Oregonian line of attack was an appeal to local pride and economic interests. Their readers were told that, while this was a crime "even a jury in California's Silicon Valley would need help understanding" [12], "detectives predict computer crime is going to become a growth industry in Washington County" [13]. As if anyone could have missed the implication that Randal had to be convicted for the sake of the Portland area's economic future, an Intel lawyer spelled it out on the day of the verdict.

"I think it was good for all the high-tech companies moving into this area that the county is willing to pursue these types of crimes" [14].

It had been a test, with the right answer "guilty" and The Oregonian helpfully providing it in advance, and not just by implication.

In the third line of attack, The Oregonian made two explicit pre-verdict announcements of Randal's guilt. I have already quoted part of the first:

"Sussman has submitted pretrial motions that show he will try to paint his client as a good hacker who did not intend harm and who was doing something that many people who have his kind of job do to test security in computer systems."

"While fellow hackers may sympathize with Schwartz, to others, that kind of 'testing' is clearly criminal."

"The law says so." [15]

Lest such "legal analysis" was too subtle, The Oregonian was even more explicit a few days later. An article explained the implication of Randal's misdeeds for the local hi-tech industry, especially the need for heightened vigilance against crimes committed by employees and contractors. It was headlined

"Computer Crime has Arrived" [16]

The fourth Oregonian line of attack was the invention of falsehoods as needed to plug holes in the prosecution's case [17]. Since all Randal's actions would have been legal if authorized by management, one expects that managers testified they told him not to do at least some of the things he was charged with doing. And so the Oregonian reports:

"Schwartz's co-workers and managers from Intel testified that they had, on several occasions, reprimanded Schwartz for flouting policy over the years with unauthorized activities on the computers." [18]

It does not name any of the managers, however, and for a very good reason -- they don't exist. No Intel manager reported reprimanding Randal for any unauthorized activity, and unless Intel is organized very differently from the average company co-workers do not issue reprimands. [19]

Randal's mistreatment so far has drawn more attention worldwide than within Oregon, but something has clearly made many an Oregonian upset with his eponymous newspaper, because The Oregonian has embarked on a vigorous breast-beating. A "Public Editor" has been appointed to "focus on the newspaper's worst mistakes and the public's harshest reactions", and she reports

"Reader opinions about The Oregonian's credibility tend to be mixed. The complaints I get often are serious, well-founded and helpful. As often as not, the comments reflect reader disappointment that their paper somehow has let them down." [20]

The Public Editor for The Oregonian goes on to detail the plans for dealing with the "credibility gap", starting with a series of meetings which will include its powerful chief editor Sandy Rowe. [21]

Meanwhile, The Oregonian has been ignoring my small efforts to learn what happened in Oregon v. Schwartz. Considerably more astonishingly, they also pretend to ignore a New York Times piece revealing the case to be very different from the one they reported [22]. I say "pretend to ignore" since I know through sources that The Oregonian has been gathering new material on Randal and his case. I do not feel very bold in assuming The Oregonian is saving this material to use for a prompt about-face into the lead of the parade when it is started by more courageous journalists.

But as long as The Oregonian leaves material like its Oregon v. Schwartz coverage on the record, all that can be said for staff meetings on Oregonian journalistic standards is that they will occupy time which might otherwise be devoted to writing more such material. [23]

Oregon's discontent with The Oregonian, which long had a reputation for printing only what the powerful want Oregon to hear, may have reached the crisis point with Senator Packwood's unwanted advances against and assaults on women, many or most happening in Oregon or to Oregon residents. These The Oregonian ignored until the Washington Post broke the story -- despite Packwood making an advance on one of The Oregonian's own reporters [24]. The then editor lost his job in the wake of this, but left Sandy Rowe a long and deeply embedded tradition of acting stupid when confronting facts which displease the powerful. What The Oregonian may be having trouble grasping is they can be too stupid for their own good.

Note 1: Oregonian, 7/26/95, page D1. All references are to The Oregonian unless otherwise indicated.

Note 2: The ABC of Relativity, the Chapter entitled "Is the Universe Finite?". Its source is as tracked down by Kenneth Blackwell of The Bertrand Russell Archives.

Note 3: 7/12/95, p. D1.

Note 4: 7/26/95, p. D1.

Note 5: 7/12/95, p. D2.

Note 6: Tr. 7-12-95, p. 56, lines 20-23.

Note 7: 7/26/95, D1.

Note 8: 7/26/95, p. D1.

Note 9: 7/12/95, p. D1.

Note 10: 7/12/95, p. D2.

Note 11: 7/12/95, p. D2.

Note 12: 7/12/95, D2.

Note 13: 7/21/95, B7.

Note 14: John H. Woodard, quoted in 7/26/95, D5.

Note 15: 7/12/95, D2.

Note 16: 7/21/95, B1.

Note 17: This letter will not attempt a full catalog of these.

Note 18: 7/22/95, B5.

Note 19: Some co-workers did indeed testify to raising issues with Randal about the charged behavior. Of interest in interpreting these and the level of concern behind them is that no manager was informed, and no contemporary written record was generated -- all the evidence of this is from recollections recorded after Intel decided to proceed against Randal legally.

Note 20: "Trying to bridge the credibility gap", Michele McLellan, 7/20/97, page E1.

Note 21: "Sandra Mims Rowe is one of the most powerful unelected persons in Oregon", says Steve Forrester, publisher of The Daily Astorian in Oregon, in a column in that paper. Quoted from "Journalists on Journalism", Counter Point, October 1996.

Note 22: Peter Lewis's "Technology" column, The New York Times, November 27, 1995, page D5.

Note 23: For the record, I am asking that The Oregonian retract the following articles: 7/12/95, D1, "Trial over Intel intruder takes aim at high-tech's intricacies", Fiona M. Ortiz; 7/16/95, Business section, "Intel workers testify against consultant", Fiona M. Ortiz; 7/20/95(?), "State rests in computer consultant's trial", Fiona M. Ortiz; 7/21/95, B1, "Computer Crime has arrived", Cristine Gonzalez; 7/22/95, B1, "Intel consultant on defense", Holly Danks; 7/26/95, D1, "Computer expert convicted in hacking", Fiona M. Ortiz; 9/20/95, D5, "Intel case brings probation", Fiona M. Ortiz; and 12/28/95, the Washington County "Neighbors" section, page 6, "Highlights and Lowlights: Worst Defense". For the last, anonymous, piece, while I could understand the writer's reluctance to give his name, the public has a right to know who is responsible.

Note 24: Bridgett Taylor, "Journalism, Cronyism, and Bob Packwood: What Took So Long, Anyway?". This article refers to the Washington Journalism Review as its source for this.

Index