Re: Perl Co-inventor Convicted

In article <DD5EMz.vE@erie.ge.com>, Andrew R. Tefft <teffta@erie.ge.com> wrote:
>It's not really a bad precedent to be setting -- it just involves
>someone who was not malicious.

I don't know about that. If I stood to profit from Intel's demise, I'd agree
with you it's not a bad precedent to be setting. But I don't, really. And
if you don't actively want them to fail, then you've gotta call this a bad
precedent --- acting in a professionally responsible fashion to try to help
keep internal security at the highest reasonable level has been rewarded with
a felony conviction. That's certainly a guaranteed way to ensure that internal
security will continue to suck. What you want to bet that vice-president's
password is still "pre$ident"?

This precedent is a statement that trying to be responsible about security
administration will get you screwed for life. That's a good precedent
for Intel's competitors to see them setting, but it's awfully bad for
Intel. Due to the nature of the blindly stupid law being used, it's also a
strong precedent suggesting that you shouldn't work in Oregon if you are a
professional, responsible systems administrator.


Follow-Ups: References: