Re: Intel v. Randal Schwartz: Why care?
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
email@example.com (Jeffrey Kegler) wrote:
>In article <adtDKoruL.3Mp@netcom.com>, Anthony D. Tribelli wrote:
>>Could you clarify this, where do you draw the line on unacceptable
>There have to be several lines. Unacceptable to Intel should not
>necessarily always mean unacceptable to society. In allowing Intel to
>define acceptable behavior in its workplace I go as far as anyone can
>go. It's easy since I am not likely to ever work there :-). Punishment
>as felons, however, must be reserved for those who engage in behavior
>extremely dangerous to society.
>We have come very far from being a free society when we allow any
>infraction whatsoever of Intel's work rules to make one a felon. It
>sounds at times like people are defending such a state of affairs and I
>cannot believe what I hear (read?).
I have a hard time with this arguement. Ok I make it a rule that you can't
steal from my bussiness, if I catch you stealing from my bussiness then I
should only be able to fire you ???
I don't think so. There is a clear law that says stealing of computing
resources is a crime also. Randall to the best of my knowledge was attempting
to steal computer resources ( passwords ) and he didn't have the authorization
to do this ( there is an arguement that says that sysadmins need to do this as
a part of a security audit ). He was told not to do this then he was caught
doing it, how is Intel supposed to determine that his motives were pure or
not, heck the best crimes are committed right out in the open