kleef@ark.UUCP (09/06/87)
I must admit I find it really amazing to read the reactions to my original 'PhonePhreak' posting. And most of all the reactions of the Moral Knights in their shining Armour. The fact alone that an article like the one I posted could lead to a discussion on what should be allowed and what should be banned... incredible. The judicial powers here in Holland can in noway prevent an article from being published, unless 'Government Secrets' are involved. And even then, it takes a lot of effort to prevent a story from going public. This does not, ofcourse, free publishers from their duties towards 'Society'. If an article is wrong, highly offensive or could lead directly to illegal actions (hey, like phonephreaking), the publisher should answer for himself in a court of law. But only _after_ publication. And that's the way it should be in my eyes. Please, no censorship on articles by a Moral Majority (one that seems to be present [in a minority form?] here on Usenet too). No burning of books, banning of articles. Let's use this medium the way a modern communication medium can be used: to exchange thoughts freely. Paul Molenaar BTW: This whole thing reminds me of a discussion I heard on the radio when I was in Atlanta. The subject was the ban of George Michael's "I want your sex" on that particular radiostation. The DJ, who clearly was against such a ban, talked to some listeners. There was this one guy, Bob, who said he fought in WW II "so we in the US could have freedom of speech, of thought, of print." He continued: "Who are those to say we shouldn't listen to that song? That's not what we've been fighing for!" And the DJ answered: "Oh boy, I can only say one thing, Bob: I want _your_ sex!"
rupp@cod.UUCP (William L. Rupp) (09/08/87)
------ Here goes, for the (I really and truly do hope) last time....... My objection to the phone phreaking article was that the author seemed to me to have no moral stand on the practice of phreaking. That bothered me for several reasons, reasons which I believe I listed in an earlier followup. I was merely attempting to point out that I, at least, felt that some mention of the author's omission should be added to the discussion. That's it. No more, no less. I do not feel that the subject should not be discussed. I do not even feel that an article that is offensive (to some readers) should be banned. Who would do the banning, for gosh sakes?! I don't understand why the Moral Majority and censorship should be brought into this. You have the right to say you like apples, and I have the right to say that apples are terrible. Freedom of speech does not mean that no one may dissent from the speaker's views. Therefore, my objection was just as legitimate as the original poster's article. ====================================================================== I speak for myself, and not on behalf of any other person or organization .........................How's that, Gary? ======================================================================
kleef@cs.vu.nl (Patrick van Kleef) (09/09/87)
> author should make a moral statement... [paraphrased]
This is turning things upside down. Think of how readable newspaper
articles would be: "John Doe, 24, set his house on fire, killing
all residents. The New York Times editorial staff strongly objects
to people setting houses on fire. It is dangerous and against the law."
Feel better when reading such articles?roger@celtics.UUCP (Roger B.A. Klorese) (09/10/87)
In article <1111@ark.cs.vu.nl> kleef@cs.vu.nl (Patrick van Kleef) writes: >If an article is wrong, highly offensive or could lead >directly to illegal actions (hey, like phonephreaking), the publisher >should answer for himself in a court of law. But only _after_ publication. No, the publisher should answer to conscience _before_ publication, and not publish. Freedom of the press does not imply that each publisher must be forced to publish anything by anybody. Prior restraint by a court or government is inappropriate; self-censorship by the individual is necessary. -- ///==\\ (No disclaimer - nobody's listening anyway.) /// Roger B.A. Klorese, CELERITY (Northeast Area) \\\ 40 Speen St., Framingham, MA 01701 +1 617 872-1552 \\\==// celtics!roger@seismo.CSS.GOV - seismo!celti6'vax.vax
kathy@wrcola.UUCP (K.M.Vincent) (09/11/87)
In article <1114@ark.cs.vu.nl> kleef@cs.vu.nl (Patrick van Kleef) writes: >> author should make a moral statement... [paraphrased] > >This is turning things upside down. Think of how readable newspaper >articles would be: "John Doe, 24, set his house on fire, killing >all residents. The New York Times editorial staff strongly objects >to people setting houses on fire. It is dangerous and against the law." > >Feel better when reading such articles? On the other hand: "John Doe, 24, set his house on fire, killing all residents. Though people in Doe's neighborhood are now on guard against people who want to set fires there, other neighborhoods are wide open for the taking by pyromaniacs. All a dedicated pyromaniac has to do is buy a can of gasoline from the local gas station (about $5 at the going rate), pour the gasoline around a inviting structure, light a match, and run. And they unlikely to be apprehended because etc etc etc." Would you feel great reading *that* kind of article? I believe that's was the point of the original objector to the original posting. The original posting read - to me, anyway - almost like an *invitation* to phreakers everywhere. As such, it was no less biased than either of the pseudo-NYT-articles above, and it was not the pure "objective" journalism the poster says it was intended to be. Whether journalism is ever truly objective or not is subject to debate elsewhere. I don't know the original intent of the poster beyond what he tells us. I just know how I read it. I also know well enough that I can mean one thing when I write something -and yet it can sound entirely different to someone who reads it. Sometimes that's the reader's fault: S/he isn't reading carefully enough. Sometimes that's my fault: Without realizing it, I may not have said what I really meant to say. Kathy Vincent -----> AT&T: {ihnp4|mtune|burl}!wrcola!kathy -----> Home: {ihnp4|mtune|ptsfa|codas}!bakerst!kathy
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (09/14/87)
I'm sorry, but I can't quite see the point of view that says the phone- phreaking article "gave instructions". It had _two_ pieces of info of possible use to a phreaker. 1. The fact that certain computer generatable tones can be used to fool some phone systems. 2. It named two phone systems subject to such spoofing. It didn't say _which_ tones, even though I was under the impression that they were common knowledge. Nor did it say how they could be used. Just that they could. This is encouraging people? Gimme a break. _Any_ book on the inner workings of "the" phone system will give more info than this! And in the U.S., such books are available for around $5 at Radio Shack. (now I suppose they'll flame _me_ for mentioning the book!) -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'. You know... I'd rather be a hacker."