learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) (06/18/91)
In article <24492@athena.cs.uga.edu> Michael A. Covington writes: >Concerning the choice of punishment and the ultimate fate of this student, >here are some details. >The University had two concerns: > (1) To get this student to grow up and understand his ethical obligations; > (2) To deter others from attempting computer break-ins. With all due respect, I agree with precept #1, and disagree totally with precept #2. You here admit that your concern for punishment includes what someone else might do. With this mindset, it is impossible for you to do justice to precept #1, and you end up imposing a much harsher punishment than the misbehavior deserves. I remember my high school days. Student teacher days, in fact. We were in class, and some one of the students made a loud noise, slamming a desktop while we were all busy with our heads down minding our own business. Teacher demanded to know who made the noise, and with no volunteers, and no tattlers (because we were too busy to notice) the entire class was punished for the misbehavior of one. What happens when punishment incorporates a deterrent value is really not different. One is being punished for the misbehaviors of others, although those other misbehaviors haven't even happened yet. >On point (1), we chose to use the Student Judiciary rather than bring >criminal charges, precisely so this fellow would not have a criminal record >and so his name would be kept confidential. >We felt that he was not a hardened criminal, but rather a basically immature >person who failed to understand his responsibilities and was too easily >influenced by others. Student judiciaries are almost always rubber stamps for administration wishes. And they are used, as it is being used in this instance, to deflect blame from the administration. >The only penalties the Student Judiciary can impose are expulsion, suspension, >or community service. These powers are established by the administration. What else is new ? >As witness for the prosecution, I asked for a light sentence because I thought >it would best serve both (1) and (2). Many crackers believe they will never >suffer _any_ punishment for computer break-ins, so even a relatively light >punishment will have a substantial deterrent effect. Aha, you finally agree that the student is being punished. Not at all a "learning experience" with positive overtones. >My own feeling is that 2 quarters' suspension is exactly right. It's >desirable to get this person away from the University's computers for a >while, and away from the small circle of crackers that he was apparently >associating with. I don't think this will make him a college dropout. YOU don't think? Who the hell appointed you to make this decision ? You have single handedly taken this student's entire academic, and perhaps professional life, and made this decision in the matter of minutes. Did you call the parents ? Did you review his records, all of them, even back to High School. Did you discuss this with other facalty members ? You know, Spafford discusses responsibility as part of the realm, a level of responsibility which I see as becoming more and more a unidirectional demand than a universal reality. I accuse you of seeing very little past the precious computer system which you see "attacked." I accuse you of putting your precious computer above the human understanding and compassion. I accuse you of not noticing this student, and perhaps others like him, who within your academic environment of learning has without a doubt given more than one indication of needing a little help to mature. And when you finally do notice him it is because your little world has been "invaded" by some nasty outsiders. And you respond with the heavy hand of self-righteousness. I accuse you, and the Georgia Tech administration of failing at the most elementary levels to be educators in the true sense. >We especially ruled out computer-related community service (e.g., making him >work, unpaid, at a help desk) because of the widespread myth that if you get >caught cracking passwords, some employers will view this as proof that you >are a computer genius. We wanted to make it clear that unethical behavior is >never a qualification for a technical job, paid or unpaid. Once more you are more concerned about what others might think. What business is it of yours to be concerned with anything other than doing those things necessary to do justice to this student. >I would like to hear from others who have more specific ideas of how >crackers should be punished. During this particular case I found that >almost everybody wanted to be harsher than I did. Widespread sentiment >was that he should have been expelled. Those who believed he should be expelled are doubtless undereducated in human respect and understanding. Those who would punish to the detrement of a student instead of making the outcome a positive learning experience lack the imaginaton necessary to be a good educator. And to take this one step further, why is it that you are here NOW, when the decisions have been made, asking such questions? They should have been asked, since you NOW realize there's some question regarding the wisdom of the episode and administrative handling of it, before decisions were reached. The fact that you and the administration were hell bent to reach a solution, even a bad one, adds credence to my accusations. Further, this bit is a clear indication to me that you personally are just now coming off the high brought on by the discovery of the "attack" on your baby. And we all know what riding on such a high does to wisdom and good judgement. I suggest you get in touch with Mike Meyers, the former owner and system administrator of M-net, a public access system in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Mike's solution to bad behavior was to give the individual some responsibility on the system, and some support. His 100% positive results would doubtless amaze you. If you're really interested, I'll e-mail you his phone number. Bill Vajk
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun18.023039.10671@ddsw1.MCS.COM> learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) writes: >In article <24492@athena.cs.uga.edu> Michael A. Covington writes: > >>The University had two concerns: >> (1) To get this student to grow up and understand his ethical obligations; >> (2) To deter others from attempting computer break-ins. > >With all due respect, I agree with precept #1, and disagree totally with >precept #2. > There's a third concern, retribution. (See C. S. Lewis, "The Retributive Theory of Punishment," or any ethics textbook.) Each of the three concerns puts limits on the severity of the punishment. To this extent I agree with you, and disagree with the views you are so glibly attributing to me. We are _not_ punishing this student for the (past or future) "misbehavior of others." He himself knew he was aiding a series of break-ins in progress. That is, he willingly endangered a computer that hundreds of people were relying on. >Student judiciaries are almost always rubber stamps for administration >wishes. And they are used, as it is being used in this instance, to >deflect blame from the administration. Exactly what should the administration be blamed for? >>My own feeling is that 2 quarters' suspension is exactly right. It's >>desirable to get this person away from the University's computers for a >>while, and away from the small circle of crackers that he was apparently >>associating with. I don't think this will make him a college dropout. > >YOU don't think? Who the hell appointed you to make this decision ? I did not "make this decision". I posted my opinion because someone here on the net asked for it! > You >have single handedly taken this student's entire academic, and perhaps >professional life, and made this decision in the matter of minutes. Did >you call the parents ? Did you review his records, all of them, even >back to High School. Did you discuss this with other facalty members ? Dear sir, I did not do anything "single handedly"! I was not even the one who brought the charge. (The Athena sysadmins did that.) I am one of several who were asked what we thought would be an appropriate punishment. Counselors in the Office of Judicial Programs did all the kinds of reviewing you ask for, and took about a week to make their decision, which is now undergoing further review as the student is exercising his rights to an appeal. >I accuse you of seeing very little past the precious computer system which >you see "attacked." I accuse you of putting your precious computer above the >human understanding and compassion. I accuse you of not noticing this student, >and perhaps others like him, who within your academic environment of learning >has without a doubt given more than one indication of needing a little help >to mature. That's a lot of accusing! We bent over backward to be compassionate. As for noticing the student, he's not a student in my program and I had never set eyes on him before. I have no idea what his teachers thought of him. The Office of Judicial Programs presumably contacted people who knew more about him. >heavy hand of self-righteousness. I accuse you, and the Georgia Tech >administration What does the administration of a different university, 80 miles away, have to do with this? >>We especially ruled out computer-related community service (e.g., making him >>work, unpaid, at a help desk) because of the widespread myth that if you get >>caught cracking passwords, some employers will view this as proof that you >>are a computer genius. We wanted to make it clear that unethical behavior is >>never a qualification for a technical job, paid or unpaid. > >Once more you are more concerned about what others might think. What >business is it of yours to be concerned with anything other than doing >those things necessary to do justice to this student. We are responsible for educating _all_ our students, not just this one. If we establish a policy that "the way to get a helpdesk job is to get caught hacking" we'll have a whole generation of hackers. > >Those who would punish to the detrement of a student instead of making >the outcome a positive learning experience Are you sure it _won't_ be a positive learning experience? Several years ago I caught a student cheating on a test and referred the matter to our Office of Judicial Programs. She got a quarter's suspension. Later she _thanked_ me for it, saying that it was one of the most valuable parts of her education -- simply learning that it _matters_ whether or not one is honest. >lack the imaginaton necessary >to be a good educator. And to take this one step further, why is it that >you are here NOW, when the decisions have been made, asking such questions? I am not the person who hands out discipline at our university. The counselors at the Office of Judicial Programs are professionals at this kind of thing and are always asking these questions. I had not come across comp.org.eff.talk at the time the case transpired. That's why I had not asked anything _here_. Believe me, everyone sought (and got) input! >The fact that you and the administration >were hell bent to reach a solution, even a bad one, adds credence to my >accusations. Fact? Evidence? >Further, this bit is a clear indication to me that you >personally are just now coming off the high brought on by the discovery >of the "attack" on your baby. And we all know what riding on such a high >does to wisdom and good judgement. Unfettered by any knowledge of the facts, you venture boldly into amateur psychoanalysis... >I suggest you get in touch with Mike Meyers, the former owner and system >administrator of M-net, a public access system in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Mike's >solution to bad behavior was to give the individual some responsibility >on the system, and some support. His 100% positive results would doubtless >amaze you. If you're really interested, I'll e-mail you his phone number. I understand that "hackers" are usually hungry for the role of a sysadmin, and that one way to rehabilitate such people is to give them some responsibility. This was considered and ruled out in this case for various good reasons not all of which I can reveal here. I think _your_ problem is that you do not think computer break-ins are crimes at all. What do you think we should do if we caught a student breaking and entering the University Bookstore? (This has actually happened.) Give him a job in the bookstore? -- ------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 U.S.A. -------------------------------------------------------
wreck@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.023039.10671@ddsw1.MCS.COM> learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) writes:
~I suggest you get in touch with Mike Meyers, the former owner and system
~administrator of M-net, a public access system in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Mike's
~solution to bad behavior was to give the individual some responsibility
~on the system, and some support. His 100% positive results would doubtless
~amaze you.
I heard that Myers sold the system due to getting fed up with
problem individuals. It appears there is a price to be paid,
in patience and aspirin, for this approach.marcelo@deadzone.uucp (Marcelo Gallardo) (06/19/91)
learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) writes: >You here admit that your concern for punishment includes what someone else >might do. With this mindset, it is impossible for you to do justice to >precept #1, and you end up imposing a much harsher punishment than the >misbehavior deserves. >I remember my high school days. Student teacher days, in fact. We were in >class, and some one of the students made a loud noise, slamming a desktop >while we were all busy with our heads down minding our own business. Teacher >demanded to know who made the noise, and with no volunteers, and no tattlers >(because we were too busy to notice) the entire class was punished for the >misbehavior of one. >Student judiciaries are almost always rubber stamps for administration >wishes. And they are used, as it is being used in this instance, to >deflect blame from the administration. Then again, some might be used so that you can be judged by your peers. >These powers are established by the administration. What else is new ? No, sometimes these powers are established by the student body voting. >Aha, you finally agree that the student is being punished. Not at all >a "learning experience" with positive overtones. Did you ever do something wrong when you were a kid? My guess is yes (everybody has). Did your parents punish you, regardless of whether it was aginst the "law"? When you do something "wrong" there should be some sort of punishment. >>My own feeling is that 2 quarters' suspension is exactly right. It's >>desirable to get this person away from the University's computers for a >>while, and away from the small circle of crackers that he was apparently >>associating with. I don't think this will make him a college dropout. >YOU don't think? Who the hell appointed you to make this decision ? You >have single handedly taken this student's entire academic, and perhaps >professional life, and made this decision in the matter of minutes. Did >you call the parents ? Did you review his records, all of them, even >back to High School. Did you discuss this with other facalty members ? >You know, Spafford discusses responsibility as part of the realm, a level >of responsibility which I see as becoming more and more a unidirectional >demand than a universal reality. I don't understand what you are saying. If he is a dedicated student, he'll return to college and finish his education. Along with a diploma, he will also have learned (or hopefully have learned) a little bit about life as well. On a side note, who the hell appointed you? Oh and to answer your question, the University appointed him ;-). >I accuse you of seeing very little past the precious computer system which >you see "attacked." You don't seem to understand that this "precious computer system" isn't the students to do with as he wishes. The student was GIVEN access to it so he could use it as an aide to his college education. Not so he could give the SysAdmin something to do, or something else to worry about. >I accuse you of putting your precious computer above the >human understanding and compassion. I accuse you of not noticing this student, >and perhaps others like him, who within your academic environment of learning >has without a doubt given more than one indication of needing a little help >to mature. And when you finally do notice him it is because your little >world has been "invaded" by some nasty outsiders. And you respond with the >heavy hand of self-righteousness. I accuse you, and the Georgia Tech >administration of failing at the most elementary levels to be educators in >the true sense. The student has been noticed, and dealt with. There are plenty of places for a college student to go if he needs help adjusting to college life, and "maturing". Giving away a password file to a system, which also has the passwords of his friends and classmates, so that it can be broken into is not the proper way of getting noticed. >Once more you are more concerned about what others might think. What >business is it of yours to be concerned with anything other than doing >those things necessary to do justice to this student. Once more you neglect the fact that this student hasn't done the things necessary to show that he belongs in a university environment, much less the Internet. >Those who believed he should be expelled are doubtless undereducated >in human respect and understanding. Maybe so, but we're dealing with computers, respect and understanding for them are important as well. >Those who would punish to the detrement of a student instead of making >the outcome a positive learning experience lack the imaginaton necessary >to be a good educator. And to take this one step further, why is it that >you are here NOW, when the decisions have been made, asking such questions? >They should have been asked, since you NOW realize there's some question >regarding the wisdom of the episode and administrative handling of it, >before decisions were reached. The fact that you and the administration >were hell bent to reach a solution, even a bad one, adds credence to my >accusations. Further, this bit is a clear indication to me that you >personally are just now coming off the high brought on by the discovery >of the "attack" on your baby. And we all know what riding on such a high >does to wisdom and good judgement. For someone with so much hype about human compasion and consideration, I would have thought that you would give the System Administrator a little of the respect that you speak of. I suppose that you never considered that the SysAdmin is also a human. >I suggest you get in touch with Mike Meyers, the former owner and system >administrator of M-net, a public access system in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Mike's >solution to bad behavior was to give the individual some responsibility >on the system, and some support. His 100% positive results would doubtless >amaze you. If you're really interested, I'll e-mail you his phone number. OK, we'll see in 2 semesters what the result of this SysAdmin's decision (why do we keep discussing him, it was the STUDENTS that passed "sentence"). -- Marcelo Gallardo marcelo%deadzone@princeton.edu Test and Evaluation Specialist ...!princeton!deadzone!marcelo Princeton University marcelo@sparcwood.princeton.edu Advanced Technologies and Applications (609) 258-5661
learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) (06/22/91)
In article <43934@fmsrl7.UUCP> wreck@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter) writes: >In article <1991Jun18.023039.10671@ddsw1.MCS.COM> William Vajk writes: >~I suggest you get in touch with Mike Meyers, the former owner and system >~administrator of M-net, a public access system in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Mike's >~solution to bad behavior was to give the individual some responsibility >~on the system, and some support. His 100% positive results would doubtless >~amaze you. >I heard that Myers sold the system due to getting fed up with problem >individuals. It appears there is a price to be paid, in patience and >aspirin, for this approach. You "heard" ? Did you bother to find out ? I was in communication with Mike at the time he owned the system, and during the prolonged approximately two year period he was seriously considering divesting himself of m-net, and have had a few phone conversations since. The man has visited my home. If you knew anything at all about Mike Meyers you'd realize just how funny your comment is. Mike didn't permit "problem individuals" to run him off his own system and make him give it up. I assure you that the beginnings of the wind down for Mike were in concerns over liability and the tremendous amount of accounting involved. Mike lives in a small, one bedroom apartment in Ann Arbor. The computers and modems shared his bedroom. He willingly answered the voice line at all hours of the night for years to help individuals with the system. I believe the myth you're broadcasting to the net does Mike a grave disservice. Though if I sent this little thread to Mike I suspect he'd simply shrug it off as he did so many other inconsequential comments. You might also note that Mike received an amount several times the value of the equipment at the time he sold m-net. Hardly the sign of "problems." But even if we assume you are correct and eventually Mike got fed up, that particular could never negate the success he experienced. He has provided an excellent role model. For this quality, if nothing else, I admire the man. Bill Vajk
learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) (06/27/91)
Michael Covington Writes: >William Vajk writes: > I was not even the one who brought the charge. (The Athena sysadmins > did that.) I am one of several who were asked what we thought would > be an appropriate punishment. > Counselors in the Office of Judicial Programs did all the kinds of > reviewing you ask for, and took about a week to make their decision, > which is now undergoing further review as the student is exercising > his rights to an appeal. You know, this keeps going in circles which seem to be getting more stupid. You wrote that you were a witness for the prosecution. But now you're only 'one of several who were asked what would be an appropriate punishment.' Then you turn right back around and disclaim any knowledge regarding the student, his life, his needs, ad nausium, but maintain that you feel a suspension for two quarters seemed just right to you. Perhaps you can tell me just how you arrived at such a recommendation when you weren't, by your more recent admission, privy to enough "facts" to justify your position. > That's a lot of accusing! We bent over backward to be compassionate. > As for noticing the student, he's not a student in my program and I had > never set eyes on him before. I have no idea what his teachers thought > of him. The Office of Judicial Programs presumably contacted people who > knew more about him. One would think, assuming fairness was important, that this information became known to all concerned during the proceedings. Here you are stating "presumably" someone looked into the student's background, but you really don't know, you really don't know anything about him, but you were qualified, in the opinion of the prosecution, to be a wittness against this student. Having butted heads with university administrations (not Ga) on several occasions, I'm somehow not at all surprised. >> I accuse you, and the Georgia Tech administration > What does the administration of a different university, 80 miles away, > have to do with this? Beats me. Should have been University of Georgia. I regret the error of place & name and apologize. >We especially ruled out computer-related community service (e.g., making him >work, unpaid, at a help desk) because of the widespread myth that if you get >caught cracking passwords, some employers will view this as proof that you >are a computer genius. We wanted to make it clear that unethical behavior is >never a qualification for a technical job, paid or unpaid. The implication is that the students are 'foaming at the mouth' for technical jobs, and the university is unable to provide them. This begs the simple question, Why ??? Isn't something pretty basic is lacking here. Why do you preclude some options which might well be far better than what you're presently doing? Rhetorical question, I'm afraid. You tell me it is because you're afraid that it might appear you're rewarding unethical behavior. Is the function of the hearing to resolve a problem, or to relieve the frustrations of some system administrators by beating up on a misguided student?? If you achieve the goals required by justice, why concern yourself with appearance. Is there something more important than being just ? >>Once more you are more concerned about what others might think. What >>business is it of yours to be concerned with anything other than doing >>those things necessary to do justice to this student. > We are responsible for educating _all_ our students, not just this one. > If we establish a policy that "the way to get a helpdesk job is to get > caught hacking" we'll have a whole generation of hackers. I understand and sympathize with the dilemma presented. But still, even here, your response repeats the same concerns regarding other events and other persons than the case at hand. I continue to question "why you would be concerned with anything other than doing those things necessary to do justice to this student." So I've asked the same question once more. That you're responsible for educating all the students is without question. How have you educated the rest of the students with the action you've taken ? Haven't you been teaching them that the administration is a mindless embodiment of the old testament ethic, an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth? I ask you in perhaps a different way, since my other question seems to overwhelm. Given that you have a student in front of you who has presented you with a problem which the administration feels requires redress, what is your function? Here, I'll provide the answer. Your job is to address the issue(s) at hand and to do justice to all concerned, bearing in mind that the only unempowered one is the student who stands in front of you, and he has placed himself in your care as regards education and discipline. It is a disgrace that your response is to shut him out; to place him outside the very system which pruports to thrive on challenges instead of offering some form of positive response and method of resolving all the issues WITHIN the system. Thus you reaffirm my contention that the administration hasn't the imagination necessary to be true educators. It is just like the local schools who have "special education" students who aren't given the standardized examinations even where applicable, for fear that they'll pull down the school's apparent average scores. Copouts, my dear sir. 'We have no problems with students at Perfection U.' Of course not, you trounce any of them who come to your attention for any reason not to your liking. 'Final solutions' seem to have that in common. Bill Vajk
learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) (06/27/91)
>>Those who would punish to the detrement of a student instead of making >>the outcome a positive learning experience > Are you sure it _won't_ be a positive learning experience? > Several years ago I caught a student cheating on a test and > referred the matter to our Office of Judicial Programs. She got > a quarter's suspension. Later she _thanked_ me for it, saying that > it was one of the most valuable parts of her education -- simply > learning that it _matters_ whether or not one is honest. You have presented an incomplete story here, incomplete in a very important aspect. If the young woman came to you as a student, then she did learn something you seem to feel important. And that something important is 'how to pull Michael Covington's chain.' Seems to have worked that way, and to her advantage. If she came to you after graduation, then I would be much more apt to believe that she was sincere. While it is possible, I have some reservations that this is actually the case. If this is what you meant, you should have included it in the original presentation of the associated facts. As an "educator" you are aware that timing counts. Knowing the answers to the questions the day after the big test, while perhaps of personal worth, doesn't amount to much if you didn't know them in time for the test. The problem with this discussion, Michael, has been that you have made statements, folks have disliked the implications, and you have repeatedly come back with 'well look here, it wasn't really that way at all.' > I am not the person who hands out discipline at our university. Yep, you have already disclaimed any responsibility in the matter, in spite of the fact you were a witless for the prosecution. Strange how these things work. We heard many similar expressions of self-defense at Nuremburg. Many participated. No one was responsible. People simply "did their job." > Unfettered by any knowledge of the facts, you venture boldly into > amateur psychoanalysis... What is so very neat about this particular 'accusation' is that in order to bring it into play, you are forced to exercise 'amateur psychoanalysis' yourself. All is not lost. The only real difference between an amateur psychoanalyst and a 'professional' one is the license. Understanding that psychoanalysis is an art, not an exact science, is the first key to debunking mythologies relating to psychoanalysis. We're all amateurs. Some of us have license. Some of us are good at it, with or without license, others are poor performers, with or without license. I laugh at you, Michael Covington, and at your attempt to flame me in this way. If you wish to flame, you'd better learn how first. Subscribe to alt.flame for a while. Tell Rissa I sent you. Realize there's an art to flaming also. You might never learn to do well what you have set out to do. > I understand that "hackers" are usually hungry for the role of a > sysadmin, and that one way to rehabilitate such people is to give them > some responsibility. This was considered and ruled out in this case > for various good reasons not all of which I can reveal here. If you wish to discuss the 'hacker mentality' I will gladly continue. While every individual is completely different, the hackers I have studied have something in common which draws them together. They need recognition that is somehow lacking. They need an acceptance which has eluded them. I didn't bring up the discussion of gangs as a space filler in the recent CUD article published by Jim Thomas. Both sorts display some sociopathic behaviors. Both seem to need reassurance of worth. And that, my dear sir, is the essence of our dispute. For want of a nail....... Bill Vajk
learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) (06/27/91)
> I think _your_ problem is that you do not think computer break-ins are > crimes at all. I don't feel any need to defend myself against your opinion. But I do think this ties in quite nicely with a bit of your text I am relocating from a spot somewhat earlier in your latest discourse: > We are _not_ punishing this student for the (past or future) "misbehavior > of others." He himself knew he was aiding a series of break-ins in > progress. That is, he willingly endangered a computer that hundreds of > people were relying on. I believe the concepts of 'criminality of a breakin' and 'endangered a computer' need to be addressed in one fell swoop to make any sense of all this. There's an inflamatory aspect which is part and parcel of the term "endangered." When a human deing is endangered, (this is our built-in response to the term, after all) we are willing to take whatever extraordinary measures necessary to improve the situation. But a computer is only a piece of hardware with software and files, a peculiar storehouse of value in terms of intellectual property. And we are not, after all, speaking of endangering the hardware, with some madman standing over the computer with an axe, prepared to chop its guts out. What is at risk on a university computer is intellectual property. I cannot believe that athena contains significant proprietary information. If I am not mistaken, the perception is also that computers owned by universities aren't generally considered to have the privacy expectations of user owned equipment. What is the real risk ? That it is all erased. This, then, brings to the fore the maximum costs potentially associated with an unauthorized entry by an unknown individual with pure malice at heart. The maximum cost is a combination of three elements: 1) The manhours required to reload the system from scratch. 2) The loss of availability and productive time during the reload. 3) The loss of files which represents the difference between the last backup and the restoration of the system. I am a system administrator of a very small Unix system. At its peak, my little box served 175 active users. The December 1990 report issued by Brian Reed regarding "The influence of a site is a measure of how much news it carries for other places." places my little box at 864 out of the top 1000 rated. I haven't looked since. I probably don't even make the list any more. I mention this only to place my opinion in perspective. I've had to do the reloads I mention. They're not particularly fun. They're time consuming. But the cost isn't anywhere near the arm waving "endangered" genre we see used for illustration. Yes, people rely on the computer in question. They depend on the system administrators to function in ways that will maximize the recovery of data entrusted to the machine. One cannot blindly assume that the machine will perform flawlessly and the data will always be there, thus one makes backups as necessary. This is a necessity for all machines, hackers or no. What has truly been endangered ? A few manhours, and at worse one day of work for each user. This represents an unnecessary nusiance, not much more. But back to your interpretation that I don't believe break-ins are crimes. What I believe doesn't lend any value to the discussion at hand. My thoughts on this issue belong to me, and you can read my articles and draw your own conclusions. I have never advocated break-ins. The fact that I seem to see them differently from you, and some others on the net, doesn't imply that I approve, nor have I stated whether I think it a crime or not. All that matters is that at this time unauthorized access to computers is codified and is thus, by definition, a crime. What I think those laws should have to say on the subject is another issue perhaps worthy of a general discussion by people interested, perhaps a separate thread is in order for such discourse. Such discussions fall within the intent of the charter for this newsgroup. > What do you think we should do if we caught a student breaking and > entering the University Bookstore? (This has actually happened.) > Give him a job in the bookstore? You've asked a loaded question, and that's fine. It deserves the same consideration as the question of the computer break-in, but we have far fewer facts to work with. So it is hardly a parallel circumstance. There are always circumstances which can make the student in this example the worse of all possible individuals, or a folk hero, or a real hero. You have simply loaded the question in catch 22 terms. Smacks of yellow journalism. I see on track students (typically aged 17 to 23) as having one foot in the real world, one still in the tail end of childhood. I remember some very mature 17 year olds, and some very immature "adults" of 23. I see the world of academia as a place apart from the harshness of the real world, a place where students are supposed to complete their transition from juvenile to thinking adult. There are two schools of thought regarding education, and I see little overlap or commonality between them. There is a philosophy which mandates that a proper education permits the student more choices. And then there's Dewey, whose philosophy deigns to make 'good citizens.' Both manifest themselves in the same basic set of rules. Study hard, do all your assignments, EARN a good grade, the world is yours. The differences lie both in the teachings and the administrative attitude. That aside, I can address the business of the 'great bookstore caper' a little better, given a severe shortage of facts. Any time we deal with a 'first offender' we are dealing with someone without a history of bad behaviors. I believe it a reasonable assumption, based on centuries of data available, that someone who behaves in such a manner as to come to the attention of whatever disciplinary arm of the local society has control over those who perform misdeeds will accept any punishment they believe fair for the offense given. Actually, they will usually accept punishment slightly more severe than they feel is fair, perhaps with mild protest. I believe the a student caught breaking into the bookstore should be asked what they feel is a proper punishment. If you want to teach your students something, the university probably should devote the energies necessary to make the student understand the misbehavior in the framework acceptable to society, and then punish accordingly. We assume that the student is 'normal' and not a sociopath who is lacking the conscience. And it is quite clear that punishing an individual who has not accepted their criminality as fact will probably be a repeater. One who has truly accepted responsibility, and the punishment, is much more likely to be a model citizen in future. What would I do in terms of punishing this 'bookstore bandit' ?? With a little work I would hope to have him set his own punishment, one which satisfies everyone. Rubber stamp student judiciaries are generally far too harsh in their zeal to please the administration and to promulgate their own apparent powers under generally adverse circumstances. This may sound stupid to some readers, too bad. But I suggest you find a Mr. Chipps. Bill Vajk
learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun19.003103.16932@deadzone.uucp> Marcelo Gallardo writes: >learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) writes: >>Student judiciaries are almost always rubber stamps for administration wishes. > Then again, some might be used so that you can be judged by your peers. Since you're talking about 'might be' one might also be better judged by the man in the moon. How about a specific from you on this please. Fence straddling statements can hurt you more than you realize. > No, sometimes these powers are established by the student body > voting. Why sure. The student body always has authority to overturn the administration's demands. As I recall there are two primary models for universities. In one, the students control the functions, and the administration is responsible to the student council. Faculty and staff are hired and retained at the whim and will of the student council. The second is the conventional model we see here in the United States today, with a semi-permanent administration and tenured faculty, stereotypically under modest influence of alumni with power to withdraw substantial funding. Please explain to me how your claim is valid, and specifically where. Further, please be sure to include whether or not the administration has a veto power over the powers you maintain are autogenous. > Did you ever do something wrong when you were a kid? My guess is > yes (everybody has). Did your parents punish you, regardless of > whether it was aginst the "law"? When you do something "wrong" > there should be some sort of punishment. I have followed in my parent's footsteps in this regard. Punishment has been the result of anger, sometimes not in keeping with a realistic view of events, but humanly reactive. With misbehaviors of consequence I also have followed in my parents footsteps. I have never punished. I have taught real lessons. The outcome is pretty decent. We learn thus not to be overtly offensive. And as it is with society in general, the larger "crimes" invoke a different set of rules. And that, it seems to me, is part of the problem at athena. The primary importance attached to the case we're discussing seems to be that the student angered the system administrator. It is, at best, an immature approach to a serious problem. And at worse, it appears to be a failure to live up to the tradition of educating students in the truest sense. Face it. Anyone can "educate" a bright student who is socially well adjusted, is well rounded, and has a good attitude. No magic at all. It is an altogether different matter to educate the average (or below average) student. You're at Princeton, a town and campus I know like the back of my hand. Univ of Ga is an altogether different matter, I assure you. Covington wrote: >>>My own feeling is that 2 quarters' suspension is exactly right. I wrote: >>YOU don't think? Who the hell appointed you to make this decision ? > I don't understand what you are saying. If he is a dedicated > student, he'll return to college and finish his education. Along > with a diploma, he will also have learned (or hopefully have > learned) a little bit about life as well. On a side note, who > the hell appointed you? Oh and to answer your question, the > University appointed him ;-). You bring up a good point, though perhaps not the one you were thinking. Is it all right to push students who aren't quite so dedicated as to withstand two quarters suspension out the door ? At a state university, is it mandate that all students be dedicated ? And if maturity is required, are you suggesting, as Covington has, that it is better found outside the academic environment ? If so, why do we have college students at all ? From what you're saying here, all would be better off learning about "real life" somewhere else. On a side note, I am here to ask the questions which are embarassing to you and to Covington. It is a dirty job, but someone must do it. You fellows are doing a lousy job of policing yourselves. Aren't you gald you asked. >>I accuse you of seeing very little past the precious computer system which >>you see "attacked." > You don't seem to understand that this "precious computer > system" isn't the students to do with as he wishes. The student > was GIVEN access to it so he could use it as an aide to his > college education. Not so he could give the SysAdmin something > to do, or something else to worry about. I see. Only technical errors are permitted on your computer, and perhaps Covington's. Where is the demand that student's be 'well rounded' or are they to leave their humanity outside the door to the CS department in the umbrella stand just because you do ? It is a shame that you're missing a large part of the main thrust of my discussion and getting wound up in petty details not worthy of a moment. The student must have computer access as part and parcel of the total educational process, not as some mystical aide to his college eduaction. What you are saying MIGHT have been true 20 or more years ago, but is not valid any longer. What you are saying here supports the special priesthood of computer administrators (they used to be called operators.) Please don't think for a moment that in this real world environment you're about to pull the old pranks out and replay them. The system administrator, as well as the entire university faculty, is there to serve the needs of the student. Without that student and his needs, the universities would, at best, be research facilities vieing for a share of a much smaller marketplace. The student is your primary consumer. > The student has been noticed, and dealt with. There are plenty > of places for a college student to go if he needs help adjusting > to college life, and "maturing". I ask you more directly, is it your opinion that there are better places to mature than the academic environment ? Please tell us now so many future students can save time, money, and energy, by going there instead. >>Once more you are more concerned about what others might think. What >>business is it of yours to be concerned with anything other than doing >>those things necessary to do justice to this student. > Once more you neglect the fact that this student hasn't done the > things necessary to show that he belongs in a university > environment, much less the Internet. I assume he was admitted to the university using some selection criteria. It is a given he earned the right to be there. I have other opinions about who doesn't belong on the internet. One such sort writes to system administrators complaining within an hour after an article asking difficult questions hits the net. >>Those who believed he should be expelled are doubtless undereducated >>in human respect and understanding. > Maybe so, but we're dealing with computers, respect and > understanding for them are important as well. I respect the capabilities of some machines. The day I have respect for any machine, feh. Machines were invented for us to use. There are some few who actually love machines. I am proud to number myself among those who doesn't. A computer is, after all, only an evolutionary descendent to Pascal's adding wheel of 1642. What makes a computer, in your opinion, any more sacred than a bumper jack ? I think I'll go respect an inclined plaine for a while. Sheesh..... > For someone with so much hype about human compasion and > consideration, I would have thought that you would give the > System Administrator a little of the respect that you speak of. The system administrator is supposed to know better. He is paid to know better, and to behave rationally. > I suppose that you never considered that the SysAdmin is also a > human. Of course he's not. He is the enemy. We has discovered the enemy, and he is us. On the other hand, the system administrator has had no personal harm done to him, but was part of the system causing personal harm to another. And I have caused the system administrator no personal harm either, yet. But it is possible that the information from this thread will find its way to upper segments of state and university administration before all is done. > OK, we'll see in 2 semesters what the result of this SysAdmin's > decision (why do we keep discussing him, it was the STUDENTS > that passed "sentence"). Hardly. His name remains an unknown, so once this discussion is closed there will be no further information. And finally, perhaps you feel reassured that the students passed sentence in a fair and unbiased mode, the only way justice can be achieved, but I am far from satisfied that such is the case. I believe the rubber stamp is in good working order. Bill Vajk