in reply to Dissertation

Wow, this post has caused a bit of a stink. I have to admit that I laughed when I read it and I even voted it ++. I felt that it was obviously tongue-in-cheek, though I can easily understand how others would be disturbed by it.

When turnstep commented that this doesn't belong here, it really got me to thinking. What does belong here? A friend -- and fellow Monk -- of mine believe's cracking to be ethical if you're "going after bad guys" like eToys or Microsoft. I feel that it's always bad because it encourages vigilantism. However, I think that both of us would agree that hacking tools shouldn't be posted to PerlMonks.

But what about "offensive material"? Hacking tools could encourage people to violate the law. But if the material is offensive, yet doesn't do actual harm (I know that some would disagree with that), should we ban it here?

To be frank, one of the Perl poems reads like a Perlized version of the Lord's prayer. At first, being a non-Christian, I was put off by it. Then I remembered that I'm a monk (if I change my nick to "hyprocrite", you'll understand). I reread the poem and found that I actually appreciated the work that the writer put into it.

Should this site be "pure"? Should we make the monastery a PC place where all can safely attend? I think this could be a great way to discuss appropriate content. Personally, I can't find any "acceptable use" policy on this site which would restrict content.

To the anonymous monk who used offensive language to respond in this tree: why do people who are often decent in real life think they can do without manners online? Because direct retaliation isn't possible?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
I prefer freedom. (RE^2: Dissertation)
by Q*bert (Sexton) on Jun 17, 2000 at 17:52 UTC
    I don't think any content restrictions should be applied at all. If people are offended, they may choose not to participate in particular conversations. Words are not going to hurt them--at worst they'll annoy them a little and cause them to avoid some authors like the plague, as I do with Jon Katz.

    Furthermore, I think we should allow "hacking tools" to be posted here. Every such tool has two edges. One is the edge that exposes network insecurities, which makes it invaluable for the system administrator. The other is the edge that allows you to exploit those insecurities, which makes it valuable for script kiddies. Often there's a third, grey edge that makes the tool useful for network monitoring or analysis in general--look at netcat as an example of such a tool.

    Fortunately, Nate has shown a history of laissez- faire administration on Everything. As to you, I hope you will reconsider your pro-censorship stance. Once you open the floodgates by saying "stuff that offends people should be banned", easily offended people come along and cut off all your freedoms. Before you know it, there's nothing left at all.

    That's too high a price to pay to get rid of some stuff that you personally find offensive. Even if you believe it is O.K. to cut off someone else's freedom for the sake of your comfort (which I vehemently do not!) it still doesn't make sense, from a selfish perspective, to start censoring things. Nobody wins.

    Regards, --Q

[reply]
"bad guys like eToys"?
by perrin (Chancellor) on Aug 15, 2001 at 05:25 UTC
    Oh the irony. To your friend who thinks it's okay to try and crack other people's sites if he doesn't like them:

    Did it occur to you that the "bad guys" responsible for what you didn't like at eToys might be one lawyer? Did you know that eToys was one of the largest mod_perl/Linux sites ever? Did you know that eToys paid me and the other engineers there to hack on things like mod_perl and Template Toolkit, and that our patches are on CPAN right now? Did you know that I spent a sleepless night adapting one of merlyn's Web Techniques columns to save our site from the DDoS attack that you were so proud of? Did you ever stop to think who gets hurt the most when you attack someone's site? Clue: it's not the lawyers.

[reply]

      perrin wrote:

      Did you know that I spent a sleepless night adapting one of merlyn's Web Techniques columns to save our site from the DDoS attack that you were so proud of?

      Proud? Please read my post again. While I have difficulty with what eToys did and I can certainly understand your position, I am not in any way, shape, or form "proud" of any DDoS attacks against eToys. I dislike what occured, but I absolutely do not support vigilantism. As I wrote in my post (emphasis added):

      A friend -- and fellow Monk -- of mine believe's cracking to be ethical if you're "going after bad guys" like eToys or Microsoft. I feel that it's always bad because it encourages vigilantism.

      I do not believe that cracking is ethical behavior. I do not engage in it (except our own company's Web sites and then only with permission) and under no circumstances would I support vigilante activities. It's wrong, period.

      Update: In this post, I mentioned that programmers wouldn't work for companies that engage in unethical behavior and perrin rightly pointed out that it's not that simple.

      My actual point, though, appeared to have been lost in the shuffle. With a guild or union, programmers could en masse have the power to ensure that the companies they work for rethink engaging in unethical behavior. As an individual, I tend not to have the power to effect much change in a large organization. However, if a company is faced with 50% of their staff walking out because the company decides to spam people (or whatever), then they are likely to rethink their position.

      I worked for an insurance company where most of the programmers that I worked for were wonderful people, yet many people objected to some of the insurance company's behavior. That didn't mean the people were rotten. In the case of eToys, I singled them out because I objected to their behavior. That doesn't mean that I objected to any particular individual within that company.

      perrin, I'm sure you're a great person and someone I'd love to sit down with over a beer and chat about Perl. If you took my post personally, I'm sorry it came across poorly.

      Cheers,
      Ovid

      Vote for paco!

      Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats.

[reply]
        I do not believe that cracking is ethical behavior.

        I know. My post was addressed to your absent friend who thinks it's a good idea. Sorry for any confusion.

[reply]

In Section Perl Poetry