296 DEAR HACKER
296 DEAR HACKER
The CIA? Would you call the police? I think you would use your own thugs. Put the computer away and haul out the spray paint, guns, and crack. Be a real gang.
I.M. Free Milwaukee
Our thugs are on it.
Dear 2600: While I am a staunch advocate of freedom to speak and freedom on
the Internet, it is the antics of people like you that are going to screw it up for everyone. I am referring to your dissemination of the method to cause “denial of service” by flooding ISPs. This technique has no re- deeming virtue and can only be used to disrupt and destroy. Ironically, the target of an attack by the method you distributed, Panix, is an ISP that has generously provided free resources to groups that advocate freedom for the Internet. Are you now happy with the results of your thoughtless abuse of freedom? The government is itching to control and censor the Internet and while freedom on the Internet enjoys wide support, a few more incidents like the ones you made possible can sour public support and invite the crackdown we all dread. Do you really want to aid every nutcase with a keyboard and a lust for power to work their will on the Internet community? This is not computer science and lore; it is vandalism. Think about what you have done. If you disagree with me, I would be interested in your rational.
George
The people at panix.com seem to understand why the article was published as well as the need to do something about the problem. We agree it was most unfor- tunate that this of all systems was targeted but we feel the greater good was ulti- mately served by revealing the flaws. And we don’t see this as a reason for more control and censorship; if anything, the quick and professional way this was dealt with on such systems shows us that we can take care of ourselves on the net with- out outside interference.
OUR BIGGEST FANS
Dear 2600:
I read the article on Ed Cummings with great interest (even went to your website to get more information) and would like to put my two cents worth in.
In your preface to the article (in the mag) you use a fairly strong tone to suggest that the whole incident is a fallacy of justice and should never have happened. I disagree with some of the rationale used in justifying your position on the situation. Reading your magazine and the information in it is not just for informational purposes. It is highly improbable that such innocence exists. Instead, it has to be assumed that someone will use the information for some purpose, criminal or otherwise. This is true for Ed and his red boxes. I am not saying that Ed or anyone else is doing this for criminal reasons. But why develop these devices if there is no satisfaction in trying them? After all, would hacking be so much fun if you didn’t do it?
I do think, though, that the added misperception of hackers, crack- ers, and the like as being malicious and criminal is far from true.
I also believe that though there are people within our government and law enforcement who want Big Brother watching, that there are equally others who like yourselves are against those concepts and be- lieve strongly in freedom.
Freedom, though, is not without bounds. After all, freedom is merely
a concept of our mind that has no tangible presence. It is the same theory behind currency. Our currency is no longer backed by some precious metal. Its strength lies solely in our belief that it has value. It is this concept that defines freedom. And though each person is allowed to interpret that freedom, we have to consider the whole and not the individual when trying to deal in Truth and Justice.