OK, fair enough. You're right; this is a good example of one reporter taking one issue that's relevant to his community, and highlighting it.
But it still doesn't follow that journalists should be policing the Internet for people that might, conceivably, commit a crime someday. It's yellow journalism, plain and simple, and if you asked Kevin to sign on for the neighborhood watch in real life and a real city, he'd almost certainly find something more newsworthy on his schedule. If I'm wrong, he knows where to find me.
Sorry if I seemed to snap at you, Jason. I also didn't mean to imply that Kevin would *make up* a story in this fashion -- that would be incredibly out of character. He's a great journalist, which is why it's so jarring that he's stumbled this far out of line in his ethics.
I doubt many people will get my back on it. "Think of the children" has so much social inertia that you can do just about anything these days, say you were just out to protect the kids, and you'll be given a pass.
But that doesn't make it right. How many of these people were on the register because of mistakes? Because of crimes as menial as public urination? Kevin, as someone with experience in the justice system, should damn well know better.
How far is it OK to hunt someone for the "good of society"? You're a crook too Kevin, and by your logic, no one should ever forget it. Should I be watching your ATM transactions to make sure those 0's belong to you? Should SFBA radio stations still have "do not take calls from this man" posters with your name on them?
For that matter, should I enjoy a lifetime of surveillance too, as a computer criminal? Do you believe this mentality will stop at sex offenders? You can't possibly. So, if you're out there ego-surfing Kevin, from you, from Evan, and from Wired, I'd really like a reply in re.: what were you thinking?
If a reporter sees a crime on the street and reports it, that's good citizenship. If a reporter goes crime-hunting to fabricate a story, that endangers every other reporter out there trying to act as an independent observer.
I hope that addresses your false dichotomy.
Kevin's release conditions aren't any different from any other felon. He's not on supervision, and doesn't have to report crimes he witnesses. As should be obvious from his prior reporting.
Picking and choosing when it is/is not OK to cooperate with authorities in a criminal investigation might be very convenient for Kevin Lee Poulsen, but it should give his sources -- past, present, and future -- significant pause.
Wired News -- and Kevin -- have shown that writing a splashy story means more to them right now than the danger of blurring the lines between reporter and cop. This isn't about protecting kids, or about what MySpace should or should not do. It's about eroding the role of the journalist as a fair and impartial witness, in a time when too many people are already barking up that tree.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, fair enough. You're right; this is a good example of one reporter taking one issue that's relevant to his community, and highlighting it.
But it still doesn't follow that journalists should be policing the Internet for people that might, conceivably, commit a crime someday. It's yellow journalism, plain and simple, and if you asked Kevin to sign on for the neighborhood watch in real life and a real city, he'd almost certainly find something more newsworthy on his schedule. If I'm wrong, he knows where to find me.
Quis custodiet ipsos Kevins?
... that Minority Report and "PreCrime" were intended as illustrative warnings, not how-to DIY guides. Damn you, Tom Cruise!
Sorry if I seemed to snap at you, Jason. I also didn't mean to imply that Kevin would *make up* a story in this fashion -- that would be incredibly out of character. He's a great journalist, which is why it's so jarring that he's stumbled this far out of line in his ethics.
I doubt many people will get my back on it. "Think of the children" has so much social inertia that you can do just about anything these days, say you were just out to protect the kids, and you'll be given a pass.
But that doesn't make it right. How many of these people were on the register because of mistakes? Because of crimes as menial as public urination? Kevin, as someone with experience in the justice system, should damn well know better.
How far is it OK to hunt someone for the "good of society"? You're a crook too Kevin, and by your logic, no one should ever forget it. Should I be watching your ATM transactions to make sure those 0's belong to you? Should SFBA radio stations still have "do not take calls from this man" posters with your name on them?
For that matter, should I enjoy a lifetime of surveillance too, as a computer criminal? Do you believe this mentality will stop at sex offenders? You can't possibly. So, if you're out there ego-surfing Kevin, from you, from Evan, and from Wired, I'd really like a reply in re.: what were you thinking?
-- A
If a reporter sees a crime on the street and reports it, that's good citizenship. If a reporter goes crime-hunting to fabricate a story, that endangers every other reporter out there trying to act as an independent observer.
I hope that addresses your false dichotomy.
Kevin's release conditions aren't any different from any other felon. He's not on supervision, and doesn't have to report crimes he witnesses. As should be obvious from his prior reporting.
Hope this helps.
-- Adrian
Hey folks.
Picking and choosing when it is/is not OK to cooperate with authorities in a criminal investigation might be very convenient for Kevin Lee Poulsen, but it should give his sources -- past, present, and future -- significant pause.
Wired News -- and Kevin -- have shown that writing a splashy story means more to them right now than the danger of blurring the lines between reporter and cop. This isn't about protecting kids, or about what MySpace should or should not do. It's about eroding the role of the journalist as a fair and impartial witness, in a time when too many people are already barking up that tree.
A hacker should know better.
-- Adrian Lamo