Consider: public libraries don't put Playboy, Hustler, and other skin mags on their magazine shelves. No one considers this to be censure.
Why is it then that when that same library doesn't want to make this content available through its Internet terminals it is considered censure?
Everyone understands that blocking software is not perfect; however, the librarian making decisions about which books to place on the shelf isn't perfect either. Also, that librarian is no less politically motivated than the purveyors of blocking software.
I agree with your post. It's really too bad that most slashdot readers either can't or won't see the intent of the ruling. Unless the slashdot community can accept that individuals must be held accountable for their actions, the hacker community will continue to be perceived as being somehow evil.
While we all know that real hackers are not engaged in illegal practices, some individuals within the community appear unable to distinguish between what is legal and what is not. Kevin broke the law, he demonstrated an inability to limit his actions and behave eithicaly, hence the court is attempting to limit Kevin's access to tools of the trade.
Yes, the court could probably have done a better job of expressing its intent, and hence enourmous sums of money will be spent clarifying things. Why don't we work to support the court's intent instead of railing against it.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider: public libraries don't put Playboy, Hustler, and other skin mags on their magazine shelves. No one considers this to be censure.
Why is it then that when that same library doesn't want to make this content available through its Internet terminals it is considered censure?
Everyone understands that blocking software is not perfect; however, the librarian making decisions about which books to place on the shelf isn't perfect either. Also, that librarian is no less politically motivated than the purveyors of blocking software.
While we all know that real hackers are not engaged in illegal practices, some individuals within the community appear unable to distinguish between what is legal and what is not. Kevin broke the law, he demonstrated an inability to limit his actions and behave eithicaly, hence the court is attempting to limit Kevin's access to tools of the trade.
Yes, the court could probably have done a better job of expressing its intent, and hence enourmous sums of money will be spent clarifying things. Why don't we work to support the court's intent instead of railing against it.