[PLUG] The lion in Salem

[Dylan Reinhardt]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:25, David Pool wrote:
> Maybe it's the transition to the threat that we're misunderstanding one 
> another. I've just asked that the damaging information be discussed 
> openly on a publicly archived list-serve. Once that's done, it's done.

What damaging information?  The damaging information you proposed to
produce by unethical exploration of state servers? 

If you approach a politician and propose to promote the public
discussion of embarrassing information, that's not an offer that will be
much welcomed.  Whether doing so is your right as a citizen or a
criminal act depends in large part on the provenance of the information.

If the information you want to discuss is already public or can be
properly acquired, do what you want and let the will of the public
prevail. But if you're proposing to acquire *privileged* information by
*unethical* means, proposing to disclose it in public *is* a threat. 

The fact that you're angling for business at the same time makes it look
even worse.  You probably didn't *intend* to suggest a quid pro quo, but
that's exactly what a reasonable person would think you've done.


> My idea of a threat implies an "or else". Like I'd take my new found 
> information about how easy it is to crack the entire system and call up 
> the speaker and threaten to crash the whole system if she doesn't do 
> what I want. (whether that's pass a bill or hire me as a consultant).

That's almost exactly what your suggestion sounded like.  Except for the
"crashing the system" part... but you weren't going to *crash* the
system, you were just promoting a frank and open exploration of its
security flaws and let the chips fall where they may.


> I suppose I can't expect you to assume that I'm too morally upstanding 
> to do that. 

If you aren't able to acknowledge the seriousness of what what you
proposed, why should your subsequent arguments hold weight?


> But, well, first of all, you don't threaten people publicly 
> about making something public. 

A threat does not have to be rational in order to be credible.


> That's where it either doesn't make 
> sense, or you're assuming I'm a moron.

You're assuming that a rational explanation for your actions is relevant
or necessary. Honestly, I'm at a complete loss to explain what you did. 
I can't imagine how you thought you were advancing any cause at all.  


> Well, look, if the state is running their systems in an illegal and 
> risky fashion

That's a pretty big "if" you've got there.

Even assuming your unsupported conclusion as established fact...

>  I may well use that fact to 
> try to sell them a better system.

...your hubris is astonishing.  Are you really *that* much smarter than
the army of IT professionals the state already employs?  If I were the
state, I'd be skeptical of anyone green enough to claim he can rebuild
and improve a complex system without having examined it in any detail.


> I can see how you could misread it the first time through. After several 
> explicit explainations of my intent

I value results more than intentions.  I can't imagine what you
*intended* to accomplish, but I'll tell you loud and clear what I think
you did: I think you embarrassed this community.

I promote open source by doing the hard work of listening to people's
needs and delivering services they care enough about to actually pay
for.  As such, I feel entitled to point out that exercising a greater
level of responsibility will go a lot further to promote open source
than attempting to humiliate influential people in public.


> you basically either 
> believe I've got the best interests of my state in mind or that I'm 
> lying and am just a gold-digger who's not bright enough to threaten 
> people in private.

I'm not attempting to plumb the depths of your psyche, David.  I'm
taking exception with your irresponsible behavior.  That's it.  I don't
claim to know (nor do I *care* to know) what your state of mind was.


> it 
> seems like people are implying that I'd publicly threaten a high level 
> politician 

Not implying, stating. You did it. You publicly threatened a high level
politician.  If you don't do anything else, I'd strongly consider
sending her an apology.


> and expect to get somewhere that way. ie that I'm a moron.

I happen to *know* you're smart guy.  Smart people make mistakes too. 
It takes character to admit that you screwed up.  

I'm sure I've made whatever point I'm likely to make in this forum.  If
you wish to discuss this further, I'd be happy to do so off-list.

Dylan