From: mc/G=J._Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205295@mhs.attmail.com
Subject: Re: Hackers and Pagans and Phreaks, Oh My!
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:34:48 GMT

I took an extra day to think about this because I want to be careful in my
reply.  I spend too much time with people p-o'ed at me already.  :-(  And
to put it mildly, the subjects are controversial.
 
> Paganism is not, in and of itself, an illegal activity. The small freelance
> nuts harassing you were not also engaged in illegal and unethical activities
> that you shared. ...
 
Hacking is not, in and of itself, an illegal activity.  As most of the people
here know.  But individual hackers, almost certainly including some people on
both sides of the MOD/LOD feud, have engaged in illegal activity.  There are
people, myself included, who would describe much of that "crime" as harmless
activities.  But PLEASE, let's not start that argument again. (*sigh*)
 
(Not all of it was harmless and victimless, to be certain, especially if they
do prove that the MOD was engaged in credit card fraud or the resale of
people's calling card numbers.  REAL hacker-phreaks don't sell information for
the purpose of committing crimes; if nothing else, reselling long-distance
service is =dangerous=.  Your customers are almost certainly not going to be
nice people, if you know what I mean.)
 
I cannot defend this statement without incriminating myself or others for
actions that I do not think ought to be crimes, but I know what I am saying
when I say that the same thing could be said of an awful lot of Pagan groups;
maybe even all of them.  Without exception that I know of, the crimes would be
victimless, at least by my standards ... but in some cases, still felonies.
(No, I will NOT give ANY more details.  I've said too much already.)  If the
political disputes that disrupted the magical communities' defense against the
New Witch-Hunt had turned into a narkfest, an awful lot of people could have
gone up the river.  (Back in 1988, I predicted just this outcome.  Fortunately,
it didn't happen.)
 
> THIS IS NOT A MCCARTHY STYLE WITCH HUNT. The people being hunted *are*
> engaged in objectively dangerous and unethical behaviour. McCarthy was after
> people whose only sin was to disagree.
 
Historical analogies are always slippery business, I admit.  But to my mind,
the defining characteristics of a witch hunt are wild unsubstantiated
accusations against innocent people, followed by coercion to make those people
name additional names, and accompanied by long, much-referred to, and never
presented "enemies lists."  The fit is even closer if the motivation is
political or religious, and the goal is to stir up fear and hysteria among the
uninformed.  All of those characteristics are common to both the New Witch-Hunt
of 1985-1991 and the Great Hacker Hysteria of 1989-present.
 
> The folks harassing Goggins, if they did all of the things alleged, are
> crooks regardless of whether they harassed him. The neopagans you were
> talking about weren't.
 
(Aside: Chris, how do YOU spell your last name?  I've seen Goggans, Goggins,
and Groggans lately.)
 
The Neopagans who were harrassing me and making (lying) accusations to the
police about others were certainly crooks, by the legal definition; they had
their own skeletons in the closet.  Without much effort, I could have arranged
a raid that would have proven that they were guilty of exactly the crimes that
they were accusing others of.
 
As I said, I didn't ... because I determined that a squealfest would (a) do no
good, it would just make them madder, (b) probably backlash on me, (c) increase
the level of suspicion and distrust in the community, which was already too
high, and (d) be used to help convince the average under-informed mundane that
we were all a bunch of criminals.  In other words, I was worried about my karma.
 
> By binding the two events together, you will hurt the pagans and not help
> yourself.
 
Eris knows, you aren't the first person to accuse me of saying things that are
dangerous to the Craft, and you probably won't be the last.  I disagree, of
course.
 
But I will say that this debate is tempting me to put too much in writing.  And
I've made my point; I got it out into the open in front of a lot more people
that we can identify at least one person who went to our mutual enemies, the
FBI, with information on a hacker/group he disliked.
 
Some of you think that's OK; hopefully some of the rest of you don't.  I hope
I've helped some of you who might have done the same thing consider the
probable consequences of such an action.  Now I've said all =I= have to say on
the subject; after this, let the chips fall where they may.
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 J. Brad Hicks                 | Poor is the man whose pleasures depend
 mhs!mc!Brad_Hicks@attmail.com | on the permission of another.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------