3 ms·

The original article, which this (kind of) summarizes: "Reflections on Trusting Trust" by Ken Thompson. http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html http://cm.be

by kwantam 13y ago

The original article, which this (kind of) summarizes: "Reflections on Trusting Trust" by Ken Thompson. http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html Sort of disappointing that the blog entry doesn't bother linking to the original, which is at least as well written.

sjay 13y ago
From the original, Ken on the press lionizing hackers: "I have watched kids testifying before Congress. It is clear that they are completely unaware of the seriousness of their acts. There is obviously a cultural gap. The act of breaking into a computer system has to have the same social stigma as breaking into a neighbor's house. It should not matter that the neighbor's door is unlocked. The press must learn that misguided use of a computer is no more amazing than drunk driving of an automobile." Nowadays, I here more about the opposite problem -- using overly broad, non-technical legalese to convict kids of "hacks" that aren't really hacks. I wonder what Ken would think of Snowden, Barrett Brown, weev et al?
- alanctgardner2 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure the context of that quote is completely applicable to weev. "It should not matter that the neighbor's door is unlocked", is clearly Ken saying that something being technically simple does not make it morally or legally justifiable.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    But at the same time, simply entering is not going to get the feds after you. And while standing on someone's lawn and staring into their living room certainly has a stigma, it will never get you put in prison for decades. (For the weev analogy pretend they have some financial documents on the table in the living room.)
acchow 13y ago
Was first introduced to this article in CS 458/658 at Waterloo. My favourite part was "This is a deep concept. It is as close to a 'learning' program as I have seen" since getting a compiler to recognize when, where, and how to inject (self-propagating) backdoor code seemed practically impossible. It also expressed the idea of "self-referencing" more succinctly than the backdoor trick.

by kwantam 13y ago

sjay 13y ago

From the original, Ken on the press lionizing hackers: "I have watched kids testifying before Congress. It is clear that they are completely unaware of the seriousness of their acts. There is obviously a cultural gap. The act of breaking into a computer system has to have the same social stigma as breaking into a neighbor's house. It should not matter that the neighbor's door is unlocked. The press must learn that misguided use of a computer is no more amazing than drunk driving of an automobile." Nowadays, I here more about the opposite problem -- using overly broad, non-technical legalese to convict kids of "hacks" that aren't really hacks. I wonder what Ken would think of Snowden, Barrett Brown, weev et al?

alanctgardner2 13y ago
I'm pretty sure the context of that quote is completely applicable to weev. "It should not matter that the neighbor's door is unlocked", is clearly Ken saying that something being technically simple does not make it morally or legally justifiable.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  But at the same time, simply entering is not going to get the feds after you. And while standing on someone's lawn and staring into their living room certainly has a stigma, it will never get you put in prison for decades. (For the weev analogy pretend they have some financial documents on the table in the living room.)

acchow 13y ago

Was first introduced to this article in CS 458/658 at Waterloo. My favourite part was "This is a deep concept. It is as close to a 'learning' program as I have seen" since getting a compiler to recognize when, where, and how to inject (self-propagating) backdoor code seemed practically impossible. It also expressed the idea of "self-referencing" more succinctly than the backdoor trick.