The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Daniel Martin:

It does seem to me that at least two of the recent high-profile hacker arrests have been people who seem to be mentally ill. Lamo: a homeless guy who goes around breaking into corporate networks and then pointing out the security flaws to them. The MSBlaster arrest was not for a guy charged with writing THE MSBlaster worm, no, he wrote a variant that damaged 7,000 computers. He's 23 years old, didn't hire a lawyer and gave interviews to the media where he wanted it known that he does not either have a weight problem.

It would seem to me that you are equating mental illness with, at worst, extreme foolishness. Specifically, the kind of extreme foolishness young 20-somethings are prone to.

Also, given what you've cited of Lamo's case, I'm not entirely certain even that applies - up until the NYT threw the FBI at him, the reception most companies had given him was closer to "thank God it was only Lamo who found these holes" than to "shoot the messenger now". (I will concede that other actions of Lamo's would qualify as extremely foolish)

Now, if you have evidence that when the cameras are off the MSBlast modifier talks about the voices inside his head that compel him to destroy, or that Lamo secretly cuts up his arm each night, I might be willing to accept the assertion of mental illness. (I don't believe that the reported similarities between typical "geek" behavior and Asperger's Syndrome are yet sufficient to label general social ineptitude a mental disease)

Until then, what we see is that the high profile cases seem to be cases where those caught were exceedingly foolish in other ways. I would draw from this the conclusion that either the only way a computer crime is successfully solved is with an extremely foolish perpetrator, or that those with the skills to commit a successful computer crime are generally able to earn more money with more socially acceptable endeavors, such as writing the backend energy trading software for Enron. (And that therefore only the extremely foolish would assume the risks involved in computer-based crime)

More specifically (I assume you're refering to Lev. 17, since chapters 17-26 are really one unit and 18:22 and 20:13 are the two Leviticus verses trotted out most often to condemn homosexuality), if you kill an ox, lamb, or goat, you need to bring some of it to the temple so that the priest can burn the fat as a fragrant offering. Making a burnt offering by yourself gets you cut off from the people. (so no backyard barbecues) After all, you might be making the offering to goat demons.

For more Leviticus fun, check out the list of near kin whose nakedness you're not supposed to uncover (Lev. 18:7-16). Now, construct a small imaginary family tree and note the conspicuous absence of a certain immediate family member from that list. (Ok, it's sort of implied that you're not supposed to in 18:17, but not because this person is near kin to the person being instructed)

I was just reading the Holiness Code (Lev. 17-26) on Monday for a bible study my church is doing. (May I take this opportunity to plug Kerygma as a company that publishes bible studies that cause people to think?) A suggestion to all: do not attempt to read Leviticus from a bible that has been stored in the same small space as chamomile herbs. Especially late at night; I had to restart three times, and still wound up skimming the last bit.

I do find it a bit odd that the fact that this man was on parole doesn't play a part in the proceedings. (which is to say, he was in prison in all but location - he can't vote, can't leave the state without permission, and is, as noted earlier, subject to arbitrary search)

In fact, I could easily see keeping a journal such as this a parole violation - I wouldn't like it necessarily, but somewhat arbitrary parole restrictions (e.g. "no computer access for you") are routine. Also, it is certainly legally acceptable to use a journal such as this to prevent someone from being granted parole. (e.g. if it had been found in his prison cell, bringing it up at the next parole board meeting would certainly be appropriate)

But no one's talking like that. No one (prosecutors included) is making the restricted-rights-of-prisoners argument. And this, really, is the problem. Both sides are arguing that the case has nothing to do with this man's past convictions or his parole status. Why there should now be any argument - why the prosecutors should even bother to file the motions at this point - is beyond me. My prediction? The USSC will deny cert. by same-day return mail. Were the prosecution arguing parole violation, that would be a different matter.

Now, how long do you think it will take for the Ohio legislature to draft a law making it an additional crime to write naughty stories while on parole for a kiddie porn conviction? (actions which are crimes only when done by certain classes of parolees are not without precedent; consider the owning of a firearm) Such a law might actually pass constitutional muster and, perhaps more importantly, I doubt that the ACLU would spend nearly as much time and effort fighting it.

For what it's worth, in approximately the Philadelphia area, we saw almost nothing: the trashcans ran about the lawn and one of our trees which is constantly dropping large dead branches on the lawn dropped a less-than-dead branch that looked as though it had been torn off.

Except for a little coastal flooding, it looks like the garden state dodged this one completely.

I just want to know how any New Jersey resident could mention giant things she's visited and not mention Lucy the Elephant. (Oh, there's also an official site, but it's hideous)

Unless, of course, you haven't been to see the elephant, in which case you need to go fix that.

And because I can't resist following links, here's the product in question.

And, in case anyone else wants to carry the exciting stories of Bel and the Dragon or Daniel and Susanna around with them, here's the version I have on my PDA.

Lois was continuing the joke - a standard part of the Apocrypha is a book called "the rest of the book of Esther". (which starts with verse 10:4)

And, a quick search on bible gateway finds no instances of the word "god" in the book of Esther, (at least not in the NIV or KJV translations) but the apocrypha on my PDA shows that God is mentioned directly in verse 10:4.

Comment statistics for Daniel Martin on the Making Light blog

Total: 12 comments. View all these comments on a single page.