You make the judgment, part II.

My original intention was to gather a bunch of results from my poll, but I got impatient... Anyway, as the "part II" suggests, this makes sense only if you've read part I.

So, let's review what I did. I found a slight security hole, messed around for a bit, caused no harm, and told the principal everything (including even how to finish fixing it) when I was asked. I spent an hour trying to point out that the above does not merit my a) being banned from their computers for the rest of the semester, and b) subsequently having to change, halfway through the semester, out of both of my electives. They disagreed.


As an aside: It seems the authority in question knows less about the system than I do. You may think I'm just saying that out of spite, but I can actually back that up with proof.

The principal wrote, in a letter to my mom:
"He used a 'hacker's code' to gain access to the system, and admits to it. This is not my opinion, but that of several experts in the field."

Here's what actually happened: Jokingly/stupidly, I wrote the word "h4xx0r1n9" on my task list, and explained to them about 1337, hackers' slang. No one who knows a thing about computers would believe that you hack into servers by misspelling words. Especially not "experts".

Another example: The letter also said that I "violated the Internet policy by signing onto a bunch of accounts without authorization". Incorrect. I said several times during that meeting, and at least once on the previous post, that I used my own account (which, by the way, no malicious hacker would ever do) to get where there was no security.

I conclude from this that a) the principal has a highly inaccurate idea of what I did, and b) either she didn't communicate at all well with her experts, or these are some astonishingly stupid "experts". I'm not sure which one it is...


Their reasoning seems to be:
1. I broke school rules.
2. Therefore, I must be punished.
3. We have to follow the rules here. (We who make the rules. Even when it's counterproductive to do so.)
4. Of COURSE it's serious, otherwise we wouldn't have called you in. (Of COURSE we called you in, otherwise it wouldn't be serious. Of COURSE we're good at circular logic.)
5. Therefore, I must be punished in an extremely serious manner.


My rebuttal:
1. Arguably, I did not in fact break any rules. They outlaw the following, according to the "binder reminder" thingy:
- Maliciously doing stuff. (At first I had good intentions, then I had neutral intentions. Never malicious.)
- Using unauthorized accounts. (As I've said, the only account I used was my own. I'm pretty sure that's legal.)
- Altering the system. (I technically used the system, not altered it. Hey, if they follow the letter of the law and not the spirit to punish me, then I can do the same to avoid punishment.)
- Disrupting the network. (The only disruption was them blocking me.)
From the other source of rules (a "computer contract" thingy):
- "Students may not break into computer systems or [stuff like that]..." (Again, I used my own account, and I don't know how to hack into systems.)
- "...nor may they attempt to bypass any security settings." (As before, if they use technicalities, then I can too. What I did depended on the fact that there WAS no security to bypass.)

2. No, you don't have to punish me. Think: Why do we lock up murderers? Two reasons.

One, they can't commit crimes while in jail. This doesn't apply for so many reasons it's not even unfunny: a) I could use my computer at home like I am right now, so that doesn't prevent me from doing anything. b) Now that I know they don't want help with their security system, I won't try to mess around in the first place. c) They blocked me, and I told them how to fix the remaining holes, so I physically couldn't do anything.

The other reason to punish people is to teach would-be criminals not to do it. Now that you've heard what I did and the punishment, what is that really going to do? If they punish people for helping them, what lessons are you actually going to learn (other than the obvious "The school is being bureaucratically evil and dumbassed")? I think it's less along the lines of "Don't commit computer crimes" (we already know that), more like "Don't help people unless they ask for it. Don't show boldness or confidence in your own decisions or any type of individuality. Just keep your head down and avoid rocking the boat." Since this whole effing COUNTRY was founded on the principle of disobeying unjust authority, and the school has an entire week devoted to "Random Acts of Kindness", I'd say this other reason also does not apply.

I fail to see why it's right for me to be punished in this way.

3. Firstly, that's a great example to set for your students. Obey the rules even when they don't make sense. Just do what you're told. That's the kind of reasoning that leads to "Sorry, Jews, but Mr. Hitler orders me to kill you." Secondly, since the principal is the highest authority in disciplinary matters, she does not, in fact, have to follow any orders. Thirdly, the rules don't actually specify this punishment.

Let's assume we do have to follow the rules to the letter, let's take a look at what they actually say.

"Punishment may range from revocation of internet privileges and/or computer privileges to really bad stuff like suspension."

It says nothing about how long the privileges may be revoked. So no, you are not required in any way to make it that bad.

4. Explain to me how something can be serious if it has no real-world effects, other than my getting bragging rights ("Look, my course page is weird!") and a temporary fright for the people who made the system (who then verified that I didn't and couldn't do anything serious). Especially if it takes twenty seconds, maximum, to add a line of code that says "Check whether he's actually logged in."

5. So, let's see what's left of their argument:
"I might have broken school rules. It would cause much harm and no good whatsoever to punish me. The punishment or lack thereof is completely up to the principal. And the infraction, by all intelligent standards, was not serious. Therefore, the principal should and must give me a very severe punishment."
I think that argument's absurdity speaks for itself.


To summarize: There is no reason - moral or legal - for me to be punished in this way. An error of this magnitude must be corrected. If students in general learn that nothing has been done about such injustice, then the school is likely to lose their trust, to some degree at least. That may sound like a threat, but it's more like a fact of life. The principal should be held responsible for her decisions, especially when one of the school's major buzzwords is "Responsibility", and the people under her jurisdiction have a right to know what's really happening. Such is one of the fundamental principles of democracy, and that's why I'm writing about it.

Just in case, I'm taking the precaution of using no names whatsoever, so they can't demand that I delete my blog. (sticks tongue out at them) If you want to aid my little campaign against injustice, I recommend telling people to read this and posting your poll comment. Can't hurt to be able to tell the principal "Either you're wrong, or [a bunch of people, including all the "experts"] are wrong. Which do you think is more likely?"

Poll question: Do you think their decision was correct? (Or, more accurately, "How incorrect would you say they are?")



UPDATE: You know what's so friggen ironic? A year later, they added a course catalog that does exactly what I was doing, minus the part that added me as a guest.