>computer criminal as a computer security expert = or in other words that >people with a track record of honesty should not be given priority over >people with a track record of dishonesty when hiring for jobs in >computer security. > I am human, Socrates is human, ergo I am Socrates. I guess that the actual real opinion is that someone who's paid his or her debit to society should not be discriminated. I guess that as no one should be discriminated for being a woman, black or gipsy. With respect to priority, that's quite another, unrelated matter: as for me I would first look at their capabilities and track records to find how well they fit to my needs. One thing you can be sure: I will always give precedence to a knowledgeable person, with good disposition than to a schmuck with lower knowledge that doesn't really want the job. It's not as simple as labelling people as "criminals" and cutting off all their hair burning a lis flower on their shoulder for their full lifes. Hiring people requires taking into account a lot more factors as their reliability (lower on crackers), knowledge, relational abilities, interest, salary expectancies, creativity, etc... >In my opinion, this demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding >about the goal of computer security, and it further rewards people > But maybe reflects a better understanding of human beings, and how to reach computer security goals. Which is quite another matter (marketing, management, politics, economics...). And isn't there a security risk too in being too simplistic? jr [ Please take this thread to private mail, this will be the last post from the thread. - RuF ]