Ah, but Charles, this is precisely where your argument fails. The FBI does routinely call in the convicted criminals to help with the investigation of a crime. This is sometimes where they get their most valued information. After all, the FBI called in the help of a serial killer to help in the investigation of the Washington green river killer (though in that case, the serial killer didn't produce much in the way of help.) Informants are usually criminals operating on the inside, yet relaying information to the police or the FBI. Working with convicted criminals is a tool that many law enforcement officers use.

I do not preach blindly listening to anyone. However, Kevin's arguments were valid regardless to his past. On the other hand, why should you listen to my arguments either, regardless to the fact that I have never spent a single day in jail (as a resident, I've visited the jail many times in the past.) After all, everyone has an opinion, and most of the time, they are all wrong (they are all valid, but most of them don't match your opinion, thus they are wrong.) So how do you know whether someone's opinion is valid even though you don't agree? Well whether or not they have spent any time in jail or not shouldn't be the deciding factor, it should instead be weighed against what you know is true, or atleast verifiable. I was at the RSA conference, and I saw many things there which told me that things weren't very secure, so when Kevin said the same, I verified his statements against what I saw. On the other hand, if you weren't at the conference, there have been atleast two people who have confirmed this, maybe it is valid.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/199/5496#5496