Hackers: Unemployable or undervalued?

Once again the debate has been opened up this week about encouraging hackers and virus writers to switch sides and start working in security.

'Hire a thief to catch a thief' as the old adage goes. But isn't this taking the idea to a literal extreme?

Convicted hacker Kevin Mitnick last week implored the industry to consider employing convicted cyber criminals - arguing that the only difference between them and a lot of other IT workers is that they've been caught. Mitnick argued that a large number of people working in IT get involved in hacking and similar practices unbeknownst to their daytime employer, so why not just open up the industry and 'turn the other cheek' where those with convictions are concerned?

Understandably many in the industry aren't convinced. Many believe 'once a hacker always a hacker', suggesting that the protestations of reformation are little more than another weapon in the hackers' arsenal and a less high-tech way of by-passing security.

After all, if you wanted access to a company's internal networks what would be easiest for you - accessing them remotely, breaching various levels of computer security, or walking through an open front door, flashing your ID card at the security guard and getting in the lift to the relevant floor? It's not rocket science is it?

What are your opinions? Should hackers be given a chance to prove they can be trusted or should they be left out in the cold? Email us with your comments, at editorial@silicon.com