Is hacking morally right or wrong?

admael

New Member
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hacking always comes down to morality. I think the easiest answer to why a person would hack, can be summed up to 'just because we can'.

A lot of the times, when I associate myself with hacking, it's just to kill time, it's never as vast as to 'break into someone's home' as the poster above put it. No, more like solving a jigsaw puzzle, gambling, racing, playing a video game, watching TV, reading a book. Very recreational. Very competitive.
 

GamingX

Executive Team
Messages
6,355
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Starshine mentioned somewhere about Kevin Mitnick, what a coincidence...I was just reading about him being the best criminal hacker. And his book Art Of Deception I was just starting to read it. I want to see how the mind of a cracker works......
 

Starshine

Legend Killer
Messages
14,423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Starshine mentioned somewhere about Kevin Mitnick, what a coincidence...I was just reading about him being the best criminal hacker. And his book Art Of Deception I was just starting to read it. I want to see how the mind of a cracker works......

I mentioned him because from my understanding and research into his hacking activities, he didn't make a profit or destroy anything ( or leave his mark ). Yes, he stole property that wasn't his, and gained access to things that he wasn't authorized to do so, but did that garner him the title of World's most wanted hacker?

GamingX - Another good book to show the differences between Mitnick and "Bad" hackers is "The CooCoo's Egg" ( I believe thats it ) I'll have to look it up. Its about some really bad hackers.

Now my point was - Mitnick went from hacking computers and phones and companies for giggles or whatever he did it for, to spending time in prison to now running a company that does it for profit. He still breaks into computers, but now has the permission of the company he breaks into. Should he be punished under US laws for gaining access to these computers, even if he had permission to do so?
 

corncob

New Member
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If he is hacking computers with permission I assume you mean that he is testing a companies security so that it isn't attacked right? Then he is actually helping the company secure it's confidential information. If he were to copy and take some of the information, then he would be out of line and should be prosecuted.
 

Agenator

Member
Messages
341
Reaction score
0
Points
16
See, the funny thing is that the original hackers where people at schools such as MIT that wanted to have free access to the mainframe computers without people looking over their head. You should read the book hackers (i think thats the name) to learn more. Now would you consider that right or wrong?
 

porky101

New Member
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I think that although hacking may be fun, it is DEFINITELY morally wrong. I agree with Pergamon it is like breaking into someones house.
 

VictorySkateShop

New Member
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Since you asked a question about morallity, I'm going to use the Bible to make my point. I'm sorry if it offends you. If you're hacking into a person's personal server, be it a big company or a normal person such as myself, without their permission, I'd consider it morally wrong. Notice Jesus said in the sermon on the mount "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Would you want someone hacking you and looking at all your personal information? I doubt it. There are though "hacker wargames"-sites who's owners allow hacking into the site, usually the site being simply for hackers to legally hack. That would be fine honestly.
 

Agenator

Member
Messages
341
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Actually, thank you for using a biblical reference. I have nothing against the Bible and am in fact a Christian myself. Apart from that, If a hacker did not view any personal information but just said okay you should fix this. Then how would that not be loving thy neighbor. It would be doing a service for them for free. Also I really would like to hear what people's opinion about the bank hacking scenario I posted earlier is.
 

GamingX

Executive Team
Messages
6,355
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Now my point was - Mitnick went from hacking computers and phones and companies for giggles or whatever he did it for, to spending time in prison to now running a company that does it for profit. He still breaks into computers, but now has the permission of the company he breaks into. Should he be punished under US laws for gaining access to these computers, even if he had permission to do so?

As long as he has the permission from the admin of the system he is hacking into, then I don't think he can be punished. But if he is illegally even trying to enter them then I think those laws would apply.
 

alfren

New Member
Messages
207
Reaction score
0
Points
0
hmmm.... hacking is wrong if you hack a system without permission. But if your asking permission before you hack the system or you are given permission to hack the system then its not morally wrong.
 

Reaperman

New Member
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I think before you can say whether "hacking" is morally right or wrong there needs to be a better definition of what hacking is. Hacking can cover a myriad of different actions. A hack can mean an extension of someone elses code to add functionality or correct an error. Is it illegal ...maybe if theres a no reverse engineering clause in the EULA. Is it immoral... depends. You can hack anything basically. My personal definition of hacking is taking something and making it do something other than the purpose for which it was intended. Hackers are the boundary pushers...some are rebels without a cause ...some are true visionaries looking to extend their knowledge and share it. IMHO you have to take each case on an individual basis. Saying hacking is immoral period is as incorrect, as saying all hackers are angels with our best interests at heart. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. That being said, in most of the scenarios discussed in the previous posts ...those guy aren't hackers they're thieves.
 

Thewinator

New Member
Messages
256
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If a hacker did not view any personal information but just said okay you should fix this. Then how would that not be loving thy neighbor. It would be doing a service for them for free.
*Agrees*
Also I really would like to hear what people's opinion about the bank hacking scenario I posted earlier is.
Again I like to refer to the article in the first post ( http://www.hackthissite.org/articles/read/253 )
It say's not to hack into government sites. Although banks are not goverment property I recon the same thing applies there.
Also, banks spend an awfull amount of money to hire hackers on daily bases.
These hackers are payed to hack the site or die trying so to speak.
So you'd have to be an extremely good hacker to get into bank systems.
Also like the article says about goverment sites, they would hunt you down.

To sum things up. I'ts so dificult to hack into banks that you would get cought trying to before you get in (that is if you can get in).
 

xflarex

New Member
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Points
0
i keep hearing the argument, is it ok for hackers to break into your personal property, just to tell you that your security has flaws. usually a hacker won't attack any random person. they will atk an owner of a large company or somebody important and well known. any skiddie(script-kiddie) can use nmap an telnet or putty to get into thousands of computers, but any halfway decent hacker can tell you easy ways to block them. somebody can hack george bush(may he rot in hell) and say "this program is interfering with ur firewal, may u rot in hell" or "don't use mcafee u dumbass. p.s. flare says 'rot in hell'"

if u cant tell i dont like gerge bush, and people don't use mcafee, there's a reason that its free
 

munim

New Member
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
Points
0
hacking a piece of open source software: perfectly moral.. infact its encouraged!
hacking propriety software: very very morally wrong!!
hacking websites: scrapping content from site or using its services may be correct.. read the site's terms of use or contact the webmaster.
hacking "into" websites and gaining illegal access: morally wrong

hacking can mean many things...
 

xflarex

New Member
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Points
0
this thread is really making me happy, i hear than my share of negative stereotypes, saying that all hackers are evil, dangerous, and should be locked away. i really hope that the people reading and responding to this thread are learning that most hackers arent bad people, just misinterpreted
 

galaxyAbstractor

Community Advocate
Community Support
Messages
5,508
Reaction score
35
Points
48
I think there is 2 kinds: Bad hackers that destroy and good hackers that help(ye, there really exist a few). Hacking is wrong if it about destroying legal sites and computers. But I think hacking is right if they only hack illegal sites with torrents and such content.
 

xflarex

New Member
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Points
0
@vigge:
you seem to be under the wrong impression, the majority of hackers are whitehat(good) and greyhat(neutral). very few of us are blackhat and actually mean to do harm. i have gotten a few thank you emails myself, from websites that i have found exploits for and explained the dangers to. trust us, plz
 

sirax

New Member
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Points
0
well, if you are a cop or something like that and you ned to hack a site or a pc for your investigation, maybe its morally right, but if you are a hacker taht like to hack for hobbie... thats another thing
 

thephoenics

New Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
0
According the the Geek.com technical dictionary:

"Cracker - This is the common term used to describe a malicious hacker. Crackers get into all kinds of mischief, including breaking or "cracking" copy protection on software programs, breaking into systems and causing harm, changing data, or stealing. Hackers regard crackers as a less educated group of individuals that cannot truly create their own work, and simply steal other people's work to cause mischief, or for personal gain."

"Hacker - This is someone that seeks to understand computer, phone or other systems strictly for the satisfaction of having that knowledge. Hackers wonder how things work, and have an incredible curiosity. Hackers will sometimes do questionable legal things, such as breaking into systems, but they generally will not cause harm once they break in. Contrast a hacker to the term cracker."

Looks good. These are definitely two different types of people, so I understand why a hacker would get upset at being called a cracker. This is the part that gets me, though: "Hackers will sometimes do questionable legal things, such as breaking into systems, but they generally will not cause harm once they break in." I have a few problems with this.

1. Generally? "He breaks into cars and joyrides, but he generally returns them."
2. Questionable legal things? No, breaking into systems one does not own is unquestionably illegal in the U.S.
3. Even so, let's assume the hacker does nothing illegal. How is a company supposed to know the difference between the hacker and the cracker?

Follow me for a minute here: I own a company, NetNut, and it has a computer connected to the internet. Stored on this computer is my secret data. Rufus T. Wanklehacker wakes up one morning and decides to try to break into NetNut's computer. He finds a security hole and succeeds. After he is done, he restores the computer the state he found it in and reports the security flaw to NetNut, so they can fix it. Across the street, MaCooter Q. Buttcracker is just getting up. He decides he'd like to get a piece of that secret data of mine. So he breaks into NetNut's computer and gets the data. He then restores the computer to the state he found it in, and just in case there are any audit logs he doesn't know about, reports the security hole(s) he found when breaking in. In this way he can claim he is just a harmless hacker and avoid prosecution, so long as no one finds out he looked at secret data.

See where I'm going with this? This is not an implication that all hackers have malicious intent. I'm all for the idea of peer-review, publication of security flaws, open-source, etc. But when a hacker breaks into a live system and wants a company to "take his/her word" that no harm will come of it... please. No harm will come of it if the person is truly a harmless hacker, but why would a company want to take the risk?

My question is this: What does a hacker want from the law? Why should a company, after receiving an email about a security flaw from a hacker who broke in, trust that the hacker did not do anything to harm the company? Why should a legal deterrant not come into effect until the company starts losing money? An analogy: "Stealing cars should not be illegal. The owner of the car should not be able to prosecute until the car is actually sold on the black market." Long story short, a cracker is a malicious hacker (see definition above). Malice is not the most measureable aspect of a person. So until the CIA with its drug tests figures out how to determine the exact level of malice in a person's brain, hackers are going to have to find a more obvious way to differentiate their actions from that of crackers if they expect the law, the media, and the corporations not to come down on them.

Here are a list of potential responses:

1.
Response - About the stolen car...

Rebuttal - It's an analogy. I know that a computer user can still use the computer if it is broken into, but a car owner can't drive a car if someone else is driving it. The point is that the car owner never gave permission to anyone to use his car. A better analogy is a house. There's a reason we have laws against breaking and entering in addition to locks on doors. What makes a computer so different?

2.
Response - I'm a hacker and I don't break into sites uninvited. I only reverse engineer software, break into my own systems or my friends' systems, work for a security consulting firm, shoot myself in the junk with a dart gun, etc.

Rebuttal - Then I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the hackers who break into someone else's system without permission.

3.
Response - On Smarch 32nd, 1989, Ronald M. Jobjob was aquitted of charges of breaking into a computer system on the grounds that he only elevated his privilege level, or was abused as a child, or whatever, so breaking into computer systems is legal.

Rebuttal - Sometimes people get away with doing something that is illegal. Sometimes people are found guilty of a crime they did not commit. In this country though, people are rarely charged with crimes that do not exist (I know some people can probably think of a few straw man examples against this, but they are rare). I work for a large corporation, and I have regularly seen it successfully prosecute people who work for the company and are caught trying to crack passwords or other such hacker activities. Breaking into computers is as illegal as breaking into homes (not the penalty, the legality).

4.
Response - U SUCK!!!!!! DIE MUTHAF***ER!!!!!!!! HACKERZZZZZZZ REWL!!!!!!!!

Rebuttal - Perhaps we'll someday unravel the enigma of why the media portrays hackers in a negative light.
 
Top