Are hackers heroes?(nybooks.com)
nybooks.com
Are hackers heroes?
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/are-hackers-heroes/
5 comments
I think you're missing the point of the article at least a little here, although I agree with almost all of your points. Granted, hackers like any other group aren't all heroes or not heroes, and as you say the term is a loaded one already. But if you can define heroes as "people from all walks of life and professions, at varying skill levels who do something at great risk...for the good of one or many people", then there are certain examples in the article that fit that description. Heck, even the kids stealing credit card details are benefiting themselves, which actually conforms to your definition.
In certain cases I think black-hats are completely justified. I don't see what's wrong with DOS attacks on an organization like the FBI, a well known perpetrator of torture internationally. Ok, so one could argue that most DOS attacks are merely mischievous and aren't politically or morally motivated, but some are, and it's usually a case of the little guy (small groups of citizens) against the big guy (governments), and one could see this kind of hacking as a force tipping the balance in the individual's favour.
In certain cases I think black-hats are completely justified. I don't see what's wrong with DOS attacks on an organization like the FBI, a well known perpetrator of torture internationally. Ok, so one could argue that most DOS attacks are merely mischievous and aren't politically or morally motivated, but some are, and it's usually a case of the little guy (small groups of citizens) against the big guy (governments), and one could see this kind of hacking as a force tipping the balance in the individual's favour.
Hacker are not heroes as a rule, no sterotype is. A hacker and were talking non-tabloid version of the term I presume are people who question the anwears as much as the initial question and have the tenacity to seek out those answears to the questions nobody else bothers to ask.
A hero is somebody who goes further than others even imagined, it is always a label bestowed upon somebody by others. Hacker is a mindset and when it is bestowed by others is generaly refering to some electronic vandalism.
Using a bic pen to perform a trachyotomy so somebody can breath, that would be a hero hacker if such a definition was needed.
A hero is somebody who goes further than others even imagined, it is always a label bestowed upon somebody by others. Hacker is a mindset and when it is bestowed by others is generaly refering to some electronic vandalism.
Using a bic pen to perform a trachyotomy so somebody can breath, that would be a hero hacker if such a definition was needed.
This discussion is framed very weirdly, almost to the extent of meaninglessness because the language is so imprecise. Asking "is hacking good" is like asking "is evolution good for people when it produces everything from terrible worms that blind people by living and eating their eyes to fantastic bacteria that allows us to digest all kinds of crazy foods?"
Systems always have weaknesses and systems always change. Sometimes we improve the weaknesses for fun or profit or usefulness, sometimes we attack them for fun or profit or malice.
Systems always have weaknesses and systems always change. Sometimes we improve the weaknesses for fun or profit or usefulness, sometimes we attack them for fun or profit or malice.
Your biology examples raise the idea that it would make sense for the legal system to distinguish between types of computer intruders. As vaccinations used to work on the principle of exposing people to milder strains of a virus, it'd be likely to be beneficial to make restricted forms of hacking legal (largely based on non-sharing of any non-public information from servers). The devil would be in the details of course, but it might be worth considering.
I would agree with this suggestion. The article categorizes everything from modifying phones to illegal and wrong activities such as theft and spying as hacking. Things will always be used for purposes different from their original intent because humans are resourceful and care about their own wills. Neither humans nor nature care what the original creator's intentions might have been- our eyes may be "intended" for sight but worms will evolve to use these eyes as food and housing- and it's nonsense to label these worms or their evolution as good or evil. Hacking is an idea that will always occur because it's part of nature, which has no sense of justice. Morality only comes in with how we humans use our ideas. For example, the making of a knife from a toothbrush is not illegal, even if it offends the sensibilities of the toothbrush designer, but the use of this knife to harm another person is illegal.
It doesn't help that the article seems completely unaware of the fact that "hacker" has two distinct meanings, and some of the people quoted aren't talking about the same thing the author is.
Confront and Conceal is an odd choice given the other three titles. There is only one or two chapters in C&C that are relevant and they add very little to the debate other than providing some "ripped from the headlines" context. The reviewer should have gone with "This Machine Kills Secrets."
Hackers are not heroes. Certain individuals out there are heroes. They aren't all hackers. They're people from all walks of life and professions, at varying skill levels who do something at great risk, who often sacrifice something, and do something for the good of one or many people. The term hero can be very subjective and I am not comfortable labeling a group of people or even a subset of a group of people as heroes. The fact that someone wrote an article like this just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Hackers, you're not heroes. Only heroes are heroes.