Is hacking morally right or wrong?

[Agenator]

As far as I understand from the ethics of hacking (as far as hacking into someones private computer to obtain their information), true hackers aren't looking to destroy a computer or steal your passwords but to obtain information that they feel should be publicly available. The novice computer user or non hacker normally considers a hacker as someone who wants to get into your myspace and mess up your profile or ruin websites and hold servers hostage. Their underlaying ethic is to see how things work and how to improve them. Many hackers actually hack software and into servers to alert the company that there is a problem. Also, in the hacker community, hackers are often scorned as "script kiddies" if they either use someone elses code or program to hack or if they hack stupid things like their Girl friend's email just to show off. This isn't what a true hacker is. Yes, a hacker can do malicious things but normally they do it because they feel like the person they are hacking is a person who needs to revel information publicly. If you want to learn more about this, visit this site: http://www.hackthissite.org/articles/read/253
Go ahead and tell me if I missed anything, said something wrong, or give me your opinion, is hacking morally right or wrong?
Do you think differently after reading this article?
If your a hacker, why do you hack?

 

[faolan]

Hacking is morally wrong, in my opinion. It is a willful destruction of something created by someone else that was not designed to be destroyed. Yes, they may be trying to actually help by pointing out flaws and not actually taking information, but that's like saying 'let me cut a larger hole in your house to show you where the security flaws are'.

If they wish to do something like that, they should look into a job working for the company in question. That's what programmers and testers are supposed to do before the product goes live. Perhaps they could even offer their skills on a contract basis. That way they are able to provide the service they are doing for free, and get paid for it.

As for the hackers that are getting at information they feel should be 'free'... that is flat out illegal. The owners of the information and the courts determine, based on copyright and fair use laws what is 'free' and what is not. As an author, my works are mine, and I can charge what I feel is reasonable for my work or sell it to whom I choose. If someone were to hack into my computer and take my novel, they just stole from me. Period, end of story. I'd feel the same if they broke into my house and stole it... it's up to me if my work, my effort, is free to others.

I'm sorry if the hackers out there feel that I'm 'out of the loop' or just an old fogey, but if you go after someone else's site or software, you're in the wrong.

 

[Agenator]

ty for your reply, I understand where your coming from and I tend to agree... But if a hacker is doing something that improves security and makes malicious hackers work harder to crack something then its probably good. For instance without hackers continuously cracking windows, microsoft wouldn't feel a need to improve their security but if you look at it in that respect then you could also say that if there were no hackers, there would be no need for security... I really would like to hear what an actual hacker would have to say,.

 

[legendphil]

hao!

there was this guy who tested one of my schoolmates' software firewall projects who said that hackers are good people, breakers however are not. I don't know if the typo was something he created, is it? is there a difference between a hacker and a breaker 'cept for the number of letters and spelling?

it's cool and all knowing too much, but if it violates someone else's rights.. then it should not be morally acceptable.

PS:

there's this stuff in CMS's "hacking the core to get the desired output"... <-this case is morally right.

 

[Thewinator]

There's a few facts that need te be set straight before this goes on:
First of all
Hackers per definition don't intend to be malicious they use security flaws to gather information that shouldn't be available to them (or others).
Reasons for doing this can be learning, pointing out the flaws to the owner/creator (wich people actualy are hired for) and many more.
When intending to be malicous or breaking the law for instance by piracy these people are called crackers.

Another thing I want to point out is that I noticed faolan compares this to breaking stuff. This is not true. These security flaws are already in place before the hacker comes by. Now when a hacker finds out and points it out to the owner this would be just fine. Imagine a cracker finds out first...

Its true, the information gathered (or stolen if you like) are not for the hacker to be seen. But if thats what it takes for the owner to wake up and solve the flaws then so be it.

 

[faolan]

There's a few facts that need te be set straight before this goes on:
First of all
Hackers per definition don't intend to be malicious they use security flaws to gather information that shouldn't be available to them (or others).
Reasons for doing this can be learning, pointing out the flaws to the owner/creator (wich people actualy are hired for) and many more.
When intending to be malicous or breaking the law for instance by piracy these people are called crackers.

Granted.

Another thing I want to point out is that I noticed faolan compares this to breaking stuff. This is not true. These security flaws are already in place before the hacker comes by. Now when a hacker finds out and points it out to the owner this would be just fine. Imagine a cracker finds out first...

So, if this is true then you would be fine with someone coming to your house and trying to enter your house. As long as they point out that you left the door unlocked, it's okay... even if they take your home porn collection in the process (not that you have one, just an example)?

Its true, the information gathered (or stolen if you like) are not for the hacker to be seen. But if thats what it takes for the owner to wake up and solve the flaws then so be it.

Hrm... so a thief that takes your posessions, just to point out that you have security flaws, is justified in their taking? Sorry, that just does not compute. Theft if theft, regardless of the reasons behind it.

I do understand your point of hackers (as compared to crackers) trying to help. Unfortunately the ends do not justify the means, in my opinion. If they want to help, they (as I stated before) should offer their services on a contract basis. Again, my opinion. :biggrin:

 

[Thewinator]

So, if this is true then you would be fine with someone coming to your house and trying to enter your house. As long as they point out that you left the door unlocked, it's okay... even if they take your home porn collection in the process (not that you have one, just an example)?

First of all in your example you would lose the porn.
Now what if someone came into your house, left every single thing exactly the way it was, took a picture of the porn laying on the ground and left you a note you should get a better lock. Now that would be a different story.
Of course if someone breaks into your house that wouldn't make you feel safe.
Thats becouse you aren't and should improve the security.

Hrm... so a thief that takes your posessions, just to point out that you have security flaws, is justified in their taking? Sorry, that just does not compute.

It is as stated in the article at HTS.org illegal. But the topic is not wether or not its legal to do. But if its morally right or wrong.
I say, with the intention to help the owner, its the right thing to do.

And your the perfect example of the joe character described in the article.
You don't want the likes of hackers.

But you do want your software to be safe.
Now I expect you to answer with, but he could ask for permission before he attempts to.
That would mean it would be a job, the owner has to pay for it.
Whereas if the hacker takes initative to do it straight away it wouldn't cost the owner.
Its like a gift.

 

[faolan]

First of all in your example you would lose the porn.
Now what if someone came into your house, left every single thing exactly the way it was, took a picture of the porn laying on the ground and left you a note you should get a better lock. Now that would be a different story.
Of course if someone breaks into your house that wouldn't make you feel safe.
Thats becouse you aren't and should improve the security.

But they are still not in the moral 'right' for breaking into your house.

It is as stated in the article at HTS.org illegal. But the topic is not wether or not its legal to do. But if its morally right or wrong.
I say, with the intention to help the owner, its the right thing to do.

Granted with resepect to the article. As for your statement regarding 'legality' vs. 'morality', I disagree. Morality has been (more or less) codified *into* legality, at least as regards private possessions/work. I, personally, do not feel anyone can be morally correct to break into/gather/steal my information if they feel it would help me.

Are there situations where doing the 'moral' thing is not 'legal'? Of course the answer is yes, but those situations are not germane to the discussion. Your private information, your private work (including proprietary programming information) is exactly that... private. Invading someone's privacy, for any reason than those set forth by law, is (again IMO) morally incorrect.

 

[satbir]

There is term called Ethical Hacking. This is actually Vulnerability Assessment test which the applications undergo for hacking ethically. Internal team or external hackers are employed who run through the application and tried to hack and point flaw and report these.

However if you do something like this without the permission of the authorized person then that is illegal hacking.

 

[Pergamon]

To me hacking is no different than someone breaking into my home and going through my possessions. Should I thank them for showing me how vulnerable my home is? Should I feel good about them taking my credit cards, silver, etc. because now I know that there are holes in my home security? I think not.

 

[WoWChat]

There are two kinds of hacking, both being morally wrong.

1 - Manipulating a game with coding and scripting to give yourself powers that you would not have without hacking. Essentially cheating the game.

2 - The worst kind of hacking, hacking into someone's account.

 

[xflarex]

hacking is not at all wrong the majority of hackers are grey or whitehat. that means good or neutral/experimenting. crackers or blackhat hackers, are doing things that are wrong, they are criminals. plz do not mix the 2 together, they are the reasons the term hacker got such a bad name. at one time being a hacker was considered a good thing.

legendphil you might want to use the term cracker not breaker. some people may take offense to that, most will just correct you like i am

WoWchat, sry but u don't have a clue what ur talking about if you think that there are 2 types of hacking. account theft or atk is weak at the best. do a little research on what slaving is

 

[GamingX]

Hacker is an actual term given to most Linux users, it normally refers to a Linux User who is into programming and changing the linux kernel etc. But with time it became more commonly associated with the dark side. They are actually known as crackers. You take up any Linux book and it will tell you how to hack it. Don't get it wrong, it tells you how to make changes to the kernel. But unfortunately the dark side are into stealing information, phishing, spamming etc. There are always three kinds of hackers(dark side) one those who hack into other computers and networks for personal gain, steal information and make use of it. The second are those who infiltrate the computers, steal the information and are lazy to make use of it and post the information on the web so that if they can't use it, let the others use it. The third category are those who take it up as a challenge to break into systems, though they are not interested in stealing information or anything. They do it just for the fun of it. But thankfully the term hacker is slightly coming back towards the actual meaning of it and hopefully continue to do so.Coming to ethics, there is a strong line where the ethics are differentiated into moral and immoral. But it is where the person draws the line. Some feel hacking is itself a crime, but others feel you can hack into networks but should not steal any information and draw the line there. So, basically it is what a person feels is moral and immoral.

 

[xflarex]

well said gamingx, but i wish people would do a little research on hackers before they draw that line. c'est la vie.

 

[Agenator]

But if I understand it correctly, hackers do not directly go for normal peoples information and privacy but more for the big company... So it would be a more correct analagy to say that maybe an industrial spy broke into a corporate building and then left a note saying that it could be done. If I was in charge of that company, then I would certainly appreciate being told about these vulnerabilities. Also take the situation of a white hat hacker hacking into a bank and not taking the money informing the company that the bank has flaws. Everyone wins in that situation, the bank doesn't loose your money and so it doesn't get its reputation hurt. You don't loose your money which is great for you. The hacker really did a major service in that situation. So IMO hacking is morally ethical depending on if it has a malicious intent or if it is to help others solve security holes. Also if a hacker is hacking into personal data such as photos etc. on a normal persons PC I would agree that its morally inethical. If it were more of a corporate type job then there could be ways that its justified as being ethical.

 

[nonsensep]

There's nothing wrong with hacking. It's what some people consider hacking to people that is wrong. People (I don't speak for all) consider hacking to be people typing really confusing code into the computer very quickly, doing something illegal. I consider hacking to be just having certain computer knowledge, and using it beneficially to your wants. I consider "cracking" to be the illegal version of hacking, when it becomes illegal what the person is doing. So there is nothing wrong with hacking in my point of view.

For example, the computers in our school block the start menu (also you can only run a few programs from a list including IE). My quick fix:

open IE
goto View Source
type into notepad "explorer"
save as anything.bat
(and since the computer's block file explorer) go back to save as
drag and drop the newly saved file into IE's address bar
IE will run the batch file, and now you have the start menu back.

That's hacking, not anything morally wrong. It would be if I abused knowing how to do certain things on the computer (One kid has in my class already, and he got busted).

 

[nakg0d]

Something I've consistently tried to emphasize as a bit of my own philosophy for the internet is that there is no such thing as morality, online (somewhat of a Nihilistic view, but not entirely - it comes with minor exceptions). Thus, I completely support hacking for knowledge, insofar that it does not threaten or violate governmental privacy laws.

Of course, this approach of mine does not allow me to justify hacking friends for no apparent reason. If I feel that there is a moral obligation for me to take it upon myself to inquire information about a peer, without their knowledge, then I will do so for the sake of their protection, not exploitation (this is surely appealing to beneficence, but threatening their autonomy).

Well, I personally would not like it if someone did such a thing to me, though. I would want to have some sort of notice, but I guess it depends on experience and trust. Not every "hacker" out there will treat information "as is," which means that a majority of them will use it to some sort of advantage, instead of keeping it to themselves.

With this kind of stuff, you have to sometimes put yourself in the other person's shoes. You can take a Kantian Categorical Imperative approach to it by saying that whatever you do [online] should be deemed a universal law. The less absolutist part of this imperative is seen in his second formation, which goes along the lines of not using people as a simple means to a certain end, but rather, we should treat people as ends in themselves.

Sorry to have gotten a tad philosophical there; I think I'm done for now.

 

[Starshine]

So, if hacking is "evil, wrong, bad" ... then what do you call these security firms that basically are hired to attempt to hack into company computers to test security?

Kevin Mitnick for one. A well know "former" hacker ... now runs a security company. So, is his company and companies like his wrong or illegal? They hack for money. *laughs*

 

[warlordste]

hacking is only wrong if you are doing it for personal gain most hackers just want to hack a system just to show that they can then leave a mark to show they have done it as what has already been posted there are 3 types of hacking but in the eyes of the law hacking is illegal acoading to the computer misuse act but i still think hacking is right or wrong depending on what they want to do and what system they want to hack

 

[Thewinator]

Should I feel good about them taking my credit cards, silver, etc. because now I know that there are holes in my home security? I think not.

Again, a hacker doesn't take your stuf. They merely have a look at it.
Read the previous posts before you post another false comparison.
If they steal credit card information they would be called crackers/blackhats.
If they are able to get that kind of information, leave a note and leave the information be, that is a hacker.

hacking is only wrong if you are doing it for personal gain

If personal gain includes learning to you then I would disagree.

most hackers just want to hack a system just to show that they can then leave a mark to show they have done it

The mark you speak of being a note for the owner to see its system is not secure. NOT to do damage to the system.

Now enough with the quotes.

Most of you ascociate hackers to invading privacy.
If they can invade it then the owner left the door wide open.
They don't break into stuff.
They don't create security flaws, the flaws are already there!

An example:
Your away from home, and you left the door unlocked and opened.
A hacker walks in learns from you that red carpets go well with yellow wallpaper (it means learning from your system)
Leaves you a note that you should lock the door when you leave the house.

The person makes no damage whatsoever and doesn't gain from it but the knowledge.

Now a proper example:
You've been working on your index.php for months now.
You almost got it done.
A hacker comes by and discovers it can be manipulated.
The hacker would back it up calling it index_backup.php for instance.
Then make the index.php a message to the webmaster to make it more secure.

The hacker could benefit from that by learning what nifty systems you put into your index.php
The owner benefits from it by now knowing its not secure.