View Poll Results: Is "The One" the prequel to "The Matrix"
- 7. You may not vote on this poll
October 22nd, 2001, 10:02 PM
Is it OK to hack a malicious hacker to get him to stop hacking people? Basically, would the end justify the means? This is not for retaliation purposes. I only want to know if you consider the preventative aspect of it to be OK.
This applies especially to script kiddies.
October 22nd, 2001, 11:21 PM
It's ok to post your opinion here, people. That's what a poll is for. People usually leap at the chance to voice their views.......
October 22nd, 2001, 11:49 PM
I think hacking a hacker does no good. Most likely, it will start a hacking war of sorts, which is obviously a bad thing.
The "pansy" way is probably the best way to stop a malicious hacker: report his actions to his ISP, etc.
October 22nd, 2001, 11:55 PM
Do @home or other broadband internet providers limit the actions of their customers like dialup ISPs do?
I haven't heard of any such regulation, does anyone have any stories about being kicked from broadband access?
October 23rd, 2001, 12:10 AM
It all depends on the provider. If you're thinking about a broadband connection, be careful. I don't know how common this is (probably pretty rare), but I have a cablemodem from Charter. I'm signed up for a 768K service, and I'm getting dial-up speeds. No lie. They won't do anything about it either. I'm in the process of reporting them to every agency possible that can handle this. Anyway, I just thought I would take this opportunity to blackball Charter.
By the way, aren't Charter and @home the same providers? I'm not sure, so be very careful.
October 23rd, 2001, 12:13 AM
The pansy way is the best & safest way to do it...
*must we really call it the pansy way??? why not just call it the not-so-tough way????*
However, if the ISP is unresponsive about the malicious hacker, there may be no other means than retaliation.... however, you have to be careful when doing this, coz last time I looked, "He started it" is not a strong legal defence...
@Home does have an Acceptable Usage Policy which says that your not allowed to do norty stuff..... here's a link if your really that interested... (its for Australian optus@home though... dunno if US is different)
Along with things such as illegal usage of your computer, @Home does have a download limit, of 10X the average user download...
which I think worked out to be 19Gig last newsletter I got.....
One of the most interesting thing I find, is that @Home states that your not allowed to use things such as network probing tools.. yet not a day goes by without IP which are reserved for @Home Corporate machines port scanning my computer......
October 23rd, 2001, 12:27 AM
I've had this debate in classes with students. While emotionally I can see some validity, say where organizations like the KKK or Neo-Nazis get hacked or a child porn site, the moral/legal side says otherwise.
It's hard not to justify doing something to retaliate. Such was done days after September 11th, justified in some eyes as retribution. As much as we don't like something, two wrongs do not make a right and when we let the "slippery slope" start where people can hack whoever they want, it will cascade.
If it is against the law, it is still against the law. There are no greys in the law. There are biases and prejudices when sentences and judgements come down however. And the morality or justification may help lessen or worsen the situation.
October 23rd, 2001, 12:30 AM
My question should have been phrased "if someone hacks me from a broadband provider, would it be possible to report that person to his provider, or would that be a waste of time because they don't have acceptable-use policies?"
I have a couple of friends that have @home connections, and they have experienced severe slowdowns like the one you're describing...from what I've read, it's a fairly common problem with the cable modem architecture and how it shares bandwidth.
If I was gonna do broadband at my house, I'd do DSL - about the same price where I live, and I've heard better things about it.
I only used the word "pansy" because I anticipated that's how it would be seen by some of the "more-aggressive" members here
October 23rd, 2001, 12:33 AM
MsMittens: While your answer is well thought-out and intelligent, the topic is not about retaliation. It is about prevention. I was asking for people's opinions on whether it's ok to hack a mailcious hacker to keep him/her from doing it again. Retailation is always wrong (but sometimes a great stress-reliever!). So, what do you think about the preventative aspect of hacking a malicious hacker?
October 23rd, 2001, 12:43 AM
Sorry. I must have misread.
But the answer still stands: no. And what you are referring to is both retaliation and so called prevention.
@home does have a acceptable user. (At least the version I use -- Rogers@home). I have had a few users "removed" from @home usage for attacks against me. And have caused a few concerns (when attempting to do some tests against a friend and they picked up the scans).