Hackers are all B@#t@rds

[Egaladeist]

Hi miracle,

I understand what you are saying...however...a computer is a person's property...just like his house or his car...therefore another person does NOT have a right of access to it without the OWNER"S PERMISSION.

I am not talking about worms or viruses ( which is a separate issue )...I am speaking specifically about property violations.

You might put a snake on my lawn ( worm ) and it might find it's way into my home or the house down the street...but...that's not the same as entering my property and changing the locks...is it?!

Now...you said what if it was to protect you? Well...then you knock on the door and if you are refused that's the right of the owner...you do not just circumvent the owner's wishes because you believe you are justified...because you aren't justified.

A computer is a piece of PROPERTY...as such it must be treated in the same way as any property.

Eg

[miracle]

Originally posted here by Egaladeist

Now...you said what if it was to protect you? Well...then you knock on the door and if you are refused that's the right of the owner...you do not just circumvent the owner's wishes because you believe you are justified...because you aren't justified.

A computer is a piece of PROPERTY...as such it must be treated in the same way as any property.

Eg

I think we're just getting into semantics here, but it's worth discussing. In this case, a persons house is different from a computer. If Joe 6-Pack doesn't secure his home, that's his problem....if someone breaks in illegally, it only affects him, his family, and maybe a neighbor or two. On the other side, if someone doesn't secure his/her computer, it can affect an entire subnet, ISP, or ????

I guess the main points I'm trying to make are these:

-It is certainly illegal to break into someone's computer, but it is not always unethical

-It is just as unethical to break into someones system and do harm as it is for Joe 6-Pack to not take the responsibility of securing his own system

-The content of a hard drive IS property, though it is not in the same category as say, land or someone's home

[Egaladeist]

Hi miracle,

That's where we differ in opinion...I believe there is no substantial difference as far as ownership goes...a computer is the owner's property...the data and contents are the owner's property...the property line is drawn at the connection at the internet...the internet is like a public park that everyone has access to...you still cannot enter the homes surrounding it.

It doesn't matter what justification you may feel a person has...I can justify buying an uzi and killing criminals saying I'm doing it for the public good...they present a security risk to my neighborhood...but that would be JUSTIFICATION IN ONE"S OWN MIND...not actual justification.

Sorry...you're not going to convince me it's OK to take or alter or use someone's property because YOU FEEL they're not being responsible enough.

If I feel you are not taking proper responsibility of your children, your car, your home, your shoes, your dog, or your watch...can I take them from you...or force you to accept my guidance?

That essentially is what you're suggesting...that if someone doesn't properly secure their computer that gives you the right to FORCE your guidance and changes upon them.

It doesn't wash! Unless the person is breaking the law you and no one else has the right to FORCE your judgments or your guidance upon them.

If these HACKERS were as ethical as you claim they are they would be trying to attack the criminals and using their talents in a productive way instead of trying to inflitrate Joe-Nobody's computer.

They would offer their services to the police, the FBI, and track down and shut down child porn sites and spammers and virus writers...but they aren't are they...that's why they're called Hacks...Hacker was NOT a term of endearment when it began and it still isn't.

You can try to justify entering Joe-Shmo's computer but that's just an excuse to be a HACK...if they really wanted justification they would be attacking the people causing the problems...because they're NOT...THEY ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

( exceptions apply...as always...I'm sure not all hackers are attacking Joe-Shmo...and I'm sure some are trying to attack the proper targets...but from what I've read on this site they do not comprise the majority...not by a long shot )

Eg

[carenath]

Originally posted here by pakbehl
This sounds like an article written by some angry journalist who got a huge credit card bill because he gave it to the wrong unsecured porno site. I can certainly understand somebody's anger at being devastated and emotionally destructed, I've had my things stolen, I've had to deal with virii, but do I write an article that generalizes every single person who ever wrote a virus, sent spam, ran a scam, ripped off the life savings of little old ladies, and found every "parent's" online bank account and called them all "hackers". I will most certainly agree whole heartedly that anyone who would do these terrible things are incredible jerks and should be made to feel what they inflict on others, but I've said 19million times before and I'll say it again these people are not hackers, they are cyber criminals, or whatever kind of criminal you want to call them. I am so sick of constantly arguing with people over the definition of 'hacker'. There are massive groups of law-abiding, tax-paying, PTA attending, hard working, proffesional people in the world that consider themselves hackers and make it known to others that this does not imply that they do anything illegal whatsoever. Yet over and over the media blatantly and rudely demonizes "hackers" and attaches that word to the worst kind of cyber*****s there are.
He speaks up for people who feel the effects of identity theft and the like ever day
Well I and millions of others like me are standing up for peaceful hackers who have to deal with the outrageous terroristic connotations that *random explitive* journalists like him perpetuate without a second thought.

Just thought I'd complain...

Well, I like your style.

I have had the same arguement over the past 15 years that I've all but given up trying to educate people on the difference between a "hacker" and a cyber-criminal.

The original hacker was someone who simply wanted to learn everything they could about a particular computer system/operating system. For example Unix, Windows or DOS.

A cyber criminal, on the other hand, is someone who deleiberately damages, destroys, or steals from a computer network, PC or other information system that they have managed to gain access to.

Are people who write computer viruses (or is it virii) hackers or criminals? Well, it depends on what they wrote it for. If it was to learn how to counter them by learning how they are (or can be) made, then I would classify them as a hacker. If they do so to deliberately infect other systems or cause damage to those systems, then I consider them criminals. After all, I have written my share of computer viruses and have been fortunate that none have ever gotten into "the wild." But they were written in order to learn the different means and ways that they could be "built" so that I could develope means and ways of getting rid of them with little to no loss of data. Or they were written to learn how to recover from them if they DID manage to deliver their "payload" and wipe my data.

Are people who break into other systems hackers or criminals? Again it depends on their motivation: to learn - hacker; to damage or steal - criminal.

The tired old usage of Hacker = criminal is not only unfair to those people who originated the term, but unfair to those who look up to them and want to learn just like they did.

Hacking, phreaking, blue-boxing, etc... Why consider andrelegate those people to the unsavory label of criminal by misusing the term that applies to them; the title of "Hacker"?

Just my 2 cents. Anyone is free to disagree, but at least disagree based on experience and facts, not media hype.

Carenath (Archangel)

[Egaladeist]

Hi carenath,

I refer you back to the post before yours...

They would offer their services to the police, the FBI, and track down and shut down child porn sites and spammers and virus writers...but they aren't are they...that's why they're called Hacks...Hacker was NOT a term of endearment when it began and it still isn't.

You can try to justify entering Joe-Shmo's computer but that's just an excuse to be a HACK...if they really wanted justification they would be attacking the people causing the problems...because they're NOT...THEY ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

your reply..

Are people who break into other systems hackers or criminals? Again it depends on their motivation: to learn - hacker; to damage or steal - criminal.

Let me clarify for the thick-headed : IF YOU ENTER SOMEONE'S ELSE'S COMPUTER WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION YOU"RE A CRIMINAL...PERIOD!

This has nothing to do with media hype...it's about PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Let me ask you a question...is the computer you are " learning ' from yours or someone else's?

If you're using someone's else's computer WITHOUT their PERMISSION you're a criminal...it's no wonder hackers get bad media attention when you justify using SOMEONE ELSE's computer as if you have a right to it...

YOU DON'T!!!!

It's NOT YOUR COMPUTER!!!

What is so freakin' difficult to understand about that? It's NOT your computer! You do not have any rights to property you don't own!

Do you OWN these computers you're ' learning ' from? Are they YOURS? Or are they someone else's?

Repeat after me : I DO NOT OWN THIS COMPUTER...THEREFORE..IT BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE...I DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS TO USE ANOTHER'S PROPERTY...IT DOES NOT BELONG TO ME...if you repeat this often it just might start to sink in.

Eg

[carenath]

Originally posted here by Egaladeist
Hi miracle,

..........

If I feel you are not taking proper responsibility of your children, your car, your home, your shoes, your dog, or your watch...can I take them from you...or force you to accept my guidance?

That essentially is what you're suggesting...that if someone doesn't properly secure their computer that gives you the right to FORCE your guidance and changes upon them.

It doesn't wash! Unless the person is breaking the law you and no one else has the right to FORCE your judgments or your guidance upon them.

Eg

Eg

While I have to agree - in principle - to your statement above, in actual fact your arguement is somewhat flawed.

The states and federal government on a regular basis DO tell you what you can do with your own personal property, family, pets, etc...

Look at all of the cases involving Children and Youth (or whatever your particular branch of family services are called). They tell people every day how to raise their children, how to handle problems that their children give, etc... and most of them have never even HAD kids.


As far as your comment re: utilizing our talents in support of the local LEA or whatever... Well, just try going to your local FBI agency and telling them you found a Child porn site and thought they would like to know. I can almost gaurentee that the FISRT person they will look at - and confiscate the system of - is you.

[Egaladeist]

Hi carenath,

Yes...the government interferes...and we accept that, in cases of abuse or neglect or criminal action...and they do make mistakes ( on purpose and by accident ), and they should be dealt with accordingly.

And yes...they do say whether or not you'll be allowed a permit for this or that...etc...I do not in every case agree with them either...but that is not the subject here...I said that in context to what was said before.

And I agree that the FBI, etc...might consider you a criminal for bringing something to their attention...it happens.

But where I do not agree is in the total lack of regard hackers seem to have for property rights.

It's very simple...if the computer is in your home it is yours...if it's NOT in your home but someone else's then it's NOT yours.

You have no more right to access a computer in someone else's home than you have a right to their sterio...it's a just because I can senerio...is it OK for me to cut a hole into the wall and tap my neighbor's electricity...just because I can?

Eg

[carenath]

Originally posted here by Egaladeist
Hi carenath,


Let me clarify for the thick-headed : IF YOU ENTER SOMEONE'S ELSE'S COMPUTER WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION YOU"RE A CRIMINAL...PERIOD!

This has nothing to do with media hype...it's about PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Let me ask you a question...is the computer you are " learning ' from yours or someone else's?

Actually the entire network I hack into belongs to me, and yes, I DO see your point. But please remember, originally, the internet and the systems attached were "fair game" because that was how it originally came about. Sure, MILNET was off limits, but originally the rest was open territory.

If you're using someone's else's computer WITHOUT their PERMISSION you're a criminal...it's no wonder hackers get bad media attention when you justify using SOMEONE ELSE's computer as if you have a right to it...

YOU DON'T!!!!

It's NOT YOUR COMPUTER!!!

Of course. I am not saying it is right, but per my previuos post the government tells us all the time how we may or maynot use our computers all the time. They are even trying to tell adults that they can no longer look at porn (if that is your thing), that you cannot allow children to learn about the human body (because they MIGHT find a porn site rather than a medical or health site) and that they can (and often time DO) read our mail or access our computers WITHOUT ever having to tell us when they are doing so. So, who is the criminal there?

Do you OWN these computers you're ' learning ' from? Are they YOURS? Or are they someone else's?

Eg

Please see my answer above (grin)

Carenath (archangel)

[Egaladeist]

Hi carenath,

See my post above...you got in another one before I did...dial-up.

If that's the case then in my opinion your a security professional like others here...if you are using your own network and/or permission to use...

I would not personally consider you a hacker.

Eg

Perhaps a new name needs to be coined...Internet Specialist?

[carenath]

Originally posted here by Egaladeist
Hi carenath,

See my post above...you got in another one before I did...dial-up.

If that's the case then in my opinion your a security professional like others here...if you are using your own network and/or permission to use...

I would not personally consider you a hacker.

Eg

Perhaps a new name needs to be coined...Internet Specialist?

Well, I don't know. Sounds like a good of name as any. But remember, too, I STARTED as an original hacker, i.e. breaking into systems and such. Not to do any damage, but to learn. Does this mean I STILL do this? Of course not. That was then and this is now. What I could "get away with" back then would label me a criminal (and at one point almost did) now. So I set my own network up that allows me to attempt any sort of, crack, "hack" or whathaveyou that I wish. Do I allow others to utilize my network for the same purpose? Yes.... and no. It would depend on their reasons for asking for access (what they hope to learn, why they want to learn it), their overall experience, and whether they could provide verifiable references that could give me an indication of just who they are (in a general sense) and what their ethics are.

Do "Hackers" have ethics? Sure.... the original guys like me do. But again, that was when it was okay to hack into the computers of the various educational institutions that started the internet. Our only "limit" (restriction) was to leave MILNET alone.

Carenath