I found an article online, "Are Computer Hacker Break-ins Ethical?", authored by Eugene H. Spafford from Purdue University. One of the main arguments is that if no significant damage results from incidents of unauthorized intrusions, these intrusions can serve a useful purpose (Spafford 1997).
Do you agree with the following reasons and the overall argument previously stated, what are some of the flaws? How are any of them valid? invalid? :
- "individuals who break into systems are performing a service by exposing security flaws, and thus should be encouraged or even rewarded"--> that it is "perfectly acceptable to engage in such activities on a continuing basis, so long as they might expose security flaws"
- "that such security breaches should immediately require vendors to issue corrections to
their customers, past and present...that without highly-visible break-ins, vendors will not produce or distribute necessary fixes to software." - Hackers argue they are simply making use of idle machines. "They argue that because some systems are not used at any level near their capacity, the hacker is somehow entitled to use them."
- Some argue that no harm is done and that they change nothing, that simply they are learning how computer system operate. " They argue that computers are expensive, and that they are merely furthering their education in a cost-effective manner. Some authors of computer viruses claim that their creations are intended to be harmless, and that they are simply learning how to write complex programs."
Hate this post? Voice your opinion...anything LOL!
I personally feel that accepting any of these reasons are a bit of a stretch. Although, some opposition, in any aspect, is necessary, I feel that in many case, many hackers hack for some sort of personal gain, and do not have the best interest of others in mind, at least not initially.
I think this is kind of ridiculous - the idea that a hacker has any sort of right or entitlement to invade someone else's electronic space? Why on earth would this be so? If a person manages to break into my house and just creep around for a little while but not steal anything, do they have a right to be there simply to make me aware that my house isn't locked/secure enough? Computers are not a house but they are PERSONAL items and they contain PERSONAL material, no one has the right to access those things unless they are given permission.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that computers are personal property which often contain very personal material. I have many passwords, account information and personal documents stored on my computer. It is unbelievable to me for someone to think they have the right to access this type of information solely because they are making use of idle space on machines or furthering their education about a computer system. Knowledge of computer operating systems can be acquired in an ethical manner without invading another's personal space.
ReplyDeleteThis article is very shocking to me. I think the motives that hackers have are almost always bad when they hack into a system. For someone to consider hacking a dangers issue makes me shake my head. The fourth point you brought up;
ReplyDelete"Some argue that no harm is done and that they change nothing, that simply they are learning how computer system operate. " They argue that computers are expensive, and that they are merely furthering their education in a cost-effective manner. Some authors of computer viruses claim that their creations are intended to be harmless, and that they are simply learning how to write complex programs."
The part that the claim that "they are learning how computer system operate" and "learning how to write complex programs" seems like a bit of a stretch. How many hackers really have those intentions? I don't think that many.
Initially I agreed with Molly and her "house" analogy. However, after thinking about it I think that analogy does not work for every instance. In other words, since not all hackers are bad. Or if they really are just testing to see if they can get in? However, like Katelyn said I think that argument is definitely a stretch, but then again who really knows why a hacker hack's anyways? I think that it is rare and definitely the exception but there are few occasions when a hacker hacking can be ethical.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, "An ethical hacker is a computer and network expert who attacks a security system on behalf of its owners, seeking vulnerabilities that a malicious hacker could exploit. To test a security system, ethical hackers use the same methods as their less principled counterparts, but report problems instead of taking advantage of them. Ethical hacking is also known as penetration testing, intrusion testing, and red teaming."
For instance, in this growing phenomenon I know IBM actually has a team where there main goal is to maintain employee teams of ethical hackers. I would be interested to know what exactly they are supposed to do day to day, does anyone know or is this a more DL type of thing?