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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.