Intellectual Discussion of the Hacking subculture and "hacktivism" in general
Preface : Let me first say that this post is not targeted at any one individual, and that I respect all hackers: espessially the ones that serve time behind bars for their cuiosity. And of the people who's actions and words anger me enough to write this, mr. cheese would not be one. I have always showed an upmost respect for mr. cheese and his current situation. Numerous times I have defended him when others hurled flames at him. I wrote this not because I do not respect or admire mr. cheese or people like him, but out of my respect for them. I may disagree with the philosophy behind their actions, but I do not in any way aim to discrace or demean them. This post is simply a kritik of the current situation that hackers find themselves in, and my views on it. Furthermore, let me also state that while I may state I disagree with some people in this post it in no ways means I want to see them in jail. to qoute another poster, while I might agree with some of the laws I don't agree with the punishments. that said, I hope you enjoy my post and find it thought provoking. Feel freee to reply with questions and comments of any kind. Feel free to flame me via PM, but please keep the thread clean and make sure your posts contibute to the discussion as to make it easier for other's to follow the thought proces of the collective posters in general. I will add a quick note that throughout this post, I am talking about hacktivism, and by hacktivism I mean defacing, destorying or compramising sites for the prime reason of limiting another's political or social opinion.
It was Voltaire's 'A Treatise on Toleration' that manifested the idea that while he may have despised what another wrote, he would have given his life that that person would have the right to write it. I am approaching this post from the world view that each man is afforded at his birth the right to hold whatever opinions he wants (and t oexpress those opinions) so long that in doing so, he does not infringe upon the rights of others. I approach from this world view because I myself hold a copious amount of opinions which would not exist in America if this world view was not protected (even in a very limited fasion) through the first amendment. Being a communist and a hacker are certainly not poplar things, and most people in Europe and America wish that I would be silenced. Because the law protects me and my views from these people, I respect the laws that in turn protect those people's rights to express their opinions of intolerance and hatred towards me and what I stand for. It worries me that more and more, the hacking subculture is turning to forms of hacktivism to spread their social and political ideologies. This said, do not assume that I support the viewp[oint that anyone can put anything on the net. Doing so would be completely ignoring my world view. If a site directly limits the rights of another, it has no place on the net. But sites like these are often not legal. No first world country will punish a hacker for removing a kiddie porn site or a spammers, because the law in most cases doesn't allow these types of sites. And even if you were to see the possibility of punishment, things that are immoral are generally considered unlawful (this doesnt mean that all laws are moral!) and usually choosing a legal avenue will actually give a faster response to the problem than hacking the site will unless the site is very insecure.
Furthermore, in regards to effectivnes: even if a law does not directly limit the irhgt of that site to operate – taking the site down will not solve the probelm, just temporarily wipe it under the rug. Pursueing a legal path and contacting legislature to get that content considered illegal will give an avenue to greatly restrict the peroblem and a legal precedence to take down the site. If I punch a man because I am mad at him, I'll go to jail. If I punch him to stop him from abusing a child or shoplifting or hitting another person, the law will be far more lax and usually let me off with just having to write a statement. Only in dire situations are hackers needed to 'protect the internet' – and in these cases the government is almost never involved with punishing them.
While I think that racism is immoral and unethical and hate the KKK and other racist organisations, they have just as much of a right to hold their opinion as I do to hold my opinion of capitalism and communism. They don't have the right to kill black people, limit balck's access to public services, limit black's rights to live in prodominstly while neighborhoods, take down anti-racist websites or deny any other privledge on basis of skin color. In the same since, I don't have th right, as a non-racist person, to deny them a job, access to public facilities or anything else based upon their political and social beliefs so long as their don't infringe upon the rights of others.
Let me further state that I believe that a hacker should have the right to access any computer system so long as they do not access or release information that could lead to serious safety concerns or limit the operating of the computer system in any way, and that the laws concerning these things while I stated shouldn't be allowed should be far more lax.
To claim that one has the moral compass to decide what is an is not moral is to claim that an individual – a single person – can make the decision of what policital and social viewpoints should be censored and which should be allowed. If you can't assure that that person will always be you, then don't thake morals and eithics and 'justice' (which is an arbitrary tem based upon your interpretation of ethics and morals) into your own hands. I don't break into protest warriors because I can't be sure that the g00n won't break into indymedia. And niether group would be in the rihgt, because they are both attacking a political philosophy while saying that no one should attack thiers. That's called a dogma. And escaping dogmas is the reason I fled into the underground of hacking.
The entirity of this post can be manifested into one sentence: If a site does not limit another's rights directly, there is no just reason for it to be removed from the internet or for it to be compramised in any way. The great thing about most of europe and america is that generally you have the right to disagree with the status quo. This is the reason that HBH even exists!
closing note: mr. cheese, I repsect your opinions, so please post your justification for removing sites that do not directly limit the rights of others and your general world view in regards to hacktivism as I defined it.
Gah im soo pissed right now, I jst spent 20 mins writing an argument against what you said, and firefox crashed right as I was finishing off…
Anways, here goes again…
Kay before I begin, Id like to say its a great article youve written here, and I fully support your ideas of free speach.
However, there are some mistakes I found.
First off, I quote:
"…each man is afforded at his birth the right to hold whatever opinions he wants (and t oexpress those opinions) so long that in doing so, he does not infringe upon the rights of others."
"the rights of others" is a very subjective term. There is no clear boundry between what infringes upon ones rights, and what does not. Simply expressing your opinion could be infringing upon another's rights.
This next part may sound a little brutal, no offence meant to you.
…most people in Europe and America wish that I would be silenced. Because the law protects me and my views from these people, I respect the laws that in turn protect those people's rights to express their opinions of intolerance and hatred towards me and what I stand for.
It sounds like you feel that the government is doing the right thing in protecting you. However, is it not also a persons right to express their opinions about what they think of you? If they believe you should be silenced, what right does the law have in telling them they cant?
I realise im really tired now and the way Im wording it isnt making a lot of sence, jst ask me to clarify if you didnt quite get that :P
No first world country will punish a hacker for removing a kiddie porn site or a spammers, because the law in most cases doesn't allow these types of sites.
First off, no third world country will punish a hacker anyway, theyre generally busy doing more important stuff :P
Back on subject.
There is one main thing I dont understand about your article. First you argue that everyone has the right to publish their views, even if they may be unpopular. However, you seem to be perfectly fine with the law not allowing sites. The government can state which sites they believe to be "bad", but in making them illegal, are they not preventing people from expressing ideas aswell?
Im really tired now, and finding myself not making sence, so Ill sum it up.
"If a site does not limit another's rights directly, there is no just reason for it to be removed from the internet or for it to be compramised in any way."
Lol first off, werent you fine with certain sites being illegal? Wheres the difference in them being officially illegal and being taken down by hackers? Either way, peoples are being prevented from expressing their opinions.
Second, give me any opinion or view at all, and I will show you how it directly and indirectly limits another's rights. Ill eat my hat if you find one. There is no such thing as an opinion that doesnt harm somebody in some way or another.
Right thats enough for now, Ill try come up with better arguments when im in a better state :P
Till then, hope that provided a little sumfing to start an argument.
-BluMoose
I partially agree with you here. I agree that free speech is a wonderful thing, and should be embraced by all. Everyone should have the right to express their opinions, but at some point, a line must be drawn.
Take this as an example:
deathrape wrote: While I think that racism is immoral and unethical and hate the KKK and other racist organisations, they have just as much of a right to hold their opinion as I do to hold my opinion of capitalism and communism. They don't have the right to kill black people, limit balck's access to public services, limit black's rights to live in prodominstly while neighborhoods, take down anti-racist websites or deny any other privledge on basis of skin color. In the same since, I don't have th right, as a non-racist person, to deny them a job, access to public facilities or anything else based upon their political and social beliefs so long as their don't infringe upon the rights of others.
Now, should these racist groups spread their opinions they may eventually make a difference. After all, change only comes about when enough people want it and talk about it. But say, for example, that a racist group built up a following, and they did this via the internet, posting propaganda and spreading their message. Now, eventually this could bring about change, and black people could become second class citizens (I'm talking extremely hypothetically here). Black people may not have the same rights as white people, they don't have all the same privilidges. You're saying you're against this and rightly so. Now, imagine, if you will, that all this could have been averted should the original sites spreading the propaganda had been taken down by hackers.
Would that have been the moral think to do? I think it would have been.
One final rhetorical question to sum up my argument.
A paedophilic group are spreading the message that adults should be able to have sex with children via a website. You have the power to take this website down. Do you?
But do you not think that if the people spreading the antiblack propoganda are converting people so easilyto their cause that these people also agree with their opinion. it may not be right.. but its democracy. what your proposing is a dictatorship.. where the strong control what is said and what is thought. Democracy may be flawed and it may sometime protect the people that shouldnt be protected but its the best we got.
From pulp fiction:
There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you. I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a motherfucker before you popped a cap in his ass. But I saw some shit this mornin' made me think twice. Now I'm thinkin': it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd.
So am I..
I. 'rights' is subjective, no clear definition repsonse: I concede to that. wE'll make it easy on ourselves and for the purpose of an educational debate ,take the first 10 amendments to the "United States Constitution and define those as the 'rights' we are discussing here Ia. epressing an opinion could express upon other's rights response: I would disagree. How is saying 'I uspport kiddie porn', 'all blacks should die' or 'hackers should be thrown into prison' infringing upon other's rights? distributing pictures of a person who is too young to make an educated deicision about rather they ewant those pictures of themselves distributed is, killing people based upon skin color is, throwing people in prison because they identify with a subculture is. But how is expressing your view infringing upon anyone's rights? give an example.
II. law should make sure I cannot silence others who disagree with me That's exactly what I'm saying there. Sorry if it's confusing. Try rereading it after a nap :)
III. no third world country would arrest a hcker nope. so we don't need to worry about that. I'm coming from the viewpoint of if you removed somthing that actually infringed upon anothers rights, the government probably wouldn't come after you. Plus, most hackers live in third world countries anyway.
IV. gov't decides what is illegal I'm saying everything should be legal that does not infringe upon other's rights. The government can decide what infringes upon other's rights and take action (ie kiddie porn). I wouldn't necesarily say death threats that are not true threats fall under this catigory (look up what a 'true threat' is.)
The difference between the law taking them down and hackers taking them down is that the law provides a forum through which the site owner can express why the site should stay open and from a popular sobvreinty point of view, the people (versus a hacker) decide what should and should not be online. Furthermore, I'm stating that the law is more effective. IE that the law can keep a site down, wereas a hacker cannot keep a site down forever in most cases.
"Second, give me any opinion or view at all, and I will show you how it directly and indirectly limits another's rights. Ill eat my hat if you find one. There is no such thing as an opinion that doesnt harm somebody in some way or another."
Eh… I htink you just contradicted your first point… or perhaps we're both confused. But this is exactly what I'm saying.
I'm saying that it's not the opinions that should EVER be limited… everyone can say what they want! It's the limiting of other's rights (ie, by giving out home addresses, places to buy guns and saying a person should die on a website) that isn't ok.
So sum it up, opinions should never be censored: mine or my enemies. Websites that infringe upon others rights, such as sites with true threats and kiddie porn should.
And bobbyB: as my rebuttle to you, I'll just say read the fedralist papers. The people aren't idiots. Most know what to and not to believe.
Imagine if I were to say that if we allow hacker sites to coninue operating everyone will become a hacker and the internet and wallstreet and everything will be destoryed and we will fall into an age of anarchy because of sites like HBH with hacker propagnda and tutorials. Far fetched? Yes. Just like yours, and people generally know that things are far fetached when they hear them.
As to your last comment bobbyb: NO. You have the write to express that their opinion is wrong. You can only take down the site when they start using the site to acutally commit these actions. Why? Because such a law allowing this will never pass. Most people will never even hear of the site. So you just ignore it and move on. It's the precedence you set by taking down these sites that makes the problem. Not the aciton itself. You're say "I don't agree with you. You aren't allowed to say that anymore." Versus saying "I don't agree with you, and I will do everything in my power to prevent you from actually DOING that if you do start doing that." Calling blacks inferioir should be allowed (but not aplauded or encouraged). Actually implementing buisness policy to limit blacks is not and should not be allowed. See the difference? By saying Iwant to cyber eight ear olds I'm not infrigning upon another's rights. By coersing an eight year old into cybering with me, I most certainly am. Again, by saying people who hold unpopular views should be silenced, we set a scary precedence. Because we are unpopular. Get it?
No, I don't believe in a dictatorship.
I'm just saying that the one right that comes above all else is equality. I don't believe that it's right to spread racist, sexist or propoganda of any kind if it declares any set of people to be inferior to another set.
Websites that promote prejudice against a particluar set of people ARE wrong, because although everyone should have a right free speech, I believe that this right is superceded by everyone's right to be equal.
As for my peadophile argument then yeah, I do think there is something fundamentally wrong with a grown man having sex with a small child. Almost everyone knows this to be wrong, and websites that promote such points of view will never gather a strong enough following to change everyone else's views on the subject, as it is so widely accepted to be wrong. So, if a website encourages people to do this, then I believe it should be taken down, simply because it will encourage a fundamentally immoral and illegal activity.
A right to equality as you talk about sounds more like the right of everyone to agree with you. On the one hand, you state that all races should be treated equally, while on the other hand you state that different ideas should be treated differently even when they fall under the same catigory. See below for an explanation:
So, if a website encourages people to do this, then I believe it should be taken down, simply because it will encourage a fundamentally immoral and illegal activity.
You have any idea how many people would say that hacking is funadamentally immoral and illegal? Seriously, apply what you just said to hacking. hackers will never gather a large enough support base to change laws about ocmputer crime. most people hate hackers. most people believe that hbh condones fundamentally immoral and illegal activity. So should we shut HBH down? If you say no, then you are either supporting the idea that your viewpoint and the viewpoint of those who agree with you should be enforced and the viewpoint of the majority should be ignored when you disagree with it; or you are a hypocrite. If you answered yes, why are you here?
deathrape wrote: most people believe that hbh condones fundamentally immoral and illegal activity. So should we shut HBH down?
no, because HBH doesnt infringe on anyone else, or spread material that is harmful to people. HBH actually benefits people by trying to stop illogical hacking over the internet and give people a place to test it instead of them using random sites. HBH helps people, it doesnt attempt to hinder them like a racist site would.
lets take for instance racist sites. why would racist filth be allowed on our internet? its illegal to spread racist bullshit propaganda over any other media, so why allow the internet. take for instance a modern day hitler. would you say his views and political opinions are ok providing he just keeps themonline. bullshit.
thats just one example of unethical material i and thousands of others believe shouldnt be online. what about corrupt companies, what about spam servers, what about sites dedicated to hosting viruses, i could go on and on. im not talking about shutting down a site just coz you disagree with their view points.
i disagree with the british conservative party but im not gonna go shutting down their website. im talking about removing poison from our internet to better the lifes of everyone over the world. if you have a good sense of ethics its easy to distinguish between whats right to remove and whats wrong.
OK, maybe I don't agree with you ENTIRELY, but I'm seeing what you're talking about, and agreeing with you on most points. I still disagree with you partially, and something has just occoured to me.
One last question, just to try to better illustrate my point.
You see a website. It describes how black people are second class citizens, and how they should have no rights. You have the power to take down this website. Do you?
And now, the same question again. Only this time you yourself are black.
BobbyB wrote: You see a website. It describes how black people are second class citizens, and how they should have no rights. You have the power to take down this website. Do you?
i'd expect anyone to do that in a heartbeat.
And now, the same question again. Only this time you yourself are black.
does it make any difference?
first off, sorry it took so long to respond. I finished a post and then submitted and it didn't post for some reason.
no, because HBH doesnt infringe on anyone else, or spread material that is harmful to people. HBH actually benefits people by trying to stop illogical hacking over the internet and give people a place to test it instead of them using random sites. HBH helps people, it doesnt attempt to hinder them like a racist site would.
Alright, that's fair. But then, that's what you and I think. That's our perception. Hackers are a public enemy, just like racists and terrorists and commies are. From alot of perspectives, HBH is teaching people to become hackers. Go out of the street, ask 100 people who don't know alot about computers if they want a site with information related to computer security that could help a malicous user gain access to webservers that could hold personal information of individuals, which is run by a person who is being investigated by the SS for charged related to computer crime to remain online. How many of them replied yes, or even maybe?
I'm talking about this from a pragmatic level. We can't have perfect justice. It doesn't exist. So we take what we can get. You support censorship of ideas on the internet? Guess what? Hackers are on the top of the public enemy list in regards to the internet. HBH would be one of the first sties to go if we set a precedence allowing ideas to be censored. Because hacking is just as unpopular as racism. Maybe not viewed as serverely, but it's got just as few supporters and gets just as much if not more negative publicity.
Listen, man. Alot of my friends are black. When we go somewhere, people avoid us and make unreasonably large circles around us on the side walk. About 20% of our school's populartion is black, and of the 4 honors classes and one advanced non-honors class I took, there were 3 black people (and no hispanics). And our school administrators and teachers aren't members of kk type organisations andprolly dont even reaise that they are doing. Most black people, I can say from personal experiance, are more conerned about this type of passive racism than blatent racism. Because for most, blatent racism is something they come in contact with not very often and doesn't affect their livlihood, while passive racism most definatly does.
To answer your question, bobbyB, Joel, a friend of mine who is an afican american is over here right now. I asked him the question and we both wrote down our view of the website on a piece of paper. We then compared. We both said we didn't like the site. Then we wrote down our action. We both wrote down that we would take none. Joel mostly because he doesnt know much about computers (other than being an awesome CS player). When I saked him if he knew how to hack, would he, and he still said no – because he holds the view that actions like these only provoke racism when they are done by african americans. It's like the black panthers, they only made the problem worse.
Think pragmatically: are you willing to get rid of racism on the net if you have to give up the right for you to maintain sites like HBH? If so, stop complaining about injustice. You got to take down a site, and now the gov't gets to take down yours. Just.
to the last few paragraphs of your post, I will copy what I posted today t the identical comment you made on news post 142:
Yeah, and thousands of people believe that hackers shouldn't be on the internet. That anyone that hosts things like HBH should be put offline. You've experianced this first hand. Mr. Cheese, it's the precedence you set in doing this, not the censorship itself. You're saying 'alot of people disagree with them. They aren't allowed anywhere else. We won't allow them on the internet either' sets a precendence that is scary because hackers are unpopular. If we say racists and pervy men who like children and nazis arent allowed online well, guess who's public enemy number 1 when it comes to the internet? Hackers. So, cheese, set that precedence if you want. But when hacker's can't say what htey want on the internet without having their sites shut down, don't cry injustice. And why allow them on the internet when we dont allow them other places? It's called freedom of information. I support a free internet where EVERYONE can express their opinions, no matter how sick or wrong.
Ironically, as after I submitted this post, the quote on the page was "Become to chaange you seek in the world" by Ghandi. So, cheese, you want tolerance? Become tolerant of those who it is most difficult to be tolerant with. People you just don't agree with politically are easy to get along with. People whos social views you hate are the people that you need most to show tolerance to if you want them to show tolerance to the people they most hate.
i wish to answer bobbyBs question.. im not black. so i wouldnt know if i would be offended by a website saying i was a second class citizen. Why do people always feel they have to be positively disriminative against black people. Minorities get more protection than anyone else. or people that have a history of abuse or opression, Now of course if i saw i site by the KKK. id be angry. but is it my responsibilty to take it down. NO. how do i know its offending anyone. i think that it should be left to the people effected to decide. im not gonna put myself on the moral highground and proclaim to have a godgiven right to do whatever the hell i like. want an exmple of when people act like that?? IRAQ. i think that just hacking things becuase you think its wrong is subjective and a bad plan, THe Holocaust. performed by an elected government which at that time had the majority of support. Thats just another example of when a majority view was wrong. i think child porn and rascism is wrong.. but where do you draw the line. people push the envelope and watch it bend. then push more to see what happens. first racism and kiddie porn then hackers, open source programmer sites (could happen), communist sites, alternative music bands. satanists..
When the they came for the KKK members, I remained silent; I was not a KKK member.
When they locked up the perverts, I remained silent; I was not a perverts.
When they came for the Linux Users, I did not speak out; I was not a Linux User.
When they came for the Goths, I did not speak out; I was not a Goth.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
Why is it only black people that should be offended by racism?
[note] before I start this little rant, I'm not racist nor do i discriminate others. just a point and nothing more. [/note]
It seems to me people imply that caucasions can't be the subject to racism. I disagree.
These few things piss me off:-
-
When you see an advert… or a TV show that has a group of people. There is one black, one asian, one mixed race (half caste has now turned out to offend them) and one caucasion. I find that offensive and racist. I find it offensive that people are bending over backwards to give other races special treatment. If 5 black people were better at the job, they would all get hired and no one would bat an eye lid. If 5 caucasions were hired, REGARDLESS, the company would get called racist and implementing the law on the race discrimination act would get taken to court.
-
50 Cent says: wud up my nigger No biggie…
Bill Smith (Caucasion) says: wud up my nigger RACIST.
Why are black people not offended by another black ranting and raving the work nigger. But when a white person says it, [sarcasm] it was obviously meant to discriminate him for his colour [/sarcasm]
Some people are offended by the word cunt. Now i'm pretty sure if an irish fella called that person a cunt and so did some one from france and one from the offended persons origin, I'm sure they would all offend them.
- So who are racist these days, sometimes I get the feeling that black people are using the race card FAR too much.
My points aren't exactly clear but I hope you get the drift.
In regards to a website from a jihadi or the KKK, ME personally, find it pointless. I pitty them rather than hate them. People like that don't deserve the consideration you all give thim. I don't have the right to take it down. Neither do you or the people it regards, however who has the rights to do what we believe in. There is no right answer, there is no wrong answer. Just contiversy(SP) and pointless points regarding racism.
Im sure your bored of this and to you, it may not make alot of sense, but I just tried getting a point accross.
shabouwcaw: Exactly why we shouldn't contribute to the porblem by going for the racists and perverts
Mr_Cheese: No, it's not. Freedom of speech has been alive in GB and America for hundreds of years, and I don't see any mini-hitlers! Freedom of information and speech does NOT lead to facism, it leads to freedom. What got Hitler into power was alot of people in debt, hungry and in poverty. Not the freedom to say what you want to. What kept Hitler in power was censorship: the silencing of non-facists. You can't go around censoring people you disagree with and then calling it an injustice when people who disagree with you censore you. It's hypocracy. You say "But they are racist" and they say "and you're a hacker" They don't care what you think a hacker is, they only care what they think a hacker is.
spyware: sometimes you have to break the law to control it… but we like our right to freedom of speech. Breaking a law is the best way to making it not applicable to you. Silencing others is the best way to become silenced. What laws do you propose we break and for what reasons? Now, if it were possible for somone else to do the same to you, would you want them to do it to you?
deathrape wrote: Freedom of information and speech does NOT lead to facism, it leads to freedom.
i never said it did. but your missing hte whole point. freedom is speech is overruled by someones right to freedom.
someone saying "i like my shoes. i dont like goerge bush" <– that is ok, because it doesnt infringe on anyones rights.
someone saying "kill all children with blonde hair, and anyone with red hats are second class citizens" <– that is not ok because it discriminates on others unfairly and if it came into practice.. much like racism comes into practice… then ofcourse people saying this should be stopped.
but fine think what you want. but when you or your children get beaten to death by a gang of youths because they discriminate against you by something they read on a website…… dont expect any sympathy from me.
So you say freedom of expressing an opinion and thought got hitler into power. But your saying you didn't say freedom of information (thereby expressing any opinion freely) didn't get hitler into power. I'm confused. What did you mean by the original statement, cause that's what I got out of it.
Making a true threat is not a valid forum of expressing an opinion. It's a threat. I've stated this.
How many times have I stated that the freedom to express one's view is only extended so far as it doesnt infringe upon the rights of others. There are thousands of sites that threaten to killall black people. Two racially motivated deaths this year. If someone makes a true threat, it should be removed. I have stated this. But most threats are not, and most propaganda is jusst that: propaganda. It makes the followers feel good and nothing else.
deathrape wrote:
Freedom of speech has been alive in GB and America for hundreds of years, and I don't see any mini-hitlers! Freedom of information and speech does NOT lead to facism, it leads to freedom.
I'm not against you but this post I dissagree with.
I'm against George.W.Bush Jnr because of the way he runs America. I'm not American but sometimes I feel like Bush is trying to manipulate the US citezans to believe what he wants them to believe.
If any of you have seen the documentary 'Loose Change' (video.google.com > loose change < 1 hr 22mins >) Then it's transcendant to me if you can still be convinced that Al Qaeda had anything whatsoever to do with September 11th. So why would Bush invade Iraq, and why would he imply to us that it's for our freedom and good will. You will probably respond with "But they caught Saddam, the most horrific reigime since the holocaust". But why didn't they do that a decade ago when he had the power. He was a fragile man in a cave. Who's to say they hadn't allready had him captured by the US Army.
When people expressed their views regarding September 11th, if people doubted the acts of terroism that were pledged upon us; a statement followed soon after ammending their beliefs.
So who really gives us the freedom, free thought and free will?
Ian Huntly and Maxine Carr - The murderers of Jessica Wells and Holly Chapman. Those are mini hitlers.
The "American Sniper". A mini Hitler.
Two men from Liverpool UK murdered Danny because of the colour of his skin. They are mini Hitlers.
So who are we to say that Kevin Mittnick, Gary Mckinnon and even some people on this site…. aren't mini Hitlers.
You don't have to kill thousands of innocent beings because of their appearance, but to take rights from someone because of what you believe in. It is wrong.
-The_Flash- wrote: [You don't have to kill thousands of innocent beings because of their appearance, but to take rights from someone because of what you believe in. It is wrong.
I must say, you've it extremely hard to argue with that.
I'm at a loss with how to argue any further and I generally agree with you on most points.
I'lll be back later after I've had time to think.
By GB I meant Great Britain, not George Bush :)… Sorry, I shouldn't have used an acronym without tell you all what I'm using it to represent first.
You don't have to kill thousands of innocent beings because of their appearance, but to take rights from someone because of what you believe in. It is wrong.
What do you think mr. cheese is doing? Taking down sites he doesn't agree with- taking away their right to express their opinion. There is a difference between being a racially motivated killer and being hitler. Yes, there are racist people killing. But there are tens of thousands of racist sites. Not even every 100 or 1000 of these sites motivated one racially motivated killer. And these people probably didn't get what they believed from a website, they probably grew up in a racist household and had a number of things happen to them that made them kill. You don't go on a site, say 'yeah… that's right' and go out and kill people.
no it's not. Because people can choose not to go to that website. People can't choose when they need to go out and get milk from the corner store that's next to the guy standing on the soapbox screaming racist slurs. And people don't get to choose if they hear it when they're out walking around. But people can most absolutly choose rather or not they visit a website and if they accidently visit it, no one makes them stay, they can just leave.
All your comparisons are exremely abusive and don't take into account common sense. Think about what you're saying rationally. People can't help if they hear the man screaming that stuff on a corner and can't get away from it at any point that they want because they have to travel until they can't hear the sound anymore and because they may need something at a nearby store or office. Not hte same with a website. I have not stumbled across a racism website but once and I just left it. Every other time I have visited a website like that, I have done so on purpose to see what it is they are saying. That is the difference
This conversation is exploding!
You all should read my article: http://hellboundhackers.org/readarticle.php?article_id=448 Which could have sparked this post?
Anyways, Cheese I totally agree with you that the internet should harbour most of the same rules as real life.
For example if Mel Gibson makes some Anti-Semetic remarks he has to say I am sorry and make HUGE donations to some Semetic orginisation or he will be frowned upon. Why is this any different than if Joe Schmoe makes up an Anti-Semetic web site? Is it because Joe Schmoe has no money? If that is the only reason then the internet is in trouble.
Now think hard. What would happen if someone came along and started taking pictures of minors and posting them all over town? Now what would happen if the same person did the same thing only all over the internet (OUR TOWN!)? Yes the site will be taken down…eventually, I am sure. The only difference is that the site could be running for a long time and have MANY people grab those pictures before any law enforcers notice it. Now if it was around a small town in England they would be taken down by the first person who sees it.
The point I am attempting to get across is the vastness of the internet in comparason to other forms of media. Yes the radio is vast but it only covers a certain area(normally within 100 miles or so), Television is vast but again it only covers a certain area (normally by country/contenent) the internet however is international which makes it much more vast than ANY other media type anywhere. THIS is the main reason I make my points about websites and hackers rolls.
If you disagree with what I am saying that is your right. Read over the posted article and you can see where I stand. I will sway like a tree but I am firmly rooted ;)
Hope this clears anything up and makes nothing blurry!
ok fine deathrape, forget about a man in town…
building on what aldarhawk says…. say your walking down the street and you see racist flyers stuck up all over your town, you walk into a news agent and you see racist newspapers…. you think this is acceptable… after all its your choice if you want to read them…
how can you sit there and say that is ok. pfft.
any person walking past a racist flyer will tear it down.
same princible applies to the internet.
Okay, let's apply the internet to a newsstand or to bills being posted. If we assume the racist stuff is gonna be posted, let's assume that everything else on the internet will be posted, and that the amont of bills posted (or newpapers in the stand) in proportional tothe percentage found on the internet. My point is that you would almost always have to conciously look to find that racist bill or newsletter. I have only once randomly ran into a racist website - and that was when I was going research on passive racism for an oratory.
And even if you found that one bill in every several thousand that is racist there's 100 around it that say that racism is bad. So why bother removing that one. Almost everyone in our societyknows racism is bad and doesnt give a shit what racist bigots have to say.
But you know what, we can assume you are right. We can assume that there is a place where news stands are full of racist stuff and racist bills are posted everywhere and you always see them. So agian, pragmatically, I'll ask you this question. I've given a propondrance of reasons that this situation has come up, and you havn't refuted a single one. So, we remove that racist stuff because the majority of people including ourselves disagree with it. Alright. But the problem comes when people like you cry injustice when others censor their unpopular opinions. That's called hypocracy. So stop crying injustice or stop censoring people. Your choice. Because your opinions are just as unpopular as racism is and from the view of society as a whole, niether HBH nor a racist site should be online. We protect other's rights so we can protect our own.
deathrape wrote: But the problem comes when people like you cry injustice when others censor their unpopular opinions. That's called hypocracy. So stop crying injustice or stop censoring people. Your choice. Because your opinions are just as unpopular as racism is and from the view of society as a whole, niether HBH nor a racist site should be online. We protect other's rights so we can protect our own.
no. HBH is predujiced against because its mis understood, not because it has bad ideas or negatively affects society. being mis understood is no call for being censored.
Mr_Cheese wrote: [quote]deathrape wrote: But the problem comes when people like you cry injustice when others censor their unpopular opinions. That's called hypocracy. So stop crying injustice or stop censoring people. Your choice. Because your opinions are just as unpopular as racism is and from the view of society as a whole, niether HBH nor a racist site should be online. We protect other's rights so we can protect our own.
no. HBH is predujiced against because its mis understood, not because it has bad ideas or negatively affects society. being mis understood is no call for being censored.[/quote]
51% pof the people here voted in your latest pole that one of the reasons they are here is to learn to exploit, with 30% of those people nameing that as their only reason for being here. That may not be your prupose, but just because I post a bomb recipe and state "Oh, people shouldn't use this for violence" doesn't mean that I'm not providing them with what they need to be violent. Alot of people want HBH shut down, and the fact is at the end of the day if the internet is censored, it doesn't matter what you think, it matters what the legislature and courts think. And when they see the majority of people here are here to learn how to exploit computers, they won't be siding with you.
If you are teaching script kiddies how to deface guestbooks and break into forums and they use that information to target websites that provide valuable information, you are inadventantly negativly affecting society- rather you want to or not.
People are being taught, if anything, to act in more ethical ways. Racism is on the down. Look back 50 years. A hundred years. Hell, look back 10 years. The ranks of the racist are always growing smaller. Sure ,they swell a little bit now and then,but there is a general trend of less racism. You are not frowned upon if you stop others from usin gforce to hurt oppress others. But the person who inspired this article wasn't doing that. He was stopping people from stating what they believed. There is a difference.You say that the KKK and nazis and other racist communities take it upon themselves to bypass the laws that govern us and do what the think is right. Well, what has mr. cheese done? Bypassed internet crime laws and "taken it upon himself to bypass the laws that govern us and do what the think is right." So it's alright for someone you AGREE with to do this but not okay for someone you DISAGREE with to do this? Justice is blind, my friend. It's either okay to do this or notokay to do this. Tell us which it is.
Governments are doing nothing to stop gang violence? Maybe they aren't being sucessful, but ssaything that they aren't trying and in some cases succeeding is a lie.
Do eighteen year olds stand at the commands of a missle? What they are afriad of is people who don't understand what justice is taking down sites because they disagree with what the people who run them are saying. They would never put a person who was going to fire those missles because of their personal beliefs behind the commands of the missle. Those atomic missles are used for defense – and in most cases not used at all.
You and alot of other people like jeremy hammond and mr. cheese. And they are being thrown in jail because they think that justice doesn't apply to them. Let's define freedom. It is "unrestricted, unconfined or unfettered" Well, saying that someone can't be a racist and can't have certain sexual views is restricting, confining and fettering. So you are the one who will lead to an internet that is not free. What freedom do you want? The freedom of everyone to agree with you? Cause that's what this is sounding like. And as for your last omment, 30% of the people on this site are here only to learn how to hurt other people, and for 21% of people that is one of two reasons that are here. So this isn't a site purely providing info about computer securityto ethical people. **Your polls say it the best: most people are here to learn how to hurt other people digitally – how to exploit sites. ** And propaganda about hurting people are usually not true threats. Look up that term and do some reasearch into what is and is not considered a threat. **With 2 racially motivated killings this year, I don't think that this propaganda is doing it's job. ** If it's not making a difference, why even bother removing it - espessially if that threats they are miaking aren't even true threats.
** You define a hacktivist.** Just the first part of your deifinition is a hacker. You don't have to go around shutting down sites with a political agenda in order to be a hacker. And the second part of your definition is saying 'You are only a hack if you agree with me that racist people should all have duct tape put over their mouths and shoved somewhere were they cannot express their views'. As for your high and mighty ethics, I've punched hole after hole in them and all you do is sit there and say 'but racist people are bad'. Guess what? That;s not good enough. The beutiful thing about freedom is it applies to everyone, not just the people you agree with. The problem is that 'ethics' are different for each person. The goonz attacks indymedia. They were wrong. So how are you justified in attack protest warriors or racist sites? Hacktivist philosophy is full of circular logic and in the end, states "The rules only apply to the people I don't like". In my mind, silencing people because you don't like them is wrong. In your mind, its an ultimate good. ARe one of us unethical? Well, you think I am and I think you are. So ethics are arbitrary. When you say all hackers abide by this set of ethics, that they remove sites that violate this that and the other thing, you are saying that ethics are not arbitrary. And you state that everyone whould agree with you through doing so.you came across a group of people who took you, centered you out and slandered you because you had blue eyes would you care? Do you think if they did that to ALL people with blue eyes it would be acceptable? Now what if they made a cult and all they did was put pain and anguish of any kind on these Blue eyed people?" Now I am sure you see where that is going so just to put it bluntly the Justice system is no just in the way they make decisions of who is a threat and who is not. Thank you for taking the time to read this article.
@ DeathRape - I was aware GB stood for Great Britain. I used bush as an example.
Aldarhawks point sums it up.
If there was a billboard in my city center, discriminating people for the colour of their skin. I'm pretty sure it would get ripped down or defaced by the public before law enforcements could take it down. That applies to a website.
However People of all colours, all ages, all backgrounds… EVERYONE see the billboard. I haven't once come accross a website discriminating people for unjust views they hold. Never have I had the urge to search for these type of sites. I can think of a million things I'd rather be doing.
Aldarhawk said about Mel Gibson (Or some movie star) - compared to Joe Schmo and their beliefs in sensitive topics. The reason Gibson has to apologise publicly and donate to a charity is because he has an image. If there was a page in the newspaper about Joe Schmo publicly apologising for being a racist, I honestly… HONESTLY wouldn't give two hoots. That's why.
Also, I have lots of shit from people for what I'm about to say because they don't realise it's not what I believe, I'm not trying to defend them, but it's a point we need to address imho. Peodophiles. Obviously, no one chooses to have a fetish towards minors. I'm pretty sure no one has the choice between a date with someone similar age or an under16 who look and act exactly the same as eachother and choose the under16. They can't help how they feel or what they enjoy. BUT They can prevent acting upon what they believe, visiting sites, downloading images/videos and molesting minors.
Now use that scenario for numerous topics in this thread. Catch my drift?
I personally agree with what Mr_Cheese does, but I'm not deluded enough to believe that it's right. No citezen has the right to deny someone else of their freedom. An opinion is never wrong. Neither is it right.
Doubting is knowing, Just not believing.
Mr_Cheese wrote: do you agree racists (seeing as we're using this example the most) should be allowed to get up on a stand in the center of town and shout out racist abuse and propaganda?
Deathrape, when you replied to this, you said no, and it was entirely different with a website.
This conversation has focused on the net, but you said that you believed everyone had a right to free speech, whatever their views or opinons.
Now this person shouting out their views, they're still acting upon their right to free speech, only doing it in a different manner.
To me, your view doesn't seem to be "Everyone has a right to free speech", more that "Everyone has a right to free speech, just so long as no one else has to listen to it".
If you believe in free speech, then you can't say where or when people have the right to express their opinions. It'd defeat the point of free speech if you were to restrict it to things like the internet and newspapers, since that way, people would only be able to use the alotted mediums with which to express their opinions.
I don't see how that's the end of the story flash, I''e made numerous points no one has touched
To put it bluntly, anyone screaming in the middle of a city is going to be told to stop.
BobbyB, theres a legal precedence set on that. Everyone is allowed to express their views, but they cannot do it in such a way as it forces others to listen to it. Courts and legislatures agree with me. Decades of debate among political arenas globally have led to that conclusion. It isn't unrealistic or hypocritical. Everyone has the right to hold a view and express it, but there are limits on how they can express it. I never said that there were not. One of the only limits on how they can express it is if others are forced to listen to it. There are several others, including the aspect of true threats (again, stress the word true) and expressing views in secondary schools by teachers is very limited (although teachers can express their views outside of the classroom) In conclusion, there are appropriate ways to express a viewpoint, and I don't care if you're saying vote for bush or kill all black people, if you are screaming in the middle of a city, you will be made to stop eventually. As for the billboard example: sure it would. that doesn't mean the people removing it are doing the right thing. Simply saying "everyone else does it" doesn't make something ethical.
I personally agree with what Mr_Cheese does, but I'm not deluded enough to believe that it's right. ^ I can say I am definatly in this camp, I've always said I support cheese, ust not his views on morality and justice. ^
Hmm about people removing a racist billboard may not be doing the right thing….
It is illegal to act upon personal beliefs regarding racism.
We have freedom of speech, choice and actions until we break the law. The law wasn't made by a drunk at the local - they are there for a reason. No matter how much we may dissagree.
Hacking could land you a considerable longer sentance than murders, rapists and drug dealers. That's because people see hacking as dangerous as those crimes.
A man goes into a bank with a firearm, jacks the place for everything it's worth and puts peoples lives in danger. People are scarred for life etc.
A hacker steals hundreds of credit card numbers. No one in the bank know what is happening or any lives endangered. (Maybe financially but that's not the point). Yet this person will possibly get more time behind bars….
There is no way to beating this system. The law will over rule every last bit of freedom we have. Like it… or not.
you have to say he has a point there. hackers are up there with sex offenders and the KKK as the publics perception of the scum of society. and viewing the poll that was up a while ago.. metalhead hackers? im sure theres a new stereotype growing of
all this kids dressed in black going home and worshipping the devil and linux torvaldus before hacking into Ebay and stealing mommas credit card details.
just a final thought to finish on: if you saw a site that was advocating the shutting down of hacking sites and all hackers going to jail for life without having to be proven guilty would you take it down. coz if you would your as bad as the SS.
If only the public knew the different types of hackers. If they knew the difference between a black hat or scriptkiddie and then a white hat, then the black hats and scriptkiddies would be the ones they look down upon however as ignorant as the media is, we are all known as one name, hackers. Therefore, white hats are usually frowned upon as well despite the work they do to help the internet become more secure. IE, you tell someone you are a hacker and instantly they think you are going to hack into their bank account and steal all their money. They dont think for a second that you might be the one who actually set up their bank's site security. Thats my 2 cents.
-The_Flash- wrote: Hmm about people removing a racist billboard may not be doing the right thing….
It is illegal to act upon personal beliefs regarding racism.
We have freedom of speech, choice and actions until we break the law. The law wasn't made by a drunk at the local - they are there for a reason. No matter how much we may dissagree.
Hacking could land you a considerable longer sentance than murders, rapists and drug dealers. That's because people see hacking as dangerous as those crimes.
A man goes into a bank with a firearm, jacks the place for everything it's worth and puts peoples lives in danger. People are scarred for life etc.
A hacker steals hundreds of credit card numbers. No one in the bank know what is happening or any lives endangered. (Maybe financially but that's not the point). Yet this person will possibly get more time behind bars….
There is no way to beating this system. The law will over rule every last bit of freedom we have. Like it… or not.
Of course it's illegal, lol. By saying it wasn't right I wasn't implying it was not illegal at all. And I agree 100% with what you said about laws being made for a reason:
Punishment for armed robbery is usually a minimum of 5 years. Pity is almost never taken and a much stricted punishment, ranged a decade+ is usually assigned depending on the crime. And it's a felony. Fiurther, they will never be allowed to legally touch a gun again. Ever. Think about it Even mitnick got his right to computer use back.
The federal punishment for hacking into computers ranges from a fine or imprisonment for no more than one year to a fine and imprisonment for no more than twenty years. A slap on the wrist is often granted to those who are involved in attacking minor sites and when financial/ trade secrets are not at risk. Larger cracks, including government computers and larger financial institutions where people's financial information is at risk, espessially in large quantities – and when trade secrets are released, espessially those of major companies, generally are not given a slap on the wrist anymore. But anyhow, as long as you don't use the system for your personal gain (using it's processing power to proform heavy cpu load tasks, gaining financial information or trade secrets, etc.) the punishment can almost always never exceed 5 years. This, of course, depends on the amount and type of sites taken down. The twenty year prison sentence wasn't even inflicted on Kevis Mitnick. In fact, the infamous hacker got only 5 years and several years of probation. Mitnick served as the 'example' – he stole credit cards, etc.
And the difference between the sentences you see for some of these "bank hackers" and a violent bank robber: well, the "bank hackers" are affecting nearly every single customer in some way. Have you had your identity stolen? Soeone took my uncles and it took him 10 yeaqrs to get it back. And he still has to deal with calls from this person and that one demanding money. In a capitalist society, your financial life IS your life. Stolen identities cause not only the victem yearsand hours upon hours of pain, but also courts, lawyers and investigators.
Check your facts before you make assumptions. Mitnick served the MINIMUM sentence of that of a violent robber.
Mckinnon… facing a possible death penalty for hacking US government computers.
Although it didn't violate the Data Protection act (DPA) as much as we may think.
Back to the hacker and armed person robbing a bank scenario. The armed person would be charged for more offences than just stealing the money. Possesion of firearm, an ironic anti social behavour, putting lives in danger, I'm sure at some point GBH would be an issue, threatening acts and physcological trauma for people there. the irony of something priceless in a bank, the lives of the victims being scarred.
Hacker… Breach of DPA… Nothing else. No charge for being in posssesion of a computer, no lives put in danger, no one scarred for life by the hack. So clearly this would be why the hacker would get alot less time than the gunman.
And this is just an educated guess. I obviously didn't read through laws on different crimes. If any of the points I made were incorrect please correct me.
-The_Flash- wrote: Mckinnon… facing a possible death penalty for hacking US government computers.
Some evidence… a source or something. Al I could find was the equivilent of tabliods except for the internet.
He would get death for endangering millions, not for hacking into a computer. Hackers are punished most often for the consequences of their actions and not the actions themselves. I'm sick of people saying what some hackers do is oka. Sure, I don't think breaking into those sstems has moral complications. It's what most of these gus do after that that causes the problems.
From BBC:
It claimed that he hacked into an army computer at Fort Myer, Virginia, obtained administrator privileges and transmitted codes, information and commands.
Unauthorised access
He is accused of then deleting around 1,300 user accounts.
The indictment alleged Mr McKinnon also deleted "critical system files" on the computer, copied a file containing usernames and encrypted passwords for the computer and installed tools to gain unauthorised access to other computers.
You don't see a proble with installing back doors, downloading this information onto a coputer that anone could easily steal while he's out buying a soda, making the sstem proform underpar when it's cirtical to defence, etc?
And from what I've heard from verifiable sources, the death claim is BS
You said something that was wrong. You didn't bother reading what the law says and conforming your post to the most rigourous demands of truth (or even the lax ones)… please just correct yourself and state that you are dropping an arguement when you do. It makes you sound more intelligent, makes the thread easier to follow and doesn't give me a headache.
If you are providing a logical arguement that backs up what you said, please state so and make sure that someone who is not on your thought wave can understand what you are trying to say, because that statements sounded like a complete contradiction to what ou said earlier about hacker's punishments.
My point being the accuracy in my post. May not be 100% as I have more important things to do than research for a post.
Contradicting myself? At not one point have I said what I felt for the laws regarding hacking etc. I was showing view points from different angles and trying to make some logic out of each scenario.
If your just going to complain about everything that gets posted here, you'll be talking to yourself in no time.
-The_Flash- wrote: My point being the accuracy in my post. May not be 100% as I have more important things to do than research for a post.
Contradicting myself? At not one point have I said what I felt for the laws regarding hacking etc. I was showing view points from different angles and trying to make some logic out of each scenario.
If your just going to complain about everything that gets posted here, you'll be talking to yourself in no time.
then say so :) You keep saying one then then another, it's confusing as hell.
Just put like, "for the purpose of discussion…" or something
What Flash is trying to get across is seeing it from the view of the hacker as well as the popo(police) and then showing that some crimes are unjustly punished compared to others.
I like the discussion. Hope it picks up some more. When I have a few more mins I will make a nice post on this subject :evil:
The Flash wrote: Mckinnon… facing a possible death penalty for hacking US government computers.
Although it didn't violate the Data Protection act (DPA) as much as we may think.
Back to the hacker and armed person robbing a bank scenario. The armed person would be charged for more offences than just stealing the money. Possesion of firearm, an ironic anti social behavour, putting lives in danger, I'm sure at some point GBH would be an issue, threatening acts and physcological trauma for people there. the irony of something priceless in a bank, the lives of the victims being scarred.
Hacker… Breach of DPA… Nothing else. No charge for being in posssesion of a computer, no lives put in danger, no one scarred for life by the hack. So clearly this would be why the hacker would get alot less time than the gunman.
And this is just an educated guess. I obviously didn't read through laws on different crimes. If any of the points I made were incorrect please correct me.
Correct, the armed robber with be charged with a million things. One of which is theft of the money. And, when you compare JUST that action to a hacker, the armed robber gets MORE time for just the theft.
Now, he will also get a bunch more time, more fines, less privileges in society and a stain on his record that will make getting a job impossible.
So, when you look at JUST stealing money, electronically is punished less than bank theft. IE, if you broke into the bank at night when no one was there, didn't cause any damage to property and stole the money without ever touching a gun, you would get a few more years and larger fines than a hacker. Comparable actions, and the hacker gets less punishment. Even though investigating and prosecuting his crime is more costly.
cheese: I think ohemgee was talking about your 'white hat' approach, combined with your view that this action was ethical. But idk.
chislam wrote: If only the public knew the different types of hackers. If they knew the difference between a black hat or scriptkiddie and then a white hat, then the black hats and scriptkiddies would be the ones they look down upon however as ignorant as the media is, we are all known as one name, hackers. Therefore, white hats are usually frowned upon as well despite the work they do to help the internet become more secure. IE, you tell someone you are a hacker and instantly they think you are going to hack into their bank account and steal all their money. They dont think for a second that you might be the one who actually set up their bank's site security. Thats my 2 cents.
You try to put blackhats and script kiddies in the same vein, and yet you justify white hats as something else.
Don't ever do that.
White hats have stolen far more money then any black hat group, for their "services".
Script kiddies aren't even within miles of the same league or moral structure as black hats.
They are right to group you all as hackers, and you shouldn't be so foolish as to describe yourself as one if you want to "set up their security".
lesserlightsofheaven wrote: White hats have stolen far more money then any black hat group, for their "services".
Script kiddies aren't even within miles of the same league or moral structure as black hats.
what money have white hats stolen. i hope you arent refering to white-hats selling their sevices to aid companies security and releasing exploits so vendors can patch them… because obviulsy classing that as stealing and looking at that as a negative would be very stupid.
and true, black-hats have greater skill than skiddies… however morals and maturity levels, they are exactly the same.
Mr_Cheese wrote: and true, black-hats have greater skill than skiddies… however morals and maturity levels, they are exactly the same.
your judging b y the blackhats that sites like this attract: mindless skiddies that will trash a website for no reason other than fame and fun
real blackhats usually have a aim, such as spreading a political view or something. Iv heard about hacking groups specifically targetting goverment websites from countrys with appalling humans rights records cough china cough and because they deface instead of report the bug they are classed as blackhats. But you cant say people who do stuff like that have bad morals or maturity levels.
white hats sell out exploits and stuff for their own personal gain skiddie-black hats mindlessly charge round the internet defacing everything they can in an attempt to make a name for themselves true black hats are into hacking so they can change the world into a better place.
Mr_Cheese wrote: what money have white hats stolen. i hope you arent refering to white-hats selling their sevices to aid companies security and releasing exploits so vendors can patch them… because obviulsy classing that as stealing and looking at that as a negative would be very stupid.
Full disclosure of exploits is a negative. It's an argument that's been touched on thousands of times before and does not need to be touched on again. You also cannot deny the existence of corrupt white hat groups who claim to patch exploits while they really create "features" within the targeted software so they can make more money. If you desire specific examples, I will provide them to you.
I am not elevating black hats above white hats, all hats are full of shit.
You seem to stress the idea that hacking is a "philosophy", but then through your actions show that hacking is a career and a source of income. It doesn't match.
Is it not our differences that bring us together? Are we not in war until we free ourselves from the chains that our being divided has placed on our bodies?
The only thing that matters is conflict in interest. I don't have interest in a conflict of interest. Eons before computers existed mankind thought in black and white. It brings us nothing but no good. What is the purpose of a rebellion for freedom when that creates even more differences?
We shouldn't neglect the outcomes of previous situations. History keeps repeating itself and so do we. Have we not learned anything from the thousands of wars, millions of deaths and hundreds of heroes?