• Welcome to Computer Association of SIUE - Forums.
 

CAOS Weekly Philosophy Question: Patriotic Hacking

Started by Jerry, 2005-08-27T10:10:11-05:00 (Saturday)

Previous topic - Next topic

Jerry

I'll start things off.

I came across an article on the Washington's Post website on China Hackers. It had this line:

QuoteThe Pentagon estimates that China is the No. 1 source of Defense Department hacks

Question: Is hacking "for your country" an act of patriotism? Or is it a criminal act?

If a group of non-governmental US hackers found and cracked a database of North Korean spies and turned it over to the CIA would that be ok?

If they publised it on the web with pictures, phone numbers, and addresses would that be ok?

What if we had a CS elective course on network security and we gave a semester project to see how far you could hack into the Chinese DOD computers - would that be ok?

What about hacking groups that are not a part of recognized government. For example if hackers cracked into an Al-Qaeda database of terrorist cells in the US?

"Make a Little Bird House in Your Soul" - TMBG...

derrickb52

I'll give my $0.02...

I would label a "freelance" hacker the same as a vigilante. Sure, they may do some good, but in the long run, the majority of vigilantes usually get in the way of enforcement, and more importantly, politics.

That being said, I think it would be a great idea for "hacking" of foreign/enemy electronic systems to be incorporated in government training, but I have the feeling it already is, to a point...

But with Bush in power, it seems like the government thinks that bombs are better for warfare than hackers. We can only hope, and VOTE, to have our say in whether that is really true...

bill corcoran

i thought "criminal act" was implied in this connotation of "hacking" (or "cracking", should we say?) seems pretty simple to me.  crime is crime.  why is cracking different?  it's just like shooting someone:  it's a criminal act,  but governments sanction this act to wage war.  i don't think cracking computers in the alleged interests of america should be treated any differently.  if you put it this way, the question kind of seems silly:

Is shooting people "for your country" an act of patriotism?  Or is it a criminal act?

If a group of non-governmental US shooters found and shot a group of North Korean spies and gave the bodies to the CIA would that be ok?

What if we had an elective course on marksmanship and we gave a semester project to see how far you could shoot your way through the Chinese DOD office - would that be ok?

What about shooting groups that are not a part of a recognized government? For example if vigilantes executed Al-Qaeda terrorist cells in the US?
-bill

Brad Nunnally

The interesting thing about this is the old tales we all have heard of hackers after they are caught and serve their times get job offers from the very people that they were hacking.
In all honesty though who would make the best security system? Someone who know if there is a hole in it or not. Duhh!!

I agree that in general hacking is illegal, plain and simple. Breaking into someone computer and/or network is the same as breaking into their home in this day and age. However, and Bill brought this up though I have to disagree with his opinion on it, killing is illegal. Or atleast murder is illegal, but it is a grey area whether any kind of killing is murder. Cops and soldier are given the right, in the proper scenario, to kill. It is understood that they will when either there is no other way, or themselves or those near by are in mortal danger.

I see hacking in the same light. There should be a group of trusted people who can use hacking to protect ourselves and find the bad guys. We should be allowed to use whatever tool we have handy to make sure it is the bad guys that get caught with their pants down and not us. If a terrorist plot is avoided by some fourteen year old hacking for Uncle Sam then I cannot, ethically, see any wrong in it.

The only grey area I see in the ethical stand point of hacking for your country is the spying aspect. If it is going after known bad guys and bad countries, fine I can live with that. But, once you put your foot in the door of hacking into other countries systems it is a great temptation to see what your "buddies" are doing. And if that does happen then paranoia will just sky-rocket.

I have always been in favor of teaching us student’s atleast the basics in hacking. Not only does it give us a great insight in computer security, but allows us to do lots of problem solving. And problem solving is what programming, and to a larger extent, computer science is all about. Ok I think I am done. :-D

"Have we entered an era where our lives can be destroyed by a pack of wolves hacking at their keyboards with no oversight, no editors, and no accountability?"
Mark Coffey
Brad Ty Nunnally
Business & Usabilty Consultant at Perficent
Former CAOS Hooligan

Brad Nunnally

BTW, Thanks for stealing my shine Dr. Weinberg.  :cry:
Just kidding. Great first post to start us out!!
Brad Ty Nunnally
Business & Usabilty Consultant at Perficent
Former CAOS Hooligan

Peter Motyka

A tolerance towards patriotic hacking would be a disaster.  Who would govern the rules of what governments and non-governmental organizations are fair targets?

For example, I might find it acceptable to target the extremist domestic terrorist organization Focus on the Family.  While others might find it fair game to target Canada and their communist health care system.

Opening the door to this type of activity would result in all sorts of organizations launching attacks on each other.  There are alot of crazy people out there who firmly believe their outlandish extremist agenda is best for the US.  Give them loosely defined legislation and they will happily take advantage of it to further promote their madness.
SIUE CS Alumni 2002
Grad Student, Regis University
Senior Engineer, Ping Identity
http://motyka.org

anguyen

I just wanna say that everything is all relative.  While one could be viewed as hero or patriot by some, the same one could be perceived as evil or criminal by others.  It seems that, according to history, the one that has the final say is usually the winner.

Meanwhile, if we act accordingly to the United Nations and international laws, hacking or spying is seen as an act that violated the sovereignty of the country which is being hacked or spied. Thus those acts are illegal.  Note that Al Queda or other terrorist groups are not nations defined by international laws.

I agree with Brad that hacking and/or killing is illegal depending on the context and who executes the actions.  If we are hacking, killing, or spying for the security of our country, I guesss we are not criminals according to our laws.  

I am also with Brad that we should teach hacking, at least the basic, for our students.  
Quote. Not only does it give us a great insight in computer security, but allows us to do lots of problem solving. And problem solving is what programming, and to a larger extent, computer science is all about. Ok I think I am done.
In another word, the best way to fight a problem is to not avoid it but to confront it.

Jerry

Quotebill wrote:
 crime is crime.  

Many of our laws treat actions based on intent. Killing is determined "self-defense" not murder if there is a reasonable belief of imminent danger. Some states allow the consumption of mary jane if it is for medicinal purposes.

Quotebill wrote:
  What if we had an elective course on marksmanship and we gave a semester project to see how far you could shoot your way through the Chinese DOD office - would that be ok?

Our laws don't treat all crimes with the same severity. By substituting "shooter" for "hackers" the statement adds the emotion of the severity of the crime to the argument.

Try this instead, "What if we had an elective course on jaywalking and we gave a semester project to see how far you can walk through Manhattan without crossing at a street light - would that be ok?"

Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating any of the original post to be "good" ideas. Sometimes in order to spur a good philosophical debate you have to state ideas that are oppposite your own beliefs.
"Make a Little Bird House in Your Soul" - TMBG...

Brad Nunnally

QuoteJerry wrote:
Quotebill wrote:
 crime is crime.  

Many of our laws treat actions based on intent. Killing is determined "self-defense" not murder if there is a reasonable belief of imminent danger. Some states allow the consumption of mary jane if it is for medicinal purposes.
 
One of the best examples dealing with killing someone is the clause of killing in a rage. If it is provable that when you commit a murder that you are in a uncontrollable rage, due to catching your spouse cheating on you or something else along those lines, you are not held accoutable for your actions. The "beautiful" part of this clause is that it allows for you to be in this state of rage for up to 4 HOURS. Thats alot of actions you can commit that you wont be liable for. But, the point of this is that intent plays a huge role in how we place responiblity on someone for their actions.
Some of the most popular etical theories out there the very definition of what is morally good or bad is based solely on intent. Kant is one of the big dogs when it comes to this moral theory.

"Act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world."
Immanuel Kant
Brad Ty Nunnally
Business & Usabilty Consultant at Perficent
Former CAOS Hooligan

bill corcoran

i intentionally chose the "killing" substitution because i thought it was more appropriate in the "is crime for your country wrong?" context.  i don't think our troops are over in iraq and afghanistan to jay-walk in front of terrorist and insurgent hideouts.

anyway, i thought the original idea was that the intent was the same - "for your country".  and that's where i fail to see what is special about cracking that makes it different than other crimes, performed with the same intent.  killing for your country vs. cracking for your country.  still both crime.  still both wrong, but of course, "your country", defining its own laws, will obviously sanction actions as they benefit their interests, criminal or otherwise, which, then, i suppose makes them no longer criminal.

i guess i was looking at this in more of a "legal" way, as i thought the original question was posed, rather than a "moral" way, as perhaps the it was meant...  in the case of the latter, it seems like it's just a question of "do the ends justify the means"?  in which case, i'd say "sure."  if it makes the world a better place, i'm gung-ho for it.  but a better place for who?  and how do you know?
-bill

Ross Mead

I've always been torn when it comes to my thoughts on hacking/cracking, and now it seems we step up to a new level in dealing with "hacking for your country".  Here are my (possibly incoherent) thoughts on this topic, as I come up with them.

QuoteMany of our laws treat actions based on intent.

As I said, I'm torn when it comes to a hacker/cracker.  I've always felt that information and knowledge should be free to everyone, and today, hackers/crackers are our intellectual freedom-fighters.  This is, of course, a double-edged sword because these same people who I claim open the doors of information to everyone may also bring down servers, launch denial-of-service attacks, or write a virus or trojan so that they can innevitably screw up someone who probably doesn't know too much about a computer because those that do would probably have taken the precautionary messures to protect themselves.  Honestly, I feel like traditional "freedom-fighter" hacking has lost it's ground and the negative connotation of a hacker has almost completely taken over.

QuoteI just wanna say that everything is all relative. While one could be viewed as hero or patriot by some, the same one could be perceived as evil or criminal by others.

So the question becomes, what's the difference between hacking into a Pentagon computer and viewing important government files (or more... ) as opposed to hacking into a computer in, say, China and viewing important government files (or more... )?  The response from anyone regarding either case would read as follows:

"He/she hacked into a (Pentagon / Chinese government) computer and viewed confidential government information!  That (evil, malicious HACKER / "intellectual freedom-fighter"; give that patriot a medal)!"

As anguyen said, it's "all relative".  Government-hacking may be okay, legal, and potentially encouraged by our government until we, ourselves, are the ones being hacked!

Quote"for your country"

Usually, war is summed up in bloodshed and tears.  But as times change, so do some of the rules and methods of war.  This is probably most prominent in the Cold War, where politics and words were more the ammunition than anything else.  Given our current technological status, modern warfare may be fought behind a computer.  Is it possible that someday our country will call for enlistment in the new "digital army"?  I can just see a bunch of computer geeks/nerds (or intellectuals;... let's not spark a debate on the term "geek" or "nerd"... :-P ) dressed in military attire saluting their drill-sargeant/Linux-guru!  Would ROTC require any sort of formal training in the classroom?  If so, then I'm sure there'd be a big push for network security classes with a focus on EXPLOITING that security.  It's interesting to note that when you become a soldier, you are often considered a trained-killer, and there are certain legal issues that come with that.  Maybe through these classes and/or working as a member of this "digital army" you are considered a trained-hacker, and certain legal issues, or even RIGHTS (like who it is LEGAL for you to hack... ), would come with that as well.  I admit, this may be a bit far-fetched, but who knows, someday it could be the case.  If so, then Uncle Sam wants you...

anguyen

MsNBC: Tech & Sicence: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3032118/?ta=y

Ex-student sentenced for computer hacking

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9239576/

QuoteU.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton said in a news release Tuesday..."He found out the hard way that breaking into someone else's computer is not a joke,"