3 ms·

Even your modified interpretation has dangerous side effects. We can probably modify the access to computers line to only over computing hardware you own, and t

by hibikir 10y ago

Even your modified interpretation has dangerous side effects. We can probably modify the access to computers line to only over computing hardware you own, and that probably works, but the other two lines you comment on are often in opposition. If all information is free, then it's also free to access to authority. Authority can do a lot of things with information that few hackers would like: Read on what full transparency leads to in a place like Bridgewater. Once it's clear that we don't want authority to have free access to our information, it's clear that the 'all information should be free' line is not an idea, it's just hypocritical. What it really means is that hackers should have access to all the information they want, but they should be able to hide all the information they need from authority: Enough of that, and now you have a new authority, which happens to be the people that have access to the information. All information should be free is a phrase that gives permission to developers to creates databases that are better at predicting election results than pollsters. It's what allows people to tell if someone is pregnant, has an undisclosed mental illness, can list everyone's favorite kinks, where has their cellphone been since it was purchased, and everything they've bought on the internet the last 10 years. When it comes to information quantity has a quality all to itself, and I don't think that hackers in the 70s had really internalized this. This breakdown on the hacker ethos builds two camps: One that finds privacy more important, and doesn't really want information to be free, and those that put the freedom of information first, and are happy to hand tremendous guns to authorities, whether they are governments or silicon valley corporations. And this is why the hacker ethics breaks, and we should be careful about the future. There's a lot of uses to all that centralized, free information: A lot of things become very convenient, computers systems are capable of pretty much reading our mind, and fraud detection algorithms become so very good that many things become cheaper. Unfortunately the same tools can be used for far less friendly uses. This is a question we'll all be wrestling with for years, as choosing privacy would make most tech giants collapse, while choosing information freedom is just waiting for the right kind of authority to show us that East Germany's Stasi was just a small scale exercise.

darawk 10y ago
> Even your modified interpretation has dangerous side effects. We can probably modify the access to computers line to only over computing hardware you own, and that probably works, but the other two lines you comment on are often in opposition. I wouldn't even make that modification. Illegally accessing computer hardware in pursuit of a higher or better purpose can be good, provided that purpose avoids harm to others. Of course, people playing God with their own interpretations of when that standard is met can lead to disastrous results. But sometimes it's ok to break something or break into something to learn about it. It's a thin line, but it is there. A Chinese hacker poking holes in the great firewall, for instance. I'd say that's a good thing, even though they do not own the hardware. > f all information is free, then it's also free to access to authority. Authority can do a lot of things with information that few hackers would like: Read on what full transparency leads to in a place like Bridgewater. Once it's clear that we don't want authority to have free access to our information, it's clear that the 'all information should be free' line is not an idea, it's just hypocritical. What it really means is that hackers should have access to all the information they want, but they should be able to hide all the information they need from authority: Enough of that, and now you have a new authority, which happens to be the people that have access to the information. Ya, I couldn't agree more. That's why I added the proviso that information wants to be free only in the ideal case. It is aspirational, not pragmatic. We want to live in a world where all information can be free, and we should all work towards that. That does not, however, mean going around 'liberating' information arbitrarily. And it also does not mean that, in even our most progressive societies, that we are ready for all information to be free. > This breakdown on the hacker ethos builds two camps: One that finds privacy more important, and doesn't really want information to be free, and those that put the freedom of information first, and are happy to hand tremendous guns to authorities, whether they are governments or silicon valley corporations. Ya, you have no argument from me there. I do not think all information should be free in the actual world that we live in. But I do think it's an interesting way of modeling an ideal world. Underneath all forms of necessary secrecy lie blights of some kind. Weapons are secret for war, sexual preferences can be secrets due to shame or even criminalization, etc. Sometimes that secrecy is justified by the faults of the world, and sometimes it is used to further the interests of an individual or group. In the latter case we should strive to reveal it, and in the former to address the justification for that secrecy.

by hibikir 10y ago

darawk 10y ago

> Even your modified interpretation has dangerous side effects. We can probably modify the access to computers line to only over computing hardware you own, and that probably works, but the other two lines you comment on are often in opposition. I wouldn't even make that modification. Illegally accessing computer hardware in pursuit of a higher or better purpose can be good, provided that purpose avoids harm to others. Of course, people playing God with their own interpretations of when that standard is met can lead to disastrous results. But sometimes it's ok to break something or break into something to learn about it. It's a thin line, but it is there. A Chinese hacker poking holes in the great firewall, for instance. I'd say that's a good thing, even though they do not own the hardware. > f all information is free, then it's also free to access to authority. Authority can do a lot of things with information that few hackers would like: Read on what full transparency leads to in a place like Bridgewater. Once it's clear that we don't want authority to have free access to our information, it's clear that the 'all information should be free' line is not an idea, it's just hypocritical. What it really means is that hackers should have access to all the information they want, but they should be able to hide all the information they need from authority: Enough of that, and now you have a new authority, which happens to be the people that have access to the information. Ya, I couldn't agree more. That's why I added the proviso that information wants to be free only in the ideal case. It is aspirational, not pragmatic. We want to live in a world where all information can be free, and we should all work towards that. That does not, however, mean going around 'liberating' information arbitrarily. And it also does not mean that, in even our most progressive societies, that we are ready for all information to be free. > This breakdown on the hacker ethos builds two camps: One that finds privacy more important, and doesn't really want information to be free, and those that put the freedom of information first, and are happy to hand tremendous guns to authorities, whether they are governments or silicon valley corporations. Ya, you have no argument from me there. I do not think all information should be free in the actual world that we live in. But I do think it's an interesting way of modeling an ideal world. Underneath all forms of necessary secrecy lie blights of some kind. Weapons are secret for war, sexual preferences can be secrets due to shame or even criminalization, etc. Sometimes that secrecy is justified by the faults of the world, and sometimes it is used to further the interests of an individual or group. In the latter case we should strive to reveal it, and in the former to address the justification for that secrecy.