4 ms·

A lot of people like to tell themselves that breaking into other people's computers is about curiosity or activism or some other such virtue. I don't see it. W

A lot of people like to tell themselves that breaking into other people's computers is about curiosity or activism or some other such virtue. I don't see it. What I see is post-hoc rationalisation to justify lust for a feeling of power and control over others. Practically any virtue you ascribe to "hackers" you can give to those kids that break into people's cars and take them on joyrides.

calgoo 2y ago
To me its more about the intent and actions. If you figured out how to hack something, and possibly leave a note for the admin to fix their systems, thats one thing. If you figure out how to hack something, and your first thought is to trash / destroy the system, thats the crime. So personally: > "where Stanley, at 15, bragged about fucking up servers" is more damning to me then the actual hacking part.
mschuster91 2y ago
> I don't see it. What I see is post-hoc rationalisation to justify lust for a feeling of power and control over others. There's always two sides to a medal. I think that the executive branches of government - across the Western world - suffer from lethargy caused because barely anyone in public service is willing to question, much less stretch or even bend, the rules in power. A government obviously cannot be purely made out of rulebreakers and, frankly, toddlers and imbeciles. We see this in the current US administration. But it cannot be made out of "we always did it this way" people either, because that's how you end up with systems and processes that are so hopelessly fossilized that no one even understands why these systems are the way they are.
- ludston 2y ago
  I'm talking about the virtues that you've just tried to paint on people that practice breaking into other peoples computers for fun. It seems like what you are looking for is a discussion about whether or not it it is ethical for bureaucrats and elected officials ought to circumvent or ignore their countries democratic processes and laws. I'm sure there are some ethical justifications for doing this in some hypothetical situations, but really I'm not sure it's as useful to be discussing hypotheticals rather than specifics in this space.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > It seems like what you are looking for is a discussion about whether or not it it is ethical for bureaucrats and elected officials ought to circumvent or ignore their countries democratic processes and laws. What was the saying, three felonies a day? Society doesn't work out when people behave like role models all day long, the economy would grind to a standstill. That's why you get stuff like "shadow IT" and whatnot. Processes tend to grow ("scope creep") and no one is interested in cutting the crap.
stavros 2y ago
I disagree. I definitely have the curiosity to break into things all the time. There's a difference between unlocking a car, leaving a note saying "I unlocked your car" and locking it again, and unlocking it to crash it.
- kelnos 2y ago
  I think both of those things do give people that rush of power and control over others. Certainly one is harmless and the other... not so much.
  - stavros 2y ago
    It doesn't give me a rush of power or control, I just like solving puzzles, and locks are puzzles.
    - ludston 2y ago
      I don't know how to explain that the feeling of solving a puzzle is a "rush of power". If it weren't, you'd be equally happy fiddling with a pile of puzzle pieces and making no attempt to solve it as you were to searching for a solution. There isn't anything inherently unethical about enjoying power, but neither is it in any way virtuous.
      - stavros 2y ago
        I still disagree. You're making a false dichotomy that there can be either "rush of power" or "nothing". Instead, I feel a sense of achievement at a job well done. To say that that's "power" requires stretching some definitions.
        ludston 2y ago
        You can take the position of "achievement isn't a feeling of power" if you'd really like to, in which case I simply say find and replace all prior uses of "feelings of power" with "feelings of achievement" and the argument still stands. I'm happy to use whatever definitions you want. Taking joy from your success in doing things (whether you refer to it as achievement or power) is simply not an valid ethical justification when it is at the expense of violating other peoples right to control of their possessions.

calgoo 2y ago

To me its more about the intent and actions. If you figured out how to hack something, and possibly leave a note for the admin to fix their systems, thats one thing. If you figure out how to hack something, and your first thought is to trash / destroy the system, thats the crime. So personally: > "where Stanley, at 15, bragged about fucking up servers" is more damning to me then the actual hacking part.

mschuster91 2y ago

> I don't see it. What I see is post-hoc rationalisation to justify lust for a feeling of power and control over others. There's always two sides to a medal. I think that the executive branches of government - across the Western world - suffer from lethargy caused because barely anyone in public service is willing to question, much less stretch or even bend, the rules in power. A government obviously cannot be purely made out of rulebreakers and, frankly, toddlers and imbeciles. We see this in the current US administration. But it cannot be made out of "we always did it this way" people either, because that's how you end up with systems and processes that are so hopelessly fossilized that no one even understands why these systems are the way they are.

ludston 2y ago
I'm talking about the virtues that you've just tried to paint on people that practice breaking into other peoples computers for fun. It seems like what you are looking for is a discussion about whether or not it it is ethical for bureaucrats and elected officials ought to circumvent or ignore their countries democratic processes and laws. I'm sure there are some ethical justifications for doing this in some hypothetical situations, but really I'm not sure it's as useful to be discussing hypotheticals rather than specifics in this space.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > It seems like what you are looking for is a discussion about whether or not it it is ethical for bureaucrats and elected officials ought to circumvent or ignore their countries democratic processes and laws. What was the saying, three felonies a day? Society doesn't work out when people behave like role models all day long, the economy would grind to a standstill. That's why you get stuff like "shadow IT" and whatnot. Processes tend to grow ("scope creep") and no one is interested in cutting the crap.

stavros 2y ago

I disagree. I definitely have the curiosity to break into things all the time. There's a difference between unlocking a car, leaving a note saying "I unlocked your car" and locking it again, and unlocking it to crash it.

kelnos 2y ago
I think both of those things do give people that rush of power and control over others. Certainly one is harmless and the other... not so much.
- stavros 2y ago
  It doesn't give me a rush of power or control, I just like solving puzzles, and locks are puzzles.
  - ludston 2y ago
    I don't know how to explain that the feeling of solving a puzzle is a "rush of power". If it weren't, you'd be equally happy fiddling with a pile of puzzle pieces and making no attempt to solve it as you were to searching for a solution. There isn't anything inherently unethical about enjoying power, but neither is it in any way virtuous.
    - stavros 2y ago
      I still disagree. You're making a false dichotomy that there can be either "rush of power" or "nothing". Instead, I feel a sense of achievement at a job well done. To say that that's "power" requires stretching some definitions.
      - ludston 2y ago
        You can take the position of "achievement isn't a feeling of power" if you'd really like to, in which case I simply say find and replace all prior uses of "feelings of power" with "feelings of achievement" and the argument still stands. I'm happy to use whatever definitions you want. Taking joy from your success in doing things (whether you refer to it as achievement or power) is simply not an valid ethical justification when it is at the expense of violating other peoples right to control of their possessions.