22 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseI guess you are right about that. It IS relevant from the point of view of what can be done about it. It is, however, as you further state, irrelevant when it comes to judging the morality of it.
I disagree.
In terms of judgement of value, indeed it is irrelevant, but in terms of the rights at my disposal and the scope of the authorities' powers, it is relevant.
To my mind, it is little different than "chasing the tail" of proprietary file formats, popup advertisements and digital "rights" management.
Edit: While I'm at it, I'll include the software patent system and extended copyright law. All ultimately have a similar destructive effect on the usability of your electronic devices.
22 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by WheelyWhat do you think of the phrase "property is theft" when it boils down to the software and internet world?
I guess you are right about that. It IS relevant from the point of view of what can be done about it. It is, however, as you further state, irrelevant when it comes to judging the morality of it.
To my mind, it is little different than "chasing the tail" of proprietary file formats, popup advertisements and digital "rights" management.
Edit: While ultimately have a similar destructive effect on the usability of your electronic devices.
Something tells me you have knowledge about the creative commons stuff.
22 May 07
Criminal activity can be performed everywhere. Why do people steal? Greed? Or is it the failure to acquire wealth through more difficult and legal means? One could be like Bill Gates, get an idea and make billions(may he burn in hell- oops did i say that out loud?? 😀) or he could crack a back and pour money into his own account. Being a thief is a job like any other. It just has more professional risks(jail).
And we have the "free thinkers" that say that information should be set free and who crack systems just to see if they can. To those adrenaline junkies i say "do some bungee jumping"
22 May 07
Originally posted by aging blitzerExcellent suggestion. You are improving.
Maybe not beheading, but if you get the US to classify them as net-terrorists, they can then be thrown into Guantanemo. If they were not in uniform when they wrote their code, then torture becomes acceptable.
23 May 07
Originally posted by SeitseI don't agree that "property is theft" though understand the sentiment behind it.
What do you think of the phrase "property is theft" when it boils down to the software and internet world?
Something tells me you have knowledge about the creative commons stuff.
I do not believe that anybody morally or legally must share source code.
We are a bit off-topic here but imagine if children weren't able to hear the stories of Hans Christian Andersen or that everyone had to pay royalties or licensing costs everytime they needed to put a wheel on something. This is the world that those pushing the concept of "intellectual property" live in.
Einstein said that he could see so far because he stood on the shoulders of giants. In the modern "digital rights" world, those giants would would come with hefty licensing costs and significant legal representation.
Copyright, in my view is something different and should be enforced. However, at some point, a work MUST become part of the fabric of society and I believe that isn't very long, say thirty years. It is no coincidence that the age of copyright is extended each time Mickey Mouse is up for the public domain.
I do not advocate stealing music or movies by downloading them over the net as this, in my view is theft. I also do not advocate allowing Sony to dump malicious software on my PC in order to make sure I don't. I do not authorize Microsoft to treat me as criminal and to move me to a world where I can not legally buy some digital "content" and view it on whatever damn device I want. These corporations are the legal pirates, your "hackers" are the illegal ones.
23 May 07
Originally posted by WheelyYup, definitively I see your point and at some point I share your same worries. For example, in this "IP Terror State" we all live in, it aches me what happens with the medicines and how much they are needed in underdeveloped countries, but oh the patent this and that... I do understand there must be an incentive for research and development and, on behalf of the pharmaceuticals, such incentive is profit, of course.
I don't agree that "property is theft" though understand the sentiment behind it.
I do not believe that anybody morally or legally must share source code.
We are a bit off-topic here but imagine if children weren't able to hear the stories of Hans Christian Andersen or that everyone had to pay royalties or licensing costs everytime they needed to put ...[text shortened]... t. These corporations are the legal pirates, your "hackers" are the illegal ones.
But... where to draw the line? Where you can keep up with the creativity incentivated but without pushing people behind a "silk curtain"
23 May 07
Originally posted by SeitseFor me, that line is fairly simple. Ideas should not be patentable. Products should.
Yup, definitively I see your point and at some point I share your same worries. For example, in this "IP Terror State" we all live in, it aches me what happens with the medicines and how much they are needed in underdeveloped countries, but oh the patent this and that... I do understand there must be an incentive for research and development and, on behalf of ...[text shortened]... keep up with the creativity incentivated but without pushing people behind a "silk curtain"
If someone produces a great compression algorithm that allows you to compress data by a further 10% I do not believe this should be patentable at all. It is an idea that many people can independently have. Patent it and I am not able to have the same idea and my only choice is to buy a license to use the algorithm. However, this person does not need to publish the algorithm and can, if he or she so wishes can sell software, covered by copyright, to make money off it. If I independently come up with a similar idea I can still create my own software, I just can't copy the original.
Same with medicine. Patent viagra tablets if you want but don't stop someone else using similar methods to create a tablet that has the same effect. The argument that the tablet can be "reversed engineered" and therefore "stolen" is no argument in my view as the final product musty still be a "sginificantly" different product to avoid patent infringement. In any case, reverse engineering Heinz ketchup doesn't seem to have bothered them much.
23 May 07
Originally posted by StarrmanWhat you describe is a side-effect. I think the main reason that hackers hack is that they enjoy to do it. It's more fun than it is idealism.
Hackers, virus writers and spammers (to a lesser degree) are an absolute necessity in the internet world. They ensure that global companies do not obtain a stranglehold on the way people use the internet, they help fight censorship and progenerate the freedom of information, they provide a much needed catalyst for the advancement of new technology and in s ...[text shortened]... f their security software. Without them the internet would be a police state with no character.
23 May 07
1 edit
after reading this thread i couldn't help it, but go a bit off track and put in a few cents worth, in particular about the terminology used. it absolutely pisses me off when the term 'hacker' is used to describe a virus-writer, bank electronic security cracker or worse - a script kiddie. the last one i take as a personal insult ... anyway, i found a few definitions of a word 'hacker' in the dictionary:
1. One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff.
2. One who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file.
(c) http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hacker
there're plenty others, including the later, modified definition by wordnet. but in either way, i would like to point out that most of the break-throughs we had in the past few decades in the computer industry were done by hackers. just a thought ...
and here's another link to one of eric raymond's atricles: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html ...
and talking about the virus-writers, crackers, lumberjacks, script kiddies and the rest - i think it's just our human nature, and i'm talking in general now, we, humans tend to invent brilliant things for the benefit of the human kind, but at the same time find a way to use those inventions for evil purposes. like dynamite, brilliant invention done by nobel to aid in construction, blowing rock formations, etc ... and then we go ahead and realize that we can blow up humans with it too. hey, nicely done, jose! oops, i meant, alfred. internet is no different in this ... brilliant invention, but there're a few (far more than a few thousand, i'd say) morons that use it to entertain their twisted, perveted minds.
23 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ChaosChildDon't get so upset about it.
after reading this thread i couldn't help it, but go a bit off track and put in a few cents worth, in particular about the terminology used. it absolutely pisses me off when the term 'hacker' is used to describe a virus-writer, bank electronic security cracker or worse - a script kiddie. the last one i take as a personal insult ... anyway, i found a few d ew thousand, i'd say) morons that use it to entertain their twisted, perveted minds.
For many years "hacker" DID mean someone who broke into other people's computers. "Hacker" as in "someone who hacks away, benignly producing code", is a term those who do that activity like to refer to themselves as. Just because they do, doesn't mean everyone else has to change their own definition of the word.
I say this as a "hacker" myself.
Edit: by the way, "script kiddie" generally refers to someone who downloads exploits other people have developed, runs them and feels "l33t" as a result.
23 May 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Wheelyi don't agree with you. hackers were hackers long before internet existed and the information security mass hysteria started, and the term was coined by us to describe us. it's only many years later, after both kevins, morris jr. and the rest of the 'gang', that the term hacker was started to be used by mass media to describe everybody and everything who did something wrong to the computer systems. and now, because everybody else, who doesn't know better, use the term 'hacker' in the way mass media presented it, should make me change the definition of the word? and keep my mouth shut about the history of the term and what it actually meant and still means to the pioneers of the computer industry? hell, no!
Don't get so upset about it. ... I say this as a "hacker" myself. Edit: by the way, "script kiddie" generally refers to someone who downloads exploits other people have developed, runs them and feels "l33t" as a result.
and since you refer to yourself as a hacker as well, you should relate to what i'm talking about here. by the way, i know what a script kiddie is. and that's why it gets me going when they're called 'hackers' too, when most of the them barely know what the exploit they downloaded does, nevermind how it does it.
anyway, don't take it personally, i've been fighting this loosing battle for many years. but i just can't stop saying this every single time i hear about another 'hacker' who wrote a virus or stole 'a million bucks hard currency'. i guess i'll have 'here lies a Hacker, but he didn't Crack no banks' written on my tomb stone.
edits: spelling. i guess i live like i type, fast and with a lot of mistakes. 😉