Hacker’s activities are proven to be mainly unethical
I belive hacking to be unethical because hackers intrude into a privacy domain, violate the right to personal property and often create many problems to society online as well as offline.
However there are some objections to that which sound as follows: hackers employ a certain mode of investigation that might be potentially beneficial to society as it contributes to production of a new knowledge on vulnerabily and acess issues; hackers claim that information belong to everyone and it should be free; hackers claim that as long as privacy is unprotected it cannot be considerated as such; hackers may address the argument of privacy violated and harm inflicted by saying that they only take a use of idle systems at nights and not interfere with active users of the system.
Main Issues: A1. Hackers would intrusion into a privacy domain in practical terms means violation of the privacy and often of the right to personal property. N1. But, on the other hand, “hacker intrusions into systems surpass the traditional understanding of violating the laws of trespassing. ” There inevitably will be a backdoor into every system and hackers actually exploit the inefficiencies of the systems to get inside. N2. Hackers actually became scapegoats for those who developed inefficient systems of protections.
If hacker discovers a flow and gets inside, inevitably, he or she will be blamed for the intrusion while the actual message thereof is far from the reporting the violated privacy. N3. They advocate that all information belongs to everyone and there should be no boundaries to prevent disclosure. This felts like an ethical manifest of the hackers. N4. Privacy, instead, seems to be a vague and mistook term. It emphasizes the importance of individual. Personal property is thought to be extension of privacy.
But would it be right to say that hackers deny privacy? N5. Hackers employ a mode of investigation with a view to deepen the knowledge of individual of how to penetrate the system that contains vulnerabilities. This goes as a scientific end and bears no intents other than scientific. The pursuit of knowledge hackers demonstrate will benefit the whole society technology mastering level. A2. Not only privacy and personal property violations are connected with hacking but also technical problems might be caused by hackers’ intrusions into databases.
Untested exploits or worms brought by the hackers into the system may cause disruption to it N6. But from a certain perspective it might be said that the facts of intrusion spur the system administrators to enhance security measures that promulgate new coding methods. The challenge of the hackers is an immense stimulus that moves the whole industry ahead. A3. But from another perspective, the computer becomes a source of fears rather than mere resource tool. N7.
But the potential benefits of security companies and the results achieved predict a great development of this particular domain. N8. Also hackers claim “that they have the right to penetrate systems because these systems tend to be idle and they are only making use of idle resources. ” A4. There is one more sensitive issue. The unrestricted access to information as such means that everybody may alter the content either intentionally or unintentionally. The accuracy of such information cannot be trusted unless the access is regulated.
A5. Many hacking activities originated like ‘research and investigation intrusions’ but ended into a outward violation of the Law and trivial stealing. Analysis A1. The term ’private’ related to the information suggests that there are no particular intentions to its freely release. There is a number of reasons why that information was classified so and every argument, be it economic or philosophic, suggests that “this privacy loss will ultimately damage the infrastructure of society”.
The information labeled as private was set down so, either because it came to the owner at great cost, thus it was valuable, or the character of the information suggests, like in the cases with medical records database or company specialized database, that its unauthorized release might harm the interests of the owner or persons concerned. The timed release of unwanted information from the company’s private files may cause a substantial fall in price of company shares or severely damage its reputation.
“The development of a new algorithm or a specialized database that took years to program is considered private because it involved a vast expenditure of time, money, and effort. ” In this case, privacy adjoints the right to private property and, as its being the fundamental principle of society, hacking is mainly deemed to be unethical. Apart of protecting the lawful interests of software manufacturers, the infringement on the right to privacy might affect the medical databases. The unauthorized release of personal medical data not intended so may produce a great confusion and stress to individuals.
N1. The privacy might be claimed only in the case when all possible measures to insure the inviolability of the system are taken. In the opposite case, how one is to claim privacy or, say, personal sanctuary with respect to the subject that is naturally capable of intrusion. The apparent discrepancy between the status claimen and the actual the privacy domain’s susceptibility of extraneous penetration is hard to reconcile within IT world. As long as hackers will possess technological superiority the privacy realm would withstand a penetration.
So, the hackers themselves are not to be charged with that trespassing domain borders unless those borders clearly delineated by means of privacy protection. N2. The real massage is that no particular privacy was in place because no enforcement to protect it was employed. Being the society scapegoats is no pleasant but might be deemed honorable task. To discover the system security flows and to exploit them with a view illuminate the need for innovation is a solemn duty akin to those of “blowing the whistle”.
But ‘scapegoating’ practice contributed to the negative public perception of the hackers, which obscures the real character of their deeds and makes society ignore the privacy delineation dilemma. N3. Those early programmers believed that software and all that came out of the hands of their colleagues ought to be free to investigate and research for them. Hacker was a tight community members to which thought it appropriate to take avail of the novelties and products of the other member to the community for free because they did not mind that their achievements being investigated.
That freemason like spirit was to distinct hackers’ community from the rest of self- declared communities. The important feature of that ‘brotherhood’ was technical superiority over the rest of users, because hackers were mainly programmers involved in the researches over coding. Thus they might perceive themselves to be unaccountable before the trial of the trivial users. I perceive hackers to be a kind of ‘communitarians’, which disguise the standard term of privacy for the primary value of the group. People who seek perfection in the superficial system are alike in goals.
The system, not the individual, is deemed to be imperative. N4. Is not it true that “the code written by hackers came to symbolize their freedom and their love for programming”? Is not that which come to be a leaning towards unlimited freedom? If one presumes so, the freemason tendencies and ‘communitarians’ behavior pattern seems to be clearer. The idea of absolute freedom is mediated by sticking to the values of community. The notion of unrestricted and free access is acceptable within that idea of absolute freedom. N5.
The peculiarities of the trade made researcher and to-be-hackers eager to innovate and develop. The expanding IT community proffered a perfect chance of conference and mutual enhancement. Undetected those early ‘romantic’ hackers explored the databases and systems with a view to research. “Acquiring this knowledge allows one to develop strategies that facilitate exploration of their functions and the inner components of the systems. The “hacker ethic” states in part that all information belongs to everyone and there should be no boundaries or restraints to prevent disclosure of this information ”
A2. In economic terms, the long term damage to the system comprise the losses stemming from the inadequate/ zero access to the resources, time and money loss springing from the need to “format the compromised system to efface any backdoors” and tighten the security measures to prevent future trespass. The possibility of inflicting harm may devoid hackers’ investigations of the ‘harmless’ status and render their conduct unethical with respect to its venturesome nature and perilous outcomes which compromise the users’ ability to avail themselves of their legal disposal rights.
N6. The Database and Information security industry was engendered by the pressing atmosphere of imminent threat of unauthorized intrusion and the valuable information release. The big companies are especially concerned with the unsolicited meddling with their business relevant data. In general, “hackers believe that when they compromise a system they are in effect introducing fixes that force the system administrator to take the necessary precautions in patching up the hole, thereby tightening the security of the system.
” That self-ascribed role of stimuli takes both hackers and society further on the road to technical perfection. A3. Everyone who has got somewhat significant information espouses inherent fears of intruders. The hackers also seem to lose the sight of the purpose and use computer as an exercise in security flaws. Thus emerged situation might cause system security hysteria and sideline all PC applications other than a combat field of the hackers-system administrators struggle. N7. Hackers seem to obtain the result desired. The number of those on the ‘illegal’ side of the fence tends to approximate the that on the legal side.
Kevin David Mitnick, like many others, divested himself of the robust hacker habits and stepped into a fat land of legal information security business. N8. Usually hackers work at night and, thus interfere with no other users or applications when accessing the resource. Two problems arise here. First, since some resources as, for example, medical databases or public safety, might be used at night, it is not the case that the presence of hacker who will investigate, say , internal mechanisms of the system will not interfere with the actual needs of the database holders.
Second, “this argument is similar to someone coming to a house whose owners are at work and throwing a party in it, simply because it is otherwise not being used. ” Apart of the ethical aspects I would like to point out the safety aspects. When there is a party going on in the house usually some things get broken and the house is a mud. The fact of the visit of the night hacker might be easily heeded in the morning or, what is worse, the negative outcomes of that visit will reveal themselves later.
The “unexpected interactions between programs running on the system” or introducing of the worms are applicable to the night time visit as well as to the daytime. A4. The credibility of official or business records is undermined by the possibility of extraneous alteration. This contributes to the data base owner’s feeling of violated privacy and insecurity. That feeling of insecurity restrains successful business involvement into a IT technology domain and impairs the overall control and operational ability of business. A5.
“If there is any criminal intent on the part of the hacker, then they should be held legally accountable for violating the security of the system and their actions should be punishable by law. ” Conclusion The malfunction of the system as result of intrusion might be qualified as negative outcome of unfettered access and, thus, intrusion might be deemed unethical a posteriori, while the ethical denouncement of such intrusion a priori, on the ground of privacy infringement, is not conditioned by the result (negative or non-negative) of the intrusion.
The combination of the two points out that hacking is mainly unethical behavior and is proven to be so.
Goldman, Lea. Cybercon. Mark Forbes, Oct 4, 2004 v174 i6 p88 http://www. iep. utm. edu/p/property. htm http://www. iep. utm. edu/e/ethics. htm http://neworder. box. sk/newsread. php? newsid=7480Sample Essay of EssayTigers.com