When does curiosity become hacking?

Post Reply New Topic

When does curiosity become hacking?

Curiosity about what? More context?

It is definitely over the line when you access machines without permission to do so or in ways that exceed your permission.

If the person whose data you're looking at did not put that data there for you (or the general public) to look at, then it is an invasion of privacy, and unethical.

As for the legal definition of hacking, I don't know, but I think ethical is more important than legal anyway. Most likely it has something to do with whether they have any reason to think the data will be private. So you could look at someone's public Facebook page, but not look at the stuff they only let their FB friends see.

It is possible to accidentally stumble into something that you're not supposed to see, if the security is poor enough. Once you realize this has happened, your best bet is to immediately back out and send an anonymous message to the owner of the data about the security problem you have found.

Oh, duh. Of course that's what you meant. Yeah. What the other posters have said.

Even if someone's left the door to their house open, it's still really unethical to just walk in and start poking around. Same goes for computers.

Curiosity *is* hacking, or rather "playful cleverness". If there's a new way to do something that someone discovers or does something so they and others can have fun with it, for example, that is a hack. A clearer example would be if a computer originally wasn't designed to play music but was only meant to calculate, and someone figures out how to play a tune on it, that'd be a hack. (The example is actually referring to the Altair).

The problem is that today not all people see "hacking" this way anymore... and instantly think about (or rather gravitate to) "cracking" (compromising a system, passwords, files, etc.) which is NOT hacking in its original sense. But to get a really firm idea of this, I would STRONGLY suggest reading this online booklet by Eric Raymond to understand what hacking is not and mainly what it is as well: How to Become a Hacker

However... in returning to the original question, curiosity turns into something actual when you realize it has to be done and it goes from a thought to a program. I hope this helps contribute to the post...

Okay, granted: The Hacking/Cracking distinction does need to be defined when you talk about these things. But I am pretty sure that the OP meant hacking to mean the invasion-of-privacy sort of thing that's illegal and unethical to do. Or at least, the OP implied that at some point, there is a line you shouldn't cross, and wanted that line defined.

Yes, but I think you have the defintion wrong, too....

Just to reclarify, what you just described is cracking, not hacking! Here's a link to a page in the jargon file that makes the distinction and goes into detail on it: Page that explains meaning

moved from General Autism Discussion to Computers, Math, Science, and Technology

When it goes from look but don't touch and don't misuse to something more harmful.

Accessing any system or information for which you are unauthorized, whatever your intentions, is cracking and immoral.

The "ethical hacking (cracking)" argument some people use is not only a slippery slope and poor form for an argument, but also more often than not it's just a cover for their antisocial behavior.

If you really want to be a hacker, get yourself a FOSS *NIX, read some books on UNIX system programming, maybe build a Linux From Scratch system, and learn to write C.

Not only is this immoral, it's illegal, and if you break into certain systems, you can get some very powerful and influential people very angry with you. Google Kevin Mitnick, and see what happened to him when he hacked BellSouth's switches, and also broke into, and stole information from Sun Microsystems.

There's also the English guy (who is also apparently autistic) who broke into the CIA's network in search of information on UFO's who is also currently in really deep s**t as well.

Governments and large corporations don't play around , and highly resent people f***ing with their systems and networks.

Yeah, I've heard of him. I have zero sympathy with bleeding hearts who pretend that they're doing social good violating the property rights of people and organizations, and get caught after realizing they aren't nearly as clever as they thought.

Real hackers build things. Crackers do nothing but destroy, subvert, and steal.

If one commits an act, that has no harmful consequences or effects, is that act immoral? I say no. The act may be illegal but no act which does not lead to harm is not immoral. The moral quality of an act is determined by its consequences.

ruveyn

When one breaches property rights and violates the privacy of individuals, businesses (and their customers), and governments (and their constituents), they are doing harm by eroding public trust, as well as incurring economic damages, at the very least.

The trouble with that mode of thinking is that it puts the call of what's harmful and what's not in the hands of the offending party, who may not necessarily understand (nor care to understand) the effects of their actions, so long as they get off with a 'feelgood' attitude about it.

Only if they are caught.

An undetected act with no observable consequences might just as well not exist.

ruveyn