Assange Vs Takky

[Wallenda]

NO, hacking is not illegal per se. Hacking can be illegal, but if it is "White Hat" hacking it can be a very important tool to control the work of governments and corporations.

The term "hacking" is commonly understood to mean illegal/unauthorized access of computers and networks, and that's the definition that's referred to by people who call themselves hackers. But seriously, even in your CCC, how many of its active hackers have never engaged in illegal hacking? Few if any, I would guess. If a guy steals sometimes but on other occasions just buys things in a shop, it doesn't erase the fact that he's a thief.

 

Regardless of their hat color, if they're accessing a network with authorization, legally, that's not what any reasonable person would call hacking.

[kamui]

The term "hacking" is commonly understood to mean illegal/unauthorized access of computers and networks, and that's the definition that's referred to by people who call themselves hackers. But seriously, even in your CCC, how many of its active hackers have never engaged in illegal hacking? Few if any, I would guess. If a guy steals sometimes but on other occasions just buys things in a shop, it doesn't erase the fact that he's a thief.

 

Regardless of their hat color, if they're accessing a network with authorization, legally, that's not what any reasonable person would call hacking.

 

This is a just an assumption from your side that CCC members are kind of part time criminals and occasionally stole something. You might not know, but hackers can have a very strong ethic, therefore the distinction between "White Hat" and "Black Hat" hackers. Actually when governments and corps don't fight against the CCC, because the CCC humiliated them for their illegal acts and/or incompetence, CCC hackers are thought after advisors for those institutions.

 

For your information see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(computer_security)

[robaus]

Wendella writes >>True, and in those cases are recognized as dastardly acts. Nixon was forced to resign as president for what he did.

 

... Yes, but that would never have happened unless someone exposed him. The point Wikileaks makes is that if no-one blows the whistle, people like Nixon get away with their crimes. No doubt Deep Throat Mark Felt had signed some sort of official secrets act and could have still been doing time like Bradley Manning.

 

You argue hacking is a crime is a crime is a crime..whatever the motives...almost like a traffic warden writing out a ticket for a doctor who's saving someone's life while parked on a double yellow line. "Sorry, that's the law...more than my jobsworth, mate"

 

>>You seem to want a hero, I'm just saying, Assange doesn't deserve to be it, he hasn't worked with refugees or organized protests or visited rape victims in Darfur or anything else--he'd never bother with any of that. Not interested. He wants the glory without the work, without the sincere caring about issues.

 

..you seem to be doing an awful lot of mindreading here into Assange's and my motives. Who said you can't save 100,000s of lives just because you aren't Mother Theresa. Wikileaks exposure of corrupt Arab governments kicked off the Arab Spring and saved millions from repressive governments (often backed by the West) who routinely used torture and murder.

 

I would most certainly prefer to live in the West rather than Afghanistan. Democracy is not perfect, but its the best we've got IMO. You often use the black or white fallacy, as though there's no in between. I want atrocities exposed ...whoever commits them. I'm not surpised when leaders of less developed countries try to cover up their crimes; but I don't expect it from the US, UK, Sweden and Australia. If they can't be trusted to watch themselves, then they deserve to be exposed by whistle blowers.

 

I notice just today Desmond Tutu refused to share a conference platform with the Iraqi war criminal Blair, whose defense is "As far as Iraq is concerned [we] have always disagreed about removing Saddam by force". Bloody liar Blair...you're still at it. Never once before the Iraq invasion was regime change mentioned..it was ALL about the WMD pretext he used to lead 1000s of allied young men and women to their deaths.

 

When you have weasels like Blair, Bushit, and Howard (and watch out..Romney may try to pull the same stunt again soon!) running our countries I applaud Wikileaks for keeping the bastards honest.

 

[Wallenda]

This is a just an assumption from your side that CCC members are kind of part time criminals and occasionally stole something. You might not know, but hackers can have a very strong ethic, therefore the distinction between "White Hat" and "Black Hat" hackers. Actually when governments and corps don't fight against the CCC, because the CCC humiliated them for their illegal acts and/or incompetence, CCC hackers are thought after advisors for those institutions.

 

For your information see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(computer_security)

 

No I said I assumed the hackers engage in illegally accessing computers and networks. I didn't say I assumed they steal.

 

There's something you're not getting here. Hacking itself is illegal. If they hack, they're doing something illegal, committing a crime by doing it, and therefore are criminals. If someone says "I'm a hacker" then they're the ones saying they're criminals.

 

So are you telling me that these 'white hat hackers' never hack into anything that it is illegal to go into?

 

I guess G. Gordon Liddy considered himself to be a white hat break-in artist. So if someone appoints themselves to a position like that, do laws no longer apply to them?

[kamui]

No I said I assumed the hackers engage in illegally accessing computers and networks. I didn't say I assumed they steal.

 

There's something you're not getting here. Hacking itself is illegal. If they hack, they're doing something illegal, committing a crime by doing it, and therefore are criminals. If someone says "I'm a hacker" then they're the ones saying they're criminals.

 

So are you telling me that these 'white hat hackers' never hack into anything that it is illegal to go into?

 

I guess G. Gordon Liddy considered himself to be a white hat break-in artist. So if someone appoints themselves to a position like that, do laws no longer apply to them?

 

NOPE, you have a way too narrow definition of hacking. Not every hack is illegal. Actually, major companies today employ freelance hackers for example for to breach into their networks for to find security holes. Or for example hacking the encryption of your passport chip isn't prosecuted in Germany (especially when done without physical damage). And hacking illegal spyware used by the German government against its own citizens isn't illegal neither - even though German security services got extremely angry and very embarassed I guess.

 

But you are right, many hackers are moving in a grey zone. But clubs like the CCC are the last resort against governments (democracys or not) and major corps which are more and more compromising our privacy and freedom rights.

[Coss]

My take is this on the illegality or otherwise of hacking...

 

Imagine you are in a public street and see a cardboard box.

 

You can open the box - not illegal

You can not open the box - not illegal

 

The box has a lock.

 

You can open the box by unlocking it first - not illegal

You can not open the box or unlock it first - not illegal

 

The bock has a lock and an end user agreement printed on it that you have to agree to, to unlock and open the box.

 

You can open the box by agreeing to the EUA, unlocking it first - not illegal

You can not open the box and not agreeing to the EUA, or unlocking it first - not illegal

 

You see a box in the street that is locked and has warnings all over it saying in effect "you can not open because we say so"

 

 

You can open the box - not illegal

You can not open the box - not illegal

 

The government of the country of which you are a citizen enacts law that forbids the opening of boxes as defined in that law, and with the cooperation of other governments extends the coverage of the law to other streets in other countries.

 

 

You can open the box - illegal

You can not open the box - not illegal

 

If you are a citizen of a country that does not have these laws or is not a signatory to any UN or other convention, and you see a box in your street.

 

 

You can open the box - not illegal

You can not open the box - not illegal

 

You may however piss off the people in countries that do have these laws and woe-betide ye if you ever step foot in these countries

 

[Wallenda]

NOPE, you have a way too narrow definition of hacking. Not every hack is illegal. Actually, major companies today employ freelance hackers for example for to breach into their networks for to find security holes. Or for example hacking the encryption of your passport chip isn't prosecuted in Germany (especially when done without physical damage). And hacking illegal spyware used by the German government against its own citizens isn't illegal neither - even though German security services got extremely angry and very embarassed I guess.

 

But you are right, many hackers are moving in a grey zone. But clubs like the CCC are the last resort against governments (democracys or not) and major corps which are more and more compromising our privacy and freedom rights.

 

It's not my definition, it's the definition given by Oxford, Webster, and other English dictionaries (which are online, go have a look). We could argue about it forever, I'll just say my definition is the more commonly accepted one, and if the International Herald Tribune has an article about hackers, it's almost certainly people who fit what I've described and not what you describe.

 

If we can't agree on what that word means, at least I guess we agree that it's illegal to do things that are illegal. ;-)

[robaus]

A new twist...

 

A former Navy SEAL Matt Bissonnette, writing under the pseudonym Mark Owen in No Easy Day, in his eyewitness account embarrasses the US government by disputing the official version of how Bin laden was killed.

 

Officials from the Pentagon and the CIA, which commanded the mission, are examining the manuscript for possible disclosure of classified information and could take legal action against the author.

 

Bissonnette's real name was first revealed by Fox News and confirmed to the AP.

 

Jihadists on al-Qaeda websites have posted purported photos of the author, calling for his murder.

 

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/14704092/book-gives-new -insights-bin-laden-death/

 

I wonder if there's a different law for a money hungry ex Navy SEAL, Bill O'Reilly and head honcho of Fox Noise Rupert Murdoch who disclose classified information and operatives' names, whose motives are purely to make a quick buck?

 

[khunsanuk]

Hi,

 

I wonder if there's a different law for a money hungry ex Navy SEAL, Bill O'Reilly and head honcho of Fox Noise Rupert Murdoch who disclose classified information and operatives' names, whose motives are purely to make a quick buck?

 

Justice is blind, but it seems she can smell money well enough

 

Sanuk!

[Wallenda]

Deep Throat Mark Felt

Watergate brought down Nixon -- it was due to its being investigated and exposed by journalists from newspapers of integrity, and with legally obtained info from sources in the govt. Had it been exposed as a result of ANOTHER illegal break-in on the part of an ideological opponent of Nixon, some leftist group of the time, it never would have had the effect it did.

 

You argue hacking is a crime is a crime is a crime..

I don't argue it, I'm stating it as fact, there's nothing to argue about on that one. It is a crime. Only need to mention it once.

 

whatever the motives...almost like a traffic warden writing out a ticket for a doctor who's saving someone's life while parked on a double yellow line. "Sorry, that's the law...more than my jobsworth, mate"

Presumably this doctor doesn't always park on yellow lines in the hope that one day he'll locate a dying patient there. ;-)

 

>>You seem to want a hero, I'm just saying, Assange doesn't deserve to be it, he hasn't worked with refugees or organized protests or visited rape victims in Darfur or anything else--he'd never bother with any of that. Not interested. He wants the glory without the work, without the sincere caring about issues.

 

..you seem to be doing an awful lot of mindreading here into Assange's and my motives. Who said you can't save 100,000s of lives just because you aren't Mother Theresa.

 

Wikileaks exposure of corrupt Arab governments kicked off the Arab Spring and saved millions from repressive governments (often backed by the West) who routinely used torture and murder.

Are you serious? Which of these events do you think was noticed more in the Arab world: 1. Wikileaks leaked emails showing corruption in repressive governments (that must have come as a shocking surprise) or 2. Saddam Hussein dropping through a hole in the platform. you don't seriously think Wikileaks is responsible for the Arab spring, do you? How many people in those countries do you think have even ever heard of Wikileaks? They've all known for generations that their governments were totally corrupt. They can't walk outside their house without noticing it.

 

I want atrocities exposed ...whoever commits them. I'm not surpised when leaders of less developed countries try to cover up their crimes; but I don't expect it from the US, UK, Sweden and Australia. If they can't be trusted to watch themselves, then they deserve to be exposed by whistle blowers.

Anyone in any country who commits crimes will try to cover it up, so you should expect that anywhere. I'm all for whistle blowers actually, but if they're going to blow their whistle illegally, they have to face the music if they're caught -- which is what MLK had to do when he was protesting, it comes with the territory.

 

We talked about Watergate. I think a better analogy is Iran Contra. Oliver North ran that operation. It was illegal. To me that situation was infuriating, they just completely ignored and violated laws to do what they wanted, behaved as if they were above the law. They were sending money and arms to these pretty evil bastards down in central America, who would then go do nasty things to innocent people with it. On the other end we were now doing business with Ayatollah Khomeini, who frankly strikes me as another evil bastard. But to hear North tell it, he was the knight in shining armor, the white hat lawbreaker. He was above the law, in his mind -- the law was for mere citizens, he was more than that. And the Reagan administration was with him on it. They were real patriots, they believed, the laws were just an inconvenient obstacle (or non-obstacle, as it were).

 

To me, this attitude seems dangerous. And it's the attitude that Assange and Wikileaks have.