Download Hacking, Security, and Information War

Adam D. Moore
Information School

The Hacker Ethic: information belongs to
everyone and putting up fences or restricting
access is wrong. Ideas belong to us all and
intellectual property/privacy rights run
counter to this.

The Hacktivist: attacks on corporate and
governmental sites are sometimes justified as
a form of civil disobedience

Hacker: “A person with an enthusiasm for programming or using
computers as an end in itself.” Or, “A person who uses his skill with
computers to try to gain unauthorized access to computer files or networks.”
– Oxford English Dictionary
 Self-described hackers – enjoy experimenting with technology and
writing code.
 Media-labeled hackers (crackers) – break into systems, cause damage,
and write malware.
 Ethical hackers – former hackers or crackers who have joined the security
industry to test network security and create security products and
services.
February
2004…https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dartmouth.edu%2F~marionba%2Fengs69%2FEthics_Law_Privacy_EN
GS69.ppt&ei=EN1jVazjKsbpsAXJ9YGACA&usg=AFQjCNEcKho927WDCTtP4ZvlwbcPcAQ75Q&bvm=bv.93990622,d.b2w

Black Hats – break into systems, develop and
share vulnerabilities, exploits, malicious code,
and attack tools.

Grey Hats – are in hacker ‘no-man’s land,’ may
work as security professionals by day and ‘hack’
by night.

White Hats – are part of the ‘security
community,’ help find security flaws, but share
them with vendors so that products can be
made safer.
February 2004…. February
2004…https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dartmouth.edu%2F~marionba%2Fengs69%2FEthics_Law_Privacy_ENGS
69.ppt&ei=EN1jVazjKsbpsAXJ9YGACA&usg=AFQjCNEcKho927WDCTtP4ZvlwbcPcAQ75Q&bvm=bv.93990622,d.b2w
A.
Security: Hacker break-ins are ethical on this
view because they illustrate the defects in
computer networks. Morris' internet worm
actually helped create a more secure system.
B.
Idle System Argument: According to this
argument, hacker break-ins are ethical because
they are merely using a system that is idle
anyway — if they do not mess anything up it is
as if they were not there at all. What could be
wrong with this?
P1. It is morally permitted to trespass on the property
of others as long as one’s motives are good and no
harm is done (no harm, no foul).
P2. Many hackers have good intentions and do no
damage.
C3. Some hacking should be permitted
Problems: Fred and Ginger Case
 Motives are irrelevant (Dr. Demento)
 Doing no harm is irrelevant (Dr. Demento again…)
 Imposing unconsented to risks is a harm
C.
The Student Hacker Argument: Suppose we
couple the idle system argument with the good
that is obtained in terms of learning. Students
are simply learning how systems operate.
D.
The Social Protector Argument: Hackers
break-ins are justified because they protect
civilians against "big brother" government and
corporations. The government and businesses
as well, have lots of information about us than
they should have. The hacker is merely keeping
these institutions honest.

Elements of civil
disobedience:
Open/public. . .knowing
violation
2. Non-violent (civil), pure
speech acts vs. behavior
3. Violates the law
4. Purpose = protesting the
law, political expression
1.
Justified if:
committed openly
properly motivated
willing to accept responsibility
plausible position
thoughtful justification
no significant damage to
innocents
calculated to advance debate
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Richmond34.jpg
NOT justified:
committed openly
properly motivated
willing to accept responsibility
plausible position
thoughtful justification
no significant damage to innocents
calculated to advance debate
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/WTO_protests_in_Seattle_Novemb
er_30_1999.jpg/320px-WTO_protests_in_Seattle_November_30_1999.jpg


Pure speech acts vs. behavior
Civil disobedience requires behavior
 Thus, civil disobedience requires a stronger
justification
 In a properly administered democracy we each
have the right express ourselves
 In violating the law (civil disobedience) we are
claiming for ourselves a larger role. . .why are
those who are disobedient so privileged?
When is Hacktivism Morally Permitted?





Correct purpose, motivation
Amount of harm? Violent acts are not civil!
Amount of harm to third parties?
Accepting responsibility?
Is the political agenda supported by adequate
reasons?
“Acts of electronic civil disobedience
committed anonymously should be
punished to the full extent under the
law.”(p. 23)
“Hacktivism is impermissible [and should be
punished] insofar as such acts result in
significant harms to innocent third-parties
or
insofar the persons responsible for such
acts conceal their identities to avoid the
potential legal consequences.” (p. 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU5JWT0hFlc
Group Work:
Related to PACER or JSTOR:
--Was this hacktivism?
-- Was this ‘taking’ theft or stealing?
--Was there harm done?
-- Does the notion of ‘stealing’ rely on ‘harm?’
--What is ‘harm’?

Group work:
 After watching the video. . .Get into 3-4 person
groups and answer the following questions.
1. What are some of the positives about TOR, the Dark
Web, and Bitcoin (in general, for libraries)?
1. What are some of the negatives about TOR, the Dark
Web, and Bitcoin (in general, for libraries)?
1. Should these technologies be regulated (eliminated)?
Is it possible to regulate/eliminate these technologies?