

Are hackers heroes? - _feda_
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/are-hackers-heroes/

======
bpatrianakos
No, hackers in general are not heroes though they (or I should say we) seem to
have huge egos and would like to think they are heroes. There's nothing heroic
about jail breaking phones and tablets. There's nothing about being a hacker
that is in itself heroic. There are however a number of hackers whose work is
based on idealistic beliefs and/or for what they believe is for the good of
the public and what they do could be considered heroic and so they may be
labelled heroes but are hackers heroes? No. I don't like the the fact that
someone would try to say they're heroes and the fact that this article landed
on the front page here smacks of hacker egotism. Are doctors, school teachers,
stock brokers, entrepreneurs, or barbers heroes? Of course not! You could
certainly twist your reasoning like a pretzel to argue they are but the truth
is these are just people and not all people are heroic and your profession
doesn't make you a hero. There are doctors who are in it for the money and
there are doctors who want to make a difference. Neither type is heroic in and
of itself. To simply go against the grain, question the status quo, and work
against the current state of things is not necessarily heroic.

Hackers are not heroes. Certain individuals out there are heroes. They aren't
all hackers. They're people from all walks of life and professions, at varying
skill levels who do something at great risk, who often sacrifice something,
and do something for the good of one or many people. The term hero can be very
subjective and I am not comfortable labeling a group of people or even a
subset of a group of people as heroes. The fact that someone wrote an article
like this just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Hackers, you're not heroes.
Only heroes are heroes.

~~~
_feda_
I think you're missing the point of the article at least a little here,
although I agree with almost all of your points. Granted, hackers like any
other group aren't all heroes or not heroes, and as you say the term is a
loaded one already. But if you can define heroes as "people from all walks of
life and professions, at varying skill levels who do something at great
risk...for the good of one or many people", then there are certain examples in
the article that fit that description. Heck, even the kids stealing credit
card details are benefiting themselves, which actually conforms to your
definition.

In certain cases I think black-hats are completely justified. I don't see
what's wrong with DOS attacks on an organization like the FBI, a well known
perpetrator of torture internationally. Ok, so one could argue that most DOS
attacks are merely mischievous and aren't politically or morally motivated,
but some are, and it's usually a case of the little guy (small groups of
citizens) against the big guy (governments), and one could see this kind of
hacking as a force tipping the balance in the individual's favour.

------
Zenst
Hacker are not heroes as a rule, no sterotype is. A hacker and were talking
non-tabloid version of the term I presume are people who question the anwears
as much as the initial question and have the tenacity to seek out those
answears to the questions nobody else bothers to ask.

A hero is somebody who goes further than others even imagined, it is always a
label bestowed upon somebody by others. Hacker is a mindset and when it is
bestowed by others is generaly refering to some electronic vandalism.

Using a bic pen to perform a trachyotomy so somebody can breath, that would be
a hero hacker if such a definition was needed.

------
nancyhua
This discussion is framed very weirdly, almost to the extent of
meaninglessness because the language is so imprecise. Asking "is hacking good"
is like asking "is evolution good for people when it produces everything from
terrible worms that blind people by living and eating their eyes to fantastic
bacteria that allows us to digest all kinds of crazy foods?"

Systems always have weaknesses and systems always change. Sometimes we improve
the weaknesses for fun or profit or usefulness, sometimes we attack them for
fun or profit or malice.

~~~
archgoon
Your biology examples raise the idea that it would make sense for the legal
system to distinguish between types of computer intruders. As vaccinations
used to work on the principle of exposing people to milder strains of a virus,
it'd be likely to be beneficial to make restricted forms of hacking legal
(largely based on non-sharing of any non-public information from servers). The
devil would be in the details of course, but it might be worth considering.

~~~
nancyhua
I would agree with this suggestion. The article categorizes everything from
modifying phones to illegal and wrong activities such as theft and spying as
hacking. Things will always be used for purposes different from their original
intent because humans are resourceful and care about their own wills. Neither
humans nor nature care what the original creator's intentions might have been-
our eyes may be "intended" for sight but worms will evolve to use these eyes
as food and housing- and it's nonsense to label these worms or their evolution
as good or evil. Hacking is an idea that will always occur because it's part
of nature, which has no sense of justice. Morality only comes in with how we
humans use our ideas. For example, the making of a knife from a toothbrush is
not illegal, even if it offends the sensibilities of the toothbrush designer,
but the use of this knife to harm another person is illegal.

------
dfc
Confront and Conceal is an odd choice given the other three titles. There is
only one or two chapters in C&C that are relevant and they add very little to
the debate other than providing some "ripped from the headlines" context. The
reviewer should have gone with "This Machine Kills Secrets."

------
jmadsen
Yes, we are. "Crackers", on the other hand...

~~~
jmadsen
although I guess we can't say "crackers" anymore... damn young people.

