hacking! (cue ominous background music..)

week three was dedicated to hacking, crackers, and hacktivism.

the readings this week made me realise how prejudicial my image of hackers really was, courtesy of the media. like a lot of people, i was guilty of thinking that hackers only did what they do to wreak mayhem and essentially just mess with people.

lets start with hactivism. sit-ins and other forms of protest in the past were also regarded as pushing the boundaries. however, looking back now the majority of people would agree that these forms of protest were beneficial and morally right. and most importantly, justified. so in the face of a constantly evolving world, people are undoubtedly going to utilise advancements in technology - increasingly prevalent - in order to challenge doctrines of oppression or injustice. perhaps my belief that this kind of hacking is, in a lot of cases, justified stems from my own personal beliefs: others may disagree in regards to whether hactivisim is right or wrong. if i lived in the 1800s i would have protested for womens rights. if i had lived in the 1960s i would have protested against segregation. if i was that passionate about an issue (and lets face it, if i was actually skilled enough to hack into a computer system) then may circumstances would see me becoming a hacktivist myself.

on the other hand, hacking for financial gain, or hacking to cause distress to somebody, is not something i could condone. while this doesn't fit with the ethics of hacking, the fact is that somewhere out there it potentially happens. if people have the ability to hack into systems in order to protest against something, then the ability to hack into somebodies bank account is there. depending on the person, this can no doubt be utilised.

it was also interesting to me to read about the difference between old school and new school hackers. the impression i got from the readings was that there is a lot of reciprocal disdain and animosity between those who class themselves as old school and those who class themselves as new school. personally, i'm kind of on the new school hackers' side. the old school hackers not only sold out and made millions of dollars each, the advances that they themselves made were used for some pretty unjust causes: like producing missiles capable of destroying x number of people. and the new school hackers also argue that they are simply doing what hackers preceding them did: the whole "information wants to be free" argument.

ultimately, hackers push boundaries. whether or not each hacker can justify what they do depends on the circumstances.