The recent readings and discussions have had an emphasis on privacy, security, other rights related to information communication technologies(henceforth ICTs), and those who use, or have the power to use ICTs to influence or abuse those rights or technologies. The people who abuse ICTs, and try to exert influence over the freedoms and rights of others are called many things from hackers and crackers to internet activists. Following a particular ethical theory may reduce our sense of self-worth if we perform a job in which we do something we consider unethical. We may yet perform tasks related to, or enabling things which our ethical philosophies consider immoral, whether in real world space or in cyberspace. Social media and activism turned out a lot of discussion over the past few weeks, but I'd prefer to cover the use of ICTs in hacking, and its relation to certain freedoms. Having learned hacking in college and occasionally practicing it unprofessionally outside of the scholastic environment, I feel the need to rationalize and defend my own actions and draw a distinction between them and criminal or malicious activity. I don't find it unethical to break certain laws, so long as those laws are either unjust, or do not serve a moral purpose within my personal school of ethics.
Based on the definitions Tavani states as maintained by Eric Raymond's Jargon file on the web at www.tuxedo.org/esr/jargon (Tavani 204). I qualify both as a hacker, "someone who is an expert or enthusiast of any kind," and a cracker "someone who breaks security on a system". I've learned white-hacking and black-hacking in a college environment in order to train me as an information security specialist. The skills I gained on and off campus have not been used solely in pursuance of a job in the information security field, nor for civil disobedience or other forms of activism, simply for the enjoyment of freedom as often as not.
A personal friend works for a company that produces the worlds largest smithed metal objects. This friend knowingly continues his employment, regardless of the fact that certain parts his company produces, and some that he has personally forged, are used in intercontinental ballistic missiles, the company of course produces many more innocent products, but there is to him no ethical stigma in working for this company, or creating these parts. I on the other hand have many innocent hobbies, but I also have some that qualify as criminal. Though our situations differ, like my friend, I feel no ethical stigma or loss of morality.
While "many in the government, and business sectors view hacking... as a form of trespass"(Tavani 206), I find trespassing laws to be unjust. I think we lack proper concept, and protection of freedom of movement, both through space in the world, and cyberspace. I do not actively fight against laws disallowing trespassing, but like privacy, and security, though they may seem opposing concepts, I believe we should protect all these rights, and I somewhat infrequently disobey such laws. My hobbies that include trespassing (walking through forests, or finding backdoors into websites and webservers, simply to explore new space) are non malicious in nature, I don't intend to steal or harm or alter the landscape or cyberscape I pass over. While I may break laws, I still feel that the consequences of my actions do not result in harm to any or many, my personal ethics are satisfied, but what I have learned and will take from these weeks readings into my personal life is caution. I will be more cautious in my activities, because while some civil liberties activists may support my actions as expressions of freedom, the law is still certainly not on my side, and there could be punishment.
No comments:
Post a Comment