We hear of a crime or a fight, and immediately rush to take sides. “They did WHAT?!”, people will gasp in shock, “How dare they?!!” And so the quagmire begins.
Again, we use those beliefs we’ve been taught about what’s right and what’s wrong. Legality only takes in black or white. But just like in life, actions can be colored in many variant shades of gray. That’s what makes them so volatile, and also requires a deeper look at motives behind them. There’s always a hidden story. Since I’m on a roll about hacking, I’ll use it as my example.
Hacking comes in all sorts of forms. Some are meant to be destructive, some to advertise, while others are meant to bring things into the light. I’m sure the intentions are much more diverse then what I’m describing. After all, humans are doing the hacking. I’ve been reading comments from both sides of the fence, and they both have valid points:
Cons:
- Hacking is destructive and all-encompassing. There is no half way with their actions.
- They don’t stand up to my test for morality.
- They’re attacking our way of life.
- I didn’t ask them to do this kind of mindless destruction.
- They’re breaking the law.
- They’re just a bunch of kids who don’t know better.
Pros:
- Ethical hackers choose their targets carefully because of their demonstrated wrongdoing.
- Morality changes with situations, only the moral intent stays steady. This seems to be their guideline.
- They are trying to expose institutional wrongdoings against society. If not them, then who? I don’t see any other volunteers.
- They can’t be bought or swayed from their beliefs.
- Laws continually change, and they are increasingly favoring individual ideology. Ethical hacking only sees the consistent wrongdoing.
- Their eyes aren’t yet colored by life so they see past the trappings. By the way, there’s a lot of adults who are hackers.
Two different viewpoints from the same moral question, and both are right. The current ideological warfare that’s happening in society is caused by outside influences that are coloring our inherent bias. This bias puts blinders on us all. But if we took the time to look deeper into every action, then we’d find that there are so many reasons that cause us to act and to react. The motives are always key to defining the action. Only then can we make a judgment call of what’s right and what’s wrong. That’s what the law is supposed to be doing.
Final thought: Why are the authorities going after the easy targets, like these groups Anonymous and Lulzsec, when there’s also hacking being done by foreign governments and businesses in the pursuit of commercial dominance? Isn’t this a more insidious threat to our way of life? No, instead we create treaties for our mutual benefits with compromises towards society. I’m not seeing the logic here, because that seems wrong in my book.
More news to keep things in perspective:
AnonPlus gets hacked by hackers – Even the watchers have watchers
