Hacking plays its role in the scheme of things one could say, but even hackers have a code they bide by. What happens when they violate their own code? Is there such a thing as good hacking and bad hacking? I certainly have a case for bad hacking on my mind.
Assange desrcibed WikiLeaks as an “unsensorable system for mass document leaking and public analysis” (Khatchadourian 2010) with a firm policy in don’t damage, don’t change, just share (Mitew, 2014). Hacker ethic dictate this code of ethics in information freedom paramount and sharing. Here lies where hacking has a purpose, where it does good. WikiLeaks has a purpose that isn’t malicious or ill-intended. It has a clear cause to expose the truth and shine light into the dark corners of the web.
The bad, is where the cause is simply to wreck havoc and cause chaos, spreading malware like wild fire in the case of Stuxnet To hurt others through cyber means and create hacker anarchy. What purpose was there to hack into my back account and steal all my savings? Did it expose any truth, did it (which actually happened, hence my aversion to hacking as a concept) Is the purpose to demonstrate the struggle between the individual and the constitution, make me second question my blind trust that ‘it won’t happen to me’? Or limit my online shopping? Because all of those have definitely happened. Except the online shopping cut-backs.
References & Further Readings