Thread

1. lm411 · 1789782149 · focus · HN ↗

   The Warez scene was an absolute blast. I made some of the best friends of my early teenage years there, both online and online/offline.

   Unfortunately it came to a sudden end after I got a little too cocky and persistently took and re-took control of a smallish US telecom companies network, and the RCMP came knocking on my door for the FBI. That was largely unrelated to Warez but the advice given to me was that I should probably stop that as well. Thankfully I was too young to be charged with any of it at that time.

   I do regret the massive headaches I must have caused the system administrators at the telecom company. Sorry guys. I have repaid my bad karma many times.

   1. shevy-java · 1789784869 · focus · HN ↗

      The question is whether you find it ok that the FBI comes sniffing after you. Personally I don't find it ok at all. I don't see any of that as a crime either. The legislation is clearly written by corporations and lobbyists acting as lawyers. That's another reason why I think open source is preferrable - that way they are replaced indirectly by not depending on them in the first place, meaning, as a trade-off towards how the society is currently structured. Hopefully it will become more sane again in the future. Back then, though, say in the 1990s or early 2000s, the "vibe" of warez also was "look how great ILLEGAL can be".

      1. enneff · 1789789477 · focus · HN ↗

         You don’t think it should be illegal to hack a telecom network and take control of it?

         1. ExoticPearTree · 1789799008 · focus · HN ↗

            Nope. It means the people running it did not do a good job configuring and securing it.

            1. dxdm · 1789811460 · focus · HN ↗

               Since you mentioned it below several responses to this comment: Why do you think this is okay for software, but not okay in the "physical world"?

               Is it about a perceived lack of consequences of the one vs the other? What if the hack caused real damage and suffering? For example, people's medical histories get stolen and exposed? Ransomware encrypts hospital systems, disrupting medical care?

               Or, the inverse: while you're away, somebody breaks into your home non-destructively, takes some photos, sleeps on your couch, and leaves. Should that be forbidden? Your fault for allowing it? It is easier to pull something like this in the digital world, is that why it seems different to you?

               1. miki123211 · 1789815836 · focus · HN ↗

                  I don't agree with GP at all, but making hacking illegal indeed gives companies a false sense of security.

                  Making burglaries illegal is a real way of preventing many burglaries from happening, because it puts people committing them in prison and deters some from doing it in the first place. This only works because the burglar is in the same place as the burglary, and so they can be arrested.

                  People with little to no computer experience apply the same standard to cybersecurity and treat foreign hackers the same way as burglars. Then they get surprised when the Russians hack them and the FBI does nothing.

                  1. dxdm · 1789825566 · focus · HN ↗

                     You're presenting a false dilemma, there are more options than "all hacking is completely illegal" and "all hacking is a free-for-all".

                     We're in a thread that starts from the notion that it should not be illegal to "hack a telecom network and take control of it", because "the people running it did not do a good job configuring and securing it." That's essentially the free-for-all position, and defending it by claiming that the opposite extreme is the only other option is a false choice. Nuance and compromise exist, and our world is made of them.

                     Also, your argument about burglars can be applied to "hackers", too. Police can find and arrest people domestically and beyond. Consequences deter people from all sorts of illegal activity. On the other hand, nation states are not necessarily deterred by laws from kidnapping and killing people inside the territory of other countries. You've probably seen the news.

                     What's different is the ease of access to digitical, internet-connected systems, and the scale of abuse that affords. That's a reason to think differently about _how_ to shape the rules and laws around "hacking", but not a reason to have no rules or laws at all.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.