‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Warez: The Infrastructure and Aesthetics of Piracy (2021)

220 points · 120 comments · succinct_ideas

  1. lm411 · · 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 · · 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 · · focus · HN ↗
        You don’t think it should be illegal to hack a telecom network and take control of it?
        1. ExoticPearTree · · focus · HN ↗
          Nope. It means the people running it did not do a good job configuring and securing it.
          1. dxdm · · 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. ExoticPearTree · · focus · HN ↗
              Because it is a battle of the brains, like when you play chess. And I believe the smarter one should win. This is why I have this strongly held belief that if you get hacked, it is on you. The attacker was smarter than you, simple as that. So you have to get smarter and become better. Or you get hacked again and again.

              I really don’t understand the urge or need to compare software security with physical security.

              1. dxdm · · focus · HN ↗
                > I really don’t understand the urge or need to compare software security with physical security.

                Both are about preventing harm in many different forms. Software famously has effects in the physical world, that's the reason why a lot of it exists, and why people get paid that deal with software because it makes their brains feel good.

                I also notice that you haven't really answered my questions around that.

                > if you get hacked, it is on you. The attacker was smarter than you, simple as that.

                From your perspective, what makes "smarter" different from "stronger", or "more resourceful" here? Or do you think that if your door gets bashed in, it's your fault, because your door was too weak? Or your head? What if someone outsmarts your physical security arrangements to wander around in your house? Where's your boundary here?

                I think physical and "cyber" security are not so dissimilar in the need to back them up with rules and laws at some point. Still, there are differences, so I don't think the rules and laws need to be the same. You seem to be advocating to have none at all for the software case, and I'm trying to find out about that.

                1. ExoticPearTree · · focus · HN ↗
                  > Both are about preventing harm in many different forms. Software famously has effects in the physical world, that's the reason why a lot of it exists, and why people get paid that deal with software because it makes their brains feel good.

                  Yes, it would suck if the hospital got hacked while I underwent a surgery for example, and the ventilator stopped working. But if that happens, whoever is doing it is not stronger, just smarter than the people administering the hospital network.

                  > From your perspective, what makes "smarter" different from "stronger", or "more resourceful" here? Or do you think that if your door gets bashed in, it's your fault, because your door was too weak? Or your head? What if someone outsmarts your physical security arrangements to wander around in your house? Where's your boundary here?

                  I gave an analogy with chess. You don't have to be strong in the physical sense to win a chess match, just smarter than your opponent. This is how I see the difference.

                  > You seem to be advocating to have none at all for the software case, and I'm trying to find out about that.

                  For software, the playing field is level: you use a computer, your opponent uses a computer. But the difference is the other person's capabilities. You can be smarter and you don't get hacked, or your opponent is smarter and hacks you.

                  1. enneff · · focus · HN ↗
                    You don’t have to be smarter than your opponent to beat them in chess. You need to be better at chess, that’s it. Sure you need some degree of intelligence to be good at chess but being better at chess is not an indicator that you are smarter than your opponent. Same goes for computer security or any other intellectual field.

                    For instance, I’m pretty sure I’m better at computer security than Terence Tao but no way would I say I’m smarter than him.

                    1. ExoticPearTree · · focus · HN ↗
                      Semantics. If you have a computer, the hacker has a computer, and you get hacked, the hacker is smarter. For whatever values of better/creative/resourceful you want to attribute to “smarter”.
                      1. enneff · · focus · HN ↗
                        Do you really think that computer skills are available to everyone on an equal playing field?
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.