After reading Poptech's thread about the Global Warming believers emails being hacked, I was reflecting on whether this should actually be a crime. Now given that intellectual property is illegitimate I fail to see how hacking per se should be illegal: all one is doing is viewing information which is not scare and not ownable. Obviously if you use hacking to transfer money then obviously it's been a means to a crime but only in the same way driving the getaway car is.
So it seems to me that hacking should be perfectly legal.
Edit: I'm an idiot. I've just looked at how hacking actually works and it does seem like tresspass as Marko said.
Note self: think before posting.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
It seems to me hacking = trespassing. It is not your e-mail account, so you have no business being in it.
Chances are those computers were funded by stolen goods (taxation). Thus I don't see a problem with it.
Anyone have a problem with hackers targeting governments / public funded organisation and exposing fraud?
On a slightly related note; I think the issue (hacking) comes down to whether they increase the size of the state / money supply etc. due to their actions or decrease it. Not exactly sure if that could be done through hacking; lol. Just some thoughts.
- Let's assume it is a violation of the NAP. Applying Libertarian punishment theory, I'm not sure what that would be. If the documents were only copied, then nothing was stolen. - Marko makes a good point about trespassing. If no damage was done, i.e trojans, worms left behind that affect the system and hardware - that lessens it again. - The scientists obviously don't own their reputations.
Physiocrat: After reading Poptech's thread about the Global Warming believers emails being hacked, I was reflecting on whether this should actually be a crime. Now given that intellectual property is illegitimate I fail to see how hacking per se should be illegal: all one is doing is viewing information which is not scare and not ownable. Obviously if you use hacking to transfer money then obviously it's been a means to a crime but only in the same way driving the getaway car is. So it seems to me that hacking should be perfectly legal. Edit: I'm an idiot. I've just looked at how hacking actually works and it does seem like tresspass as Marko said. Note self: think before posting.
Hacking involves the actual physical manipulation of the computer.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Would known fraud in this specific building, these specific computers, emphasis known, provide a legitimate case for justice to step in? Yes. In this case the hacking would be of justice. Now. The point to be made is, did the hackers know of evidence backed fraud before the hackers, hacked? If there is a case built of scientific investigation, then justice is on the side of the hackers. One piece of evidence I know about is since the information is public a freedom of information act has been trying to get a hold of the supposed data in this Climate Center. The center has been denying handing over their data. This data though is being used for political policy. So there has been on-going stone-walling and other information, such as the previously known fudged data that has already come out before this event. Therefore the hackers in the end might be concieved as a justice investigation team that did the work that criminals would not (criminals in this case being the fraudulent government and scientists themselves - as we know the government does not investigate itself unless it works to their own advantage. governmental agents are outside the realm of justice for the most part so somebody has to do the just work).
I'd focus on what has been known before-hand and if there is enough evidence to point out that what the hackers did was based on justice. From what I am understand thus far, but I have much more to understand about this, is the hackers had scientific reasoning to go in. The effect of this data on everybody else's property therefore would make this legit if the hackers knew and had evidence to back up their efforts before they went in (hacked).
When you hack into an e-mail account you are hacking into a computer of the e-mail provider. Not of the e-mail user. How do you justify that? What has the e-mail provider done?
Marko: When you hack into an e-mail account you are hacking into a computer of the e-mail provider. Not of the e-mail user. How do you justify that? What has the e-mail provider done?
Are you referring to web-based email providers? If yes, then I see your point. However, many people download emails to their computers. What is more, some emails are not even transmitted via the web. There are private networks intranets that are used to send emails outside of the internet.
How does a person gain access to a PO box in a post office to check only the user's mail and not incriminate the post office itself? Not only a PO box but a mailbox by the road, for example, which the inside is owned by the federal government?
edit: by the way, good questions. i wouldn't mind more input on this.
Conza88: - Marko makes a good point about trespassing. If no damage was done, i.e trojans, worms left behind that affect the system and hardware - that lessens it again.
- Marko makes a good point about trespassing. If no damage was done, i.e trojans, worms left behind that affect the system and hardware - that lessens it again.
And if there was no hardware damage and only a few files were copied, the copied files wouldn't matter in any legal proceedings? Yes it is undeniable that there is physical manipulation of a physical object owned by an individual. It is possible to hack a computer and cause no damage. Would you only charge them for trespassing? Trespassing is at best a minor offense. You need to take into account that the purpose of the hacking in the first place was to acquire information regardless of permission, information that the knower decides to tell anyone about, information that will (probably) decrease in value now that someone else knows it.
Eioul:And if there was no hardware damage and only a few files were copied, the copied files wouldn't matter in any legal proceedings?
If the person had a non-disclosure agreement, and then violated it - then it would. Otherwise, I don't see how it can?
Eioul:Yes it is undeniable that there is physical manipulation of a physical object owned by an individual. It is possible to hack a computer and cause no damage. Would you only charge them for trespassing? Trespassing is at best a minor offense.
What else would / should they be charged with?
Eioul:You need to take into account that the purpose of the hacking in the first place was to acquire information regardless of permission, information that the knower decides to tell anyone about, information that will (probably) decrease in value now that someone else knows it.
Why do you?
The only thing that needs to be taken into account is property rights and violation of the NAP. Purpose or intent is irrelevant to the crime committed, only actions matter. Intent or purpose becomes an issue when the criminal / violator of NAP is caught, and the victim decides what is to be done. (to the extent they can) Naturally the aggressor can try argue mitigating factors, try convince the victim to be lenient.
You don't have a right to value or information.
Say someone breaks into an office, or picks a lock. They get into the office, bring their own paper, ink cartridges and photocopy some important documents. Nothings been stolen, just trespassing.
Naturally though in this environment, security would be taken more seriously? I think the current proliferation of hackers is a result of government intervention, kind of like gun control except in the computer world.
In a free market, wouldn't there be a service / demand for professional hackers that defend networks? Say a hacker attacks a network or company, then that administrators has a right to self defense of their property.
So they could literally, retailiate and destroy the aggressors computer. I'm not sure that is legal / warranted in the current environment, you are only allowed to defend against attacks, not actually retaliate i.e punishment theory, as would be permitted in a Libertarian society.
Surely the large corporations would want the best hackers on their side, defending their information. It kind of puts a emphasis back on the defense of property.
** Could be way off base with this, so take this as a fairly uninformed viewpoint.
I disagree with most of the statements here.
If a computer has been put on a network for the purpose of communicating with other computers including mine (otherwise, how would I be accessing it?) am I 'hacking'?If I send a computer instructions to the effect of "Send your emails to me" and the computer says "Here you go" and sends the emails to me, am I 'hacking'?As the owner of a computer on a network, I cannot mindread the other owners intention to determine what I can and cannot access: they should do that by setting their computers up to talk with others with the purpose they desire.It is not trespass, because my property or person is not on their property IMHO. I have asked (and you can only 'ask' with computers unless you have physical access) by sending instructions.Either a computer accepts instructions from other computers, and the owner is responsible for controlling what is sent out, or all communication between computers is trespass and we must destroy the internet.
If I sit on a conference call and someone asks for my bank account passwords and I give it to them, is it really their fault for asking?
teuch: I disagree with most of the statements here. If a computer has been put on a network for the purpose of communicating with other computers including mine (otherwise, how would I be accessing it?) am I 'hacking'?If I send a computer instructions to the effect of "Send your emails to me" and the computer says "Here you go" and sends the emails to me, am I 'hacking'?As the owner of a computer on a network, I cannot mindread the other owners intention to determine what I can and cannot access: they should do that by setting their computers up to talk with others with the purpose they desire.It is not trespass, because my property or person is not on their property IMHO. I have asked (and you can only 'ask' with computers unless you have physical access) by sending instructions.Either a computer accepts instructions from other computers, and the owner is responsible for controlling what is sent out, or all communication between computers is trespass and we must destroy the internet. If I sit on a conference call and someone asks for my bank account passwords and I give it to them, is it really their fault for asking?
Assume a file cabinet with three drawers. If I give you permission to only open the first drawer and to use the files within the first drawer, does that mean that I also give you permission to open the second drawer and to use the files within the second drawer?
If the person is breaking a law, violating the property of another, then it is permission to go into all of their draws - correct?
wilderness:If the person is breaking a law, violating the property of another, then it is permission to go into all of their draws - correct?
The mistake I see is equating an email box to a physical box or a filing cabinet, by referring to an email account as a phyiscal space. Which it isn't. An email account is something that exists ephemerally inside the working of a program.
Firstly, it isn't possible to walk up to an email inbox and unlock it with a key. Email is an agreement between programs running on different computers about how 'email' should be structured. It is not a physical thing.
Secondly, there is no physical access. If someone tries to hack a computer, they are communicating with it. Who is to say what is 'legal' communication and what isn't. Like my phone example, I may ask someone on the other end for something, whether they tell it to me is their decision. It is not my fault if I ask for something (regardless of motive) and they give it to me despite them not wanting to. Just as I cannot read their minds to tell me if certain bits of information were not supposed to be released. And in any case, the determination of guilt is a matter for courts to decide and it shouldn't be assumed that they are guilty of 'hacking' because they received information that they 'shouldn't have'.
If the google search engine automatically picked up these email somehow and displayed them in search results, because their computers (unintentionally!) gave them to the search engine, is google really guilty of hacking?
wilderness: If the person is breaking a law, violating the property of another, then it is permission to go into all of their draws - correct?
I don't understand.
teuch:The mistake I see is equating an email box to a physical box or a filing cabinet, by referring to an email account as a phyiscal space. Which it isn't. An email account is something that exists ephemerally inside the working of a program.
Daniel: wilderness: If the person is breaking a law, violating the property of another, then it is permission to go into all of their draws - correct? I don't understand.
If somebody is breaking the law, violating the property of another, using information that can be hacked and obtained - thus - the information is critical to obtaining to stopping violations of property rights it is legit - correct or no?
teuch: wilderness:If the person is breaking a law, violating the property of another, then it is permission to go into all of their draws - correct? The mistake I see is equating an email box to a physical box or a filing cabinet, by referring to an email account as a phyiscal space. Which it isn't. An email account is something that exists ephemerally inside the working of a program.
Email exists on a hard drive somewhere. A hard drive is tangible. Besides, I was using an analogy. The analogy had to do with giving permission.
teuch:Firstly, it isn't possible to walk up to an email inbox and unlock it with a key. Email is an agreement between programs running on different computers about how 'email' should be structured. It is not a physical thing.
An "account" is an abstraction. Just like having an account for a P.O. Box at your local post office. But the P.O. Box itself is tangible.
teuch:Secondly, there is no physical access.
Yes there is. The ethernet cables, the hard drive, the RAM, the motherboard, the routher, the switch, the ethernet port, the battery, and CPU are all tangible.
teuch:If someone tries to hack a computer, they are communicating with it.
That's like saying that when you can call someone, but you are not engaging in an act that involves tangible items, yet, you are using a telephone, the telephone wires, and are manipulating the ringer on the other person's telephone.
teuch:Who is to say what is 'legal' communication and what isn't. Like my phone example, I may ask someone on the other end for something, whether they tell it to me is their decision. It is not my fault if I ask for something (regardless of motive) and they give it to me despite them not wanting to. Just as I cannot read their minds to tell me if certain bits of information were not supposed to be released. And in any case, the determination of guilt is a matter for courts to decide and it shouldn't be assumed that they are guilty of 'hacking' because they received information that they 'shouldn't have'.
This analogy isn't analogous to hacking.
teuch:If the google search engine automatically picked up these email somehow and displayed them in search results, because their computers (unintentionally!) gave them to the search engine, is google really guilty of hacking?
That's not what hacking is.
Knight_of_BAAWA: teuch:The mistake I see is equating an email box to a physical box or a filing cabinet, by referring to an email account as a phyiscal space. Which it isn't. An email account is something that exists ephemerally inside the working of a program.Which is running on a physical computer. Therein lies the trespass.
But what part of me is trespassing? Even the electrons that left the computer aren't the same ones that would reach the email machine. And even when the electrons do get their, I have no power over them.
If I call someone on the telephone, is my voice trespassing on their handset? Or trespassing on mises.org whenever I send a post?
Daniel: teuch:If the google search engine automatically picked up these email somehow and displayed them in search results, because their computers (unintentionally!) gave them to the search engine, is google really guilty of hacking? That not what hacking is.
That not what hacking is.
How do you define hacking? I have had friends who claim to be 'hacked' because there was too much info on their facebook profiles and someone got hold of it. Not hacking IMHO.
teuch: Daniel: teuch:If the google search engine automatically picked up these email somehow and displayed them in search results, because their computers (unintentionally!) gave them to the search engine, is google really guilty of hacking? That not what hacking is. How do you define hacking? I have had friends who claim to be 'hacked' because there was too much info on their facebook profiles and someone got hold of it. Not hacking IMHO.
I agree. That's not hacking.
I will use the m-w.com defintion for hacking:
"to gain access to a computer illegally"
Daniel: Email exists on a hard drive somewhere. A hard drive is tangible. Besides, I was using an analogy. The analogy had to do with giving permission.
In the case of a computer on the internet, how do you give permission? Most commonly it is a password - anyone who gives the computer Username: X and Password: Y has permission. But if someone elses uses the correct username and password, they get permission, even if it wasn't what was intended.
Computers will always do exactly as you tell them, and can't read the minds of their owners (yet).
Daniel: teuch:Secondly, there is no physical access. Yes there is. The ethernet cables, the hard drive, the RAM, the motherboard, the routher, the switch, the ethernet port, the battery, and CPU are all tangible.
Another computer doesn't have physical access to any of those things.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Which is running on a physical computer. Therein lies the trespass.
teuch:But what part of me is trespassing?
Knight_of_BAAWA: teuch:The mistake I see is equating an email box to a physical box or a filing cabinet, by referring to an email account as a phyiscal space. Which it isn't. An email account is something that exists ephemerally inside the working of a program. Knight_of_BAAWA:Which is running on a physical computer. Therein lies the trespass. teuch:But what part of me is trespassing?The part of you at the keyboard.
The keyboard of my own computer? I don't follow.
The person with physical access to the computer controls everything that happens on it. They can pull the power if they want to. They are permitting my instructions to be let through.
Am I trespassing on mises.org because I am at my keyboard, looking at the website? How do I know I have permission?
teuch: Daniel: Email exists on a hard drive somewhere. A hard drive is tangible. Besides, I was using an analogy. The analogy had to do with giving permission. In the case of a computer on the internet, how do you give permission? Most commonly it is a password - anyone who gives the computer Username: X and Password: Y has permission. But if someone elses uses the correct username and password, they get permission, even if it wasn't what was intended. Computers will always do exactly as you tell them, and can't read the minds of their owners (yet). Daniel: teuch:Secondly, there is no physical access. Yes there is. The ethernet cables, the hard drive, the RAM, the motherboard, the routher, the switch, the ethernet port, the battery, and CPU are all tangible. Another computer doesn't have physical access to any of those things.
When you upload a video onto YouTube, what are you causing YouTube's server to do?When you hack into another computer, what are you causing that other computer to do?
Daniel:"to gain access to a computer illegally"
Who defines if it is legal or not? The owner of the computer, in my view. Having physical access to a computer means absolute power over it.
If I put it on the internet, I must program it with precise instructions on how it must interact with the rest of the world. That is my responsibility.
If I program my computer by mistake to tell the world "come on in!" when I mean't "stay away!", should everyone who tried to access my computer go to prison because they couldn't read my mind to determine what I actually wanted?
Daniel:When you upload a video onto YouTube, what are you causing YouTube's server to do?When you hack into another computer, what are you causing that other computer to do?
I still don't know how hacking is defined.. except that it is illegal by your definition.
What if I am uploading to YouTube with a particular username and password combo that someone else claims as theirs? Is that hacking?
teuch: Daniel:When you upload a video onto YouTube, what are you causing YouTube's server to do?When you hack into another computer, what are you causing that other computer to do? I still don't know how hacking is defined.. except that it is illegal by your definition. What if I am uploading to YouTube with a particular username and password combo that someone else claims as theirs? Is that hacking?
Depends. Did that someone else give you permission to use his account? Anyway, it's irrelevant.
Do you understand that when you download a file onto your computer you are altering the physical state of your hard drive?
teuch: Daniel:"to gain access to a computer illegally" Who defines if it is legal or not? The owner of the computer, in my view. Having physical access to a computer means absolute power over it. If I put it on the internet, I must program it with precise instructions on how it must interact with the rest of the world. That is my responsibility. If I program my computer by mistake to tell the world "come on in!" when I mean't "stay away!", should everyone who tried to access my computer go to prison because they couldn't read my mind to determine what I actually wanted?
No. But, how this relevant?
Daniel:Depends. Did that someone else give you permission to use his account? Anyway, it's irrelevant.
I think it is relevant. 'Depends' might mean the difference between 20 years prison or not. Hacking is a crime, but like pornography, almost impossible to define.
Daniel:Do you understand that when you download a file onto your computer you are altering the physical state of your hard drive?
Yes, but what I do my computer is not the discussion. If I break into the Climate Center's office and download stuff onto their computer, that is definitely trespass. If I access their website it is not trespass.
If I upload a video onto their website it may or may not be trespass, depending on whether I have the rights to use the username and passwords. To me that isn't satisfactory.
Daniel: teuch: If I program my computer by mistake to tell the world "come on in!" when I mean't "stay away!", should everyone who tried to access my computer go to prison because they couldn't read my mind to determine what I actually wanted? No. But, how this relevant?
teuch: If I program my computer by mistake to tell the world "come on in!" when I mean't "stay away!", should everyone who tried to access my computer go to prison because they couldn't read my mind to determine what I actually wanted?
That is what is under discussion, whether or not accessing emails was legal or not.
The email server says "Come on in, if you have username X and password Y". The access the computer gives to someone is ultimately determined by the owner of the physical computer.
If the computer grants access based on username/password, then the physical owner turns around and says "Hey! You are not the person I intended", it is the responsibly of the computer's owner.
It isn't right to point a gun to somebodies head because they sent a username and password to a computer, the computer gave them information, and then the computer's owner said "That isn't what I meant it to do! Throw him in prison!"
teuch: Daniel:Depends. Did that someone else give you permission to use his account? Anyway, it's irrelevant. I think it is relevant. 'Depends' might mean the difference between 20 years prison or not. Hacking is a crime, but like pornography, almost impossible to define. Daniel:Do you understand that when you download a file onto your computer you are altering the physical state of your hard drive? Yes, but what I do my computer is not the discussion. If I break into the Climate Center's office and download stuff onto their computer, that is definitely trespass. If I access their website it is not trespass. If I upload a video onto their website it may or may not be trespass, depending on whether I have the rights to use the username and passwords. To me that isn't satisfactory.
Look, this discussion is becoming a mess. You seem to be confusing parts of other posts with mine and you are being very imprecise with your usage of language. We have gone into tangents and arguments, questions to clarify, and analogies have become muddled. Non sequiturs abound. In other words, I have no idea what you talking about now.
So, I'll attempt to get us back on track. Hacking is illegally accessing a computer, and hacking into a computer involves the physical manipulation of the computer. Therefore, hacking is a crime. Thus, hacking into a computer to retrieve emails is a crime.
teuch: Daniel: teuch: If I program my computer by mistake to tell the world "come on in!" when I mean't "stay away!", should everyone who tried to access my computer go to prison because they couldn't read my mind to determine what I actually wanted? No. But, how this relevant? That is what is under discussion, whether or not accessing emails was legal or not. The email server says "Come on in, if you have username X and password Y". The access the computer gives to someone is ultimately determined by the owner of the physical computer. If the computer grants access based on username/password, then the physical owner turns around and says "Hey! You are not the person I intended", it is the responsibly of the computer's owner. It isn't right to point a gun to somebodies head because they sent a username and password to a computer, the computer gave them information, and then the computer's owner said "That isn't what I meant it to do! Throw him in prison!"
You're presuming that the username and password were obtained legally.
Daniel:So, I'll attempt to get us back on track. Hacking is illegally accessing a computer, and hacking into a computer involves the physical manipulation of the computer.
OK then, forget about everything else. Just tell me: what is illegally accessing a computer.
A computer sits on the internet, with a big USERNAME AND PASSWORD PLEASE.
At what point does it become illegal to access this computer? I really would like to know.
Daniel:You're presuming that the username and password were obtained legally.
This is another tangent, and so let's put that aside for now.
teuch: Daniel:So, I'll attempt to get us back on track. Hacking is illegally accessing a computer, and hacking into a computer involves the physical manipulation of the computer. OK then, forget about everything else. Just tell me: what is illegally accessing a computer. A computer sits on the internet, with a big USERNAME AND PASSWORD PLEASE. At what point does it become illegal to access this computer? I really would like to know.
There are many ways to access a computer illegally. One way is to obtain the username and password illegally. Another is to avoid the username and password part and illegally placing code that allows you to access the computer.
EDIT: This whole debate has to do with permissions. Which brings me back to my original question: Assume a file cabinet with three drawers. If I give you permission to only open the first drawer and to use the files within the first drawer, does that mean that I also give you permission to open the second drawer and to use the files within the second drawer?
Daniel:There are many ways to access a computer illegally. One way is to obtain the username and password illegally. Another is to avoid the username and password part and illegally placing code that allows you to access the computer.
How can somebody tell if a password has been obtained legally or not? Your second point would require either physical access, in which case it is trespass, or a valid username and password, bring us back to your first point.
Daniel: I give you permission to only open the first drawer and to use the files within the first drawer, does that mean that I also give you permission to open the second drawer and to use the files within the second drawer?
A computer is not a filing cabinet. I do not have physical access to the computer, and very rarely do I speak with the owner of the computer and make agreements with them personally.
I must interact with the computer over the telephone (literally in my case as we only have dial-up). My computer is having a conversation with the computer on the other end. Am I making sense so far?
teuch: Daniel: I give you permission to only open the first drawer and to use the files within the first drawer, does that mean that I also give you permission to open the second drawer and to use the files within the second drawer? A computer is not a filing cabinet. I do not have physical access to the computer, and very rarely do I speak with the owner of the computer and make agreements with them personally. I must interact with the computer over the telephone (literally in my case as we only have dial-up). My computer is having a conversation with the computer on the other end. Am I making sense so far?
Let's focus on this. Again, I am using an analogy. Furthermore, the analogy has to do with permissions. Let me try this:
If give you permission to access only Partition A of my hard drive and to use the files within Partition A, does that mean that I also give you permission to access to Partition B of my hard drive and to use the files within Partition B?
Daniel: Marko: When you hack into an e-mail account you are hacking into a computer of the e-mail provider. Not of the e-mail user. How do you justify that? What has the e-mail provider done? Are you referring to web-based email providers? If yes, then I see your point. However, many people download emails to their computers.
Are you referring to web-based email providers? If yes, then I see your point. However, many people download emails to their computers.
Daniel: teuch: Daniel: I give you permission to only open the first drawer and to use the files within the first drawer, does that mean that I also give you permission to open the second drawer and to use the files within the second drawer?A computer is not a filing cabinet. I do not have physical access to the computer, and very rarely do I speak with the owner of the computer and make agreements with them personally.I must interact with the computer over the telephone (literally in my case as we only have dial-up). My computer is having a conversation with the computer on the other end. Am I making sense so far?Let's focus on this. Again, I am using an analogy. Furthermore, the analogy has to do with permissions. Let me try this: If give you permission to access only Partition A of my hard drive and to use the files within Partition A, does that mean that I also give you permission to access to Partition B of my hard drive and to use the files within Partition B?
teuch: Daniel: I give you permission to only open the first drawer and to use the files within the first drawer, does that mean that I also give you permission to open the second drawer and to use the files within the second drawer?A computer is not a filing cabinet. I do not have physical access to the computer, and very rarely do I speak with the owner of the computer and make agreements with them personally.I must interact with the computer over the telephone (literally in my case as we only have dial-up). My computer is having a conversation with the computer on the other end. Am I making sense so far?