Remix clone Hacker News

Doing a crime when underage doesn't stop it from being a crime even if tons of people have done it in the past. Bragging about committing a federal crime is not something we should normalise regardless of the neurodivergence (or lack thereof) of the individual.

It does seem to me that some people in this thread are condoning unauthorized computer access (which is a federal crime).

▲

IshKebab 14 days ago | parent | next [-]

> condoning unauthorized computer access

Yeah I'm condoning it, if you're young, just doing it for fun and not causing any real damage. I think that's fairly normal among computer nerds even if it is a federal crime.

▲

netdevphoenix 14 days ago | parent [-]

So you also condone people breaking into personal cloud accounts for "fun"? If someone young breaks into a house for "fun" and not causing any "real" damage, you condone that too? How about a commercial building? When does the line stop?

What does "real damage" even mean here?

▲

pc86 14 days ago | parent [-]

There is clearly a difference between signing into some server just to see if you can, and breaking & entering into a building. Yes of course they're both wrong, you may even think they should both be serious federal crimes, but it's a very clear difference in degree at the very least.

"Real damage" means exactly what any reasonable person would think it means, I don't even understand the question. If you break a door or window to gain access, that's real damage. If you SSH into a server there is no real damage. If you delete files, there is real damage.

▲

netdevphoenix 14 days ago | parent [-]

You are still condoning unauthorized computer access. You are accessing facilities or resources that you are not authorized to access. Just because you are typing on a computer does not make it any less worse.

"Real damage" means more than that. You can enter a building without breaking a door or a window, not sure where you got the notion that is not possible. If you enter a building there is no physical damage but the reputation of the security company managing the building gets damaged once it's found out.

Just because you don't see it, does not mean that the damage is not there. Similarly, if you SSH into a server, the company handling the security gets its reputation tarnished. In both cases, there is a financial penalty that those companies will suffer. Someone in some company will be under crazy stress because of your actions. Just because you don't get to meet that person does not mean that the damage is not real. Similarly, accessing someone's private cloud and viewing their files will cause someone emotional distress. Again, you won't see it but does not make it any less real. Imagine, someone spying on you while you sleep (whether online or in person) or while you are in the toilet, again there is no "real damage" according to you but the emotional distress is very much real.

All those people hacking web cams for "fun" without causing "real damage" are indeed causing emotional distress which very much falls under real damage.

I suggest you review your definition of "real damage" as it is likely to get you into trouble one day. You should not be condoning federal crimes.

	▲	pc86 14 days ago \| parent [-]
		Respectfully, I suggest you spend a bit more time actually making sure you're responding to what people have actually said and not just what you think they're getting at. > You are still condoning unauthorized computer access. Not at all, literally the opposite. You need only to read past one sentence in my post to see: "Yes of course they're both wrong" > You can enter a building without breaking a door or a window, not sure where you got the notion that is not possible. Not once did I say it wasn't possible. I was using that as an example: "If you break a door or window to gain access, that's real damage." If. As in, it's not required to do this, but this is an example of "real damage." > Similarly, if you SSH into a server, the company handling the security gets its reputation tarnished. If you tell people, yes. And that constitutes real damage. If you SSH into a server to prove to yourself you can do it, and then log out, you have still committed a crime but you have not committed any real damage. There are absolutely people in this thread making the arguments that you're responding to. Unfortunately I wasn't one of them.

▲

mc32 14 days ago | parent | prev [-]

People will defend or denounce hackers not on the actual activity but will base it on politics.

Ic someone aligns with the hacker hacktivist then that person is good. (All the Anonymous activity a decade back), if they don’t like their politics then they want to bring the weight of federal regulation down on them.

People are hypocrites.

For example, Manning, Schwartz. they are typically seen in good light.

Then there is the scourge of those who hack for money (ransomware) that just about everyone hates.

	▲	kelnos 14 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Swartz was acting to make locked-up information (information derived from research largely paid for with tax dollars) free, because he believed it was an injustice to charge people for it. Stanley was hacking Paypal and defacing other people's forums and websites, for the lulz. While I think it's safe to say both committed crimes, I'm a lot more sympathetic to Swartz than to Stanley. Anonymous is a bit more grey: they perhaps exposed things that needed to be exposed, but they were often indiscriminate and hurt people in the process. This isn't politics or hypocrisy; it's thinking critically about different circumstances and applying common-sense ethics and morality.
	▲	adzm 14 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Your examples are not about politics per se, but motivation.
	▲	rbanffy 14 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> Then there is the scourge of those who hack for money (ransomware) that just about everyone hates. Didn't he mention he hacked other people's PayPal accounts?
	▲	beeflet 14 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I don't really care about ransomware distributors either. I think the burden is on the victim defend their own systems.