Hacking

Dracil · Jan 24, 2004

d0c markus said:
read what i said more closely.

the key question is... is it illeagal, if its illegal then we dileberatly ignore the govt, in which god installed and told us to obey (unless it contradicts god) then its a sin.

and please dont equate hacking with worship, or base following a govt on that principal.

take care.

You ignored my civil disobedience part I notice. But here's the thing, you've already created a condemned if you do, condemned if you don't situation anyway. Did the verse say follow the government unless it is against God, or did it simply say follow the government? Otherwise, you're adding your own little clause to it to escape. And if it is the case you're adding that escape clause, then no matter what you do, you're disobeying God.

Until then, you cannot tell me not to equate hacking with worship. Religious prosecution does exist in some countries. To the government, they're protecting their citizens too.

d0c markus · Jan 24, 2004

Dracil said:
You ignored my civil disobedience part I notice. But here's the thing, you've already created a condemned if you do, condemned if you don't situation anyway. Did the verse say follow the government unless it is against God, or did it simply say follow the government? Otherwise, you're adding your own little clause to it to escape. And if it is the case you're adding that escape clause, then no matter what you do, you're disobeying God.

Until then, you cannot tell me not to equate hacking with worship. Religious prosecution does exist in some countries. To the government, they're protecting their citizens too.

No, you make God out to be basically a trickster of sorts which is not the case,

RO 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

But at the same time, should you be told to deny God, see acts

AC 5:29 Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!

The Govt told peter and paul to stop preachin about Jesus:

19 But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. 20 For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard."

Seeming contradiction, no its not, God instills Gov'ts for his purpose, and God is not evil, its men who detract from God's will and who are evil. Therefore we are not to reject God's authority.

And if it is the case you're adding that escape clause, then no matter what you do, you're disobeying God.

It seems now your saying, just do it anyways, you cant win. Which is bogus. So if hacking is against the law, and ignorance is no excuse (lev 5:17) then you are diliberatly sinning against the lord most high. And you did equate this with worship, because to ignore this is to not worship God by your action of sinning or not sinning.

And for civil disobeidiance are you just talking about protests or riots? Protests are not illegal. In any case that is self explanatory too.

Until then, you cannot tell me not to equate hacking with worship. Religious prosecution does exist in some countries. To the government, they're protecting their citizens too

your right religious persecution by the Govt does exist. And Your are not sinning to defy the Govt for God, as i have shown.

seebs · Jan 24, 2004

The more you say it, the more it sounds like a flat contradiction. You can't make a claim and say "no exceptions" and then describe exceptions, and not have it be a contradiction.

An understanding of the context in which Romans was written would address this entire issue easily.

Dracil · Jan 24, 2004

d0c markus said:
No, you make God out to be basically a trickster of sorts which is not the case,

RO 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

But at the same time, should you be told to deny God, see acts

AC 5:29 Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!

The Govt told peter and paul to stop preachin about Jesus:

19 But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. 20 For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard."

Seeming contradiction, no its not, God instills Gov'ts for his purpose, and God is not evil, its men who detract from God's will and who are evil. Therefore we are not to reject God's authority.

It seems now your saying, just do it anyways, you cant win. Which is bogus. So if hacking is against the law, and ignorance is no excuse (lev 5:17) then you are diliberatly sinning against the lord most high. And you did equate this with worship, because to ignore this is to not worship God by your action of sinning or not sinning.

And for civil disobeidiance are you just talking about protests or riots? Protests are not illegal. In any case that is self explanatory too.

your right religious persecution by the Govt does exist. And Your are not sinning to defy the Govt for God, as i have shown.

See, unfortunately your contradiction still remains. It also wouldn't make sense, since evil people get authority too. Are we saying then that God instills evil authorities? This is not a case of people who started out good then turned bad. But rather, they started out bad. See fundamentalist religious states.

Then at the same time, you also tell us to judge for ourselves what's good and what's bad. As far as we're concerned, we see hacking as good. So yet another problem with your explanations. Why? You're using the false media definition of "all hacking is bad and illegal and does harm to people". While we're using the correct definition that hacking is done for the good of the companies. And this is despite whatever the government may have to say about hacking because they too have bought into that false media definition. So to put it in a simpler way, hacking (the correct usage of it), helps others. I think helping others is following God. If the government says otherwise, then according to Acts 4:19-20 which you posted, we judge that the government is making us go against God, so we should follow God instead of the government here.

Civil disobedience often involves breaking some laws too. And you do get arrested for it. That's the whole point too. If you're not willing to take such a risk, the protest becomes ineffectual, since you're saying that you don't really believe in what you're protesting about (ie. it's not worth spending a night in jail).

So I'm saying according to how you've understood it, you definitely can't win. And you're right, that's bogus. Thus, the problem lies in the understanding of the passages.

Entropy · Jan 24, 2004

According to the hackers dictionary, AKA the Jargon File, (google 'jargon file' .. I'd post a link, but I'm still a newbie on these forums) the meaning of 'hack' could be "an appropriate application of ingenuity." See Section III.A of the above address for more info. Given this definition, I have difficulty seeing how hacking could be sinful. I would even suggest that some (all?) of Jesus's miracles could be considered 'hacks'.

However, the tone of the original question suggests (IMO) you consider hacking to be gaining illicit access to computers or network (hereafter cracking). In the majority of cases, this is sinful. It harms people. Even with no malicious intent, cracking steals time from the sys. admin(s) and user (hence money from his employers), and uses system resources to which the cracker has no right.

There are cases where sneaking into a system isn't sinful, such as when hired by the systems owner to test security, or when a higher authority is directing the crack (ie, law agencies) but in general, cracking is sinful.

Hacking, though ... the world needs more hackers. Good luck.

d0c markus · Jan 24, 2004

Dracil said:
See, unfortunately your contradiction still remains. It also wouldn't make sense, since evil people get authority too. Are we saying then that God instills evil authorities? This is not a case of people who started out good then turned bad. But rather, they started out bad. See fundamentalist religious states.

Then at the same time, you also tell us to judge for ourselves what's good and what's bad. As far as we're concerned, we see hacking as good. So yet another problem with your explanations. Why? You're using the false media definition of "all hacking is bad and illegal and does harm to people". While we're using the correct definition that hacking is done for the good of the companies. And this is despite whatever the government may have to say about hacking because they too have bought into that false media definition. So to put it in a simpler way, hacking (the correct usage of it), helps others. I think helping others is following God. If the government says otherwise, then according to Acts 4:19-20 which you posted, we judge that the government is making us go against God, so we should follow God instead of the government here.

Civil disobedience often involves breaking some laws too. And you do get arrested for it. That's the whole point too. If you're not willing to take such a risk, the protest becomes ineffectual, since you're saying that you don't really believe in what you're protesting about (ie. it's not worth spending a night in jail).

So I'm saying according to how you've understood it, you definitely can't win. And you're right, that's bogus. Thus, the problem lies in the understanding of the passages.

Its not a contradicition your just to stubborn to see it. Also I dont stick to a definition of hacking, since i dont do it. I offered up, whether it was legal or not; the law of hacking has nothing to do with God other than the fact, that no matter which defition you support, whether good for companies or not, if you break the law that the nation has (if it even has one) then your sinning.

I think helping others is following God. If the government says otherwise, then according to Acts 4:19-20 which you posted, we judge that the government is making us go against God, so we should follow God instead of the government here.

This is quite possibly one of the most ridiculous things i have ever read. Take no offense. Certainly helping others is part of following god sure. Please tell me how it helps companies out. And also why because of hackers millions of dollars are spent each year in firewalls and secruity systems to keep you out.

By your logic, by helping companies out serves God, so breaking this law is ok. How about not paying your taxes so that you may tithe them is that ok?

Please help me understand this.

Dracil · Jan 24, 2004

I think you might tell me how exactly does hacking cause damage? If you mean cracking, say cracking. But as long as you're going to say hacking, I will hold you to the proper definition, which means they do not cause any damage to the companies (they don't delete stuff, gather data to sell to other people, etc.).

They don't spend millions because of hackers. They spend millions because of crackers.

So how is hacking a good thing? Because they're doing essentially the same jobs as all those security analysts the companies are paying, but for FREE (free to the companies. The hackers do it for fun and some name recognition among their peers). Sure, it may be unsolicited help, but it also makes the jobs easier for all the actual hired system administrators within the company since they're told about the system breaches afterwards. So tell me again, where is the harm?

A rose by any other name is still a rose. Except by using the word hacker inappropriately, you've called the rose a weed and applied weed killer to it, instead of to the actual weeds growing in the garden.

seebs · Jan 24, 2004

Er, I hate to say it, Dracil, but you're about as confused about hacking as he is.

Any unauthorized access is cracking, and potentially harmful. You may not see why this is damaging, but rest assured, it is. (Hint the first: I have no way of knowing the person who broke in didn't break anything. I pretty much get to spend the day reinstalling everything and patching holes no matter what.)

Hacking is innovative problem solving, whether or not security, or even computers, are involved.

panterapat · Jan 24, 2004

I think that destructive hacking is a sin. And this type of hacking is akin to terrorism.

Dracil · Jan 24, 2004

seebs said:
Er, I hate to say it, Dracil, but you're about as confused about hacking as he is.

Any unauthorized access is cracking, and potentially harmful. You may not see why this is damaging, but rest assured, it is. (Hint the first: I have no way of knowing the person who broke in didn't break anything. I pretty much get to spend the day reinstalling everything and patching holes no matter what.)

Hacking is innovative problem solving, whether or not security, or even computers, are involved.

Interesting point there. Although, I have a hypothetical question for you. Would you prefer that someone (who didn't do anything harmful), told you that your system has holes that need patching, or would you prefer that that they didn't discover these holes and tell you about them (so that the holes remain open to actually malicious people until you actually notice the holes yourself)

seebs · Jan 24, 2004

Dracil said:
Interesting point there. Although, I have a hypothetical question for you. Would you prefer that someone (who didn't do anything harmful), told you that your system has holes that need patching, or would you prefer that that they didn't discover these holes and tell you about them (so that the holes remain open to actually malicious people until you actually notice the holes yourself)

If it's people I don't know, I'd rather they not touch my system. In a theoretical world where I could magically know with certainty that they were honest, the warnings might be nice, but in the world I actually live in, the only reasonable assumption is that someone who's broken into a computer without permission is nasty.

d0c markus · Jan 24, 2004

Dracil said:
I think you might tell me how exactly does hacking cause damage? If you mean cracking, say cracking. But as long as you're going to say hacking, I will hold you to the proper definition, which means they do not cause any damage to the companies (they don't delete stuff, gather data to sell to other people, etc.).

They don't spend millions because of hackers. They spend millions because of crackers.

So how is hacking a good thing? Because they're doing essentially the same jobs as all those security analysts the companies are paying, but for FREE (free to the companies. The hackers do it for fun and some name recognition among their peers). Sure, it may be unsolicited help, but it also makes the jobs easier for all the actual hired system administrators within the company since they're told about the system breaches afterwards. So tell me again, where is the harm?

A rose by any other name is still a rose. Except by using the word hacker inappropriately, you've called the rose a weed and applied weed killer to it, instead of to the actual weeds growing in the garden.

wow...rationalized sin...

Light in the Darkness · Jan 24, 2004

d0c markus

Also I don’t stick to a definition of hacking, since I don’t do it.

Does this mean that you refuse to accept the true definition of "hacking" simply because it doesn't agree with your preconception of what hacking is?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please tell me how it helps companies out.

It helps companies to find the weak links in their security.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And also why because of hackers millions of dollars are spent each year in firewalls and security systems to keep you out.

In this phrase, you are still following your own incorrect definition of the word "hacker" in describing the behavior and intent of hackers. Those millions are spent each year in hopes of keeping out crackers who wish to cause damage and to steal information.

Hackers, on the other hand, alert the system administration to any gaps in the system security. The administration may then confront the problem, and hopefully find a way to prevent a cracker from gaining access to the system in that particular manner. As you can (hopefully) see, hackers can help to strengthen security that keeps out malicious crackers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

seebs

Any unauthorized access is cracking, and potentially harmful.

True.

The act of breaking through a system's security is, technically, cracking. It does leave the system open to potential harm.

However, a hacker does this without any intention of causing trouble, while a cracker does intend to cause damage.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to ask you another question, in addition to the one that Dracil has asked:

Which would you prefer:

-A hacker who breaks into your system, doesn't do anything, and then tells you exactly how he did it so that you can fix the gap in your security.

or

-A cracker who breaks into your system, intentionally causes damages, and who doesn't alert you to their activities, leaving you to make some nasty discoveries later on.

Light in the Darkness · Jan 24, 2004

d0c markus

wow...rationalized sin...

It's only a sin because you refuse to percieve it as anything else.

d0c markus · Jan 24, 2004

hey buddy, when i said i dont stick to a defintion means, i put both 'definitions' into a generality. lol this is stupid... im done... peace

Dracil · Jan 25, 2004

Light in the Darkness said:
d0c markusIt's only a sin because you refuse to percieve it as anything else.

Yep. People used to consider dancing to be a sin too.

seebs · Jan 25, 2004

Light in the Darkness said:
The act of breaking through a system's security is, technically, cracking. It does leave the system open to potential harm.

It is, in and of itself, real and measurable harm.

However, a hacker does this without any intention of causing trouble, while a cracker does intend to cause damage.

No.

A hacker is very unlikely to do any such thing. Anyone who does it, regardless of intent, is some kind of cracker.

There are hackers who have never particularly been interested in computers.

Apart from that, I reject your "either A or B" on break-ins. That's like asking whether I'd rather someone break into my house and steal stuff, or break into my house, steal stuff, and kill my cat. I'd rather he not break into my house at all, thank you. That one is better than the other does not justify either.

Light in the Darkness · Jan 25, 2004

seebs

It is, in and of itself, real and measurable harm.

Not really. Simply breaking through security doesn't do anything drastic to the system.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

A hacker is very unlikely to do any such thing. Anyone who does it, regardless of intent, is some kind of cracker.

So it's cracking, even if they don't cause any damage? I'm beginning to get the idea that you don't even understand what the terms "hacking" and "cracking" mean.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's like asking whether I'd rather someone break into my house and steal stuff, or break into my house, steal stuff, and kill my cat. I'd rather he not break into my house at all, thank you. That one is better than the other does not justify either.

Actually, your comparison should read something like this:

A) Someone breaks into your house, feeds your cat, and leaves a note telling you that he did so.

B) Someone sneaks into your house, steals your stuff, and kills your cat.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are hackers who have never particularly been interested in computers.

Well, if they were hacking, then there weren't any actual damages done.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd rather he not break into my house at all, thank you.

Hey, it's not as though you really have a say in either case.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You seem to be, in all cases, missing the point that true hackers don't intend to cause damage to a system.

Even though the process of getting through a security system is called cracking, it doesn't necessarily make the person doing it a cracker.

seebs · Jan 25, 2004

Light in the Darkness said:
seebsNot really. Simply breaking through security doesn't do anything drastic to the system.

I have to ask, have you ever been a professional system administrator?

So it's cracking, even if they don't cause any damage? I'm beginning to get the idea that you don't even understand what the terms "hacking" and "cracking" mean.

As I said, go to Google and ask it about "hacker FAQ".

Actually, your comparison should read something like this:

That misses the point of the analogy, which is that you are offering two of a very restricted field of options.

Well, if they were hacking, then there weren't any actual damages done.

You keep saying this, but you seem to remain unaware that hacking neeed not involve computers at all, and you aren't convincing me that you have a great deal of experience with systems administration.

Hey, it's not as though you really have a say in either case.

Exactly. This would be rather central to the nature of the damage done.

You seem to be, in all cases, missing the point that true hackers don't intend to cause damage to a system.[/qutoe]

You seem to be, in all cases, assuming that you know more than I do about this topic. I would suggest that, somewhere around now, it would be beneficial for you to ask the question "who is this guy that he thinks he knows who hackers are". For instance, if well-known hackers were in the habit of citing a document I wrote on the topic, that might argue for my competence to decide how to use the word, yes?

Even though the process of getting through a security system is called cracking, it doesn't necessarily make the person doing it a cracker.

Click to expand...

Indeed. If you have authorization, it's not cracking. However, if you don't, it is.

Light in the Darkness · Jan 25, 2004

seebs

I have to ask, have you ever been a professional system administrator?

Nope. The average high-school sophomore isn't gifted with such responsibility.

And now, you may enlighten me a little as to what damages are done. I'm always open to new information. (Though I heavily suspect that you're simply going to throw some vicious remark my way and be done with me.)

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Hacking

Well-Known Member

The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few

God Made Me A Skeptic

Well-Known Member

Active Member

The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few

Well-Known Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

Praise God in all things!

Well-Known Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few

Active Member

Active Member

The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few

Well-Known Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

Active Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency