Re: Ethical hacking

From: nemo_outis (abc_at_xyz.com)
Date: 06/26/05 

Date: 26 Jun 2005 20:38:22 GMT

Jim Watt <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in
news:900ub198fsb7ufkf3f8j9v5sg7u82mhtk8@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 11:21:46 -0500, Ross <Ross@SingingFrog.com> wrote:
>
>>That is a narrow definition. It is assumes that hacking necessarily
>>include systems to which the hacker has no authorization.
>
> If you have authorisation, its password recovery or penetration
> testing. The OP asked about hacking. Now the meaning of
> that has changed from the original days of programmers who
> never slept, but the generally accepted use today assumes
> unauthorised access.
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com
>

Yes, indeed, the meaning has changed over the years. But I have been a
hacker - of the traditional kind - since my first exposure to computers in
1961 at McGill.

I will express my attitude and it straddles the legal and illegal versions.
Succinctly: It ain't criminal if they can't get a conviction! As for what
is ethical or not - that, like beauty, is largely in the eye of beholder.

My version is that, given reason or need (including curiosity), I will
penetrate systems. But my "prime directive" (derived distantly from
Hippocrates dictum for medicine) is "primum non nocere" (that is, "first,
do no harm").

I adhere to the old hackers' code: enter and explore but do not damage,
destroy, or subvert. And, for greater clarity, I utterly discount bull***
about "virtual costs and damage" from the whiners merely detecting my
presence and checking for damage.

I expect - even welcome - endless vituperation from the sysadmins and
others here, but such is my code and I have applied it successfully for 40
years and more!

Regards,

PS Sent using my real IP! Arrogance, dare, or both?

Quantcast