A Question on the Ethics of Hacking Wikipedia's Blackout
-
Yesterday several sites including Wikipedia (English) decided to go dark for 24 hours. Wikipedia used a Javascript trick to blacken their website, making the content 'inaccessible'. I read numerous posts in various places telling how to get around this block. Including an Article on MSNBC, which cited NewScientist as their source. We hear all the time from various sources in the world about how hacking is wrong. Hacking is unethical. And publishing articles on how to hack a web site is wrong and unethical and will not be tolerated, etc., etc. Was hacking one's way into Wikipedia unethical or ethical, or is it not particularly black and white? Was publishing an article, or post, or disseminating such information unethical or within the bounds of ethics? Being computer professionals, we all have to wrestle with this sort of question from time to time. I personally think it is irrational to claim that if a hacking technique is more easy than another hacking technique that that makes it not hacking. Wikipedia 'closed off' their site, and did so in a way that most people would recognize. They effectively announced that the content would not be available in many ways. This example is, in my opinion, highly telling because of the trivialities involved. The hack was trivial, most people could get by without Wikipedia for the 24 hours, most of the information contained in Wikipedia is arguably trivial. Many people who hacked the site probably believed in the cause Wikipedia was attending to. And yet the triviality of the information is not usually a defense for a hack when a hack occurs. I am not passing judgement on anyone here who posted the basic techniques for bypassing Wiki's javascript. I upvoted some of these as my judgement at the time. It was also interesting to see what the technical choices led to- did Wiki perhaps know that the techniques for bypassing their javascript technique would be easy and choose it on purpose? Where does the line get crossed on these issues and how does one know when one is about to cross it?
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug... The difference between an ostrich and the average voter is where they stick their heads.
-
It's not hacking. You're just accessing the data they already sent to your browser of their of volition. It's like sending someone an email with an attachment, telling them not to open the attachment, and calling it hacking if they do.
My brain said 'TYPO', but then I checked ;p :thumbsup:
noun
- the act of willing, choosing, or resolving; exercise of willing: She left of her own volition.
- a choice or decision made by the will.
- the power of willing; will.
-
Yesterday several sites including Wikipedia (English) decided to go dark for 24 hours. Wikipedia used a Javascript trick to blacken their website, making the content 'inaccessible'. I read numerous posts in various places telling how to get around this block. Including an Article on MSNBC, which cited NewScientist as their source. We hear all the time from various sources in the world about how hacking is wrong. Hacking is unethical. And publishing articles on how to hack a web site is wrong and unethical and will not be tolerated, etc., etc. Was hacking one's way into Wikipedia unethical or ethical, or is it not particularly black and white? Was publishing an article, or post, or disseminating such information unethical or within the bounds of ethics? Being computer professionals, we all have to wrestle with this sort of question from time to time. I personally think it is irrational to claim that if a hacking technique is more easy than another hacking technique that that makes it not hacking. Wikipedia 'closed off' their site, and did so in a way that most people would recognize. They effectively announced that the content would not be available in many ways. This example is, in my opinion, highly telling because of the trivialities involved. The hack was trivial, most people could get by without Wikipedia for the 24 hours, most of the information contained in Wikipedia is arguably trivial. Many people who hacked the site probably believed in the cause Wikipedia was attending to. And yet the triviality of the information is not usually a defense for a hack when a hack occurs. I am not passing judgement on anyone here who posted the basic techniques for bypassing Wiki's javascript. I upvoted some of these as my judgement at the time. It was also interesting to see what the technical choices led to- did Wiki perhaps know that the techniques for bypassing their javascript technique would be easy and choose it on purpose? Where does the line get crossed on these issues and how does one know when one is about to cross it?
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug... The difference between an ostrich and the average voter is where they stick their heads.
Listening to NPR on the way home yesterday and they had somebody from some tech website suggesting you get around it my using the cached copy on Google. The host then said he got around it my going to a foreign language Wikipedia and then copying the text into Google translate! :doh: Aside from the stupidity of the host's workaround, what shocked me more was that the supposed tech expert didn't point out that it wasn't the same page and didn't have the same content. The Danish version of a Wikipedia page isn't just the English version translated. It could be completely different. Also the "tech expert" didn't suggest the quicker and easier fix of pressing escape before the page finishes loading or the only slightly more involved (for a non-techie) step of turning off Javascript. [But to the original question: oh please. It isn't hacking and it isn't unethical. Get some perspective dude.]
-
Yesterday several sites including Wikipedia (English) decided to go dark for 24 hours. Wikipedia used a Javascript trick to blacken their website, making the content 'inaccessible'. I read numerous posts in various places telling how to get around this block. Including an Article on MSNBC, which cited NewScientist as their source. We hear all the time from various sources in the world about how hacking is wrong. Hacking is unethical. And publishing articles on how to hack a web site is wrong and unethical and will not be tolerated, etc., etc. Was hacking one's way into Wikipedia unethical or ethical, or is it not particularly black and white? Was publishing an article, or post, or disseminating such information unethical or within the bounds of ethics? Being computer professionals, we all have to wrestle with this sort of question from time to time. I personally think it is irrational to claim that if a hacking technique is more easy than another hacking technique that that makes it not hacking. Wikipedia 'closed off' their site, and did so in a way that most people would recognize. They effectively announced that the content would not be available in many ways. This example is, in my opinion, highly telling because of the trivialities involved. The hack was trivial, most people could get by without Wikipedia for the 24 hours, most of the information contained in Wikipedia is arguably trivial. Many people who hacked the site probably believed in the cause Wikipedia was attending to. And yet the triviality of the information is not usually a defense for a hack when a hack occurs. I am not passing judgement on anyone here who posted the basic techniques for bypassing Wiki's javascript. I upvoted some of these as my judgement at the time. It was also interesting to see what the technical choices led to- did Wiki perhaps know that the techniques for bypassing their javascript technique would be easy and choose it on purpose? Where does the line get crossed on these issues and how does one know when one is about to cross it?
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug... The difference between an ostrich and the average voter is where they stick their heads.
Actually, if you took some time to read the link on the black screen you would've noticed the wikipedians themselves explained how to bypass the black screen. Anyway, it was only the English wikipedia that was blacked out, any other country would've been fine (like mine). Also, bypassing the black screen does not harm wikipedia in any way, opposed to hacking which usually DOES harm a website (you could say that editing an article and putting up wrong information on purpose is more like hacking because it's more harmful).
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
} -
My brain said 'TYPO', but then I checked ;p :thumbsup:
noun
- the act of willing, choosing, or resolving; exercise of willing: She left of her own volition.
- a choice or decision made by the will.
- the power of willing; will.
-
Yesterday several sites including Wikipedia (English) decided to go dark for 24 hours. Wikipedia used a Javascript trick to blacken their website, making the content 'inaccessible'. I read numerous posts in various places telling how to get around this block. Including an Article on MSNBC, which cited NewScientist as their source. We hear all the time from various sources in the world about how hacking is wrong. Hacking is unethical. And publishing articles on how to hack a web site is wrong and unethical and will not be tolerated, etc., etc. Was hacking one's way into Wikipedia unethical or ethical, or is it not particularly black and white? Was publishing an article, or post, or disseminating such information unethical or within the bounds of ethics? Being computer professionals, we all have to wrestle with this sort of question from time to time. I personally think it is irrational to claim that if a hacking technique is more easy than another hacking technique that that makes it not hacking. Wikipedia 'closed off' their site, and did so in a way that most people would recognize. They effectively announced that the content would not be available in many ways. This example is, in my opinion, highly telling because of the trivialities involved. The hack was trivial, most people could get by without Wikipedia for the 24 hours, most of the information contained in Wikipedia is arguably trivial. Many people who hacked the site probably believed in the cause Wikipedia was attending to. And yet the triviality of the information is not usually a defense for a hack when a hack occurs. I am not passing judgement on anyone here who posted the basic techniques for bypassing Wiki's javascript. I upvoted some of these as my judgement at the time. It was also interesting to see what the technical choices led to- did Wiki perhaps know that the techniques for bypassing their javascript technique would be easy and choose it on purpose? Where does the line get crossed on these issues and how does one know when one is about to cross it?
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug... The difference between an ostrich and the average voter is where they stick their heads.
smcnulty2000 wrote:
Was hacking one's way into Wikipedia unethical or ethical, or is it not particularly black and white
Since ethics requires a moral code to determine whether the code was violated or not then your question has no answer unless you provide the moral code first.
smcnulty2000 wrote:
I personally think it is irrational to claim that if a hacking technique is more easy than another hacking technique that that makes it not hacking. Wikipedia 'closed off' their site,
Either I don't understand your terminology or all I can say is that I have never seen such a claim.
smcnulty2000 wrote:
Where does the line get crossed on these issues and how does one know when one is about to cross it?
Moral codes are completely subjective (the fact that moral codes might be back by laws doesn't change what I said.) As such it is only something that an individual can do on a case by case basis.
-
I guess it is a fairly uncommon word, but it's one of my favorites. I don't get a lot of opportunity to use it though...
You use of it was of your own volition. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
-
If I boycott a store because I don't believe in their policies I don't use a disguise, walk in and think I'm making a difference. Likewise if a site is using a blackout technique to show their support you don't close the front door and let people in the back door! The freakin world ain't going to end if Wiki goes down for 24 hrs.
Visual Studio Task List on Steriods - VS2010/AVR Studio 5.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Yup.:thumbsup:
Henry Minute Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.” I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus! When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is. Cogito ergo thumb - Sucking my thumb helps me to think.
-
smcnulty2000 wrote:
Was hacking one's way into Wikipedia unethical or ethical, or is it not particularly black and white
Since ethics requires a moral code to determine whether the code was violated or not then your question has no answer unless you provide the moral code first.
smcnulty2000 wrote:
I personally think it is irrational to claim that if a hacking technique is more easy than another hacking technique that that makes it not hacking. Wikipedia 'closed off' their site,
Either I don't understand your terminology or all I can say is that I have never seen such a claim.
smcnulty2000 wrote:
Where does the line get crossed on these issues and how does one know when one is about to cross it?
Moral codes are completely subjective (the fact that moral codes might be back by laws doesn't change what I said.) As such it is only something that an individual can do on a case by case basis.
I agree, except for:
jschell wrote:
Moral codes are completely subjective (the fact that moral codes might be back by laws doesn't change what I said.)
As such it is only something that an individual can do on a case by case basis.That seems a little simplistic. You appear to be saying that anything is OK, regardless of laws, so long as you can justify it to yourself by your own morals. I'd hate to live in a world like that.
Henry Minute Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.” I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus! When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is. Cogito ergo thumb - Sucking my thumb helps me to think.
-
You don't have a local copy of Wikipedia? :confused: More seriously, all Wikipedia content is free for everybody. If we can access the content, it is our right to do so, regardless of of how Wikimedia Foundation tries to prevent us from doing so. Another question we might want to consider is this. Was it ethical to block the content for a day, even if it could be bypassed (with the correct know-how)?
I didn't know about the download option. I don't have 5 terabytes of space sitting around. But that's cool. I like your question. Who owns the content of Wikipedia, I've never dug into that. I certainly don't see a copyright symbol anywhere on their page. So do they have the right to prevent people from seeing this, even if it is for a good cause? I don't know. I'm inclined to think they do; their site, their right. Although I'm not married to that opinion and could be persuaded with a good argument in the other direction. Equally, who owns their servers?
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug... The difference between an ostrich and the average voter is where they stick their heads.
-
I guess it comes down to what we all define "hacking" to be. Hitting the Esc key to me is not hacking.
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)Quote:
I guess it comes down to what we all define "hacking" to be. Hitting the Esc key to me is not hacking.
Okay. So that's what leads to my next question. If hitting the Esc key isn't enough to qualify as hacking, what is? Obviously if I had to write a complex piece of software in order to access their site then you and I would probably agree that I'd hacked the site (unless you read my code, then you'd say I was a hack). :) What criteria makes you decide that it is enough to call it hacking? Or do you use more than one test to tell?
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug... The difference between an ostrich and the average voter is where they stick their heads.
-
From what you see here, it depends on what what's view of "Hacking" is. Little modification was done, no password bypassing or cracking done. To me, it be considered " minor" hacking if anything. "They " wanted to black out a site so that we wouldn't see anything, "We" found a way around it to get what "we " want. Depends on where one see the "line" is too be crossed.
///////////////// -Negative, I am a meat popsicle.
So you have grades of hacking; fuzzy inclusion. Fair enough. Is the technique of stopping a person and the technique for bypassing it the primary criteria for you as to whether a hack is a hack or just utilization of the site in a different way?
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug... The difference between an ostrich and the average voter is where they stick their heads.
-
Quote:
calling removing a javascript overlay (just like any adblocker does) a hack, makes me a sad panda[^] Frown | :(
Do you mean that hack isn't a hack unless it's more sophisticated? Or are you agreeing sadly? edit: that formatted funny. Corrected it.
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug... The difference between an ostrich and the average voter is where they stick their heads.
-
I didn't know about the download option. I don't have 5 terabytes of space sitting around. But that's cool. I like your question. Who owns the content of Wikipedia, I've never dug into that. I certainly don't see a copyright symbol anywhere on their page. So do they have the right to prevent people from seeing this, even if it is for a good cause? I don't know. I'm inclined to think they do; their site, their right. Although I'm not married to that opinion and could be persuaded with a good argument in the other direction. Equally, who owns their servers?
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug... The difference between an ostrich and the average voter is where they stick their heads.
See here. Wikimedia Foundation owns the servers/domain names, but the content is free. If I wanted to host a copy of Wikpedia at wikipedia.aspdotnetdev.com, I think I could without issue (the software is also open source and free). Since Wikimedia Foundation owns the domains, I suspect they could just trash it and put whatever garbage they want up there at any time. However, there are limits of what they could do with the content. They probably couldn't, for example, block every page and only permit you to read it if you pay a fee. Legally, they are surely in the clear. Ethically, we could probably go back and forth all day relating the situation to the various ethical theories. :)
-
Hacking, in the full scope of it's meaning is not wrong per se. The shortest misdefinition I could come up with is using systems in unintended ways for unpurposed outcomes." Under this definition, disabling or modifying javascript would count as a hack, but by the measures of hacking as not much of a hack - as the skill level is low, the insight not very surprising once you understand the mechanism and the outcome quite mundane. There are two ways hacking can be problematic: First, comparably easy to test, you are violating a law. This is to my knowledge not the case here. Two notes: Violating an end user agreement does not mean violating a law, it merely violates the contract with often the only result being loss of use rights - which sometimes couldn't even be enforced. Second, violating the law can be considered wrong by default, nonetheless there are cases where violating the law is right by moral/ethic standards (#include jus primae noctis argument). The second is softer, and that's where I see meat for discussion: ethic boundaries. E.g. a great hack that harms a lot of people. For money or lulz. The law has a hard time keeping up with technology, so with new technology - and a lot of old - it's fairly easy to do harm. My stance here is this: Would you do it to your friends, family, loved ones - with them knowing you did it? If not, don't do it to strangers. (Sociopaths, please also fill out form 2b)
Why ethics? A free, open and progressive society requires a legal system that is based on "everything that's not explicitely regulated is allowed", and a legal system that does not regulate every aspect of life - the law is the outermost limit, not a guideline. To make such a society work, we do need guidelines that softly push you away from current and future legal limits. The common system for that i usually named ethics. I actually don't care much which system we use - religion, ethics, statistics - as long as we use one. Otherwise, we'd force our legal system to give up the role of a hard limit and become our daily guidance, pushing towards a fully regulated, regressive society in stasis.
Quote:
There are two ways hacking can be problematic: First, comparably easy to test, you are violating a law. This is to my knowledge not the case here.
Well under 18 U.S.C. S 1030(e)(2) These might qualify as 'protected' computers. And therefore the Justice Department could in theory go after people who 'hacked' them. You only have to be on the Internet to qualify. But the laws are kind of vague in some spots and muddy in others as to what Congress meant and how its gone through the courts. I think it becomes a matter of would they enforce, and could they get a conviction. I'd say they wouldn't waste their time, and if they did a judge or jury would toss it out. It's a little like accusing someone of going 65 1/10 in a 65 mph zone. In an ambulance. For a definition of hacking, I'm moderately comfortable with "intentionally accessing or exceeding authorized access on a computer" as a starting definition. But I could be talked into something else. Giving notice that the website is not accessible even if only through a small portion or through a specific portal is enough to qualify as 'denying access' in some court cases.
peterchen wrote:
Violating an end user agreement does not mean violating a law,
You mean a tort? But not always if there is a criminal law covering the same turf that the EULA covers.
peterchen wrote:
Hacking, in the full scope of it's meaning is not wrong per se.
I agree.
Quote:
Second, violating the law can be considered wrong by default, nonetheless there are cases where violating the law is right by moral/ethic standards
Very true. If you had to save a person's life for example. One of the reasons I find the Wiki-hack argument interesting is because it is hard for me to come up with a moral or ethical reason why someone would violate the blackout and go after the pages inside. All of the legal gobbledygook I've supplied could be (not 'would be') refuted on the basis that the Wikis may have not 'locked the cabinet', in other words- if you don't actually take precautions the court may not protect you if get "hacked" even if the activity qualifies as "hacking" under the law. As someone else analogized elsewhere in this thread "locking the front door and inviting people in through the back door". When MSNBC
-
I use noscript on most of my personal browsers because most sites have been so obtrusive with Javascript that it is the only way to browse (Google is a major offender). So to be honest, I didn't notice wiki was blacked out until I was told.
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. I also do Android Programming as I find it a refreshing break from the MS. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost
I had it all over the news feeds I get before it happened. Not that your opinion wouldn't be valued if you took it as a theoretical exercise.
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug... The difference between an ostrich and the average voter is where they stick their heads.
-
See here. Wikimedia Foundation owns the servers/domain names, but the content is free. If I wanted to host a copy of Wikpedia at wikipedia.aspdotnetdev.com, I think I could without issue (the software is also open source and free). Since Wikimedia Foundation owns the domains, I suspect they could just trash it and put whatever garbage they want up there at any time. However, there are limits of what they could do with the content. They probably couldn't, for example, block every page and only permit you to read it if you pay a fee. Legally, they are surely in the clear. Ethically, we could probably go back and forth all day relating the situation to the various ethical theories. :)
I usually walk away from a conversation with you with an interesting new piece of knowledge.
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug... The difference between an ostrich and the average voter is where they stick their heads.
-
In the thread yesterday someone mentioned that Wikipedia posted directions themselves for getting around it if you needed to access their site. Assuming this was the case, then there is no ethical question at all. They wanted to draw attention to the issue without inconveniencing anyone who truely needed the resources. Anyone who didn't get around it, isn't one of those 'nerds' that our representatives are suggesting they listen to.
I didn't see it. I did go to their main page. This is what I saw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:History_Wikipedia_English_SOPA_2012_Blackout2.jpg[^] And since I'd heard it was coming I never clicked on the 'learn more' link. I'm not going to assume that it is there, although if someone wanted to point me to a link... Assuming that wasn't the case- would you feel an ethical issue had arisen either for the users or the article publishers?
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug... The difference between an ostrich and the average voter is where they stick their heads.
-
If I boycott a store because I don't believe in their policies I don't use a disguise, walk in and think I'm making a difference. Likewise if a site is using a blackout technique to show their support you don't close the front door and let people in the back door! The freakin world ain't going to end if Wiki goes down for 24 hrs.
Visual Studio Task List on Steriods - VS2010/AVR Studio 5.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Mike Hankey wrote:
The freakin world ain't going to end if Wiki goes down for 24 hrs.
No. Nor if they shut down permanently.
Mike Hankey wrote:
Likewise if a site is using a blackout technique to show their support
you don't close the front door and let people in the back door!But did they? I'm not clear on whether they just made it easy or if they actually told people how to do it. I found out through brief experimentation, reading forum threads here, and through media outlets how to get around it. I do believe that there are people out there who did not know how to do this without the media outlets telling them how to. What is a script kiddie compared to these people? Script kiddies are handed tools by others but are not capable of building those tools themselves for the purpose of hacking. I see a congruence.
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug... The difference between an ostrich and the average voter is where they stick their heads.
-
Listening to NPR on the way home yesterday and they had somebody from some tech website suggesting you get around it my using the cached copy on Google. The host then said he got around it my going to a foreign language Wikipedia and then copying the text into Google translate! :doh: Aside from the stupidity of the host's workaround, what shocked me more was that the supposed tech expert didn't point out that it wasn't the same page and didn't have the same content. The Danish version of a Wikipedia page isn't just the English version translated. It could be completely different. Also the "tech expert" didn't suggest the quicker and easier fix of pressing escape before the page finishes loading or the only slightly more involved (for a non-techie) step of turning off Javascript. [But to the original question: oh please. It isn't hacking and it isn't unethical. Get some perspective dude.]
About the tech expert: Yes.
Wjousts wrote:
[But to the original question: oh please. It isn't hacking and it isn't unethical. Get some perspective dude.]
My point is, how do you know? I agree that this is probably not hacking- although the more research I do on the idea the less sure I am. But let's say you and I agree that this is not hacking. How would the situation have to be different for this to be hacking? Would they have had to put up a password protected first page and then people tried to bypass it? If this is too trivial, how do we know that it is too trivial? Consider: if I punch someone in the nose, you and I would both call that assault (I assume). If I spit on them, we might or might not call that assault. If I pick up their paperwork from their desk and throw it at them, we might disagree on whether that was assault. One of us might consider damage caused, another might consider dignity, we could ask a third person and they might consider the threatening nature of the given act.
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug... The difference between an ostrich and the average voter is where they stick their heads.
