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.
-
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.
Remember that 99.99% of the people who use the internet do not have the knowledge (or simple do not care enough, or have a life) to "hack" into wikipedia. There was a few site that only "camouflage" the blackout, for example wired.com the front page was blackened (like censored documents), but if you highlighted the text, it was readable.
Watched code never compiles.
-
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.
Depends on your definition of hacking. I did nothing and was able to access Wikipedia with no problem at all. The first time I went there deliberately to take a look at their Blackout screen but it didn't appear, just the normal Wikipedia home page. The only other time I visited it was after turning off NoScript (which I figured was what was stopping it working).
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.
-
Depends on your definition of hacking. I did nothing and was able to access Wikipedia with no problem at all. The first time I went there deliberately to take a look at their Blackout screen but it didn't appear, just the normal Wikipedia home page. The only other time I visited it was after turning off NoScript (which I figured was what was stopping it working).
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.
Yeah, that was the example I was going to give. I went to wiki expecting to see something different, but didn't. It was only until I Googled to find it was Javascript based and I had to turn off NoScript to even see it. Frankly (or Henryly), if I had not known about the blackout, I would never have known.
-
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.
hack? search for the topic on Google, click the Wiki link that shows up. it's what i did yesterday, because it's what i always do. Wiki put up a banner page yesterday to attract attention to the issue. it worked. they weren't really trying to shut down the site.
-
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.
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
-
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.
-
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.
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) -
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.
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)?
-
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.
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.
-
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)?
but would it be ethical to do nothing and let these stupid bills pass? hence ending up (possibly) with what amounts to a permanent blackout on some of the stuff?
Let's face it, after Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF! Be careful which toes you step on today, they might be connected to the foot that kicks your butt tomorrow. You can't scare me, I have children.
-
but would it be ethical to do nothing and let these stupid bills pass? hence ending up (possibly) with what amounts to a permanent blackout on some of the stuff?
Let's face it, after Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF! Be careful which toes you step on today, they might be connected to the foot that kicks your butt tomorrow. You can't scare me, I have children.
I think Wikipedia did the right thing. Before the blackout, I promised to donate to them if they went through with the blackout, then today I donated to them.
-
I think Wikipedia did the right thing. Before the blackout, I promised to donate to them if they went through with the blackout, then today I donated to them.
So it was your fault!
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.
-
So it was your fault!
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.
I'd be happy to take the blame. :)
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
Wikipedia intended the blackout to be easily bypassable. Also, you could get around it by looking at the google cache of the wikipedia page (instead of the page itself) if you felt too guilty or too lazy to turn off javascript, effectively doing no hacking at all and still seeing the wikipedia content.
-
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.
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
-
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.
