Strangely enough, that's why I voted "Don't care" - mostly because I can't scrape up any sympathy for the hackers, the site, or its customers... they can all die in a fire for all I care.
Man, this misanthropy really does creep up with age... scary part is, I kinda enjoy it.
Malware is for the most part installed on the user's hardware without the user's knowledge and deplorable to a society that has a reasonable expectation to privacy. I'd say that Hacking Team is complicit in damages and owes a lot of folks for a lot of processor ticks and subsequently expending energy to run their malware, not to mention the applicable increased time taken to perform an action on a computing device that could be employed by a legit business which could make them responsible for business los
Hacking Team is the company that sells 0-day exploits to repressive governments so they can spy upon their citizens. Regimes like Syria, North Korea, etc. Presumably, they've used the Hacking Team exploits to spy on political or religious dissidents and arrest/silence them.
They are NOT the hackers that broke into the cheating site.
The majority of Slashdotters seem to think that if you leave your front door unlocked, they are free to walk in and take your TV. If you don't use a strong enough password, they are free to break in and steal you financial data. If you don't use a firewall, they are free to infect your machine with malware.
And you want to know if they think these people are unethical?
But it's highly unethical behavior, and this just highlights that we shall not trust our mobile devices with sensitive information that can be used to cause trouble for everyone. So don't ever contain information on your phone that can be used to transfer money.
Now I see why it was so confusing. This organization, "Hacking Team", chose a name which is really awkward. In most cases, "hacking team" would be a common noun and appear with some kind of article before it (e.g. "a" or "the"). Since it's really acting as a proper noun, it must appear without any articles. I was assuming, as many people probably would if they didn't happen to read the article just before the poll, that the poll title was just a poorly composed sentence which meant to ask the question "
It's unethical. In the golden years of computer security (for me), between 96 and 01, the IRC-dwelling nerds obsessed with security were quiet clear about things. We didn't work for the man. Your pride would come from your handle or tastefully short e-mail address being displayed in the security advisory...if it were published. Not only that, but you didn't publish a security advisory without first notifying the makers of the software. You could keep it to yourself for as long as you wanted, but don't feed
It is the oppressive governments that The Hacking Team serves that are unethical. They betrayed the people they're supposed to serve.
The Hacking Team is just business, and a business is amoral. A business exists to maximise its own profit as it sees fit, and it should be free to engage in whatever behaviour that is in the interest of its owners. If it succeeds by performing questionable acts, it is the fault of us, the society, which enable it to proceed that way. Especially, it is the liability of the
Nope. If you do something that harms innocent people (to a larger extent than it is doing good), then you're an asshole. Even if what you're doing is legal and you're only doing your job.
"I was only maximizing profit" is not an accpetable defense in my opinion.
So how is Hacking Team different than a company that sells grenades to Syria? Are all companies that make grenades unethical, because there is no non-violent application for hand grenades? What if they're used for defense purposes?
What about a dual-use item, such as selling cattle prods? Are all companies that make cattle prods unethical? If cattle prods are used for an off-label application (torture of humans), is it ethical to sell them to someone you suspect might be using them for torture, even if t
So how is Hacking Team different than a company that sells grenades to Syria?
They're not quite as evil.
Are all companies that make grenades unethical, because there is no non-violent application for hand grenades? What if they're used for defense purposes?
If they are knowingly doing more harm than good, then they're assholes. Selling grenades to Syria definitely makes you an asshole, regardless of which side you're selling to. Both sides are attempting genocide on the other, and any company that sends weapons to the region is making the situation worse for the civilians there.
If cattle prods are used for an off-label application (torture of humans), is it ethical to sell them to someone you suspect might be using them for torture, even if they don't explicitly say "we want to buy 10 cattle prods for our Glorious Leader's Torture Squad"?
If you think that someone is going to use your product for torture, and you do business with them anyway, then you're an asshole, even if you would not be brea
The Hacking Team is just business, and a business is amoral.
The Hacking Team consists of humans, and as such is incapable of being amoral. They're simply evil.
A business exists to maximise its own profit as it sees fit, and it should be free to engage in whatever behaviour that is in the interest of its owners.
"Should" why? No one has any kind of obligation to help maximize your profits.
If it succeeds by performing questionable acts, it is the fault of us, the society, which enable it to proceed that way.
I find their business unethical, but only because they primarily marketed their products to governments, which means that they knowingly sought out and accepted stolen funds in payment. The same objection would apply to any government contractor. I have no ethical objection to the development of "hacking tools". It's the use of the tools against innocent third-parties which would be unethical.
Re:I'm an idiot (Score:4, Funny)
Strangely enough, that's why I voted "Don't care" - mostly because I can't scrape up any sympathy for the hackers, the site, or its customers... they can all die in a fire for all I care.
Man, this misanthropy really does creep up with age... scary part is, I kinda enjoy it.
Re: (Score:1)
Malware is for the most part installed on the user's hardware without the user's knowledge and deplorable to a society that has a reasonable expectation to privacy. I'd say that Hacking Team is complicit in damages and owes a lot of folks for a lot of processor ticks and subsequently expending energy to run their malware, not to mention the applicable increased time taken to perform an action on a computing device that could be employed by a legit business which could make them responsible for business los
Re: (Score:2)
Hacking Team is the company that sells 0-day exploits to repressive governments so they can spy upon their citizens. Regimes like Syria, North Korea, etc. Presumably, they've used the Hacking Team exploits to spy on political or religious dissidents and arrest/silence them.
They are NOT the hackers that broke into the cheating site.
What?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Wait... (Score:1)
The majority of Slashdotters seem to think that if you leave your front door unlocked, they are free to walk in and take your TV. If you don't use a strong enough password, they are free to break in and steal you financial data. If you don't use a firewall, they are free to infect your machine with malware.
And you want to know if they think these people are unethical?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the AC here.
Re: (Score:2)
Just look at the article just before.
But it's highly unethical behavior, and this just highlights that we shall not trust our mobile devices with sensitive information that can be used to cause trouble for everyone. So don't ever contain information on your phone that can be used to transfer money.
Re: (Score:1)
As someone who has risen from the scene... (Score:1)
It's unethical. In the golden years of computer security (for me), between 96 and 01, the IRC-dwelling nerds obsessed with security were quiet clear about things. We didn't work for the man. Your pride would come from your handle or tastefully short e-mail address being displayed in the security advisory...if it were published. Not only that, but you didn't publish a security advisory without first notifying the makers of the software. You could keep it to yourself for as long as you wanted, but don't feed
Re: (Score:2)
Working for or against "the man" does not matter.
What matters is, who is working "the man" for? For the people or against them?
That's what matters. At least when it comes to the question whether I'll be working for or against "him".
Not just unethical (Score:1)
But scummy, as is trading in 0day for money (or other forms of profit).
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, cows are way more ethical than Italian hackers that steal information and give it to rogue governments.
Re: (Score:1)
Criminal actions aren't protected by societal ideals like a right to privacy, especially if their actions are exposed by non-governmental entities.
Missing answer: (Score:3)
Missing answer: it's about gaming journalism.
It is the oppressive governments that are unethica (Score:1)
It is the oppressive governments that The Hacking Team serves that are unethical. They betrayed the people they're supposed to serve.
The Hacking Team is just business, and a business is amoral. A business exists to maximise its own profit as it sees fit, and it should be free to engage in whatever behaviour that is in the interest of its owners. If it succeeds by performing questionable acts, it is the fault of us, the society, which enable it to proceed that way. Especially, it is the liability of the
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nope. If you do something that harms innocent people (to a larger extent than it is doing good), then you're an asshole. Even if what you're doing is legal and you're only doing your job.
"I was only maximizing profit" is not an accpetable defense in my opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
So how is Hacking Team different than a company that sells grenades to Syria? Are all companies that make grenades unethical, because there is no non-violent application for hand grenades? What if they're used for defense purposes?
What about a dual-use item, such as selling cattle prods? Are all companies that make cattle prods unethical? If cattle prods are used for an off-label application (torture of humans), is it ethical to sell them to someone you suspect might be using them for torture, even if t
Re: (Score:2)
So how is Hacking Team different than a company that sells grenades to Syria?
They're not quite as evil.
Are all companies that make grenades unethical, because there is no non-violent application for hand grenades? What if they're used for defense purposes?
If they are knowingly doing more harm than good, then they're assholes. Selling grenades to Syria definitely makes you an asshole, regardless of which side you're selling to. Both sides are attempting genocide on the other, and any company that sends weapons to the region is making the situation worse for the civilians there.
If cattle prods are used for an off-label application (torture of humans), is it ethical to sell them to someone you suspect might be using them for torture, even if they don't explicitly say "we want to buy 10 cattle prods for our Glorious Leader's Torture Squad"?
If you think that someone is going to use your product for torture, and you do business with them anyway, then you're an asshole, even if you would not be brea
Re: (Score:2)
The Hacking Team consists of humans, and as such is incapable of being amoral. They're simply evil.
"Should" why? No one has any kind of obligation to help maximize your profits.
Simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Move the polls to where they belong and I'll tell ya.
Re: (Score:2)
YES!!!! Please put the polls back where they belong
Damnit! (Score:4, Interesting)
Damnit, you tricked me into voting by including a Cowboy Neil option!
Re: (Score:1)
Sure it's terrible. But... (Score:1)
Unethical, but not for the obvious reason (Score:2)
I find their business unethical, but only because they primarily marketed their products to governments, which means that they knowingly sought out and accepted stolen funds in payment. The same objection would apply to any government contractor. I have no ethical objection to the development of "hacking tools". It's the use of the tools against innocent third-parties which would be unethical.
Where it stinks, there's poo (Score:2)
In general, I'd be extremely wary of anyone selling exploits instead of disclosing them.