[jessaustin]

Slowly but surely, I'm coming to the position that "hacking and leaking" is never "wrong". It's a form of speech, and I'm a free speech absolutist. Let's stipulate that some things are illegal and not "wrong", just as others are legal and "wrong".

It's not clear to me, however, that this case actually is a hack, in the sense that whoever released this material might have had legitimate access to it as a part of doing business. In that case this is certainly an unethical failure to uphold terms of contract. Who's going to enforce that contract, however? Certainly not IRS or any other USA agency.

[EDIT:] In case it's not clear, I don't think that society in general is ethically limited by any "poison tree" doctrine in situations like this. Once this information is public, however it came to be so, we are free to use it as we see fit.

[gumby]

> Slowly but surely, I'm coming to the position that "hacking and leaking" is never "wrong". It's a form of speech, and I'm a free speech absolutist.

Wow, a "free speech absolutist". How absolute? So if I am a voyeur, poke a camera through your window and put it on the Internet that's OK per my free speech rights? I break into your bank's website and leak all the usernames and passwords -- I can be prosecuted for the break in but not be responsible for the consequences of leaking the login credentials? It's OK for me to publish a front page article claiming you're a convicted rapist, even if that's not true?

[jessaustin]

"Poking a camera through your window" is "hacking" now? Wow!

Sure, I would prefer that you not do that, or indeed that you not physically trespass in any way. A more interesting hypothetical would be for thousands of homeowners to install a bunch of IP cameras in their homes, and for you to hack those without the benefit of physical trespass. I don't think you'd have much of a leg to stand on if you were to publish John and Jane Doe's humdrum bedroom activities. However, you might also witness some truly awful shit, which I'd have no problem with your bringing to the attention of society.

The bank example is another aspect of our bending all rational rules and expectations in the banks' "favor". They shouldn't build such brittle systems, and the more we coddle them the worse they get. It would be possible to prosecute fraud without criminalizing security research.

Libel laws are most often used for the benefit of the already powerful, so yeah getting rid of those would be an improvement.

[jacalata]

>. I don't think you'd have much of a leg to stand on if you were to publish John and Jane Doe's humdrum bedroom activities.

Stand on against what? You seem to be arguing that it should be perfectly OK to do exactly that.

[slg]

>Slowly but surely, I'm coming to the position that "hacking and leaking" is never "wrong". It's a form of speech, and I'm a free speech absolutist.

What about the celebrity iCloud hack? That seems like a cut and dry case of "wrong" and should prevent most of us from using words like "never" and "absolutist". Once that is established, it becomes a question of where that line falls.

[jessaustin]

Yeah that's a challenging case. ISTM that norms with respect to body image are changing (consider, for instance, the more nuanced responses of the Kardashians to similar situations), but they haven't changed completely yet. Therefore it's wrong that the nude image of a woman is treated differently than the nude image of a man. It's perhaps more wrong that the nude images of celebrities are treated differently by prosecutors than those of humbler folk, but that's a different discussion.

N.B.: Humans often use words in rhetorical rather than literal fashion.

[dogma1138]

So should the police do the same? No need for search warrants anymore...

[jessaustin]

Of course not. Police are employed by society. Unfettered police will destroy society. We would never choose to fund our own destruction, so police have to follow rules.

Are there really educated adults who think that we should accept any behavior whatsoever from our police?

[dogma1138]

Because we live in a civil society, if the police can't break into your house and take what evidence they want, and they won't accept evidence from anyone else who broken into you house what exactly does this serve?

If the only thing that is ok here is to leak stuff to the media stuff that usually cannot be collaborated, and often might actually be intentionally if not completely fabricated than at least edited to some extent you are advocating for mob rule and trial by public opinion.

[krapp]

If you believe "hacking and leaking is never wrong" because they're forms of speech, except when the state does it, you're not really a free speech absolutist.

[larrik]

Are you suggesting that speech can't be "wrong"?

[jessaustin]

Close, but it's more like the threshold for "wrong" is much higher than most people care to admit. The methods that many very wealthy people use to reduce their tax burden should be common knowledge in society as a whole, not merely among the very wealthy. In that way, such knowledge will inform robust and honest debate about taxes in general. So much political discourse is piloted by well-compensated media gatekeepers, for the benefit of those who compensate them rather than for the general public. We should cherish those rare instances in which the curtain is pulled aside so we may see how things really work. The schoolboy legalism seen in TFA amounts to obscurantist sophistry, based on nothing more profound than simple analogy.

BTW, thanks for a reasonable and incisive response.

[shitgoose]

You don't mind posting a link to your girlfriend nude pics then? In the name and spirit of absolutely free speech. We will be waiting.

[shitgoose]

to all the down voters - you are infringing on my right to absolutely free speech!