Are hackers intrinsically bad?

Most may argue yes. Hackers are intrinsically bad. Hacking is… illegal right? That must mean it is bad. Accessing private information one was not supposed to see, let alone, obtain. If hacking is existentially “bad” and “wrong” then that deems the hacker as being naturally bad. But what if the hacker uses the information they obtained for something good? In this case, a hacker could be considered a vigilante. A hacker could be considered as being good. There tends to be a negative connotation associated to the word “hacker” and to the person who is considered a “hacker”; yet, in this blog, I am going to try to break that stigma.

This week, we read “Hacker practice Moral genres and the cultural articulation of liberalism” by E. Gabriella Coleman and Alex Golub. This article stated how: “more recent studies have also reacted against negative stereotypes of hackers by emphasizing instead the original positive connotation of hacking as inquisitive tinkering (Levy, 1984; Turkle, 1984), highlighting the hacker ethic’s ability to emancipate its practitioners from the iron cage of late modernity and capitalism.” In this case, hackers are actually good. They are able to change the internet in ways to combat capitalism. For instance, perhaps if a specific site didn’t “crash” at a very specific time so often more people who have free time during that time would be able to utilize the site more. If a hacker was able to keep that site running longer for the people who would like to use it, then isn’t that a good thing? In my opinion, I think this is a morally acceptable thing to do. The hacker is helping others while also keeping the site up longer without any crashes which is usually the goal of any website.

I found an article written by Jerri Collins Journalist for LifeWire titled, “Good Hackers, Bad Hackers — What’s the Difference? The difference between destruction and protection.” (https://www.lifewire.com/hackers-good-or-bad-3481592) One being positive and one being negative, this article first opened up with two separate biased definitions of a hacker. Some may think a hacker is: “someone who is very good at computer programming, networking, or other related computer functions and loves to share their knowledge with other people”; while another may think a hacker is: “someone who uses their expert computer skills and knowledge to gain unauthorized access to systems, corporations, governments, or networks, in order to cause problems, delays, or lack of access.” Both are technically correct; yet, are evidently different in terms of morals, ethics, and what is generally considered to be acceptable and appropriate use of technological knowledge. This article also differentiated between the two types of hackers within the hacker community. The good and the bad or the “white-hat” hackers and the “black-hat” hackers. The “white-hat” hackers are those who hack to help out the general public; while the “black-hat” hackers are: “a loosely associated group of hackers from all over the world, with meeting points on various online message boards and social networking forums. They are most known for their efforts to encourage civil disobedience and/or unrest through defamation and defacement of various websites, denial of service attacks, and the online publishing of personal information.” White-hat hackers are even thought of as being “ethical” hackers. Further defined as, “hackers who are working from the inside of a company, with the company’s full knowledge and permission, who hack into the company’s networks to find flaws and present their reports to the company.” I would say that not “all” hackers are intrinsically bad. The “black-hat” hackers; however, I think are bad, but the “white-hat” hackers are not. The public should have a better understanding and ability to differentiate the two based on what their hacking is used for and whom it helps and whom it hurts.