Stephen Hawking’s black hole theory proved to be correct

The following is an excerpt from Democracy coding By Maureen Webb. Reprinted with permission from MIT PRESS. Copyright 2020.

As people begin to hack more cooperatively in the current structure, the reaction of those who benefit from things as-is is more intense and punitive, at least until the “hacker” succeeds in converting the relevant power relationships. Will be. We know this from the history of social movements. With the dawn of the digital age, farmers hacking tractors will be mercilessly punished.

Somewhere in the continuum of altruism and breach, there is a kind of hack that may lead the world to a more accountable government and informed citizens.

Of course, hackers need to be aware that they are engaged in everything from altruistic to apparently nihilistic and dangerous. On the altruistic side of the continuum, they use free software (GNU / Linux and other software under the GPL license), Creative Commons (Creative Commons license), and open access (publicly recorded and publicly funded research). I am creating a digital interface design) to make it accessible. .. They are hacking surveillance and monopoly power (privacy tools, alternative services, collaborative platforms, creating new decentralized internet) and electoral politics and decision making (Cinque Stelle, EnComú, Ethero, Liquid Democracy, PartidoX). They engage in stunts to uncover technical flaws in voting, communications, and security systems that are widely used or imposed by the general public (chest on German election voting machines). Or by hacking the German Bildschirmtext system or stealing the minister’s bioidentifier)). They punished dubious contractors such as Hacking Team, HBGary, and Stratfor, and leaked corporate transactions and personal information over the Internet. They exposed the corruption of oligarchy, politicians and hegemons (through the Panama Papers, WikiLeaks, Xnet).

More notably, they coordinated decentralized denial of service (DDoS) attacks, anonymity DDoS protesting corporate and government actions (PayPal’s boycott of WikiLeaks, Internet of Things DDoS clever to Amazon. We are retaliation for use etc.). US and Canadian government IT systems). They hacked databases (Manning and Snowden), leaked state secrets (Manning, Snowden, WikiLeaks), and in doing so betrayed their government (Manning betrayed the secrets of the US war, Snowden. Betrayed the secret of US security). They interfered with the elections (such as Democratic National Committee hacks and leaks during the 2016 US elections) and disinformation (Russian US social media hacks). They breached property rights to claim four freedoms of user ownership, self-determination, and free software (farmers hacked DRM code to repair tractors, Geohot unlocked iPhones And hacked Samsung’s phone to give users administrator-level access (to their devices) and insist on open access to publicly funded research. They created a black market to avoid the state’s judicial system (such as the Silk Road on the dark web) and cryptocurrencies that could undermine the state-regulated monetary system. They have interfered with geopolitics as free agents (anonymous and Arab Spring, and his actions in the Julian Assange and Trump campaigns). They are messed up and can damage or shut down critical infrastructure. (The infamous “WANK worm” attack on NASA is an early infamous example, but hackers are banking systems, stock exchanges, power grids, communication systems, air traffic control, chemical plants, nuclear power plants, and even the military “worst.” May target “day” machine. “)

It is impossible to calculate where these actions push us as seeds. Some uses of hacking, such as malicious nihilistic hacking that harms critical infrastructure and is life-threatening, and hacking in cyberwarfare that undermines the important interests of other countries and undermines democratic processes. Is abominable and cannot be defended. Given the threat this type of hacking poses to peace and democracy, the evolving digital era looks very tough. Join With the direction of dystopia, states and businesses are adopting digital technology.

But somewhere in a series of altruism and breaches, the world is more responsible for governments and informed citizens, less corrupt and unfair economic systems, wise public use of digital technology, general users. There are types of hacks that may lead to more self-determination for, fairer commercial contracts, better terms for innovation and creativity, more decentralized and robust infrastructure systems, and end-of-life machines. Abolished. In short, hacking can move us towards a more digital world, rather than less democratic and humanist consequences.

It’s not clear where to draw the line between “good” and “bad” hacks, or how to regulate it wisely in all cases. However, as we work diligently for the next century and beyond, citizens need to inform themselves and begin to seriously consider this line drawing. In my personal opinion, digital technology should not be used for everything. For example, I think we need to go back to the power grid and the easier way to run elections. The system is more resilient when it is smaller, more local, and modular rather than completely digital. Consumers need to have analog options such as refrigerators and cars, and the design priority of household items should be durability and the use of clean energy, not interconnectivity.

When setting legal standards, banning something and enforcing a ban are two different things. Sometimes, by banning things and not forcing them violently, desirable social norms can be struck. The law can also recognize, through the discretion of the prosecution and the discretion of the judiciary in judgment, the constructive role of civil disobedience in the evolution of social norms.

Wau Holland told a young Paradiso hacker that the Chaos Computer Club “has been thinking from the beginning about the social impact of technology, not just a bunch of techno freaks.” However, society itself is generally just beginning to work on the social impact of digital technology and how it characterizes the various actions that hackers perform morally and legally. Each act raises a series of complex issues. Social reaction becomes part of the dialectic that determines where we end up. Should these various hacker acts be treated as public services, freedom of speech, free association, legitimate protests, civil disobedience, and harmless mischief? Or should it be treated as trespassing, illegal interference, infringement of intellectual property rights, theft, fraud, conspiracy, blackmail, espionage, terrorism, or rebellion? Think about this while thinking about how hacking has been treated in society so far.