What do you think of the ethical issue of cryptographic hacking?

Answer 1

It's the same ethical issue that you'd have with eavesdropping on people who clearly are having a private conversation.

If something is encrypted, there is an understanding that the source of the information (and possibly the destination) wish for that information to stay hidden from anyone else. By cracking those codes and revealing the underlying information, you are extracting information that is specifically meant to be kept from you. In fact, you cannot even claim that you're just "overhearing" the information because the act of cracking those codes comes with the understanding that they are encrypted in the first place.

However, people who encrypted their information most likely realize that there is a chance that that data stream could be decrypted and the information revealed. Additionally, they are trusting that their destination will not reveal that information to someone else. Thus, there are lots of risks that the information won't be kept private, and they accept those risks. In that case, if you crack their codes, you're not doing anything that the person shouldn't have expected. This, perhaps, relieves the ethical issue.

In the end, it really comes down to respecting someone's privacy. If you believe that people have the "right" to privacy, then there are ethical issues with cracking encrypted information. However, if you believe that no one should expect privacy if they are polluting "public" space, then there's no ethical issue. In the latter view, the only things that are truly private are the things in the head. If they EVER come out of the head, then the person is implicitly giving up any right to privacy. (this is the argument many people give for getting rid of copyrights entirely) Of course, if you believe this, then you should also accept that there probably is a way to decipher a person's brain (or the electromagnetic emissions from it) to figure out its thoughts and memories. In that case, nothing is private. In fact, simply "remembering" something is accepting the possibility that someone may be able to decipher your mind some day.

So, like all things, it's a murky area. However, mature adults are contextual relativists who assert their own identities by taking a side when it's not clear that any particular side is "right." So figure it out for yourself -- what do you think? How will you assert yourself? Maybe there are shades of gray. Maybe my thoughts are private, but my transmissions outside my body are public. Regardless, the problem is that different people have different expectations, and so there will be ethical conflicts. (this presents a problem when making legislation meant to amplify certain ethical views over others; this especially becomes a problem when legislating morality (legislating against moral turpitude is a murky business indeed))

Answer 2

Since the man contributed 50% of the baby's makeup, I would certainly say that he has a stake in what happens to his child (just as much as the mother, because she contributed the other 50%). However, since the woman has to carry the child and the man doesn't, he should be given a legal option to "opt out" of fatherhood, in which he would sign a legal document that would sever all his paternal rights - he would not be forced to pay child support for a child he didn't want, (especially since birth control is primarily the woman's responsibility - I would not consider condoms to be "reliable" birth control for men) - but he also would give up any rights to see or interact with his child. This legal action has been referred to as a "male abortion". For those of you who say, "Well, he could choose not to have sex with her in the first place if he didn't want to be a parent", the same could be said for women who commit fornication without desiring to have children, but women still have abortions.

Answer 3

There needs to be hackers! How else would we find out anything with truth in it!? Or get around big money companies?!

Answer 4

its fine ....dont worry hun