>Lucas,
>
>Incidentally, I browsed through your cracking pages.  I'm curious if you
>can make a coherant argument justifying cracking.  Be careful how you
>answer--I think you are a pretty intelligent guy and I'll be more impressed
>by a well-reasoned argument than by a flame.
>
>Specifically:  do you believe your right to satisfy your curiosity is
>more important than the right of others to their own privacy?  Do you agree
>this question is at the heart of justifying cracking, or do you believe
>for some reason it is irrelevant?
>
>Happy hacking,
>
>David

Talk about hitting the nail on the head, you've just splattered your way to the centre of modern day hacking philosophy. - well done.

Now I must say that I'm not a perfect stereotype of a hacker (or if you'd rather call it cracker), I have just been arguing with a large group of so called hackers about the real philosophy of hacking. So here goes...

Firstly, I'll cover the current idea's of others, including the mentor:
Hacking is meant to be a fight for freedom of information, the idea is that all information currently controlled should not be regulated by governments and large organisations. These hackers, I think, are fighting for freedom of all information, they want no hidden knowledge. 

But these people have a problem, firstly they assume they are fighting a conspiracy, I think they are not. Secondly, they don't consider the distinction between personal info and public info. My guess is that they are using the noble sounding words to pass of the simple enjoyment and high they get from hacking. 

But your question is more specific:
>Specifically:  do you believe your right to satisfy your curiosity is
>more important than the right of others to their own privacy?  Do you agree
>this question is at the heart of justifying cracking, or do you believe
>for some reason it is irrelevant?

I'm not sure you question is the centre of hacker justification, you see the idea of rights is one developed by society for the purpose of a moral base, and to make life livable for everyone. Now we are talking about a right of information, and a right of privacy. Now the problem I have with 'rights' is that it implies ethics and morality... I have a hard time with this :) What I'm trying to do is have an philosophy that doesn't rely upon ethics, but instead implies them.

rearing back to the point: I would say that there is a right to privacy, and there is a right to information. Now the right to privacy only exists where the information doesn't directly effect another person.  Let's say: if person A knows X and X affects B but not C, then the right to knowledge of the information extend to A and B, and they have the right to privacy of the information. And thus the right to know information extends to all information that effects you directly. 

Now there is a problem with this too... yes, It's the 'directly' bit. How directly. But this has to be a matter of opinion. The other problem is that of B giving the information to C when A doesn't want him to, but that is the right to free speech.

The problem you talk of, 'your right to satisfy your curiosity' is tricky, because you need to know something, to know that you want to satisfy your curiosity. So the door's already ajar, the hackers knows he wants to know about this area. So if the moral struggle was what you suggested then the justification would be for each specific problem, sometimes it would be OK to hack for some people.

But I think that the real justification is not what you suggested...
The reason why hackers hack is, admittedly sometimes curiosity, but other times it is for the enjoyment of it. Like programming it feels really good when you succeed, it's the high of achievement, it's the same high as when you find you've passed an exam with the highest mark. It's what people live for (some people anyway) - achievement. What exactly of, doesn't concern them, but it is still a progression and that's why they do it. That's, to be truthful, why I do it. I hacked your robowar password protection it was great fun, I've lost the algorithm somewhere, but It was still enjoyable and a learning experience. 

I hack allot of programs, I started with ResEdit hacks, I used to fiddle with my system and that sort of thing. And once I understood the basic principles(I mean the theory of how to hack, not ethics) of hacking I went onto play with networks. That is how hacking starts, it's where you see something in a new light, you see that you have some power to manipulate. So hackers start partially by curiosity, and partially by that feeling of achievement.

So here ends my lecture. :) 

Hope you find it interesting, I did.

Cheers,

btw - do you mind if I add this and you question to my web page?