On air at 1700GMT: Is Hacking Ever Justified?

Re: Can hacking ever be justified in this way? Can hackers carry out a useful role in our online society? (these are some of the other ways they justify their actions)

Hacking can never be justified. Anyone who thinks that there is anything acceptable about breaking into any social media outlet, email, or online shopping account needs to recognize boundaries. There are legal boundaries as well as real-world boundaries that apply to accounts. People don't have the right to hack into someone else's account because they feel like they have a right to invade someone's privacy.

Would it be acceptable to grab someone else's laptop, cell phone, or purse and start going through it because you think you have that right?

I also think that the rationalization of hacking entitlement if a part of a larger trend on the internet. Here is an example: I was recently banned from a webboard because several of those who posted there didn't like my opinion. When the administrator banned me instead of changing my member status to reflect that he edited my profile member title as if he were me with "reasons" for my banishment. This was a dishonest infringement upon my account. However, I don't think that this is an uncommon occurrence especially when feeling like they are entitled to do anything they want is coupled with lack of morals. In instances of hacking this can be very tricky because hackers feel justified in their actions.

P.S.

Re: Obama death tweet

I don't see how anyone could believe that such a terrible tweet would ever be justifiable. Obviously hacking into Fox's twitter and posting such a tweet plays to stereotypes. It is offensive and an inaccurate representation of Fox news viewers.

As an ordinary citizen I think of hackers as petty criminals, as a retired teacher I realize the statement, “I know what I know.” is valid only if one passes the test. As a political realist I believe these amateur politicos are the modern form of heckler of political and other speeches - the irreverent demanders of their right to be heard regardless of the facts. Certainly governmental ministers have a right to unimpeded communication with their countrymen and certainly it is a basic human right to be in error until the truth is discovered; but at times one has the obligation to shout out “Wet the ropes!” regardless of proscriptions on speech. I am willing to withstand their insults if this is the price for their occasional truths and can only hope the nuclear buttons have somewhat better firewalls.
g

Hacking can never be justified, to hack is to steal and stealing is a crime, punishable by law.

The US Constitution affords freedom of speech, which means that the government may not abridge the right of citizens to say anything that doesn't harm someone or affect another person's rights. That freedom has been interpreted to include the expression of falsehoods, innuendo and in my opinion, though not proven to a legal standard, incitement to violence and, also in my opinion, Fox routinely engages in all these abuses of free speech and more. If Fox and other corporate entities, afforded freedoms intended for citizens, may broadcast false and irresponsible speech, is it less valid to prevent that speech if such action is in the public interest. The government, in all its forms, is prevented by law from censoring most communication, but can it be considered the responsibility of individual citizens to do that? I don't think so since that would create a free-for-all of anti-expression attacks often justified only by philosophical differences. If I had the skills I'd chuck a virtual rock through Fox's digital window but that's just me expressing anger not exercising a compelling right.

How can a hacker post such rumours regarding the most powerful man in the world..!! This is seriously horrible...