Adrian
Lamo is an ex-hacker who was also known as the “Homeless Hacker”. He was called
the “Homeless Hacker” because he accessed hotspots in various locations
to penetrate internal networks of high profile companies and alerted them of
their vulnerabilities. He offered his services to fix it because he felt he was doing the right thing by notifying them of this security
breach and the potential harm it can do to their system if it got into the
wrong hands. Most companies took him up
on his offer and did not press charges. It
wasn’t until 2002 when one of the companies, NY Times, he hacked didn’t think
so kindly of Lamo’s actions. Instead they notified the U.S. Attorney’s office
who started an investigation on Lamo and his actions. He would later be found
guilty and be placed on 6 months probation and also having to pay restitution.
While on probation, he cleaned up his act and attended school to become a
Threat Analyst.
In
2010, a U.S. Soldier by the name of Bradley Manning contacted Adrian Lamo via
AOL chat room. During their chat, the two discussed Lamo’s past hacking
history, Manning awaiting to be discharged due to his gender identity
issue, both their experience in the IT world. As the
conversation progressed, Manning eventually confided that he has been
penetrating the U.S. classified network and forwarding classified information to
Wikileaks. This information he believed the public needed to know. Not believing
what he was hearing, Lamo asked Manning for specific stories and Manning supplied. Lamo
contacted the U.S. military and informed them of his conversation with
Manning. Manning was later arrested and
charged with several offenses, with one being “aiding the enemy”, which led to
a 35 year sentence.
Lamo
claimed that his action for turning manning in was to help the nation, "Mr Manning's well being was not as
important as the security of our armed forces. I had never considered myself
particularly patriotic, but when push came to shove the wellbeing of the nation
was of paramount importance to me." (excerpt from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/15/hacker-adrian-lamo-bradley-manning-wikileaks)
I think that Lamo is a hypocrite, just as he thought that he was doing good exposing the companies whose systems he penetrated and then offering to fix it instead of doing ill will, Manning felt the same way about his actions; he felt as though the classified information needed to be known by the public so the truth would be out. According to Wired article, there are three different types of Hackers: whitehats (employed with companies in which they hack within the law), Blackhats (penetrate networks illegally for fun), and Grayhats (hackers who protect security holes from vandals). It would seem as though Lamos is regarded as a Grayhat. Since when is a grayhats loyalty to the law enforcement?
to be continued....
Strength/Insight/Improvement
ReplyDeleteI love this topic and think you could really have fun with it. I think what you wrote so far is really good and makes a solid point. When do you draw the line regarding hacker ethics? Check out: http://exopermaculture.com/2013/01/10/legal-ethical-and-cultural-implications-of-the-bradley-manning-case/
The only other thing I can think of is to add the philosophers or arguments to tie into this topic regarding philosophy. I looked around a bit and found this: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Famous-Philosopher-Philosophers.htm
Hope that helps!
Strength/Insight/Improvement
ReplyDeleteI think you did you did a great job describing the case and telling the story Adrian Lamo, I really liked the two first paragraphs.
as Improvement, I would say to adjust the font for the whole text and to support explain more your opining about Adrian, and finally support it. But over all I think your did a great job
This case is very interesting! Maybe you can emphasize more on your last statement on Grayhat hackers loyalty to the law enforcement and philosopher's moral point of views.
ReplyDeleteI think you did a great job describing the case, but i think you can improve your post by using philosophers to back up your ideas,
ReplyDeleteAwesome job giving details about this case, it sounds really interesting. I didn't see anything about philosophers and ideas they might have had in relation to this case. Definitely in your last section, I'm sure there are some philosophers that have points of views on hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see a little on the idea of civic duties.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if you were a doctor, some would argue it would be your civic duty to stop and help if you see someone get hit by a car. It's not required of you, but you're qualified to help.
Lamo probably saw that, with his skills, it was his civic duty to try and help these big companies that might not have realized their vulnerabilities.
Regardless of how people feel about Manning, what he (now she) did was illegal. Unauthorized disclosure of classified information is very, very illegal. I think Lamo was right to sound the alarm in this case. Was it his duty to do it, though?