From ge at linuxbox.org  Thu Nov 26 16:10:59 2009
From: ge at linuxbox.org (Gadi Evron)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:10:59 +0200
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
Message-ID: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>

No formal debate, just go with the flow of the discussion and we can 
have fun. But please try and build solid arguments and keep things short!

A few days ago a story broke where someone hacked into a global warming 
research institute and stole all emails from the past 10 years, proving 
a conspiracy.

In the vast amount of emails stolen, some emails were also found with 
clear-cut lies, showing how some scientists conspired to deceive in 
scientific research about data that did not fit their agenda of proving 
global warming.

It is a fascinating topic covering several subjects such as 'does the 
end justify the means?', 'irresponsible disclosure of personal data', 
'is it justifiable to break the law?' and 'civil disobedience and the 
hackers' role in keeping society honest'.

Here are some possible questions to get the wheels rolling:

- Is the action taken by the hacker legal, ethical, and/or moral? Was 
the action justifiable?

- Do you believe the harm done as a result is justified for the good 
(disclosure) that came out of it?

- Can this be treated as civil disobedience?

For background, check out this story
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails
If URL breaks:
http://tinyurl.com/yceb9tw

Another source:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/

Please state your opinions openly, and let's discuss!

	Gadi.

From elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il  Thu Nov 26 16:37:29 2009
From: elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il (E L)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:37:29 +0200
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>
References: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>
Message-ID: <fabce15e0911260837h26d45513l27b82e32ca396a6e@mail.gmail.com>

I think that the hacker did the right thing.
History teaches us that laws are not always moral, that sometimes breaking
the law is the only way to protect morality and uncover corruptions.
That is why journalists got a certain protection from law suits while trying
to expose hidden information.
In this specific case he exposed a conspiracy that affected all our life,
and cost billions of dollars. No one can doubt the value of this
information, or its importance. If the hacker was a journalist he would have
most likely won the Politzer over his discovery, much like the journalist
who uncovered the Watergate case in much similar manner.
This brings us to the main problem with is action, when you chose to break
the law you can no longer hide behind the cover of "good citizen" it becomes
your responsibility to prove you got the moral ground. What about the hacker
in that case? Can we blame him for releasing all the emails and not only the
relevant ones? The answer is both yes and no. Like I said above I think he
should be treated as a journalist, and we would have expected a journalist
to only publish the relevant information. But, we should remember that in
this specific case he wasn't a trained journalist, and didn't have the
resources and possibly the skills to analyze the information, in that case I
think his choice to release the information in hope to get the help of other
in analyzing it is understandable, even if not the best option.

So in summary, I think what he did his moral, and using the tools he had he
has chosen an acceptable way to share his finding, even if looking
back we could have thought of ways that would have minimized even further
the damage for innocent people.
In general I would say, when the corruption goes too high for the law to
handle it, sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do.

Ely
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:

> No formal debate, just go with the flow of the discussion and we can have
> fun. But please try and build solid arguments and keep things short!
>
> A few days ago a story broke where someone hacked into a global warming
> research institute and stole all emails from the past 10 years, proving a
> conspiracy.
>
> In the vast amount of emails stolen, some emails were also found with
> clear-cut lies, showing how some scientists conspired to deceive in
> scientific research about data that did not fit their agenda of proving
> global warming.
>
> It is a fascinating topic covering several subjects such as 'does the end
> justify the means?', 'irresponsible disclosure of personal data', 'is it
> justifiable to break the law?' and 'civil disobedience and the hackers' role
> in keeping society honest'.
>
> Here are some possible questions to get the wheels rolling:
>
> - Is the action taken by the hacker legal, ethical, and/or moral? Was the
> action justifiable?
>
> - Do you believe the harm done as a result is justified for the good
> (disclosure) that came out of it?
>
> - Can this be treated as civil disobedience?
>
> For background, check out this story
>
> http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails<http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails>
> If URL breaks:
> http://tinyurl.com/yceb9tw
>
> Another source:
>
> http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/
>
> Please state your opinions openly, and let's discuss!
>
>        Gadi.
> _______________________________________________
> debate mailing list
> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20091126/4d9883ba/attachment.htm>

From luis.corrons at pandasecurity.com  Thu Nov 26 16:56:38 2009
From: luis.corrons at pandasecurity.com (Luis Corrons Granel)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:56:38 +0100
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <fabce15e0911260837h26d45513l27b82e32ca396a6e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>
	<fabce15e0911260837h26d45513l27b82e32ca396a6e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>

That can be said _after_ we've seen the result, but following this
criteria it would be ok to enter your house and take all your stuff just
in case we found something that justifies it, and I don't think that's a
right thing...

 

________________________________

De: debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org
[mailto:debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org] En nombre de E L
Enviado el: jueves, 26 de noviembre de 2009 17:37
Para: Gadi Evron
CC: debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
Asunto: Re: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?

 

I think that the hacker did the right thing.
History teaches us that laws are not always moral, that sometimes
breaking the law is the only way to protect morality and uncover
corruptions.
That is why journalists got a certain protection from law suits while
trying to expose hidden information.
In this specific case he exposed a conspiracy that affected all our
life, and cost billions of dollars. No one can doubt the value of this
information, or its importance. If the hacker was a journalist he would
have most likely won the Politzer over his discovery, much like the
journalist who uncovered the Watergate case in much similar manner.
This brings us to the main problem with is action, when you chose to
break the law you can no longer hide behind the cover of "good citizen"
it becomes your responsibility to prove you got the moral ground. What
about the hacker in that case? Can we blame him for releasing all the
emails and not only the relevant ones? The answer is both yes and no.
Like I said above I think he should be treated as a journalist, and we
would have expected a journalist to only publish the relevant
information. But, we should remember that in this specific case he
wasn't a trained journalist, and didn't have the resources and possibly
the skills to analyze the information, in that case I think his choice
to release the information in hope to get the help of other in analyzing
it is understandable, even if not the best option. 

So in summary, I think what he did his moral, and using the tools he had
he has chosen an acceptable way to share his finding, even if looking
back we could have thought of ways that would have minimized even
further the damage for innocent people.
In general I would say, when the corruption goes too high for the law to
handle it, sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do. 

Ely

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:

No formal debate, just go with the flow of the discussion and we can
have fun. But please try and build solid arguments and keep things
short!

A few days ago a story broke where someone hacked into a global warming
research institute and stole all emails from the past 10 years, proving
a conspiracy.

In the vast amount of emails stolen, some emails were also found with
clear-cut lies, showing how some scientists conspired to deceive in
scientific research about data that did not fit their agenda of proving
global warming.

It is a fascinating topic covering several subjects such as 'does the
end justify the means?', 'irresponsible disclosure of personal data',
'is it justifiable to break the law?' and 'civil disobedience and the
hackers' role in keeping society honest'.

Here are some possible questions to get the wheels rolling:

- Is the action taken by the hacker legal, ethical, and/or moral? Was
the action justifiable?

- Do you believe the harm done as a result is justified for the good
(disclosure) that came out of it?

- Can this be treated as civil disobedience?

For background, check out this story
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-Clim
ateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails
<http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d20-C
limateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails
> 
If URL breaks:
http://tinyurl.com/yceb9tw

Another source:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-g
old/

Please state your opinions openly, and let's discuss!

       Gadi.
_______________________________________________
debate mailing list
debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20091126/44a1289d/attachment.htm>

From pdjukes at gmail.com  Thu Nov 26 17:36:02 2009
From: pdjukes at gmail.com (Peter Jukes)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:36:02 +0000
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>
References: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>
	<fabce15e0911260837h26d45513l27b82e32ca396a6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>
Message-ID: <2c4fe12b0911260936u3af092b1qabe1c2d49ff97bb0@mail.gmail.com>

Acts of civil disobedience are justified on the ground of 'public interest'
and ultimately the 'greater good' - hence Gandhi's salt making protest, or
Rosa Parks sitting on an illegal seat on a southern bus. Whistleblowers may
be breaking the law, but history ultimately approves if this is seen to be a
long term public interest.

But Gadi frames the debate tendentiously when he adds "A few days ago a
story broke where someone hacked into a global warming research institute
and stole all emails from the past 10 years, proving a conspiracy."

Nothing of the sort has been proved. I know a little about these leaked
emails and code from the CRU unit at the University of East Anglia. The
emails have been edited and lack their headers. The researcher shows a
reluctance to share information - but that's not unusual before publication.
It's an institutional cock-up. Evidence of a conspiracy...

Unfortunately, this is one of those issues where there are competing ideas
of public good. To some, there is a concerted 'conspiracy' to deny any
evidence of man made global warming, and this explains the paranoia around
certain research institutes.

There are historical occasions where supposed 'revelatory' whistle blowing
evidence has turned out to be either fake or misquoted - from the Protocols
of Zion to the Zinoviev letters. Would we say someone who had selectively
leaked damning evidence on say Venezuela or South Africa for political
reasons was performing a moral act?

The morality lies in the greater good does, or does not, achieve

Peter

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Luis Corrons Granel <
luis.corrons at pandasecurity.com> wrote:

>  That can be said _*after*_ we?ve seen the result, but following this
> criteria it would be ok to enter your house and take all your stuff just in
> case we found something that justifies it, and I don?t think that?s a right
> thing?
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *De:* debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org [mailto:
> debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org] *En nombre de *E L
> *Enviado el:* jueves, 26 de noviembre de 2009 17:37
> *Para:* Gadi Evron
> *CC:* debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> *Asunto:* Re: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
>
>
>
> I think that the hacker did the right thing.
> History teaches us that laws are not always moral, that sometimes breaking
> the law is the only way to protect morality and uncover corruptions.
> That is why journalists got a certain protection from law suits while
> trying to expose hidden information.
> In this specific case he exposed a conspiracy that affected all our life,
> and cost billions of dollars. No one can doubt the value of this
> information, or its importance. If the hacker was a journalist he would have
> most likely won the Politzer over his discovery, much like the journalist
> who uncovered the Watergate case in much similar manner.
> This brings us to the main problem with is action, when you chose to break
> the law you can no longer hide behind the cover of "good citizen" it becomes
> your responsibility to prove you got the moral ground. What about the hacker
> in that case? Can we blame him for releasing all the emails and not only the
> relevant ones? The answer is both yes and no. Like I said above I think he
> should be treated as a journalist, and we would have expected a journalist
> to only publish the relevant information. But, we should remember that in
> this specific case he wasn't a trained journalist, and didn't have the
> resources and possibly the skills to analyze the information, in that case I
> think his choice to release the information in hope to get the help of other
> in analyzing it is understandable, even if not the best option.
>
> So in summary, I think what he did his moral, and using the tools he had he
> has chosen an acceptable way to share his finding, even if looking
> back we could have thought of ways that would have minimized even further
> the damage for innocent people.
> In general I would say, when the corruption goes too high for the law to
> handle it, sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do.
>
> Ely
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:
>
> No formal debate, just go with the flow of the discussion and we can have
> fun. But please try and build solid arguments and keep things short!
>
> A few days ago a story broke where someone hacked into a global warming
> research institute and stole all emails from the past 10 years, proving a
> conspiracy.
>
> In the vast amount of emails stolen, some emails were also found with
> clear-cut lies, showing how some scientists conspired to deceive in
> scientific research about data that did not fit their agenda of proving
> global warming.
>
> It is a fascinating topic covering several subjects such as 'does the end
> justify the means?', 'irresponsible disclosure of personal data', 'is it
> justifiable to break the law?' and 'civil disobedience and the hackers' role
> in keeping society honest'.
>
> Here are some possible questions to get the wheels rolling:
>
> - Is the action taken by the hacker legal, ethical, and/or moral? Was the
> action justifiable?
>
> - Do you believe the harm done as a result is justified for the good
> (disclosure) that came out of it?
>
> - Can this be treated as civil disobedience?
>
> For background, check out this story
>
> http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails<http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails>
> If URL breaks:
> http://tinyurl.com/yceb9tw
>
> Another source:
>
> http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/
>
> Please state your opinions openly, and let's discuss!
>
>        Gadi.
> _______________________________________________
> debate mailing list
> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> debate mailing list
> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>
>


-- 
Duende Productions
4.1 The Ziggurat
60-66 Saffron Hill
London EC1N 8QX
pdjukes at gmail.com
0771 204 8311
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20091126/8ce56aee/attachment-0001.htm>

From robert_david_graham at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 26 17:43:26 2009
From: robert_david_graham at yahoo.com (Robert Graham)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:43:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>
Message-ID: <84029.58484.qm@web51012.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

People should probably state their affiliation first. I'm a global warming skeptic.

I supported the whistleblower-hacker when I blogged about it:
http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacker-exposes-global-warming.html

Government policy (e.g. the upcoming Copenhagen stuff) is based on science that is not reproducible. One question is whether this perversion of science is acceptable. The other question is whether this government policy (of not letting their citizens view the raw data) is acceptable. If not, are hackers justified in stealing the data. I argue they are like any whistleblower.

The hack was in two parts: the e-mail, and raw data and code needed to reproduce some of the climate results. It's separate questions asking whether stealing the raw data is justified, and whether stealing the e-mails is justified. I argue the hacker is less justified in stealing the e-mails, although I'm still glad s/he did it.

In any event, people should stop taking the e-mails out of context. The most famous e-mail about "tricks to hide the temperature decline" is taken completely out of context. "Trick" refers to a well-known "technique", and the "decline" is a well-know problem with tree-rings studies. Even skeptics like myself believe that the recent "decline" measured by tree rings is not valid, and should be hidden.

Yet, critics like myself have long criticized this trick/technique of sticking measured instrument temperatures onto the end of the tree-ring studies to do the hiding. It completely changes and misrepresents the results.

That's the weird thing of the "hide the decline" e-mail. It's not the smoking gun it's made out to be, yet it's still a valid point of contention, one that we should already have been discussing for the last decade.


--- On Thu, 11/26/09, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:

> From: Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org>
> Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
> To: "debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org" <debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org>
> Date: Thursday, November 26, 2009, 8:10 AM
> No formal debate, just go with the
> flow of the discussion and we can have fun. But please try
> and build solid arguments and keep things short!
> 
> A few days ago a story broke where someone hacked into a
> global warming research institute and stole all emails from
> the past 10 years, proving a conspiracy.
> 
> In the vast amount of emails stolen, some emails were also
> found with clear-cut lies, showing how some scientists
> conspired to deceive in scientific research about data that
> did not fit their agenda of proving global warming.
> 
> It is a fascinating topic covering several subjects such as
> 'does the end justify the means?', 'irresponsible disclosure
> of personal data', 'is it justifiable to break the law?' and
> 'civil disobedience and the hackers' role in keeping society
> honest'.
> 
> Here are some possible questions to get the wheels
> rolling:
> 
> - Is the action taken by the hacker legal, ethical, and/or
> moral? Was the action justifiable?
> 
> - Do you believe the harm done as a result is justified for
> the good (disclosure) that came out of it?
> 
> - Can this be treated as civil disobedience?
> 
> For background, check out this story
> http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails
> If URL breaks:
> http://tinyurl.com/yceb9tw
> 
> Another source:
> http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/
> 
> Please state your opinions openly, and let's discuss!
> 
> ??? Gadi.
> _______________________________________________
> debate mailing list
> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
> 


      

From raoul.chiesa at mediaservice.net  Thu Nov 26 17:35:10 2009
From: raoul.chiesa at mediaservice.net (Raoul Chiesa)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:35:10 +0100
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>
References: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>	<fabce15e0911260837h26d45513l27b82e32ca396a6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>
Message-ID: <4B0EBC4E.60201@mediaservice.net>

Basically,
from a "community" point of view, he did the right action.
>From a "civil world" point of view, where we've got laws, it's not
possible to allow anyone to freely enter an house (a server) in order to
show out you are i.e. a children abuser, even if all of us we are
against children abusers, as well as the laws are (or should be).
Raoul

Luis Corrons Granel ha scritto:
> That can be said _after_ we've seen the result, but following this
> criteria it would be ok to enter your house and take all your stuff just
> in case we found something that justifies it, and I don't think that's a
> right thing...
>
>  
>
> ________________________________
>
> De: debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> [mailto:debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org] En nombre de E L
> Enviado el: jueves, 26 de noviembre de 2009 17:37
> Para: Gadi Evron
> CC: debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> Asunto: Re: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
>
>  
>
> I think that the hacker did the right thing.
> History teaches us that laws are not always moral, that sometimes
> breaking the law is the only way to protect morality and uncover
> corruptions.
> That is why journalists got a certain protection from law suits while
> trying to expose hidden information.
> In this specific case he exposed a conspiracy that affected all our
> life, and cost billions of dollars. No one can doubt the value of this
> information, or its importance. If the hacker was a journalist he would
> have most likely won the Politzer over his discovery, much like the
> journalist who uncovered the Watergate case in much similar manner.
> This brings us to the main problem with is action, when you chose to
> break the law you can no longer hide behind the cover of "good citizen"
> it becomes your responsibility to prove you got the moral ground. What
> about the hacker in that case? Can we blame him for releasing all the
> emails and not only the relevant ones? The answer is both yes and no.
> Like I said above I think he should be treated as a journalist, and we
> would have expected a journalist to only publish the relevant
> information. But, we should remember that in this specific case he
> wasn't a trained journalist, and didn't have the resources and possibly
> the skills to analyze the information, in that case I think his choice
> to release the information in hope to get the help of other in analyzing
> it is understandable, even if not the best option. 
>
> So in summary, I think what he did his moral, and using the tools he had
> he has chosen an acceptable way to share his finding, even if looking
> back we could have thought of ways that would have minimized even
> further the damage for innocent people.
> In general I would say, when the corruption goes too high for the law to
> handle it, sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do. 
>
> Ely
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:
>
> No formal debate, just go with the flow of the discussion and we can
> have fun. But please try and build solid arguments and keep things
> short!
>
> A few days ago a story broke where someone hacked into a global warming
> research institute and stole all emails from the past 10 years, proving
> a conspiracy.
>
> In the vast amount of emails stolen, some emails were also found with
> clear-cut lies, showing how some scientists conspired to deceive in
> scientific research about data that did not fit their agenda of proving
> global warming.
>
> It is a fascinating topic covering several subjects such as 'does the
> end justify the means?', 'irresponsible disclosure of personal data',
> 'is it justifiable to break the law?' and 'civil disobedience and the
> hackers' role in keeping society honest'.
>
> Here are some possible questions to get the wheels rolling:
>
> - Is the action taken by the hacker legal, ethical, and/or moral? Was
> the action justifiable?
>
> - Do you believe the harm done as a result is justified for the good
> (disclosure) that came out of it?
>
> - Can this be treated as civil disobedience?
>
> For background, check out this story
> http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-Clim
> ateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails
> <http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d20-C
> limateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails
>   
> If URL breaks:
> http://tinyurl.com/yceb9tw
>
> Another source:
> http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-g
> old/
>
> Please state your opinions openly, and let's discuss!
>
>        Gadi.
> _______________________________________________
> debate mailing list
> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>
>  
>
>
>
> !DSPAM:3,4b0eba1b220261232716007!
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> debate mailing list
> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>
>
> !DSPAM:3,4b0eba1b220261232716007!
>   

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Raoul Chiesa                 Founder, Chief Technical Officer
CLUSIT,ISECOM,TSTF,OWASP/IT  Board of Directors Member 
Osservatorio Privacy & Sicurezza - OPSI-AIP, Comitato Esecutivo 
United Nations consultant on cybercrime @UNICRI (http://www.unicri.it)
@ Mediaservice.net Srl       Tel: +39-011.32.72.100
Data Security Department     Fax: +39-011-32.46.497
10141 Torino TO - ITALY      Via San Bernardino 17
Disclaimer:                  http://mediaservice.net/disclaimer
PGP Key:                     https://keys.mediaservice.net/r_chiesa.asc


From elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il  Thu Nov 26 17:45:50 2009
From: elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il (E L)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:45:50 +0200
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>
References: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>
	<fabce15e0911260837h26d45513l27b82e32ca396a6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>
Message-ID: <fabce15e0911260945ucb55f42ufb3c33c17d4885ca@mail.gmail.com>

It's more like breaking into the head of the mub house and freeing an
innocent person who got stuck in the closet there.

Ely

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Luis Corrons Granel <
luis.corrons at pandasecurity.com> wrote:

>  That can be said _*after*_ we?ve seen the result, but following this
> criteria it would be ok to enter your house and take all your stuff just in
> case we found something that justifies it, and I don?t think that?s a right
> thing?
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *De:* debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org [mailto:
> debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org] *En nombre de *E L
> *Enviado el:* jueves, 26 de noviembre de 2009 17:37
> *Para:* Gadi Evron
> *CC:* debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> *Asunto:* Re: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
>
>
>
> I think that the hacker did the right thing.
> History teaches us that laws are not always moral, that sometimes breaking
> the law is the only way to protect morality and uncover corruptions.
> That is why journalists got a certain protection from law suits while
> trying to expose hidden information.
> In this specific case he exposed a conspiracy that affected all our life,
> and cost billions of dollars. No one can doubt the value of this
> information, or its importance. If the hacker was a journalist he would have
> most likely won the Politzer over his discovery, much like the journalist
> who uncovered the Watergate case in much similar manner.
> This brings us to the main problem with is action, when you chose to break
> the law you can no longer hide behind the cover of "good citizen" it becomes
> your responsibility to prove you got the moral ground. What about the hacker
> in that case? Can we blame him for releasing all the emails and not only the
> relevant ones? The answer is both yes and no. Like I said above I think he
> should be treated as a journalist, and we would have expected a journalist
> to only publish the relevant information. But, we should remember that in
> this specific case he wasn't a trained journalist, and didn't have the
> resources and possibly the skills to analyze the information, in that case I
> think his choice to release the information in hope to get the help of other
> in analyzing it is understandable, even if not the best option.
>
> So in summary, I think what he did his moral, and using the tools he had he
> has chosen an acceptable way to share his finding, even if looking
> back we could have thought of ways that would have minimized even further
> the damage for innocent people.
> In general I would say, when the corruption goes too high for the law to
> handle it, sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do.
>
> Ely
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:
>
> No formal debate, just go with the flow of the discussion and we can have
> fun. But please try and build solid arguments and keep things short!
>
> A few days ago a story broke where someone hacked into a global warming
> research institute and stole all emails from the past 10 years, proving a
> conspiracy.
>
> In the vast amount of emails stolen, some emails were also found with
> clear-cut lies, showing how some scientists conspired to deceive in
> scientific research about data that did not fit their agenda of proving
> global warming.
>
> It is a fascinating topic covering several subjects such as 'does the end
> justify the means?', 'irresponsible disclosure of personal data', 'is it
> justifiable to break the law?' and 'civil disobedience and the hackers' role
> in keeping society honest'.
>
> Here are some possible questions to get the wheels rolling:
>
> - Is the action taken by the hacker legal, ethical, and/or moral? Was the
> action justifiable?
>
> - Do you believe the harm done as a result is justified for the good
> (disclosure) that came out of it?
>
> - Can this be treated as civil disobedience?
>
> For background, check out this story
>
> http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails<http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails>
> If URL breaks:
> http://tinyurl.com/yceb9tw
>
> Another source:
>
> http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/
>
> Please state your opinions openly, and let's discuss!
>
>        Gadi.
> _______________________________________________
> debate mailing list
> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> debate mailing list
> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20091126/5260bac4/attachment-0001.htm>

From pdjukes at gmail.com  Thu Nov 26 17:52:04 2009
From: pdjukes at gmail.com (Peter Jukes)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:52:04 +0000
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <fabce15e0911260945ucb55f42ufb3c33c17d4885ca@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>
	<fabce15e0911260837h26d45513l27b82e32ca396a6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>
	<fabce15e0911260945ucb55f42ufb3c33c17d4885ca@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2c4fe12b0911260952y7511db2bkbfbb98aa462dfb2@mail.gmail.com>

I think affiliations on global warming, or any anthropogenic element to it,
are completely irrelevant to this debate.

Though I am sceptical of the conspiracy theory 'Global Warming scam' I will
be the first to praise this leak if it turns out to be for the public good.

We're talking about the principle of hacking, leaking, whistleblowing, not
climate change


On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:45 PM, E L <elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> It's more like breaking into the head of the mub house and freeing an
> innocent person who got stuck in the closet there.
>
> Ely
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Luis Corrons Granel <
> luis.corrons at pandasecurity.com> wrote:
>
>>  That can be said _*after*_ we?ve seen the result, but following this
>> criteria it would be ok to enter your house and take all your stuff just in
>> case we found something that justifies it, and I don?t think that?s a right
>> thing?
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> *De:* debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org [mailto:
>> debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org] *En nombre de *E L
>> *Enviado el:* jueves, 26 de noviembre de 2009 17:37
>> *Para:* Gadi Evron
>> *CC:* debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>> *Asunto:* Re: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that the hacker did the right thing.
>> History teaches us that laws are not always moral, that sometimes breaking
>> the law is the only way to protect morality and uncover corruptions.
>> That is why journalists got a certain protection from law suits while
>> trying to expose hidden information.
>> In this specific case he exposed a conspiracy that affected all our life,
>> and cost billions of dollars. No one can doubt the value of this
>> information, or its importance. If the hacker was a journalist he would have
>> most likely won the Politzer over his discovery, much like the journalist
>> who uncovered the Watergate case in much similar manner.
>> This brings us to the main problem with is action, when you chose to break
>> the law you can no longer hide behind the cover of "good citizen" it becomes
>> your responsibility to prove you got the moral ground. What about the hacker
>> in that case? Can we blame him for releasing all the emails and not only the
>> relevant ones? The answer is both yes and no. Like I said above I think he
>> should be treated as a journalist, and we would have expected a journalist
>> to only publish the relevant information. But, we should remember that in
>> this specific case he wasn't a trained journalist, and didn't have the
>> resources and possibly the skills to analyze the information, in that case I
>> think his choice to release the information in hope to get the help of other
>> in analyzing it is understandable, even if not the best option.
>>
>> So in summary, I think what he did his moral, and using the tools he had
>> he has chosen an acceptable way to share his finding, even if looking
>> back we could have thought of ways that would have minimized even further
>> the damage for innocent people.
>> In general I would say, when the corruption goes too high for the law to
>> handle it, sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do.
>>
>> Ely
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:
>>
>> No formal debate, just go with the flow of the discussion and we can have
>> fun. But please try and build solid arguments and keep things short!
>>
>> A few days ago a story broke where someone hacked into a global warming
>> research institute and stole all emails from the past 10 years, proving a
>> conspiracy.
>>
>> In the vast amount of emails stolen, some emails were also found with
>> clear-cut lies, showing how some scientists conspired to deceive in
>> scientific research about data that did not fit their agenda of proving
>> global warming.
>>
>> It is a fascinating topic covering several subjects such as 'does the end
>> justify the means?', 'irresponsible disclosure of personal data', 'is it
>> justifiable to break the law?' and 'civil disobedience and the hackers' role
>> in keeping society honest'.
>>
>> Here are some possible questions to get the wheels rolling:
>>
>> - Is the action taken by the hacker legal, ethical, and/or moral? Was the
>> action justifiable?
>>
>> - Do you believe the harm done as a result is justified for the good
>> (disclosure) that came out of it?
>>
>> - Can this be treated as civil disobedience?
>>
>> For background, check out this story
>>
>> http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails<http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails>
>> If URL breaks:
>> http://tinyurl.com/yceb9tw
>>
>> Another source:
>>
>> http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/
>>
>> Please state your opinions openly, and let's discuss!
>>
>>        Gadi.
>> _______________________________________________
>> debate mailing list
>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> debate mailing list
>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> debate mailing list
> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>
>


-- 
Duende Productions
4.1 The Ziggurat
60-66 Saffron Hill
London EC1N 8QX
pdjukes at gmail.com
0771 204 8311
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20091126/f1cebb73/attachment.htm>

From elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il  Thu Nov 26 17:53:41 2009
From: elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il (E L)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:53:41 +0200
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <2c4fe12b0911260936u3af092b1qabe1c2d49ff97bb0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>
	<fabce15e0911260837h26d45513l27b82e32ca396a6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>
	<2c4fe12b0911260936u3af092b1qabe1c2d49ff97bb0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fabce15e0911260953m720fe831l278d8e2f8d062c80@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Peter Jukes <pdjukes at gmail.com> wrote:

> Acts of civil disobedience are justified on the ground of 'public interest'
> and ultimately the 'greater good' - hence Gandhi's salt making protest, or
> Rosa Parks sitting on an illegal seat on a southern bus. Whistleblowers may
> be breaking the law, but history ultimately approves if this is seen to be a
> long term public interest.
>
> But Gadi frames the debate tendentiously when he adds "A few days ago a
> story broke where someone hacked into a global warming research institute
> and stole all emails from the past 10 years, proving a conspiracy."
>
> Nothing of the sort has been proved. I know a little about these leaked
> emails and code from the CRU unit at the University of East Anglia. The
> emails have been edited and lack their headers. The researcher shows a
> reluctance to share information - but that's not unusual before publication.
> It's an institutional cock-up. Evidence of a conspiracy...
>
>
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/uk-hack-puts-climate-scientists-personal-e-mails-on-display.ars
read the link, they didn't share the information the results were based on
(BAD BAD BAD science), then you have an email saying they will prefer
to destroy it rather than showing it, then when they by court order require
to show it they claim to have lost it.
More interesting links:

http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/#more-26
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists

 So please give me a break.
That's the point where I stop reading your email, I think we had enough
people twisting the facts for one day.

Ely

> Unfortunately, this is one of those issues where there are competing ideas
> of public good. To some, there is a concerted 'conspiracy' to deny any
> evidence of man made global warming, and this explains the paranoia around
> certain research institutes.
>
>
There are historical occasions where supposed 'revelatory' whistle blowing
> evidence has turned out to be either fake or misquoted - from the Protocols
> of Zion to the Zinoviev letters. Would we say someone who had selectively
> leaked damning evidence on say Venezuela or South Africa for political
> reasons was performing a moral act?
>
> The morality lies in the greater good does, or does not, achieve
>
> Peter
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Luis Corrons Granel <
> luis.corrons at pandasecurity.com> wrote:
>
>>  That can be said _*after*_ we?ve seen the result, but following this
>> criteria it would be ok to enter your house and take all your stuff just in
>> case we found something that justifies it, and I don?t think that?s a right
>> thing?
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> *De:* debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org [mailto:
>> debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org] *En nombre de *E L
>> *Enviado el:* jueves, 26 de noviembre de 2009 17:37
>> *Para:* Gadi Evron
>> *CC:* debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>> *Asunto:* Re: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that the hacker did the right thing.
>> History teaches us that laws are not always moral, that sometimes breaking
>> the law is the only way to protect morality and uncover corruptions.
>> That is why journalists got a certain protection from law suits while
>> trying to expose hidden information.
>> In this specific case he exposed a conspiracy that affected all our life,
>> and cost billions of dollars. No one can doubt the value of this
>> information, or its importance. If the hacker was a journalist he would have
>> most likely won the Politzer over his discovery, much like the journalist
>> who uncovered the Watergate case in much similar manner.
>> This brings us to the main problem with is action, when you chose to break
>> the law you can no longer hide behind the cover of "good citizen" it becomes
>> your responsibility to prove you got the moral ground. What about the hacker
>> in that case? Can we blame him for releasing all the emails and not only the
>> relevant ones? The answer is both yes and no. Like I said above I think he
>> should be treated as a journalist, and we would have expected a journalist
>> to only publish the relevant information. But, we should remember that in
>> this specific case he wasn't a trained journalist, and didn't have the
>> resources and possibly the skills to analyze the information, in that case I
>> think his choice to release the information in hope to get the help of other
>> in analyzing it is understandable, even if not the best option.
>>
>> So in summary, I think what he did his moral, and using the tools he had
>> he has chosen an acceptable way to share his finding, even if looking
>> back we could have thought of ways that would have minimized even further
>> the damage for innocent people.
>> In general I would say, when the corruption goes too high for the law to
>> handle it, sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do.
>>
>> Ely
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:
>>
>> No formal debate, just go with the flow of the discussion and we can have
>> fun. But please try and build solid arguments and keep things short!
>>
>> A few days ago a story broke where someone hacked into a global warming
>> research institute and stole all emails from the past 10 years, proving a
>> conspiracy.
>>
>> In the vast amount of emails stolen, some emails were also found with
>> clear-cut lies, showing how some scientists conspired to deceive in
>> scientific research about data that did not fit their agenda of proving
>> global warming.
>>
>> It is a fascinating topic covering several subjects such as 'does the end
>> justify the means?', 'irresponsible disclosure of personal data', 'is it
>> justifiable to break the law?' and 'civil disobedience and the hackers' role
>> in keeping society honest'.
>>
>> Here are some possible questions to get the wheels rolling:
>>
>> - Is the action taken by the hacker legal, ethical, and/or moral? Was the
>> action justifiable?
>>
>> - Do you believe the harm done as a result is justified for the good
>> (disclosure) that came out of it?
>>
>> - Can this be treated as civil disobedience?
>>
>> For background, check out this story
>>
>> http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails<http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails>
>> If URL breaks:
>> http://tinyurl.com/yceb9tw
>>
>> Another source:
>>
>> http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/
>>
>> Please state your opinions openly, and let's discuss!
>>
>>        Gadi.
>> _______________________________________________
>> debate mailing list
>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> debate mailing list
>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Duende Productions
> 4.1 The Ziggurat
> 60-66 Saffron Hill
> London EC1N 8QX
> pdjukes at gmail.com
> 0771 204 8311
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20091126/2f482c87/attachment-0001.htm>

From elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il  Thu Nov 26 18:04:14 2009
From: elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il (E L)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:04:14 +0200
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <2c4fe12b0911260952y7511db2bkbfbb98aa462dfb2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>
	<fabce15e0911260837h26d45513l27b82e32ca396a6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>
	<fabce15e0911260945ucb55f42ufb3c33c17d4885ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<2c4fe12b0911260952y7511db2bkbfbb98aa462dfb2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fabce15e0911261004o532dff11rfaa690bf83b86dd@mail.gmail.com>

I agree, and I'm happy to see you also agree that based on the common
assumption that the information is true
what he did is good.:-)

Ely


On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Peter Jukes <pdjukes at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think affiliations on global warming, or any anthropogenic element to it,
> are completely irrelevant to this debate.
>
> Though I am sceptical of the conspiracy theory 'Global Warming scam' I will
> be the first to praise this leak if it turns out to be for the public good.
>
> We're talking about the principle of hacking, leaking, whistleblowing, not
> climate change
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:45 PM, E L <elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>
>> It's more like breaking into the head of the mub house and freeing an
>> innocent person who got stuck in the closet there.
>>
>> Ely
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Luis Corrons Granel <
>> luis.corrons at pandasecurity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  That can be said _*after*_ we?ve seen the result, but following this
>>> criteria it would be ok to enter your house and take all your stuff just in
>>> case we found something that justifies it, and I don?t think that?s a right
>>> thing?
>>>
>>>
>>>  ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *De:* debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org [mailto:
>>> debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org] *En nombre de *E L
>>> *Enviado el:* jueves, 26 de noviembre de 2009 17:37
>>> *Para:* Gadi Evron
>>> *CC:* debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>> *Asunto:* Re: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that the hacker did the right thing.
>>> History teaches us that laws are not always moral, that sometimes
>>> breaking the law is the only way to protect morality and uncover
>>> corruptions.
>>> That is why journalists got a certain protection from law suits while
>>> trying to expose hidden information.
>>> In this specific case he exposed a conspiracy that affected all our life,
>>> and cost billions of dollars. No one can doubt the value of this
>>> information, or its importance. If the hacker was a journalist he would have
>>> most likely won the Politzer over his discovery, much like the journalist
>>> who uncovered the Watergate case in much similar manner.
>>> This brings us to the main problem with is action, when you chose to
>>> break the law you can no longer hide behind the cover of "good citizen" it
>>> becomes your responsibility to prove you got the moral ground. What about
>>> the hacker in that case? Can we blame him for releasing all the emails and
>>> not only the relevant ones? The answer is both yes and no. Like I said above
>>> I think he should be treated as a journalist, and we would have expected a
>>> journalist to only publish the relevant information. But, we should remember
>>> that in this specific case he wasn't a trained journalist, and didn't have
>>> the resources and possibly the skills to analyze the information, in that
>>> case I think his choice to release the information in hope to get the help
>>> of other in analyzing it is understandable, even if not the best option.
>>>
>>> So in summary, I think what he did his moral, and using the tools he had
>>> he has chosen an acceptable way to share his finding, even if looking
>>> back we could have thought of ways that would have minimized even further
>>> the damage for innocent people.
>>> In general I would say, when the corruption goes too high for the law to
>>> handle it, sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do.
>>>
>>> Ely
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> No formal debate, just go with the flow of the discussion and we can have
>>> fun. But please try and build solid arguments and keep things short!
>>>
>>> A few days ago a story broke where someone hacked into a global warming
>>> research institute and stole all emails from the past 10 years, proving a
>>> conspiracy.
>>>
>>> In the vast amount of emails stolen, some emails were also found with
>>> clear-cut lies, showing how some scientists conspired to deceive in
>>> scientific research about data that did not fit their agenda of proving
>>> global warming.
>>>
>>> It is a fascinating topic covering several subjects such as 'does the end
>>> justify the means?', 'irresponsible disclosure of personal data', 'is it
>>> justifiable to break the law?' and 'civil disobedience and the hackers' role
>>> in keeping society honest'.
>>>
>>> Here are some possible questions to get the wheels rolling:
>>>
>>> - Is the action taken by the hacker legal, ethical, and/or moral? Was the
>>> action justifiable?
>>>
>>> - Do you believe the harm done as a result is justified for the good
>>> (disclosure) that came out of it?
>>>
>>> - Can this be treated as civil disobedience?
>>>
>>> For background, check out this story
>>>
>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails<http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails>
>>> If URL breaks:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yceb9tw
>>>
>>> Another source:
>>>
>>> http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/
>>>
>>> Please state your opinions openly, and let's discuss!
>>>
>>>        Gadi.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> debate mailing list
>>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> debate mailing list
>>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> debate mailing list
>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Duende Productions
> 4.1 The Ziggurat
> 60-66 Saffron Hill
> London EC1N 8QX
> pdjukes at gmail.com
> 0771 204 8311
>
> _______________________________________________
> debate mailing list
> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20091126/232a245c/attachment.htm>

From ge at linuxbox.org  Thu Nov 26 18:11:02 2009
From: ge at linuxbox.org (Gadi Evron)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:11:02 +0200
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <fabce15e0911261004o532dff11rfaa690bf83b86dd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>	<fabce15e0911260837h26d45513l27b82e32ca396a6e@mail.gmail.com>	<D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>	<fabce15e0911260945ucb55f42ufb3c33c17d4885ca@mail.gmail.com>	<2c4fe12b0911260952y7511db2bkbfbb98aa462dfb2@mail.gmail.com>
	<fabce15e0911261004o532dff11rfaa690bf83b86dd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B0EC4B6.8000200@linuxbox.org>

E L wrote:
> I agree, and I'm happy to see you also agree that based on the common 
> assumption that the information is true
> what he did is good.:-)

I strongly disagree with this assertion.

I believe that the hacker not only broke the law, and the moral 
imperative and the ethical code behind it, but also did it with intent 
to hurt.

He stole emails from literally thousands of people. Some of these very 
personal. Others, sensitive to varying organizations. I don't believe 
that he had any right to compromise the privacy of so many.

Further, breaking in was reprehsnible to begin with. This hacker is a 
criminal.

I may applaud the specific information about the fraud, being released. 
But the hacker deserves no credit for it. The harm caused is 
unjustifiable. It's irresponsible and damaging behavior.

At WaterGate, which you mentioned, specific information was released. 
Not the personal lives of all those involved.

Should such information be made available? Perhaps. I hope it will. But 
should we infringe on others' rights for it? Who chooses whose rights we 
can infringe on?

The hacker's conduct in inexcusable. Even if some good came out of the 
information being released, I will never give the hacker credit fot it.

And with all due respect, civil disobedience is not about harming 
others. In fact, it's rather passive.

	Gadi.

From elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il  Thu Nov 26 18:29:05 2009
From: elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il (E L)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:29:05 +0200
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <4B0EC4B6.8000200@linuxbox.org>
References: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>
	<fabce15e0911260837h26d45513l27b82e32ca396a6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>
	<fabce15e0911260945ucb55f42ufb3c33c17d4885ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<2c4fe12b0911260952y7511db2bkbfbb98aa462dfb2@mail.gmail.com>
	<fabce15e0911261004o532dff11rfaa690bf83b86dd@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B0EC4B6.8000200@linuxbox.org>
Message-ID: <fabce15e0911261029l218d8fdeia89323c9ad1b419c@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:

> E L wrote:
>
>> I agree, and I'm happy to see you also agree that based on the common
>> assumption that the information is true
>> what he did is good.:-)
>>
>
> I strongly disagree with this assertion.
>
> I believe that the hacker not only broke the law, and the moral imperative
> and the ethical code behind it, but also did it with intent to hurt.
>
> We don't know his intent, if you claim he was doing it to harm others you
need to prove it.


> He stole emails from literally thousands of people. Some of these very
> personal. Others, sensitive to varying organizations. I don't believe that
> he had any right to compromise the privacy of so many.
>
>  From what I understood ( I don't have the information) the information he
released is almost only things that might be relevant to the case.
Including funding information and sensitive information as you call it, that
might be used to further investigate what happened.

Further, breaking in was reprehsnible to begin with. This hacker is a
> criminal.
>
> Or freedom fighter:P We all know he broke the law. I was arguing that in
some cases when such big strong organizations are involved we can't
always count on the law. The laws are not absolute, they were made by human
beings that couldn't  foresee all possible cases.
We all agree I think that a lot of laws can be broken to save someone's
life. I don't think this case is far from that, that information
affected millions of people, especially in developing countries. A lot of
money that could have been used for helping other important things
went into that.

I may applaud the specific information about the fraud, being released. But
> the hacker deserves no credit for it. The harm caused is unjustifiable. It's
> irresponsible and damaging behavior.
>
> Can you give example of harm that was caused? Someone beside those specific
people that claim to have been harmed?


> At WaterGate, which you mentioned, specific information was released. Not
> the personal lives of all those involved.
>
> Should such information be made available? Perhaps. I hope it will. But
> should we infringe on others' rights for it? Who chooses whose rights we can
> infringe on?
>
> We do, in the end we can only do our best in what we believe in. I can give
the obvious examples of just following orders and hiding valuable
information from people that even cost human lives. For example some
medicine company who hid bad results of experiments from the public.
If that hacker would have been there life could have been saved.


> The hacker's conduct in inexcusable. Even if some good came out of the
> information being released, I will never give the hacker credit fot it.
>
> And with all due respect, civil disobedience is not about harming others.
> In fact, it's rather passive.
>
> This is obviously not civil disobedience, this is actively fighting.
civil disobedience doesn't always work (e.g Gahdi saying Jews should have
gone into the gas chambers themselves instead of fighting for their life).


>        Gadi.
>

Ely
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20091126/3c3268e0/attachment-0001.htm>

From pdjukes at gmail.com  Thu Nov 26 18:30:33 2009
From: pdjukes at gmail.com (Peter Jukes)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:30:33 +0000
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <fabce15e0911261004o532dff11rfaa690bf83b86dd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>
	<fabce15e0911260837h26d45513l27b82e32ca396a6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>
	<fabce15e0911260945ucb55f42ufb3c33c17d4885ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<2c4fe12b0911260952y7511db2bkbfbb98aa462dfb2@mail.gmail.com>
	<fabce15e0911261004o532dff11rfaa690bf83b86dd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2c4fe12b0911261030v582005afg51ba854e41a86fc3@mail.gmail.com>

Ely

If you're going to stop reading emails at the point you disagree with them,
the whole point of a debate is lost. There's no need for debate if we
agreed.

And this is not a debate about climate change - it's about whether hacking
is inherently good. This particular is a case in point. Because you support
the cause, you approve it. But that's about the cause, not the hacking

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:04 PM, E L <elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> I agree, and I'm happy to see you also agree that based on the common
> assumption that the information is true
> what he did is good.:-)
>
> Ely
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Peter Jukes <pdjukes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think affiliations on global warming, or any anthropogenic element to
>> it, are completely irrelevant to this debate.
>>
>> Though I am sceptical of the conspiracy theory 'Global Warming scam' I
>> will be the first to praise this leak if it turns out to be for the public
>> good.
>>
>> We're talking about the principle of hacking, leaking, whistleblowing, not
>> climate change
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:45 PM, E L <elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>
>>> It's more like breaking into the head of the mub house and freeing an
>>> innocent person who got stuck in the closet there.
>>>
>>> Ely
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Luis Corrons Granel <
>>> luis.corrons at pandasecurity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  That can be said _*after*_ we?ve seen the result, but following this
>>>> criteria it would be ok to enter your house and take all your stuff just in
>>>> case we found something that justifies it, and I don?t think that?s a right
>>>> thing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *De:* debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org [mailto:
>>>> debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org] *En nombre de *E L
>>>> *Enviado el:* jueves, 26 de noviembre de 2009 17:37
>>>> *Para:* Gadi Evron
>>>> *CC:* debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>>> *Asunto:* Re: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that the hacker did the right thing.
>>>> History teaches us that laws are not always moral, that sometimes
>>>> breaking the law is the only way to protect morality and uncover
>>>> corruptions.
>>>> That is why journalists got a certain protection from law suits while
>>>> trying to expose hidden information.
>>>> In this specific case he exposed a conspiracy that affected all our
>>>> life, and cost billions of dollars. No one can doubt the value of this
>>>> information, or its importance. If the hacker was a journalist he would have
>>>> most likely won the Politzer over his discovery, much like the journalist
>>>> who uncovered the Watergate case in much similar manner.
>>>> This brings us to the main problem with is action, when you chose to
>>>> break the law you can no longer hide behind the cover of "good citizen" it
>>>> becomes your responsibility to prove you got the moral ground. What about
>>>> the hacker in that case? Can we blame him for releasing all the emails and
>>>> not only the relevant ones? The answer is both yes and no. Like I said above
>>>> I think he should be treated as a journalist, and we would have expected a
>>>> journalist to only publish the relevant information. But, we should remember
>>>> that in this specific case he wasn't a trained journalist, and didn't have
>>>> the resources and possibly the skills to analyze the information, in that
>>>> case I think his choice to release the information in hope to get the help
>>>> of other in analyzing it is understandable, even if not the best option.
>>>>
>>>> So in summary, I think what he did his moral, and using the tools he had
>>>> he has chosen an acceptable way to share his finding, even if looking
>>>> back we could have thought of ways that would have minimized even
>>>> further the damage for innocent people.
>>>> In general I would say, when the corruption goes too high for the law to
>>>> handle it, sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do.
>>>>
>>>> Ely
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No formal debate, just go with the flow of the discussion and we can
>>>> have fun. But please try and build solid arguments and keep things short!
>>>>
>>>> A few days ago a story broke where someone hacked into a global warming
>>>> research institute and stole all emails from the past 10 years, proving a
>>>> conspiracy.
>>>>
>>>> In the vast amount of emails stolen, some emails were also found with
>>>> clear-cut lies, showing how some scientists conspired to deceive in
>>>> scientific research about data that did not fit their agenda of proving
>>>> global warming.
>>>>
>>>> It is a fascinating topic covering several subjects such as 'does the
>>>> end justify the means?', 'irresponsible disclosure of personal data', 'is it
>>>> justifiable to break the law?' and 'civil disobedience and the hackers' role
>>>> in keeping society honest'.
>>>>
>>>> Here are some possible questions to get the wheels rolling:
>>>>
>>>> - Is the action taken by the hacker legal, ethical, and/or moral? Was
>>>> the action justifiable?
>>>>
>>>> - Do you believe the harm done as a result is justified for the good
>>>> (disclosure) that came out of it?
>>>>
>>>> - Can this be treated as civil disobedience?
>>>>
>>>> For background, check out this story
>>>>
>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails<http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails>
>>>> If URL breaks:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yceb9tw
>>>>
>>>> Another source:
>>>>
>>>> http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/
>>>>
>>>> Please state your opinions openly, and let's discuss!
>>>>
>>>>        Gadi.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> debate mailing list
>>>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> debate mailing list
>>>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> debate mailing list
>>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Duende Productions
>> 4.1 The Ziggurat
>> 60-66 Saffron Hill
>> London EC1N 8QX
>> pdjukes at gmail.com
>> 0771 204 8311
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> debate mailing list
>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>
>>
>


-- 
Duende Productions
4.1 The Ziggurat
60-66 Saffron Hill
London EC1N 8QX
pdjukes at gmail.com
0771 204 8311
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20091126/db7c0289/attachment.htm>

From elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il  Thu Nov 26 18:37:52 2009
From: elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il (E L)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:37:52 +0200
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <2c4fe12b0911261030v582005afg51ba854e41a86fc3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>
	<fabce15e0911260837h26d45513l27b82e32ca396a6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>
	<fabce15e0911260945ucb55f42ufb3c33c17d4885ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<2c4fe12b0911260952y7511db2bkbfbb98aa462dfb2@mail.gmail.com>
	<fabce15e0911261004o532dff11rfaa690bf83b86dd@mail.gmail.com>
	<2c4fe12b0911261030v582005afg51ba854e41a86fc3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fabce15e0911261037r335464cbrd47a58f3706b837a@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Peter Jukes <pdjukes at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ely
>
> If you're going to stop reading emails at the point you disagree with them,
> the whole point of a debate is lost. There's no need for debate if we
> agreed.
>
> Arguments can't be over facts, if we don't agree about what happened we
can't agree about the morality of what he did.
For example if you claim that he is a russian spy that made everything up,
then it's a bit pointless argue about if he did a moral thing.


> And this is not a debate about climate change - it's about whether hacking
> is inherently good. This particular is a case in point. Because you support
> the cause, you approve it. But that's about the cause, not the hacking
>
> No one was debating about climate change. The fact that some results were
fabricated/hidden away doesn't mean that it's not happening.
On the other hand as long as you claim that no result were fabricated/hidden
away we can't really discussed the morality on equal grounds.
If you argue about facts you should add reliable links to backup your
claims, otherwise it's rather pointless.

Ely

P.S I have no opinion about global warming as I never studied nor do I have
enough information about the subject. I do though have a strong
opinion about science conduct (i.e. peer reviewing/showing results when
asked).

>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:04 PM, E L <elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>
>> I agree, and I'm happy to see you also agree that based on the common
>> assumption that the information is true
>> what he did is good.:-)
>>
>> Ely
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Peter Jukes <pdjukes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think affiliations on global warming, or any anthropogenic element to
>>> it, are completely irrelevant to this debate.
>>>
>>> Though I am sceptical of the conspiracy theory 'Global Warming scam' I
>>> will be the first to praise this leak if it turns out to be for the public
>>> good.
>>>
>>> We're talking about the principle of hacking, leaking, whistleblowing,
>>> not climate change
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:45 PM, E L <elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's more like breaking into the head of the mub house and freeing an
>>>> innocent person who got stuck in the closet there.
>>>>
>>>> Ely
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Luis Corrons Granel <
>>>> luis.corrons at pandasecurity.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  That can be said _*after*_ we?ve seen the result, but following this
>>>>> criteria it would be ok to enter your house and take all your stuff just in
>>>>> case we found something that justifies it, and I don?t think that?s a right
>>>>> thing?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> *De:* debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org [mailto:
>>>>> debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org] *En nombre de *E L
>>>>> *Enviado el:* jueves, 26 de noviembre de 2009 17:37
>>>>> *Para:* Gadi Evron
>>>>> *CC:* debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>>>> *Asunto:* Re: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that the hacker did the right thing.
>>>>> History teaches us that laws are not always moral, that sometimes
>>>>> breaking the law is the only way to protect morality and uncover
>>>>> corruptions.
>>>>> That is why journalists got a certain protection from law suits while
>>>>> trying to expose hidden information.
>>>>> In this specific case he exposed a conspiracy that affected all our
>>>>> life, and cost billions of dollars. No one can doubt the value of this
>>>>> information, or its importance. If the hacker was a journalist he would have
>>>>> most likely won the Politzer over his discovery, much like the journalist
>>>>> who uncovered the Watergate case in much similar manner.
>>>>> This brings us to the main problem with is action, when you chose to
>>>>> break the law you can no longer hide behind the cover of "good citizen" it
>>>>> becomes your responsibility to prove you got the moral ground. What about
>>>>> the hacker in that case? Can we blame him for releasing all the emails and
>>>>> not only the relevant ones? The answer is both yes and no. Like I said above
>>>>> I think he should be treated as a journalist, and we would have expected a
>>>>> journalist to only publish the relevant information. But, we should remember
>>>>> that in this specific case he wasn't a trained journalist, and didn't have
>>>>> the resources and possibly the skills to analyze the information, in that
>>>>> case I think his choice to release the information in hope to get the help
>>>>> of other in analyzing it is understandable, even if not the best option.
>>>>>
>>>>> So in summary, I think what he did his moral, and using the tools he
>>>>> had he has chosen an acceptable way to share his finding, even if looking
>>>>> back we could have thought of ways that would have minimized even
>>>>> further the damage for innocent people.
>>>>> In general I would say, when the corruption goes too high for the law
>>>>> to handle it, sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ely
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No formal debate, just go with the flow of the discussion and we can
>>>>> have fun. But please try and build solid arguments and keep things short!
>>>>>
>>>>> A few days ago a story broke where someone hacked into a global warming
>>>>> research institute and stole all emails from the past 10 years, proving a
>>>>> conspiracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the vast amount of emails stolen, some emails were also found with
>>>>> clear-cut lies, showing how some scientists conspired to deceive in
>>>>> scientific research about data that did not fit their agenda of proving
>>>>> global warming.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a fascinating topic covering several subjects such as 'does the
>>>>> end justify the means?', 'irresponsible disclosure of personal data', 'is it
>>>>> justifiable to break the law?' and 'civil disobedience and the hackers' role
>>>>> in keeping society honest'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are some possible questions to get the wheels rolling:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Is the action taken by the hacker legal, ethical, and/or moral? Was
>>>>> the action justifiable?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Do you believe the harm done as a result is justified for the good
>>>>> (disclosure) that came out of it?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Can this be treated as civil disobedience?
>>>>>
>>>>> For background, check out this story
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails<http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails>
>>>>> If URL breaks:
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yceb9tw
>>>>>
>>>>> Another source:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/
>>>>>
>>>>> Please state your opinions openly, and let's discuss!
>>>>>
>>>>>        Gadi.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> debate mailing list
>>>>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>>>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> debate mailing list
>>>>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>>>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> debate mailing list
>>>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Duende Productions
>>> 4.1 The Ziggurat
>>> 60-66 Saffron Hill
>>> London EC1N 8QX
>>> pdjukes at gmail.com
>>> 0771 204 8311
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> debate mailing list
>>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Duende Productions
> 4.1 The Ziggurat
> 60-66 Saffron Hill
> London EC1N 8QX
> pdjukes at gmail.com
> 0771 204 8311
>
> _______________________________________________
> debate mailing list
> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20091126/1457d0cb/attachment-0001.htm>

From pdjukes at gmail.com  Thu Nov 26 18:48:29 2009
From: pdjukes at gmail.com (Peter Jukes)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:48:29 +0000
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <fabce15e0911261037r335464cbrd47a58f3706b837a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>
	<fabce15e0911260837h26d45513l27b82e32ca396a6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>
	<fabce15e0911260945ucb55f42ufb3c33c17d4885ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<2c4fe12b0911260952y7511db2bkbfbb98aa462dfb2@mail.gmail.com>
	<fabce15e0911261004o532dff11rfaa690bf83b86dd@mail.gmail.com>
	<2c4fe12b0911261030v582005afg51ba854e41a86fc3@mail.gmail.com>
	<fabce15e0911261037r335464cbrd47a58f3706b837a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2c4fe12b0911261048u391802f1i7ac9cc96f4f967dc@mail.gmail.com>

I don't think at this point anybody is in possession of all the 'facts' - so
this isn't an exercise in history or journalism, but moral exploration. You
say it's OK to hack if there is some greater good at stake. I would agree -
if that is really a greater good, and not just personal or partisan. We
generally agree (even former segregationists now agree) that Rosa Parks acts
in ending the form of apartheid in the southern states was, in the long run,
for the greater good.

But I think it has to be that level of public interest

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:37 PM, E L <elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Peter Jukes <pdjukes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ely
>>
>> If you're going to stop reading emails at the point you disagree with
>> them, the whole point of a debate is lost. There's no need for debate if we
>> agreed.
>>
>> Arguments can't be over facts, if we don't agree about what happened we
> can't agree about the morality of what he did.
> For example if you claim that he is a russian spy that made everything up,
> then it's a bit pointless argue about if he did a moral thing.
>
>
>> And this is not a debate about climate change - it's about whether hacking
>> is inherently good. This particular is a case in point. Because you support
>> the cause, you approve it. But that's about the cause, not the hacking
>>
>> No one was debating about climate change. The fact that some results were
> fabricated/hidden away doesn't mean that it's not happening.
> On the other hand as long as you claim that no result were
> fabricated/hidden away we can't really discussed the morality on equal
> grounds.
> If you argue about facts you should add reliable links to backup your
> claims, otherwise it's rather pointless.
>
> Ely
>
> P.S I have no opinion about global warming as I never studied nor do I have
> enough information about the subject. I do though have a strong
> opinion about science conduct (i.e. peer reviewing/showing results when
> asked).
>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:04 PM, E L <elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, and I'm happy to see you also agree that based on the common
>>> assumption that the information is true
>>> what he did is good.:-)
>>>
>>> Ely
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Peter Jukes <pdjukes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think affiliations on global warming, or any anthropogenic element to
>>>> it, are completely irrelevant to this debate.
>>>>
>>>> Though I am sceptical of the conspiracy theory 'Global Warming scam' I
>>>> will be the first to praise this leak if it turns out to be for the public
>>>> good.
>>>>
>>>> We're talking about the principle of hacking, leaking, whistleblowing,
>>>> not climate change
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:45 PM, E L <elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's more like breaking into the head of the mub house and freeing an
>>>>> innocent person who got stuck in the closet there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ely
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Luis Corrons Granel <
>>>>> luis.corrons at pandasecurity.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  That can be said _*after*_ we?ve seen the result, but following this
>>>>>> criteria it would be ok to enter your house and take all your stuff just in
>>>>>> case we found something that justifies it, and I don?t think that?s a right
>>>>>> thing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *De:* debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org [mailto:
>>>>>> debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org] *En nombre de *E L
>>>>>> *Enviado el:* jueves, 26 de noviembre de 2009 17:37
>>>>>> *Para:* Gadi Evron
>>>>>> *CC:* debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>>>>> *Asunto:* Re: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that the hacker did the right thing.
>>>>>> History teaches us that laws are not always moral, that sometimes
>>>>>> breaking the law is the only way to protect morality and uncover
>>>>>> corruptions.
>>>>>> That is why journalists got a certain protection from law suits while
>>>>>> trying to expose hidden information.
>>>>>> In this specific case he exposed a conspiracy that affected all our
>>>>>> life, and cost billions of dollars. No one can doubt the value of this
>>>>>> information, or its importance. If the hacker was a journalist he would have
>>>>>> most likely won the Politzer over his discovery, much like the journalist
>>>>>> who uncovered the Watergate case in much similar manner.
>>>>>> This brings us to the main problem with is action, when you chose to
>>>>>> break the law you can no longer hide behind the cover of "good citizen" it
>>>>>> becomes your responsibility to prove you got the moral ground. What about
>>>>>> the hacker in that case? Can we blame him for releasing all the emails and
>>>>>> not only the relevant ones? The answer is both yes and no. Like I said above
>>>>>> I think he should be treated as a journalist, and we would have expected a
>>>>>> journalist to only publish the relevant information. But, we should remember
>>>>>> that in this specific case he wasn't a trained journalist, and didn't have
>>>>>> the resources and possibly the skills to analyze the information, in that
>>>>>> case I think his choice to release the information in hope to get the help
>>>>>> of other in analyzing it is understandable, even if not the best option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So in summary, I think what he did his moral, and using the tools he
>>>>>> had he has chosen an acceptable way to share his finding, even if looking
>>>>>> back we could have thought of ways that would have minimized even
>>>>>> further the damage for innocent people.
>>>>>> In general I would say, when the corruption goes too high for the law
>>>>>> to handle it, sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ely
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No formal debate, just go with the flow of the discussion and we can
>>>>>> have fun. But please try and build solid arguments and keep things short!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A few days ago a story broke where someone hacked into a global
>>>>>> warming research institute and stole all emails from the past 10 years,
>>>>>> proving a conspiracy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the vast amount of emails stolen, some emails were also found with
>>>>>> clear-cut lies, showing how some scientists conspired to deceive in
>>>>>> scientific research about data that did not fit their agenda of proving
>>>>>> global warming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a fascinating topic covering several subjects such as 'does the
>>>>>> end justify the means?', 'irresponsible disclosure of personal data', 'is it
>>>>>> justifiable to break the law?' and 'civil disobedience and the hackers' role
>>>>>> in keeping society honest'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are some possible questions to get the wheels rolling:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Is the action taken by the hacker legal, ethical, and/or moral? Was
>>>>>> the action justifiable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Do you believe the harm done as a result is justified for the good
>>>>>> (disclosure) that came out of it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Can this be treated as civil disobedience?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For background, check out this story
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails<http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails>
>>>>>> If URL breaks:
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yceb9tw
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another source:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please state your opinions openly, and let's discuss!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        Gadi.
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> debate mailing list
>>>>>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>>>>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> debate mailing list
>>>>>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>>>>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> debate mailing list
>>>>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>>>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Duende Productions
>>>> 4.1 The Ziggurat
>>>> 60-66 Saffron Hill
>>>> London EC1N 8QX
>>>> pdjukes at gmail.com
>>>> 0771 204 8311
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> debate mailing list
>>>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Duende Productions
>> 4.1 The Ziggurat
>> 60-66 Saffron Hill
>> London EC1N 8QX
>> pdjukes at gmail.com
>> 0771 204 8311
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> debate mailing list
>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>
>>
>


-- 
Duende Productions
4.1 The Ziggurat
60-66 Saffron Hill
London EC1N 8QX
pdjukes at gmail.com
0771 204 8311
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20091126/e048d8fe/attachment.htm>

From robert_david_graham at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 26 19:09:27 2009
From: robert_david_graham at yahoo.com (Robert Graham)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:09:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>
Message-ID: <566774.64497.qm@web51003.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

> ...but
> following this criteria it would be ok to enter your house
> and take all your stuff just in case we found something that 
> justifies it

No, it's like being ok to enter a government building.

His "private" e-mails were not stolen, only his "professional" e-mails. The issue is government and scientific transparency. Science is supposed to be transparent, and those data files should already have been public. Government policy is supposed to be transparent -- that was the issue with the Sara Palin e-mail hack, she was conducting official business on a @yahoo.com account, evading laws that said all official e-mail should be archived for possible FOIA requests.


      

From elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il  Thu Nov 26 19:15:28 2009
From: elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il (E L)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:15:28 +0200
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <2c4fe12b0911261048u391802f1i7ac9cc96f4f967dc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>
	<fabce15e0911260837h26d45513l27b82e32ca396a6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>
	<fabce15e0911260945ucb55f42ufb3c33c17d4885ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<2c4fe12b0911260952y7511db2bkbfbb98aa462dfb2@mail.gmail.com>
	<fabce15e0911261004o532dff11rfaa690bf83b86dd@mail.gmail.com>
	<2c4fe12b0911261030v582005afg51ba854e41a86fc3@mail.gmail.com>
	<fabce15e0911261037r335464cbrd47a58f3706b837a@mail.gmail.com>
	<2c4fe12b0911261048u391802f1i7ac9cc96f4f967dc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fabce15e0911261115nea18201w998fb9d50dcc022@mail.gmail.com>

I offer those 3 points that should exists to allow you to break the law:

1) It needs to be harmful now. Not a past crime.
2) It needs to be clear to that person that the crime is being committed
3) Normal legal channel can't solve the issue.

In that case I suggest that using reasonable force is the moral thing to do.
( And probably legal in some countries).
I say the same can be applied to this case, with a translation to internet
language.

1) The information still affects the life of millions of people, especially
in developing countries this harm might even
cost the life of innocent people. (Lack of resources)
2) I assume the hacker knew what he is looking for and most likely had
inside information and needed to prove.
Since we can't be 100% sure I just assume it for now as long as no one can
find a proof for criminal intent.
3) The information was discussed in court, when asked it seems that some
very important information suddenly disappeared.
The court, even with various orders, couldn't get them to revel the
information.

The hacker published only part of the emails, and since no one so far
complained to have been harmed by this information we can assume
that most of the parts that harm innocent people was removed. (Again unless
someone got a prove for otherwise).

Ely

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Peter Jukes <pdjukes at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think at this point anybody is in possession of all the 'facts' -
> so this isn't an exercise in history or journalism, but moral exploration.
> You say it's OK to hack if there is some greater good at stake. I would
> agree - if that is really a greater good, and not just personal or partisan.
> We generally agree (even former segregationists now agree) that Rosa Parks
> acts in ending the form of apartheid in the southern states was, in the long
> run, for the greater good.
>
> But I think it has to be that level of public interest
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:37 PM, E L <elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Peter Jukes <pdjukes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ely
>>>
>>> If you're going to stop reading emails at the point you disagree with
>>> them, the whole point of a debate is lost. There's no need for debate if we
>>> agreed.
>>>
>>>  Arguments can't be over facts, if we don't agree about what happened we
>> can't agree about the morality of what he did.
>> For example if you claim that he is a russian spy that made everything up,
>> then it's a bit pointless argue about if he did a moral thing.
>>
>>
>>> And this is not a debate about climate change - it's about whether
>>> hacking is inherently good. This particular is a case in point. Because you
>>> support the cause, you approve it. But that's about the cause, not the
>>> hacking
>>>
>>> No one was debating about climate change. The fact that some results were
>> fabricated/hidden away doesn't mean that it's not happening.
>> On the other hand as long as you claim that no result were
>> fabricated/hidden away we can't really discussed the morality on equal
>> grounds.
>> If you argue about facts you should add reliable links to backup your
>> claims, otherwise it's rather pointless.
>>
>> Ely
>>
>> P.S I have no opinion about global warming as I never studied nor do I
>> have enough information about the subject. I do though have a strong
>> opinion about science conduct (i.e. peer reviewing/showing results when
>> asked).
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:04 PM, E L <elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree, and I'm happy to see you also agree that based on the common
>>>> assumption that the information is true
>>>> what he did is good.:-)
>>>>
>>>> Ely
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Peter Jukes <pdjukes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think affiliations on global warming, or any anthropogenic element to
>>>>> it, are completely irrelevant to this debate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Though I am sceptical of the conspiracy theory 'Global Warming scam' I
>>>>> will be the first to praise this leak if it turns out to be for the public
>>>>> good.
>>>>>
>>>>> We're talking about the principle of hacking, leaking, whistleblowing,
>>>>> not climate change
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:45 PM, E L <elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's more like breaking into the head of the mub house and freeing an
>>>>>> innocent person who got stuck in the closet there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ely
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Luis Corrons Granel <
>>>>>> luis.corrons at pandasecurity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  That can be said _*after*_ we?ve seen the result, but following
>>>>>>> this criteria it would be ok to enter your house and take all your stuff
>>>>>>> just in case we found something that justifies it, and I don?t think that?s
>>>>>>> a right thing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  ------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *De:* debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org [mailto:
>>>>>>> debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org] *En nombre de *E L
>>>>>>> *Enviado el:* jueves, 26 de noviembre de 2009 17:37
>>>>>>> *Para:* Gadi Evron
>>>>>>> *CC:* debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>>>>>> *Asunto:* Re: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that the hacker did the right thing.
>>>>>>> History teaches us that laws are not always moral, that sometimes
>>>>>>> breaking the law is the only way to protect morality and uncover
>>>>>>> corruptions.
>>>>>>> That is why journalists got a certain protection from law suits while
>>>>>>> trying to expose hidden information.
>>>>>>> In this specific case he exposed a conspiracy that affected all our
>>>>>>> life, and cost billions of dollars. No one can doubt the value of this
>>>>>>> information, or its importance. If the hacker was a journalist he would have
>>>>>>> most likely won the Politzer over his discovery, much like the journalist
>>>>>>> who uncovered the Watergate case in much similar manner.
>>>>>>> This brings us to the main problem with is action, when you chose to
>>>>>>> break the law you can no longer hide behind the cover of "good citizen" it
>>>>>>> becomes your responsibility to prove you got the moral ground. What about
>>>>>>> the hacker in that case? Can we blame him for releasing all the emails and
>>>>>>> not only the relevant ones? The answer is both yes and no. Like I said above
>>>>>>> I think he should be treated as a journalist, and we would have expected a
>>>>>>> journalist to only publish the relevant information. But, we should remember
>>>>>>> that in this specific case he wasn't a trained journalist, and didn't have
>>>>>>> the resources and possibly the skills to analyze the information, in that
>>>>>>> case I think his choice to release the information in hope to get the help
>>>>>>> of other in analyzing it is understandable, even if not the best option.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So in summary, I think what he did his moral, and using the tools he
>>>>>>> had he has chosen an acceptable way to share his finding, even if looking
>>>>>>> back we could have thought of ways that would have minimized even
>>>>>>> further the damage for innocent people.
>>>>>>> In general I would say, when the corruption goes too high for the law
>>>>>>> to handle it, sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ely
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No formal debate, just go with the flow of the discussion and we can
>>>>>>> have fun. But please try and build solid arguments and keep things short!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A few days ago a story broke where someone hacked into a global
>>>>>>> warming research institute and stole all emails from the past 10 years,
>>>>>>> proving a conspiracy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the vast amount of emails stolen, some emails were also found with
>>>>>>> clear-cut lies, showing how some scientists conspired to deceive in
>>>>>>> scientific research about data that did not fit their agenda of proving
>>>>>>> global warming.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a fascinating topic covering several subjects such as 'does the
>>>>>>> end justify the means?', 'irresponsible disclosure of personal data', 'is it
>>>>>>> justifiable to break the law?' and 'civil disobedience and the hackers' role
>>>>>>> in keeping society honest'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are some possible questions to get the wheels rolling:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Is the action taken by the hacker legal, ethical, and/or moral? Was
>>>>>>> the action justifiable?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Do you believe the harm done as a result is justified for the good
>>>>>>> (disclosure) that came out of it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Can this be treated as civil disobedience?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For background, check out this story
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails<http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails>
>>>>>>> If URL breaks:
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yceb9tw
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another source:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please state your opinions openly, and let's discuss!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        Gadi.
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> debate mailing list
>>>>>>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>>>>>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> debate mailing list
>>>>>>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>>>>>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> debate mailing list
>>>>>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>>>>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Duende Productions
>>>>> 4.1 The Ziggurat
>>>>> 60-66 Saffron Hill
>>>>> London EC1N 8QX
>>>>> pdjukes at gmail.com
>>>>> 0771 204 8311
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> debate mailing list
>>>>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>>>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Duende Productions
>>> 4.1 The Ziggurat
>>> 60-66 Saffron Hill
>>> London EC1N 8QX
>>> pdjukes at gmail.com
>>> 0771 204 8311
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> debate mailing list
>>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Duende Productions
> 4.1 The Ziggurat
> 60-66 Saffron Hill
> London EC1N 8QX
> pdjukes at gmail.com
> 0771 204 8311
>
> _______________________________________________
> debate mailing list
> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20091126/7924e4f1/attachment-0001.htm>

From ge at linuxbox.org  Thu Nov 26 19:21:23 2009
From: ge at linuxbox.org (Gadi Evron)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:21:23 +0200
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <fabce15e0911261029l218d8fdeia89323c9ad1b419c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>	
	<fabce15e0911260837h26d45513l27b82e32ca396a6e@mail.gmail.com>	
	<D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>	
	<fabce15e0911260945ucb55f42ufb3c33c17d4885ca@mail.gmail.com>	
	<2c4fe12b0911260952y7511db2bkbfbb98aa462dfb2@mail.gmail.com>	
	<fabce15e0911261004o532dff11rfaa690bf83b86dd@mail.gmail.com>	
	<4B0EC4B6.8000200@linuxbox.org>
	<fabce15e0911261029l218d8fdeia89323c9ad1b419c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B0ED533.8090902@linuxbox.org>

E L wrote:
> We don't know his intent, if you claim he was doing it to harm others 
> you need to prove it.

I assume intent by actions, but let's disregard intent.

What proof do you seek?
My objection is of principle. Meaning, multiple crimes were committed, 
information was stolen, and the privacy of many people was violated.

In principle, such actions are unacceptable.

>  From what I understood ( I don't have the information) the information 
> he released is almost only things that might be relevant to the case.
> Including funding information and sensitive information as you call it, 
> that might be used to further investigate what happened.

I saw a very large database of emails on varying projects, subjects, 
papers and funding issues. Not at all relevant to the case.

>     Further, breaking in was reprehsnible to begin with. This hacker is
>     a criminal.
> 
> Or freedom fighter:P We all know he broke the law. I was arguing that in 
> some cases when such big strong organizations are involved we can't
> always count on the law. The laws are not absolute, they were made by 
> human beings that couldn't  foresee all possible cases.

The moral and ethical imperatives behind the law, stand. Who decides 
when it is "alright" to break the law, and what is good enough to 
justify it?

Should someone decide you are an evil criminal, plan an assault to pass 
your security systems, break into your house, and expose the privacy of 
your whole family (minus some details they decide they shouldn't), is 
that justifiable?

> We all agree I think that a lot of laws can be broken to save someone's 
> life. I don't think this case is far from that, that information
> affected millions of people, especially in developing countries. A lot 
> of money that could have been used for helping other important things
> went into that.

What money would have been used for, neither of us knows. Assuming it 
would be used to do noble deeds is beside the point, and even with these 
lies by the scientists, the information on global warming may not be 
altered one bit. We don't know yet.

If you see someone about to come to immediate bodily harm and can try 
and stop that, it is acceptable that you should break some laws and 
shoot the guy trying to rape a child. However, you are still likely to 
at least be considered for criminal charges. One crime does not justify 
the other.

Further, there is a major difference between such a clear and immediate 
danger, which such "civilian intervention" laws come to mitigate, and 
planned theft operations due to something someone believes in. The 
analogy is false as it is not the same in most counts which matter.

>     I may applaud the specific information about the fraud, being
>     released. But the hacker deserves no credit for it. The harm caused
>     is unjustifiable. It's irresponsible and damaging behavior.
> 
> Can you give example of harm that was caused? Someone beside those 
> specific people that claim to have been harmed?

I don't need to show any specific harm. I am against the very principle 
of such random violations, as well as the privacy loss of those there. 
Whether they personally care or press charges is beside the point. They 
probably have, or will.

>     Should such information be made available? Perhaps. I hope it will.
>     But should we infringe on others' rights for it? Who chooses whose
>     rights we can infringe on?
> 
> We do, in the end we can only do our best in what we believe in. I can 
> give the obvious examples of just following orders and hiding valuable 
> information from people that even cost human lives. For example some 
> medicine company who hid bad results of experiments from the public.
> If that hacker would have been there life could have been saved.

And someone else may decide on any other arbitrary point. That is why we 
have the rule of law, we are all accountable to it, and the State is in 
charge of such matters.

Investigative reporting does not permit breaking the law.

> This is obviously not civil disobedience, this is actively fighting.
> civil disobedience doesn't always work (e.g Gahdi saying Jews should 
> have gone into the gas chambers themselves instead of fighting for their 
> life).

Than what is your moral excuse for violating the rights and the privacy 
of so many, while committing a crime which you don't want others to do 
on a normal bases?

From robert_david_graham at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 26 19:24:23 2009
From: robert_david_graham at yahoo.com (Robert Graham)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:24:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <fabce15e0911261037r335464cbrd47a58f3706b837a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <163700.88286.qm@web51005.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

> P.S I have no opinion about global warming as I never
> studied nor do I have enough information about the subject.
> I do though have a strong 
> opinion about science conduct (i.e. peer reviewing/showing
> results when asked).

That's the point that relevant to me. It's not true/falsehood of the scientific claim that's important so much as hole in their scientific method (they won't show their results when asked).

Even then, that's not enough to justify the hack. It's not a matter of public concern if scientists behave badly. What justifies is that is that government policy is based upon science that critics cannot reproduce and challenge. It's that "government policy" for me that justifies the whistleblowing. (Although, I supposed I could also find some justification on the grounds of "government funded" and therefore "coming out of my pocket book").



      

From ge at linuxbox.org  Thu Nov 26 19:25:06 2009
From: ge at linuxbox.org (Gadi Evron)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:25:06 +0200
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <fabce15e0911261115nea18201w998fb9d50dcc022@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>	<fabce15e0911260837h26d45513l27b82e32ca396a6e@mail.gmail.com>	<D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>	<fabce15e0911260945ucb55f42ufb3c33c17d4885ca@mail.gmail.com>	<2c4fe12b0911260952y7511db2bkbfbb98aa462dfb2@mail.gmail.com>	<fabce15e0911261004o532dff11rfaa690bf83b86dd@mail.gmail.com>	<2c4fe12b0911261030v582005afg51ba854e41a86fc3@mail.gmail.com>	<fabce15e0911261037r335464cbrd47a58f3706b837a@mail.gmail.com>	<2c4fe12b0911261048u391802f1i7ac9cc96f4f967dc@mail.gmail.com>
	<fabce15e0911261115nea18201w998fb9d50dcc022@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B0ED612.3000306@linuxbox.org>

E L wrote:
> The hacker published only part of the emails, and since no one so far 
> complained to have been harmed by this information we can assume
> that most of the parts that harm innocent people was removed. (Again 
> unless someone got a prove for otherwise).
> 

We don't need to prove anyone was hurt. If someone tried to commit a 
murder and fails, and the victim never even finds out, does that mean 
the criminal is morally or legally absolved?

It's a matter of principle.

	Gadi.


> Ely
> 
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Peter Jukes <pdjukes at gmail.com 
> <mailto:pdjukes at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I don't think at this point anybody is in possession of all the
>     'facts' - so this isn't an exercise in history or journalism, but
>     moral exploration. You say it's OK to hack if there is some greater
>     good at stake. I would agree - if that is really a greater good, and
>     not just personal or partisan. We generally agree (even former
>     segregationists now agree) that Rosa Parks acts in ending the form
>     of apartheid in the southern states was, in the long run, for the
>     greater good. 
> 
>     But I think it has to be that level of public interest
> 
> 
>     On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:37 PM, E L <elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il
>     <mailto:elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>         On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Peter Jukes <pdjukes at gmail.com
>         <mailto:pdjukes at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>             Ely 
> 
>             If you're going to stop reading emails at the point you
>             disagree with them, the whole point of a debate is lost.
>             There's no need for debate if we agreed.
> 
>         Arguments can't be over facts, if we don't agree about what
>         happened we can't agree about the morality of what he did.
>         For example if you claim that he is a russian spy that made
>         everything up, then it's a bit pointless argue about if he did a
>         moral thing.
>          
> 
>             And this is not a debate about climate change - it's about
>             whether hacking is inherently good. This particular is a
>             case in point. Because you support the cause, you approve
>             it. But that's about the cause, not the hacking
> 
>         No one was debating about climate change. The fact that some
>         results were fabricated/hidden away doesn't mean that it's not
>         happening.
>         On the other hand as long as you claim that no result were
>         fabricated/hidden away we can't really discussed the morality on
>         equal grounds.
>         If you argue about facts you should add reliable links to backup
>         your claims, otherwise it's rather pointless.
> 
>         Ely
> 
>         P.S I have no opinion about global warming as I never studied
>         nor do I have enough information about the subject. I do though
>         have a strong
>         opinion about science conduct (i.e. peer reviewing/showing
>         results when asked).
> 
> 
>             On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:04 PM, E L <elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il
>             <mailto:elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il>> wrote:
> 
>                 I agree, and I'm happy to see you also agree that based
>                 on the common assumption that the information is true
>                 what he did is good.:-)
> 
>                 Ely
> 
> 
> 
>                 On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Peter Jukes
>                 <pdjukes at gmail.com <mailto:pdjukes at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>                     I think affiliations on global warming, or any
>                     anthropogenic element to it, are completely
>                     irrelevant to this debate.
> 
>                     Though I am sceptical of the conspiracy theory
>                     'Global Warming scam' I will be the first to praise
>                     this leak if it turns out to be for the public good. 
> 
>                     We're talking about the principle of hacking,
>                     leaking, whistleblowing, not climate change
> 
> 
>                     On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:45 PM, E L
>                     <elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il
>                     <mailto:elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il>> wrote:
> 
>                         It's more like breaking into the head of the mub
>                         house and freeing an innocent person who got
>                         stuck in the closet there.
> 
>                         Ely
> 
>                         On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Luis Corrons
>                         Granel <luis.corrons at pandasecurity.com
>                         <mailto:luis.corrons at pandasecurity.com>> wrote:
> 
>                             That can be said _/after/_ we?ve seen the
>                             result, but following this criteria it would
>                             be ok to enter your house and take all your
>                             stuff just in case we found something that
>                             justifies it, and I don?t think that?s a
>                             right thing?
> 
>                              
> 
>                             ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>                             *De:* debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>                             <mailto:debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org>
>                             [mailto:debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>                             <mailto:debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org>]
>                             *En nombre de *E L
>                             *Enviado el:* jueves, 26 de noviembre de
>                             2009 17:37
>                             *Para:* Gadi Evron
>                             *CC:* debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>                             <mailto:debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org>
>                             *Asunto:* Re: [debate] Was the ClimateGate
>                             Hacker Justified?
> 
>                              
> 
>                             I think that the hacker did the right thing.
>                             History teaches us that laws are not always
>                             moral, that sometimes breaking the law is
>                             the only way to protect morality and uncover
>                             corruptions.
>                             That is why journalists got a certain
>                             protection from law suits while trying to
>                             expose hidden information.
>                             In this specific case he exposed a
>                             conspiracy that affected all our life, and
>                             cost billions of dollars. No one can doubt
>                             the value of this information, or its
>                             importance. If the hacker was a journalist
>                             he would have most likely won the Politzer
>                             over his discovery, much like the journalist
>                             who uncovered the Watergate case in much
>                             similar manner.
>                             This brings us to the main problem with is
>                             action, when you chose to break the law you
>                             can no longer hide behind the cover of "good
>                             citizen" it becomes your responsibility to
>                             prove you got the moral ground. What about
>                             the hacker in that case? Can we blame him
>                             for releasing all the emails and not only
>                             the relevant ones? The answer is both yes
>                             and no. Like I said above I think he should
>                             be treated as a journalist, and we would
>                             have expected a journalist to only publish
>                             the relevant information. But, we should
>                             remember that in this specific case he
>                             wasn't a trained journalist, and didn't have
>                             the resources and possibly the skills to
>                             analyze the information, in that case I
>                             think his choice to release the information
>                             in hope to get the help of other in
>                             analyzing it is understandable, even if not
>                             the best option.
> 
>                             So in summary, I think what he did his
>                             moral, and using the tools he had he has
>                             chosen an acceptable way to share his
>                             finding, even if looking
>                             back we could have thought of ways that
>                             would have minimized even further the damage
>                             for innocent people.
>                             In general I would say, when the corruption
>                             goes too high for the law to handle it,
>                             sometimes breaking the law is the right
>                             thing to do.
> 
>                             Ely
> 
>                             On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Gadi Evron
>                             <ge at linuxbox.org <mailto:ge at linuxbox.org>>
>                             wrote:
> 
>                             No formal debate, just go with the flow of
>                             the discussion and we can have fun. But
>                             please try and build solid arguments and
>                             keep things short!
> 
>                             A few days ago a story broke where someone
>                             hacked into a global warming research
>                             institute and stole all emails from the past
>                             10 years, proving a conspiracy.
> 
>                             In the vast amount of emails stolen, some
>                             emails were also found with clear-cut lies,
>                             showing how some scientists conspired to
>                             deceive in scientific research about data
>                             that did not fit their agenda of proving
>                             global warming.
> 
>                             It is a fascinating topic covering several
>                             subjects such as 'does the end justify the
>                             means?', 'irresponsible disclosure of
>                             personal data', 'is it justifiable to break
>                             the law?' and 'civil disobedience and the
>                             hackers' role in keeping society honest'.
> 
>                             Here are some possible questions to get the
>                             wheels rolling:
> 
>                             - Is the action taken by the hacker legal,
>                             ethical, and/or moral? Was the action
>                             justifiable?
> 
>                             - Do you believe the harm done as a result
>                             is justified for the good (disclosure) that
>                             came out of it?
> 
>                             - Can this be treated as civil disobedience?
> 
>                             For background, check out this story
>                             http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails
>                             <http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails>
>                             If URL breaks:
>                             http://tinyurl.com/yceb9tw
> 
>                             Another source:
>                             http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/
> 
>                             Please state your opinions openly, and let's
>                             discuss!
> 
>                                    Gadi.
>                             _______________________________________________
>                             debate mailing list
>                             debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>                             <mailto:debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org>
>                             http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
> 
>                              
> 
> 
>                             _______________________________________________
>                             debate mailing list
>                             debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>                             <mailto:debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org>
>                             http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
> 
> 
> 
>                         _______________________________________________
>                         debate mailing list
>                         debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>                         <mailto:debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org>
>                         http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                     -- 
>                     Duende Productions
>                     4.1 The Ziggurat
>                     60-66 Saffron Hill
>                     London EC1N 8QX
>                     pdjukes at gmail.com <mailto:pdjukes at gmail.com>
>                     0771 204 8311
> 
>                     _______________________________________________
>                     debate mailing list
>                     debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>                     <mailto:debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org>
>                     http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>             -- 
>             Duende Productions
>             4.1 The Ziggurat
>             60-66 Saffron Hill
>             London EC1N 8QX
>             pdjukes at gmail.com <mailto:pdjukes at gmail.com>
>             0771 204 8311
> 
>             _______________________________________________
>             debate mailing list
>             debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>             <mailto:debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org>
>             http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Duende Productions
>     4.1 The Ziggurat
>     60-66 Saffron Hill
>     London EC1N 8QX
>     pdjukes at gmail.com <mailto:pdjukes at gmail.com>
>     0771 204 8311
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     debate mailing list
>     debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org <mailto:debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org>
>     http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> debate mailing list
> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate


-- 
Gadi Evron,
ge at linuxbox.org.

Blog: http://gevron.livejournal.com/

From elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il  Thu Nov 26 19:29:59 2009
From: elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il (E L)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:29:59 +0200
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <4B0ED612.3000306@linuxbox.org>
References: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>
	<D5F079D55747964ABD3A2A3E2B02C03302151038@ESLABEXH02.pandasoftware.local>
	<fabce15e0911260945ucb55f42ufb3c33c17d4885ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<2c4fe12b0911260952y7511db2bkbfbb98aa462dfb2@mail.gmail.com>
	<fabce15e0911261004o532dff11rfaa690bf83b86dd@mail.gmail.com>
	<2c4fe12b0911261030v582005afg51ba854e41a86fc3@mail.gmail.com>
	<fabce15e0911261037r335464cbrd47a58f3706b837a@mail.gmail.com>
	<2c4fe12b0911261048u391802f1i7ac9cc96f4f967dc@mail.gmail.com>
	<fabce15e0911261115nea18201w998fb9d50dcc022@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B0ED612.3000306@linuxbox.org>
Message-ID: <fabce15e0911261129j7ad158cflbe3563ee9433933b@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:

> E L wrote:
>
>> The hacker published only part of the emails, and since no one so far
>> complained to have been harmed by this information we can assume
>> that most of the parts that harm innocent people was removed. (Again
>> unless someone got a prove for otherwise).
>>
>>
> We don't need to prove anyone was hurt. If someone tried to commit a murder
> and fails, and the victim never even finds out, does that mean the criminal
> is morally or legally absolved?
>
> I'm saying that he is within the boundaries of reasonable force.
For example shooting a shooting someone who steal your money is considered
using too much force, tripping him is considered ok.
Same here, I'm trying to stop a criminal the internet equal of tripping him
is exposing his lie, in this case by showing some of his emails.
Since you didn't comment about the points I assume you agree with them.

Ely

> It's a matter of principle.
>
>        Gadi.
>
>
>  Ely
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Peter Jukes <pdjukes at gmail.com <mailto:
>> pdjukes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    I don't think at this point anybody is in possession of all the
>>    'facts' - so this isn't an exercise in history or journalism, but
>>    moral exploration. You say it's OK to hack if there is some greater
>>    good at stake. I would agree - if that is really a greater good, and
>>    not just personal or partisan. We generally agree (even former
>>    segregationists now agree) that Rosa Parks acts in ending the form
>>    of apartheid in the southern states was, in the long run, for the
>>    greater good.
>>    But I think it has to be that level of public interest
>>
>>
>>    On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:37 PM, E L <elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il
>>    <mailto:elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>        On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Peter Jukes <pdjukes at gmail.com
>>        <mailto:pdjukes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>            Ely
>>            If you're going to stop reading emails at the point you
>>            disagree with them, the whole point of a debate is lost.
>>            There's no need for debate if we agreed.
>>
>>        Arguments can't be over facts, if we don't agree about what
>>        happened we can't agree about the morality of what he did.
>>        For example if you claim that he is a russian spy that made
>>        everything up, then it's a bit pointless argue about if he did a
>>        moral thing.
>>
>>            And this is not a debate about climate change - it's about
>>            whether hacking is inherently good. This particular is a
>>            case in point. Because you support the cause, you approve
>>            it. But that's about the cause, not the hacking
>>
>>        No one was debating about climate change. The fact that some
>>        results were fabricated/hidden away doesn't mean that it's not
>>        happening.
>>        On the other hand as long as you claim that no result were
>>        fabricated/hidden away we can't really discussed the morality on
>>        equal grounds.
>>        If you argue about facts you should add reliable links to backup
>>        your claims, otherwise it's rather pointless.
>>
>>        Ely
>>
>>        P.S I have no opinion about global warming as I never studied
>>        nor do I have enough information about the subject. I do though
>>        have a strong
>>        opinion about science conduct (i.e. peer reviewing/showing
>>        results when asked).
>>
>>
>>            On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:04 PM, E L <elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il
>>            <mailto:elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il>> wrote:
>>
>>                I agree, and I'm happy to see you also agree that based
>>                on the common assumption that the information is true
>>                what he did is good.:-)
>>
>>                Ely
>>
>>
>>
>>                On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Peter Jukes
>>                <pdjukes at gmail.com <mailto:pdjukes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>                    I think affiliations on global warming, or any
>>                    anthropogenic element to it, are completely
>>                    irrelevant to this debate.
>>
>>                    Though I am sceptical of the conspiracy theory
>>                    'Global Warming scam' I will be the first to praise
>>                    this leak if it turns out to be for the public good.
>>                    We're talking about the principle of hacking,
>>                    leaking, whistleblowing, not climate change
>>
>>
>>                    On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:45 PM, E L
>>                    <elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il
>>                    <mailto:elylevy at cs.huji.ac.il>> wrote:
>>
>>                        It's more like breaking into the head of the mub
>>                        house and freeing an innocent person who got
>>                        stuck in the closet there.
>>
>>                        Ely
>>
>>                        On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Luis Corrons
>>                        Granel <luis.corrons at pandasecurity.com
>>                        <mailto:luis.corrons at pandasecurity.com>> wrote:
>>
>>                            That can be said _/after/_ we?ve seen the
>>                            result, but following this criteria it would
>>                            be ok to enter your house and take all your
>>                            stuff just in case we found something that
>>                            justifies it, and I don?t think that?s a
>>                            right thing?
>>
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>                            *De:* debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>                            <mailto:debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org>
>>                            [mailto:debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>                            <mailto:debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>> >]
>>                            *En nombre de *E L
>>                            *Enviado el:* jueves, 26 de noviembre de
>>                            2009 17:37
>>                            *Para:* Gadi Evron
>>                            *CC:* debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>                            <mailto:debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org>
>>
>>                            *Asunto:* Re: [debate] Was the ClimateGate
>>                            Hacker Justified?
>>
>>
>>                            I think that the hacker did the right thing.
>>                            History teaches us that laws are not always
>>                            moral, that sometimes breaking the law is
>>                            the only way to protect morality and uncover
>>                            corruptions.
>>                            That is why journalists got a certain
>>                            protection from law suits while trying to
>>                            expose hidden information.
>>                            In this specific case he exposed a
>>                            conspiracy that affected all our life, and
>>                            cost billions of dollars. No one can doubt
>>                            the value of this information, or its
>>                            importance. If the hacker was a journalist
>>                            he would have most likely won the Politzer
>>                            over his discovery, much like the journalist
>>                            who uncovered the Watergate case in much
>>                            similar manner.
>>                            This brings us to the main problem with is
>>                            action, when you chose to break the law you
>>                            can no longer hide behind the cover of "good
>>                            citizen" it becomes your responsibility to
>>                            prove you got the moral ground. What about
>>                            the hacker in that case? Can we blame him
>>                            for releasing all the emails and not only
>>                            the relevant ones? The answer is both yes
>>                            and no. Like I said above I think he should
>>                            be treated as a journalist, and we would
>>                            have expected a journalist to only publish
>>                            the relevant information. But, we should
>>                            remember that in this specific case he
>>                            wasn't a trained journalist, and didn't have
>>                            the resources and possibly the skills to
>>                            analyze the information, in that case I
>>                            think his choice to release the information
>>                            in hope to get the help of other in
>>                            analyzing it is understandable, even if not
>>                            the best option.
>>
>>                            So in summary, I think what he did his
>>                            moral, and using the tools he had he has
>>                            chosen an acceptable way to share his
>>                            finding, even if looking
>>                            back we could have thought of ways that
>>                            would have minimized even further the damage
>>                            for innocent people.
>>                            In general I would say, when the corruption
>>                            goes too high for the law to handle it,
>>                            sometimes breaking the law is the right
>>                            thing to do.
>>
>>                            Ely
>>
>>                            On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Gadi Evron
>>                            <ge at linuxbox.org <mailto:ge at linuxbox.org>>
>>
>>                            wrote:
>>
>>                            No formal debate, just go with the flow of
>>                            the discussion and we can have fun. But
>>                            please try and build solid arguments and
>>                            keep things short!
>>
>>                            A few days ago a story broke where someone
>>                            hacked into a global warming research
>>                            institute and stole all emails from the past
>>                            10 years, proving a conspiracy.
>>
>>                            In the vast amount of emails stolen, some
>>                            emails were also found with clear-cut lies,
>>                            showing how some scientists conspired to
>>                            deceive in scientific research about data
>>                            that did not fit their agenda of proving
>>                            global warming.
>>
>>                            It is a fascinating topic covering several
>>                            subjects such as 'does the end justify the
>>                            means?', 'irresponsible disclosure of
>>                            personal data', 'is it justifiable to break
>>                            the law?' and 'civil disobedience and the
>>                            hackers' role in keeping society honest'.
>>
>>                            Here are some possible questions to get the
>>                            wheels rolling:
>>
>>                            - Is the action taken by the hacker legal,
>>                            ethical, and/or moral? Was the action
>>                            justifiable?
>>
>>                            - Do you believe the harm done as a result
>>                            is justified for the good (disclosure) that
>>                            came out of it?
>>
>>                            - Can this be treated as civil disobedience?
>>
>>                            For background, check out this story
>>
>> http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails<http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails>
>>                            <
>> http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails
>> >
>>
>>                            If URL breaks:
>>                            http://tinyurl.com/yceb9tw
>>
>>                            Another source:
>>
>> http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/
>>
>>                            Please state your opinions openly, and let's
>>                            discuss!
>>
>>                                   Gadi.
>>                            _______________________________________________
>>                            debate mailing list
>>                            debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>                            <mailto:debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org>
>>
>>
>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>
>>
>>
>>                            _______________________________________________
>>                            debate mailing list
>>                            debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>                            <mailto:debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org>
>>
>>
>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>
>>
>>
>>                        _______________________________________________
>>                        debate mailing list
>>                        debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>                        <mailto:debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org>
>>
>>
>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>                    --                    Duende Productions
>>                    4.1 The Ziggurat
>>                    60-66 Saffron Hill
>>                    London EC1N 8QX
>>                    pdjukes at gmail.com <mailto:pdjukes at gmail.com>
>>
>>                    0771 204 8311
>>
>>                    _______________________________________________
>>                    debate mailing list
>>                    debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>                    <mailto:debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org>
>>
>>                    http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>            --            Duende Productions
>>            4.1 The Ziggurat
>>            60-66 Saffron Hill
>>            London EC1N 8QX
>>            pdjukes at gmail.com <mailto:pdjukes at gmail.com>
>>
>>            0771 204 8311
>>
>>            _______________________________________________
>>            debate mailing list
>>            debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>>            <mailto:debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org>
>>
>>            http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    --    Duende Productions
>>    4.1 The Ziggurat
>>    60-66 Saffron Hill
>>    London EC1N 8QX
>>    pdjukes at gmail.com <mailto:pdjukes at gmail.com>
>>
>>    0771 204 8311
>>
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    debate mailing list
>>    debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org <mailto:debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org>
>>
>>    http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> debate mailing list
>> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>>
>
>
> --
> Gadi Evron,
> ge at linuxbox.org.
>
> Blog: http://gevron.livejournal.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20091126/d9ea56f8/attachment-0001.htm>

From anton at chuvakin.org  Fri Nov 27 01:56:00 2009
From: anton at chuvakin.org (Anton Chuvakin)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:56:00 -0800
Subject: [debate] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified?
In-Reply-To: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>
References: <4B0EA893.50908@linuxbox.org>
Message-ID: <b2591e2e0911261756r722b6e7cp386bc5faa9533912@mail.gmail.com>

> - Can this be treated as civil disobedience?

Can this be treated as "whistle-blowing?" If this was indeed related
to some insider actions (as some hypothesized), where do we draw the
line between "insider hack" and "whistle blowing to save the world?"

-- 
Dr. Anton Chuvakin
Site: http://www.chuvakin.org
Blog: http://www.securitywarrior.org
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/chuvakin
Twitter: @anton_chuvakin
Google Voice: 510-771-7106

From alanlight at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 27 16:07:41 2009
From: alanlight at yahoo.com (Alan Light)
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:07:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [debate]  ClimateGate Cracker
Message-ID: <469505.3720.qm@web112312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

The whole security industry is based on cracking.? From early days of computing some people insisted that it was simply wrong to intrude on other computer systems, while others realised that even simple precautions were not being taken, leaving systems open to abuse by persons with bad intent.? Therefore a system of "Hacker Ethics" was developed.? I am no expert on this, but I believe the basic principle is "do no harm, and notify cracked parties of the faults in their security".? Of course, as those who insist on the letter of the law have come to predominate,?crackers do not always feel obliged to honor the second part of this code today, as they may face prosecution for bringing security flaws to the attention of the offended party.

The simple fact is that the bad guys won't go away just because the good guys play by the rules, so I don't think it is unreasonable to say that this is not a place for a clear cut principle of good versus evil.? We need to be able to have a more nuanced view of things.

It should also be noted that the target of this attack was apparently a government-funded program doing government-funded research.? Does the public have an inherent right to know what their money is being spent on, at least on matters where full disclosure will not harm national security (and especially in cases such as this, where full disclosure is probably useful to national security)?? As it turns out, in this case there were already laws requiring disclosure of information, and those laws were being broken by the targets of this attack.? Furthermore, there was public information about "lost" data, so that the cracker may have had good reason to believe that cracking this system was necessary to uphold the law.? That may change the situation, especially if the cracker had other reasons to believe that this institute was acting illegally.? In such a case, this cracker's actions would have been illegal but ethical.

In any case, this case serves as a reminder that just because someone is funded by the government doesn't make them servants of the public good, and as a reminder of the importance of openness in scientific inquiry especially when government funded.? Hopefully this incident will lead to new laws requiring complete openness of government funded science unless otherwise required for compelling reasons of national security.

We need to transition to a more transparent society with more transparent governance, and if we can't even have transparency in?science we will all be in for a very rough ride.


Alan


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20091127/445a20ca/attachment.htm>

From pdjukes at gmail.com  Fri Nov 27 19:54:58 2009
From: pdjukes at gmail.com (Peter Jukes)
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:54:58 +0000
Subject: [debate] ClimateGate Cracker
In-Reply-To: <469505.3720.qm@web112312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <469505.3720.qm@web112312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2c4fe12b0911271154q69e3d5e7ub356fce758692afb@mail.gmail.com>

OK. To get some clarity in this debate about leaking of goverment funded
programmes - let's go to harder case to test the principles of those who
jump to simple moral certainty.

I am assuming therefore that all of those who applaud the action of the
hacker in the case of the CRU would also applaud Mordecai Vanunu who also
exposed details of the secret nuclear weapon programme of the Israeli
Government to the British press in the 1980s. The Israeli programme was in
breach of the proliferation treaties, yet for his pains he suffered 18 years
in prison, 11 in solitary confinement.



On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Alan Light <alanlight at yahoo.com> wrote:

> The whole security industry is based on cracking.  From early days of
> computing some people insisted that it was simply wrong to intrude on other
> computer systems, while others realised that even simple precautions were
> not being taken, leaving systems open to abuse by persons with bad intent.
> Therefore a system of "Hacker Ethics" was developed.  I am no expert on
> this, but I believe the basic principle is "do no harm, and notify cracked
> parties of the faults in their security".  Of course, as those who insist on
> the letter of the law have come to predominate, crackers do not always feel
> obliged to honor the second part of this code today, as they may face
> prosecution for bringing security flaws to the attention of the offended
> party.
>
> The simple fact is that the bad guys won't go away just because the good
> guys play by the rules, so I don't think it is unreasonable to say that this
> is not a place for a clear cut principle of good versus evil.  We need to be
> able to have a more nuanced view of things.
>
> It should also be noted that the target of this attack was apparently a
> government-funded program doing government-funded research.  Does the public
> have an inherent right to know what their money is being spent on, at least
> on matters where full disclosure will not harm national security (and
> especially in cases such as this, where full disclosure is probably useful
> to national security)?  As it turns out, in this case there were already
> laws requiring disclosure of information, and those laws were being broken
> by the targets of this attack.  Furthermore, there was public information
> about "lost" data, so that the cracker may have had good reason to believe
> that cracking this system was necessary to uphold the law.  That may change
> the situation, especially if the cracker had other reasons to believe that
> this institute was acting illegally.  In such a case, this cracker's actions
> would have been illegal but ethical.
>
> In any case, this case serves as a reminder that just because someone is
> funded by the government doesn't make them servants of the public good, and
> as a reminder of the importance of openness in scientific inquiry especially
> when government funded.  Hopefully this incident will lead to new laws
> requiring complete openness of government funded science unless otherwise
> required for compelling reasons of national security.
>
> We need to transition to a more transparent society with more transparent
> governance, and if we can't even have transparency in science we will all be
> in for a very rough ride.
>
>
> Alan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> debate mailing list
> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>
>


-- 
Duende Productions
4.1 The Ziggurat
60-66 Saffron Hill
London EC1N 8QX
pdjukes at gmail.com
0771 204 8311
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20091127/e5529c57/attachment.htm>

From Jon.Kibler at aset.com  Sat Nov 28 19:18:58 2009
From: Jon.Kibler at aset.com (Jon Kibler)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:18:58 -0500
Subject: [debate] It's time to start shooting back!
Message-ID: <4B1177A2.70408@aset.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In the U.S., in many (most?) states, if someone comes onto your property and
poses a threat to you, you can use deadly force to stop them. Laws vary, but the
principle is basically the same: You have the right to use offensive force to
defend your property.

It is time that we apply that principle to the Internet. Personally, I am tired
of being "shot at" several hundred times a day on each IP address I own. I am
more than ready to start "shooting back" at the systems scanning and attacking
my networks and systems. Currently, this is not legal in most places, but we
should start an effort to make it legal -- a "Computer Self Defense" law.

The argument against such action is typically the "collateral damage" argument:
If you take out a system, you do not know what the consequences of knocking down
that system will be. My response is: "So what? This is nearly war!" It is time
we start shooting back while we still have the resources available to do so. If
a user or administrator cannot determine that they have a critical resource that
has been hacked, they deserve to have to deal with the fall-out of that box's
failure.

An attack does not have to destroy a box -- merely remove it from the network.
For a Windows system, this could be as simple as deleting the network drivers
and the "add a new network wizard" from the system, crippling it, so that it
cannot communicate on the network without a new Windows install. For a *nix
system, deleting the network devices and unloading the device drivers should
suffice. At least those actions should get the user's or administrator's
attention that there is something seriously wrong on that system.

Whereas the current approach of taking out botnet C&C systems has had some
positive effect, it clearly is not solving the problem. In fact, it does not
even appear to be slowing it down! If you go by the increased rate of network
probes, one would have to conclude that botnets are growing at a rate of about
2% to 5% a month. If the C&C takeouts were being an effective deterrent, then
the trend would be in the downward direction, not upward.

In conclusion, I would argue that we are currently loosing the battle for the
Internet, and that we are loosing it VERY badly. No war, game, or other
competitive activity has ever been won by strictly playing defense. We will not
shut down the botnets and other malware on the Internet by playing defense. It
is past time to go on the offensive, to start "shooting back" at the systems
scanning and attacking our resources. Collateral damage be dammed, it is time
that we start using offensive force to defend our networks.

Jon Kibler
- --
Jon R. Kibler
Chief Technical Officer
Advanced Systems Engineering Technology, Inc.
Charleston, SC  USA
o: 843-849-8214
c: 843-813-2924
s: 843-564-4224
s: JonRKibler
e: Jon.Kibler at aset.com
e: Jon.R.Kibler at gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jonrkibler

My PGP Fingerprint is:
BAA2 1F2C 5543 5D25 4636 A392 515C 5045 CF39 4253


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAksRd6IACgkQUVxQRc85QlMFtwCeIgv8XRuSShAfH35ZysMrg3KV
xC0AnRNyt0EHuQaHk7REw8o41d5SolPu
=ZCWS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From rackow at mcs.anl.gov  Sat Nov 28 20:13:25 2009
From: rackow at mcs.anl.gov (rackow at mcs.anl.gov)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:13:25 -0600
Subject: [debate] It's time to start shooting back!
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:18:58 EST."
	<4B1177A2.70408@aset.com>
Message-ID: <20091128201325.4FB1191603B@obie.cis.anl.gov>

Jon Kibler made the following keystrokes:
 >In the U.S., in many (most?) states, if someone comes onto your property and
 >poses a threat to you, you can use deadly force to stop them. Laws vary, but the
 >principle is basically the same: You have the right to use offensive force to
 >defend your property.

This argument breaks down very quickly.  You are allowed to defend yourself or
your property, but in most cases use of deadly force can only be used when
your life, or those of family/friends is deemed in danger.  It is also the
case that when dealing with property defense you are limited to being
on your property.  You can't chase the criminal half way across town, 
the country, or the world  and claim it's defense.  It's also not "offensive
force", but defensive.  Once the offense has stopped or the danger mitigated
you need to stop.  If you remain on the offensive, you've gone to far.

Similarly, I presume that those dealing with the legalities of cyber would
probably say that if did more than put a shun in your firewall to stop the
attacking IP, you are going beyond your boundries.  You can/should contact
authorities and get them to take further action like pulling the plug of the
attackers demarkation point or ISP.

I'm all for shutting down the attackers, but this kind of arguemnent just
scares me.  All to often, I've seen replies buncing back to my home IP
address from lots of attacked machines.  The problem is the real attack
was forging random IP's to hide the real attack.  I could tell it was
something like an NMAP stealth scan going on based on the patterns.
My home net had nothing to do with the attack, but may very well fall
victim to your defensive attack.  Does your attack on my network give me the
right to take you out?  When/how does this stop?

--Gene

From fatherlaptop at gmail.com  Sat Nov 28 20:51:45 2009
From: fatherlaptop at gmail.com (Randy Mueller)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:51:45 -0600
Subject: [debate] debate Digest, Vol 6, Issue 9
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1972.1259439279.788.debate@whitestar.linuxbox.org>
References: <mailman.1972.1259439279.788.debate@whitestar.linuxbox.org>
Message-ID: <a85ce8a70911281251q1144e419qf0836852c5d965ff@mail.gmail.com>

> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:18:58 -0500
> From: Jon Kibler <Jon.Kibler at aset.com>
> Subject: [debate] It's time to start shooting back!
> To: debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> Message-ID: <4B1177A2.70408 at aset.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In the U.S., in many (most?) states, if someone comes onto your property and
> poses a threat to you, you can use deadly force to stop them. Laws vary, but the
> principle is basically the same: You have the right to use offensive force to
> defend your property.
>
> Jon Kibler
> - --
> Jon R. Kibler
> Chief Technical Officer
> Advanced Systems Engineering Technology, Inc.
> Charleston, SC ?USA
> o: 843-849-8214
> c: 843-813-2924
> s: 843-564-4224
> s: JonRKibler
> e: Jon.Kibler at aset.com
> e: Jon.R.Kibler at gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jonrkibler
>

Not sure what this has to do with the "climate debate" in context, but
there was once a Os that would automatically fire back at attacks. I
am trying to find that info I thought it was a DAMN good idea.

-- 
been great, thanks
a.k.a System

From randallm at fidmail.com  Sat Nov 28 22:24:32 2009
From: randallm at fidmail.com (RandallM)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:24:32 -0600
Subject: [debate] basis
Message-ID: <a85ce8a70911281424r1a9ec7c8y38356a4e3f2031a1@mail.gmail.com>

pertinent to the conversation?:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/y88zs3q

-- 
been great, thanks
a.k.a System

From fatherlaptop at gmail.com  Sun Nov 29 00:50:02 2009
From: fatherlaptop at gmail.com (Randy Mueller)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:50:02 -0600
Subject: [debate] ClimateGate Cracker
Message-ID: <a85ce8a70911281650r1cc019dftddb7649f2de9ddb@mail.gmail.com>

> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:54:58 +0000
> From: Peter Jukes <pdjukes at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [debate] ClimateGate Cracker
> To: Alan Light <alanlight at yahoo.com>
> Cc: debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> Message-ID:
> ? ? ? ?<2c4fe12b0911271154q69e3d5e7ub356fce758692afb at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> OK. To get some clarity in this debate about leaking of goverment funded
> programmes - let's go to harder case to test the principles of those who
> jump to simple moral certainty.
>


why can't this not be seen as "the good for all"? If this is in and of
itself wrong then is it right that it be hidden behind a "good" for
mankind (global climate money agenda)?  Illegal, yes. As the laws
stand. But when is it time to "break" the law to reveal truth?


-- 
been great, thanks
a.k.a System