zlacker

>>thirty+(OP)
Serious question: why revere Mitnick, but not someone like SBF? Mitnick is admired for his technical skill and social engineering prowess, but the same argument could be made that SBF is also exceptional in this regard on an even larger scale. Both are (alleged) criminals. Genuinely curious what makes Mitnick morally good in the eyes of HN. Was it his redemption arc as a “white hat”?

>>progra+o5
The term "hacker" describes someone skilled at tricking systems into doing what they can't. Mitnick was not only one of the first popular hackers he also had many famous exploits. His arrest was a major rallying cry for the hacker community at large (now known as the overly corporate "infosec community"). There's no redemption arc. You do not need to do what society considers "good" to be considered righteous.

There's no such thing as objective moral and ethical good. To me, Mitnick is a hero deserving of the highest praise. He inspired myself and many others to get started in this world. It may be difficult to understand if you didn't come into computers in the late 80s/90s.

>>zer8k+X5
> There's no such thing as objective moral and ethical good.

I'm curious how your framework handles some particularly unpleasant examples.

E.g., is there nothing universally wrong with what Hitler / Mengele did to Jews? Or how about raping, torturing, and then killing toddlers?

I have trouble accepting an ethics in which there's no real basis for telling such people that what they're doing is genuinely wrong.

(I apologize if these examples seem like straw-men. It's possible I don't understand your original point.)