commit crimes are known as ‘black hats’, the bad guys. Black hats routinely break the law and engage in behaviour which is very questionable, ethically speaking. However, there are times when some of a white hat hacker’s behaviour crosses over the line and laws are broken. Hackers who find themselves in this situation are called ‘grey hat’ hackers, and while they may break the law, research has concluded that they provide a very valuable role. The evidence lies in the fact that ‘grey hat’ hackers continue to be used by large companies in order to identify the flaws in their own computer security.
Now I’m going to set you a task which will involve investigating some of the points I’ve raised. I want you to do some research into the issues related to ethical hacking. I want you to focus, firstly, on some of the legal implications of ethical hacking, with respect to the legislation we’ve discussed. Secondly, I’d like you to think about whether company rules and regulations can cover all of the possibilities when employees are engaged in ethical hacking, and if not, what companies can do to make sure they are covered. Finally, I would like you to look at justifications put forward by hackers for their illegal activity.
Unit 11, Lesson 3, Exercise E≤2.19
But the question is, is it enough to follow company rules in order to ensure that decisions are ethical? Some computer professionals claim that they don’t have to worry about breaking national and international laws if they follow an employer’s instructions. But I’m afraid that just isn’t true. It’s quite clear that companies can and do do things which are illegal. Research into IT companies and the law has shown that there are instances where companies’ actions can be seen as breaking the law. Evidence to support this comes from actual legal cases. A company called Logistep, for example, was found to have infringed privacy laws. Employees posed as users of a peer-to-peer service in order to gather evidence of copyright material being downloaded. A peer-to-peer service – if you’re not familiar with this term – is a network of computers for sharing material such as music, film and computer programs, without the need for a central server. When the Logistep employees demanded the users’ names and addresses from their ISP, the judge found that the company had breached the privacy to which individuals were entitled. You can see, therefore, why it was important for computer professionals
136
at Logistep to be able to show that their decisions were reasonable, and within the law as they understood it.
Unit 11, Lesson 4, Exercise E≤2.20
Extract 1 MAJED: The lecturer we listened to last week introduced a number of interesting issues. In my part of the seminar, I’d like to start by explaining some relevant legal issues regarding ethical or white hat hacking techniques. You might think that because a client has given their consent for the hacking, then it will be considered a legal act. For example, when an ethical hacker hacks a target system in the UK, with client consent, they could not be prosecuted under the Computer Misuse Act because they have the owner’s permission. However, there are other ways in which the hacker can break the law. For example, if the hackers install a keylogger on a computer to gain access to passwords and accidentally collect some personal information belonging to a company employee, they may be in breach of data protection or privacy legislation. So to sum up, we can say that it’s very important that there are guidelines in place to make sure that there are no legal breaches when carrying out penetration testing.
Extract 2
EVIE: OK, Majed made it clear that having a client’s permission isn’t enough to ensure that all of an ethical hacker’s actions are legal. Basically, what this means is that there will be situations where a white hat hacker may cross the line and temporarily become a grey hat. Ideally, this shouldn’t be the case, but there may be situations where it’s necessary. If this is the case, then the hacker should be aware of the relevant legislation and the extent to which their actions breach it. So what this means in practice is that a computer security company will not only need to provide their employees with guidance on the legal implications of their actions, they will also need to provide guidance on ethical justifications if employees do break the law. The computer professional’s code of conduct can also provide some guidance on what is and is not acceptable.
Extract 3
JACK: OK, to continue then, I’m going to expand the topic by mentioning another aspect. This is the role of hackers who are not directly employed by a company. These hackers
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
