Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Great "street" hacker

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • streaker69
    replied
    Re: Great "street" hacker

    Originally posted by Pyr0 View Post
    Now your starting to get where I'm going with this :)
    Defacement's of huge websites, simple things like modifying logo's or adding flowers to the borders of the page. . .
    IS that hacking . . . the law says yes.
    Did it hurt anything . . . no.
    Should it be illegal?
    Yes, because the law doesn't draw a line as to whether or not it hurt anything. The intrusion upon a system is the actual law being broken. You don't need to make a change to anything, just intrude.

    Any change that is made, on the surface may not 'hurt' anything, but the company that still has a loss. Time lost on repairing the damage, time lost on finding how they got in, time lost on meetings on how to mitigate further intrusions. Time and money lost on legal fees consulting with attorneys on possible charges being pressed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pyr0
    replied
    Re: Great "street" hacker

    Originally posted by theprez98 View Post
    is this really any different than defacing a website?
    Now your starting to get where I'm going with this :)
    Defacement's of huge websites, simple things like modifying logo's or adding flowers to the borders of the page. . .
    IS that hacking . . . the law says yes.
    Did it hurt anything . . . no.
    Should it be illegal?

    Leave a comment:


  • converge
    replied
    Re: Great "street" hacker

    Sounds to me like the argument is:
    a) It's against the law
    b) But it's cool
    a) That doesn't matter it's against the law
    b) ... but.. IT'S COOL

    Unless there's some funky provision for 'its illegal unless its cool' .. I don't think there's much he can argue, having confessed to performing the acts. Jury of his peers should be able to determine what that means in terms of level of offense.

    It's an odd space, because the reason for the harsh line is to defend property whether privately or publicly funded. The public safety argument is a little bullshit in this case, but if not for the discerning artist where does the line fall and who decides what is cool, tasteful, or safely implemented enough to have not broken the spirit of the law?

    On an artistic level this is pretty badass.

    Leave a comment:


  • theprez98
    replied
    Re: Great "street" hacker

    Originally posted by theprez98 View Post
    is this really any different than defacing a website?
    Originally posted by Deviant Ollam View Post
    yes. to deface a web site you, by definition, have to access a private and restricted system and commit computer trespass (or drop in a highly well-crafted automated script worm or something to an ISP's email)

    something like the Bubble Project (or much of Banksy's work, etc) can be performed by persons who are standing on public ground and never touching or interacting with anything other than the corporate speech that they are seeking to alter.
    Commercial speech is not afforded the same First Amendment protections as political speech, but it is protected nonetheless. That being said, a lawfully placed billboard or advertisement is protected speech. There is, however (along with political speech), no right to be heard, of course.

    I should have been more clear. I fully recognize that there are technical differences between defacing a website and defacing a billboard (as an example).

    Perhaps my question should have been: in the end result, method of defacement notwithstanding, is there any difference between defacing a website and defacing a billboard?

    Your point seems to suggest that the method of defacement is the only important distinction. Clearly, it does matter, to some extent. But the end result is also important. If graffiti is illegal, then it doesn't matter if you're standing in the public square; it's still illegal.

    Leave a comment:


  • xor
    replied
    Re: Great "street" hacker

    Clearly his work has a political agenda. If he made legitimate within the "system" attempts to change the law, well then I might be a little more willing to accept this as an act of civil disobedience. What he is doing is artistic, is it art, I'm not qualified to make that call. Is it illegal, yes, and I am qualified to make that call. Making a statement at the expense of the public, I feel there are better ways to enact change. There is a cost to the public to clean up his work.

    xor

    If he is signing his work, he would seem to me to be looking for fame and fortune, at the expensive of the public and the cause he is promoting. If he isn't signing the work, than it would seem to me that it's a more sincere statement about the cause, and less about his personal advancement.

    I hate to be cynical(no, not really) but a quick scan of his website seems to reveal more about his work(aka self promotion), than the so called anti-car culture cause he is suppose to be all about. I like driving, and I love cars. Cars are freedom, to quote Captain Jack Sparrow "Not just the Spanish Main, luv. The entire ocean. The entire wo'ld. Wherever we want to go, we'll go. That's what a ship is, you know. It's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs but what a ship is... what the Black Pearl really is... is freedom." So if you can't find Roadsworth, look under my tires.

    Tagging and taggers was more a statement about the ugly dirty self serving side of graffiti.
    Last edited by xor; March 16, 2010, 20:43.

    Leave a comment:


  • charliex
    replied
    Re: Great "street" hacker

    I think if it enhances peoples lives, and doesn't cause problems then its ok within a reasonable boundary. sometimes we get caught up too much in the bureaucracy of life to just enjoy things. If it does harm, beyond just annoying then its different. People worry its a gateway for bad graffiti, well that'll happen regardless.

    It's vandalism, it's art. but both of them have definitions that allow the outcomes to be different, and thats what ultimately matters.

    Work out a common ground, lifes too short and we're bombarded by crappy adverts selling us junk we dont need or care about all over the place, its a nice change to see something thats just art for arts sake, if thats what it is.

    At the least its something to think about, other than do i need another 5 blades on a razor, or a tongue scraper

    Leave a comment:


  • YenTheFirst
    replied
    Re: Great "street" hacker

    Originally posted by Deviant Ollam View Post
    but the issue about which i'm theorizing (and not supporting outright, people... for me this is just a fun mental exercise, and i love hearing all the varied opinions) is defined very narrowly: what if the public had the right to alter or change commercial speech as long as they weren't destroying or damaging property in the process?
    It is an interesting line of inquiry. My first thought would be something along the lines of:
    Originally posted by Ellen View Post
    Knowing that ads could be defaced, companies would participate. Done.
    If no other controls existed, I expect companies would regularly paper over competitors' advertisements, and would have a lot more manpower & organization to do so than street activists. Public feedback would either be lost in the noise of an advertising arms war, or it would be the only sensible signal.

    Assuming companies, and individuals with financial incentives, could be prevented from acting, I expect what would happen is companies would be a lot more careful about what they advertise, and they would iterate strategies faster based on feedback.

    One possibility, perhaps remote, is that it would open up new dialogs about institutionalized prejudices in our society.
    If a society has inherit biases that are reflected in advertisement, then specific instances could be publicly pointed out & shamed.
    I think of these bubble project photos, for example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28348930@N07/2706369013/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/28348930@N07/2706363953/

    You would also get a lot of political statements unrelated to the original ad, like:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/28348930@N07/2706363871/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/28348930@N07/2706369523/

    Or, related to the content of the ad:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/28348930@N07/2707183878/


    What I can't decide is if the total volume of advertising would increase, or decrease. Would it increase in an attempt to out-shout the public? or decrease in an attempt to be non-invasive enough to avoid defacement?
    Last edited by YenTheFirst; March 16, 2010, 19:14. Reason: grammatical fixes

    Leave a comment:


  • Deviant Ollam
    replied
    Re: Great "street" hacker

    Originally posted by xor View Post
    Tagging and Taggers suck
    at what point does tagging cross the line and become real art?

    when it serves a political context to speak out against oppression? you see a lot of that in Argentina... a place where remaining distrustful of the government is a healthy thing, given what those in power have routinely done to their citizens down there. Here's an example of powerful Argentinian stencil art and another stencil art piece. And, of course, Postering... regarding Julio López

    How about beautiful and amazing street murals like this one in Amsterdam or this one in Vienna.

    Then there's the mosaic guy who puts smiley, winky icons on the occasional building.

    I'm not saying any one of them has more or less "right" to exist or be put up... just that there's a wide and rich range of what can be called "art" and it's a very grey line for me regarding what constitutes vandalism and has no redeeming value. (separate from legality, the definition of "art" stands alone.)

    Leave a comment:


  • xor
    replied
    Re: Great "street" hacker

    Tagging and Taggers suck, just like Tweak, and Tweakers do.

    xor

    Leave a comment:


  • Deviant Ollam
    replied
    Re: Great "street" hacker

    Originally posted by theprez98 View Post
    is this really any different than defacing a website?
    yes. to deface a web site you, by definition, have to access a private and restricted system and commit computer trespass (or drop in a highly well-crafted automated script worm or something to an ISP's email)

    something like the Bubble Project (or much of Banksy's work, etc) can be performed by persons who are standing on public ground and never touching or interacting with anything other than the corporate speech that they are seeking to alter.


    Originally posted by YenTheFirst View Post
    many advertisements are on private property in public space
    but the issue about which i'm theorizing (and not supporting outright, people... for me this is just a fun mental exercise, and i love hearing all the varied opinions) is defined very narrowly: what if the public had the right to alter or change commercial speech as long as they weren't destroying or damaging property in the process?

    so, postering over an existing poster of some kind would be ok... but causing damage to the sign/wall/whatever and disrupting the owner's ability to use the space in the future would not.


    Originally posted by streaker69 View Post
    I believe the idea of "non-destructive defacement" fall under the same idea that my right to throw a punch ends at your nose.
    that's assuming that commercial speech has the same right to be heard as individual speech.


    Originally posted by Thorn View Post
    Bah. Graffiti isn't "art", it's defacement
    wow, man... i'd have to surely disagree with you there. some of the most amazing art i've seen has been street art. while i'm fully prepared to acknowledge a huge host of legal complications that can arise with regard to the street art debate, simply broad-brush classifying a whole genre as "not art" sounds about as fair as when your parents' generation called the "new" sounds you crazy kids were listening to as youths "not real music" or some such.

    heh... you're making the visual equivalent to an argument espoused by folk tapping their toes to a Benny Goodman orchestra while scowling at teenagers with their transistor radios.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thorn
    replied
    Re: Great "street" hacker

    Originally posted by YenTheFirst View Post
    I see the two definitions as orthogonal.
    If the Mona Lisa had been painted on stolen materials, it would still be art.

    I'll use the definition given on http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/art.
    I agree that it's absolutely illegal, and quite arguably immoral, but that doesn't change the fact it's a "conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colours, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty. ."

    Again, I'm not saying what he did is necessarily right, or even not wrong, just that it counts as 'art'.

    Then again, I also disagree with your example [one who is a hacker can be a criminal, even though not all criminals are hackers, not all hackers are criminals, etc.], so I'm not sure we could convince one another of our viewpoints.

    edit: Another way of putting it: the definition of 'art' doesn't include 'not illegal', and the definition of 'vandalism' doesn't include 'not art'. With Roadsworth, the same work, commissioned on private property, would unarguably be 'art'. Simply moving it does not change that, in my mind.

    By the same token, putting paint on property you don't own is unarguably vandalism. making that paint pretty doesn't change the fact that it's vandalism, either.

    I guess my real point is a response to:

    'real art' shouldn't stand to be demeaned by anything which is created and conveys its creator's artistic intent. To dismiss it from consideration so simply seems intellectually dishonest.
    We may have to agree to disagree on this. However, I would just like to say that just because something is made pretty (or prettier) doesn't divorce it from it's legality in being placed on a particular surface. I would further argue (assuming that it is liked by someone), that the very act of the private commissioning elevates it to art, while illegal placement diminishes it to being worthy of being removed at the earliest convenience by the rightful owner. Again, some of these people have definite skill, but they're diminishing their own works to the same level as obscenity scrawled by a moron who can only express himself in that manner. That to me seems more intellectually dishonest, because the person only expresses himself as a vandal and his works as petty defacement, worthy of no more comment or critique than a bucket of gray paint by the rightful owner.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ellen
    replied
    Re: Great "street" hacker

    Originally posted by Thorn View Post
    I'd argue that while the person who does it may be very artistically talented, but that if placing the work involves theft or vandalism of the medium, it is most certainly not art.
    Art is like Theoretical Science. It is hard to say what "is" or "isn't." There are popular/textbook artists that are also criminals or vandals. Then again, as you pointed out, the same applies to hackers. Sometimes in the eyes of society (not the law), the message is more important than the rights of the victim.

    Originally posted by Thorn View Post
    It is simply theft or vandalism.
    Now this I am in total agreement with. Vandalism by any name is still vandalism. There is a victim involved who will have to repair, replace, or accept the damage and/or monetary loss.

    Originally posted by Deviant Ollam View Post
    I've often wondered what society would be like if there was some sort of legal protection for anyone who defaced or altered commercial messages and advertisements.
    Originally posted by YenTheFirst View Post
    I think even having that law would change how advertising exists in public space. Knowing your ads could be defaced, companies might choose to advertise less, or more, or choose ads less likely to be defaced.
    Knowing that ads could be defaced, companies would participate. Done.

    Leave a comment:


  • YenTheFirst
    replied
    Re: Great "street" hacker

    Originally posted by Thorn View Post
    I'd argue that while the person who does it may be very artistically talented, but that if placing the work involves theft or vandalism of the medium, it is most certainly not art. It is simply theft or vandalism.

    This is similar to the arguments we have here about hacking. Hacking skills may be used for interesting things on networks you're allowed to be on, but if you step over the line and commit a crime, then you aren't a hacker, you're a criminal. The same concept applies here. If these things were truly art, then those executing the works wouldn't sulk around and have to do it when no one is looking. Instead, they'd be invited to place the work there by the property's owner.
    I see the two definitions as orthogonal.
    If the Mona Lisa had been painted on stolen materials, it would still be art.

    I'll use the definition given on http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/art.
    I agree that it's absolutely illegal, and quite arguably immoral, but that doesn't change the fact it's a "conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colours, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty. ."

    Again, I'm not saying what he did is necessarily right, or even not wrong, just that it counts as 'art'.

    Then again, I also disagree with your example [one who is a hacker can be a criminal, even though not all criminals are hackers, not all hackers are criminals, etc.], so I'm not sure we could convince one another of our viewpoints.

    edit: Another way of putting it: the definition of 'art' doesn't include 'not illegal', and the definition of 'vandalism' doesn't include 'not art'. With Roadsworth, the same work, commissioned on private property, would unarguably be 'art'. Simply moving it does not change that, in my mind.

    By the same token, putting paint on property you don't own is unarguably vandalism. making that paint pretty doesn't change the fact that it's vandalism, either.

    I guess my real point is a response to:
    Originally posted by Thorn
    Bah. Graffiti isn't "art", it's defacement, and demeans real art to imply that it's even in the same class.
    'real art' shouldn't stand to be demeaned by anything which is created and conveys its creator's artistic intent. To dismiss it from consideration so simply seems intellectually dishonest.
    Last edited by YenTheFirst; March 16, 2010, 14:26.

    Leave a comment:


  • streaker69
    replied
    Re: Great "street" hacker

    "I was using my neighbor's unencrypted wifi just to check my email, I wasn't doing anything wrong and they probably never noticed."

    How many times have we heard that? Same goes for vandalism, except in this case they're actually doing damage, and causing a potential distraction on the roads and drivers try to see what's painted on the road.

    Symbols on the road serve a very specific purpose and adding things to them is only going to cause confusion as people try to interpret what is outside of the norm that they see while they're driving.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thorn
    replied
    Re: Great "street" hacker

    Originally posted by YenTheFirst View Post
    a stylized name or obscenity certainly isn't art, but I'd say Roadsworth's work is. Whether or not it's legal, or even ethical, is a different matter, but it's certainly art.
    I'd argue that while the person who does it may be very artistically talented, but that if placing the work involves theft or vandalism of the medium, it is most certainly not art. It is simply theft or vandalism.

    This is similar to the arguments we have here about hacking. Hacking skills may be used for interesting things on networks you're allowed to be on, but if you step over the line and commit a crime, then you aren't a hacker, you're a criminal. The same concept applies here. If these things were truly art, then those executing the works wouldn't sulk around and have to do it when no one is looking. Instead, they'd be invited to place the work there by the property's owner.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X