For a start, I'd hack into the White House and find out just exactly the President knew about Osama Bin Laden's intentions during the week prior to 9/11/2001.

And I'd hack into Bush's fortune and steal enough to provide healthy pensions for the relatives of all those he executed while Governor of Texas.

And I'd hack into CNN and FOX and broadcast the rest of the news; the stuff they don't want Americans to see.

And I'd hack into Lockheed and make it very difficult for them to manufacture all those weapons.

And I'd hack into the drug companies and reduce their exorbitant prices.

And it's safe to assume that anything of any real value or importance such as you describe is probably encrypted.

Why microsoft? Because the security holes are relatively easy to exploit. Although I give them credit for stepping up their efforts lately. But Win95 computers at one time were easy pickings for "hackers".

quote:

---

Why microsoft? Because the security holes are relatively easy to exploit.

---

Don't ignore the numbers. If you want to send a worm out into the world to infect a large number of computers, you'd better make it target the operating system most people use, right? Not much point writing a BEOS-specific worm.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuba walda:
I would hack into my Student Loan loan file and stamp paid in full.

---

Gir Draxon, I don't like calling those guys "hackers" either, but don't have a better term.

Yes, I realise that using MS Windows is the best way to spread the virus/worm, but why MS as the target? There are much better targets.

Even if you could hack a bank (it's only about as difficult as robbing one) and transfer away someones fortunes, they are insured, they have more where that came from, and if you piss them off enough, they will come after you.

The recent spate of internet worms has crippled the very networks you talk about, but the organizations and systems persist.

Hacktivism isn't really an effective tool unless you broaden its definition to include things like stealing a draft of WTO negotiating documents from a car, leaking evidence of corruption, things that real journalists do every day.

There are lots of people with both the political leanings and skill to do all the things you describe above, but when it comes down to it, doing them wouldn't make a difference.

"Cyberterrorism" is a ridiculous buzzword that has been bandied about over the last 6 years or so. It has alot in common with hacktivism, not because activism is anything like terrorism, but because of the abstracted "cyber" component.

First, the notion of cyberterrorism undermines the seriousness and grief of anyone who has lost someone to a bomber.

Second, the real risk of "cyberterror" is null, as for $10,000, the cost of someone with real hacking skills for a couple of weeks work, there is ample evidence that the money is more effectively spent on plane tickets and box cutters. It doesn't stand up to the cost/benefit analysis when deciding to commit horrors on that scale.

Similarly with cracking banks, you can inconvenience some bank IT and fraud department employees, risk some disproportionate consequences for what might, if you are lucky, amount to your enemies credit card being declined at a restaraunt.

People may use machines to affect change, but changing machines does very little to affect people.

It should be conspicuous that you never hear activists saying, "If only we had locksmiths, then we would be invincible!".