Hacking, Cyber Crime, TechCrunch & You…
Who? Me?
Most of us observe the news items on the latest hacker activity or cyber crime with detachment, because, after all, we’re not in any way connected with this activity are we? But a recent hacking event involving Twitter (the victim) and TechCrunch (the recipient), and an unknown hacker who calls himself Croll, got me thinking about how many of us online may be feeding the cycle of hacking and cyber crime unknowingly, or certainly unintentionally.
What I’m about to say may be considered by some as unnecessarily harsh: Life is tough let’s face it, and this is one of those things that, if you’ve never been hacked will seem not-all-that-important. But if you have ever been hacked, or worse, if a hacker has taken over your website or one of your social media identities, you will feel this acutely and may even feel as strongly as I do.
TechCrunch’s Role
In the case of TechCrunch’s role in even considering publishing data sent to them by Hacker Croll, I have to make a highly critical observation. This pains me somewhat because up until now I have admired Michael Arrington for his astuteness and business acumen. But maybe I was being gullible.
My observation is this: For a high-profile website like TechCrunch to openly cooperate with a hacker–and let’s face it when you accept the goods and make use of them you are cooperating, in the same way that fences cooperate with thieves–is a ludicrous abdication of their responsibility to set the tone for the Internet. Any website with the readership that TechCrunch has must shoulder the responsibility it has earned as an industry-leader to set and maintain ethical standards.
For TechCrunch to publish any of the data passed on by that hacker is tantamount to leading us all lemming-like over the cliff, because it will surely be seen as a huge, red-carpeted encouragement to hackers everywhere.
I acknowledge that many experts, Mashable is just one, put the blame pretty much on Twitter, and anyone else in their shoes, for allowing such glaring security flaws to continue unchecked. But to me, that attitude is like saying that if you accidentally forget to lock your back door, a thief has every right to come in and ransack your house.
It was a bit of a disappointment that out of all the experts I called on for input, only Lee Odden of Top Rank Marketing was prepared to make a statement about how he feels:
Regarding TechCrunch publishing allegedly “hacked and stolen” private documents, there’s a clear ethical issue. They’ve disclosed that only some of the documents will be published but there’s still a choice to be made. News sites and blogs can decide in situations like this whether the newsworthiness of publishing someone else’s private information is worth more than their own integrity and ethical standards. TechCrunch and its advertisers stand to gain from a criminal act perpetuated against Twitter. From an ethical standpoint, how is that different than Murdoch Media benefiting from hacking the cell phones of Politicians and celebrities?
I wholeheartedly agree with Lee. Where is TechCrunch’s trustworthiness score now huh?
The ‘Other’ Scenario
On the other hand, if TechCrunch was to openly condemn the hacker to the greatest extent possible, turn him over to law enforcement (digitally-speaking of course), and then refuse to publish even one word of what was passed to them, they would be setting themselves on a pedestal and would become the focus of just as much publicity I’d say. Then, if some two-bit blogger were to publish any of that data at a later date, he would be seen as just that: A two-bit blogger trying lamely to make a name for himself.
Come on now, stand up and be counted. If you agree with me, just leave me a short comment below to say so. If you don’t agree, let’s hear that too: have the courage of your convictions and tell me why in a comment. 
SEO Self Regulation Community--SEOs for Higher Standards!
Search Engine Journal
SOSG
I agree, and I like the political example. It's interesting to consider this instance against “leaked” political or business information, as Arrington did in his blog comments earlier ala the peanut butter memo.
He's saying there's no dif, but I think the difference is clear. If information is coming from a source inside the organization, then the burden falls on the organization itself and not the distributor of information. But if the information is stolen, then it's stolen. There's really no argument.
Arrington's position is like saying the DNC was responsible for Watergate.
Finally, I think your assessment of techcrunch's position if they don't publish the info is spot on, and has every single example of successful social media use backing it up.
Hi Ben,
it's nice that you're first too. I expect some flack, but it's a pleasant surprise how many people actually seem to agree with me.
Thanks for your expression of total agreement
I completely agree with you on the tone and point of the article. TechCrunch puts out lots of great stuff, however this validates the idea that much of the web has been run by geeks that are ultimately incapable of grasping the societal impact of their actions and that needs to be addressed.
People who find it acceptable or appropriate to publish stolen documents seriously violate the principle of privacy and fairness and their actions are reprehensible.
Patricia, I appreciate your taking a stand and the well written synopsis. I didn't have a chance until this afternoon to deeply ponder the issue, but my immediate response was to unfollow @TechCrunch and remove them from my RSS. Harsh? Maybe!
However, ethics are governed by character choices. My “bandwidth” is low for tech news from a site that makes choices to reveal private information. As Lee Odden said, “there’s still a choice to be made,” and we have a choice. I'm voicing my choice by not sending my traffic and not adding to their social proof in their Twitter following and RSS subscriptions.
I totally agree with you Dana, and I'm going to unfollow TechCrunch as soon as I'm done writing about this incident. It's also coming off my RSS reader. I also feel very strongly about this: we need to send THE strongest signal that it is not alright to steal people's data and publish: even if it is 'newsworthy.'
Cyber crimes such as hacking are illegal. This is the same as receiving stolen property in the real world. TechCrunch should be held accountable for receiving such property as if they hacked the information themselves, or be forced to cooperate fully with law enforcement and turn over the Hacker that did this or pay for the crime.
This would be the same thing that would happen if someone on the street stole a TV and ran to TechCrunch's office and said hey I got this for you, have fun. If they kept it then they are responsible for the crime.
Whos to say this Croll isn't soemone at TechCrunch them self? Or someone from Google or Facebook, looking to sabotage an up and coming company that is a threat to their own website.
The only way to stop cybercrime's is to enforce the laws against them.
I was actually all set to send you some of that flack you expected, but I admit I wasn't too up to date on what exactly is going on. I gotta say, I think I agree with you here, and it wouldn't surprise me to see that techcrunch is losing a ton of their long time visitors as a result of this. Are they not going to do anything to encourage law enforcement in this matter?
Hi Noah, thank you
It is not clear at the moment how it's all goign to end up, but so far TechCrunch seem defiant that they have the right to publish this stolen info. I wonder how they'd react if their own personal and business information was up for grabs?
Hi Randy, this is precisely my point: in fact, stolen information can cause a lot more heartache than stolen posessions don't you think?
Yes I agree completely. Stolen information can be more dangerous then possessions. We have no way of proving those email's were real or a cleaver hoax to place Twitter in a bad light out of fear of their sudden popularity and growth.
Its defamation of character to an extent.
I'm sure there are plenty of personal private corporate emails floating around inside TechCrunch's own hard drive's and servers, on Google's intranet, and every other internet company that is popular that those businesses wouldn't want the general public to get a hold of.
Im ashamed that with TechCrunch's unethical choice to publish those emails.
When I first saw that they posted hacked information I really wasn't sure what to think but it surely was a ballsy move on their part. I'm sure the community now has very mixed feelings about this.
This is a really well written and level headed article. If Tech Crunch were to follow your other scenario (aka take the high road) they'd gain so much more. This situation is going to set the stage for any similar situation down the road. Wondering who their PR person is and going to see how Karma plays out on this one.
According to a poll by Alltop.com over 75 percent are against TechCrunch publishing stolen material, so I'd say the trend is overwhelmingly in favor of ethics. Quite comforting.
Thankyou Kat, I'm honored.
I think anyone else confronted with the temptation probably wouldn't go for it, considering how opinion, and as you say, karma would be pretty much stacked against them: doesn't seem as if it would be good for business to me. I don't really subscribe to the theory that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Bad PR really can work against you dramatically online.
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Sara
http://smallbusinessgrant.info
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Sara
http://smallbusinessgrant.info