People are constantly bombarded with news stories of hackers breaking into one system or another, tampering with web pages, deleting files, sending viruses, and stealing passwords as well as other sensitive information or private information. However, there is a debate raging in the computer underground. Persons who consider themselves hackers, make a distinction between themselves and the people who commit these criminal acts, whom are called crackers. According to the hackers themselves, a hacker only breaks into computer systems for the knowledge of learning about that system. They do not break into computer systems for personal profit or gain.
Hackers abide by a tenet of ethics in which knowledge is key.
However, hackers try to justify their illegal actions by stating that if they do not take any information or create no damage, then there is no harm done. I would argue that it is never acceptable to break into a computer system. I feel that although a hacker may not cause any damage when they enter a system illegally, they are still breaking the law and should be punished. The Hacker Manifesto states that the only crime a hacker commits is the crime of curiosity. The belief that system-cracking for fun and exploration is ethically OK as long as the cracker commits no theft, vandalism, or breach of confidentiality.