Archetyp Links

Not everyone who hangs the hacker label deserves that title.Even less if it does to justify the intrusion in state databases.The Dirinleaks case, with a alias as Creole as Inkaroot, confronts us with an uncomfortable question: are we celebrating the courage to denounce corruption or normalizing the violation of the digital nation? The story is already known: a user attributes to having entered the servers of the PNP Intelligence Directorate and disseminate information gigas through Telegram.He talks about unmasking corrupt, promises new targets - including President Dina Boluarte - and presents himself as a hackivist.The media portray it with a certain halo of urban myth: the hacker that challenges power.But be careful: here we are not facing Mr. Robot's Elliot Alderson, but in the face of a dangerous confusion between Hacker and Cracker. A hacker, in its historical meaning, is not an intruder that breaks others.It is a digital citizen who dominates technology to improve it, shares knowledge, promotes openness and believes in decentralizing power.An ethic that Steven Levy documented in the eighties and that Pekka Himanen popularized in "The hacker ethic", with Linus Torvalds as an example alive when liberating Linux, the most influential public digital good of our era.The hacker is a social innovator that builds;Cracker, on the other hand, breaks without permission, puts third parties and leaves the most exposed state. Hackivism is not a license for everything.It is a form of citizen participation mediated by technology that defends digital rights, promotes open access or audits systems. That said, we cannot ignore the other that naked Dirinleaks: our fragility in state cybersecurity. PNP and other institutions respond late and communicate badly.The problem is not only intrusion, but it was possible and even predictable.Here the real debate appears: will we continue to react as if everything were an isolated episode or will we design mechanisms to prevent and remedy? Three principles should guide that discussion.First, legality and due process: the anti -corruption struggle is not fought outside the law.Second, not damage: transparency demands responsibility against innocent third parties.And third, capacities construction: We need hacktivism programs in the state, coordinated dissemination protocols for public vulnerabilities and metric response to incidents. Otherwise, what seems heroism today will end up being a Boomerang.Because if we glorify the Cracker as ‘Digital Justice’, we open the door for the end to justify the media.And that is a luxury that a democracy cannot occur. I prefer to claim the civic hacker: the citizen who uses his knowledge to reinforce institutions, open data and build trust.That is the difference between the adrenaline of violating a server and the ethics of transforming a system.