Return to Answer

• Things you own: If you have purchased something and own it, there is generally not a problem with removing DRM for your own personal use or backup (this is a glittering generality, not legal advice). The site guidance on those cases is to give the benefit of the doubt:

  Therefore, unless the post looks egregiously illegal, assume it is being asked in good faith about removing DRM on things you own, for your own fair use.

• Things you don't own (this includes things on a web site for which you may have limited access rights, and also applies to "warez" -- making copies of protected material for non-personal use): This may seem different from piracy when the question is about information on a public web site that is locked or protected against routine copying.

  Our user base with the knowledge to answer is generally pretty good at closing those, or at least challenging the OP for a legitimate justification. But there are often users in the knowledge-sharing camp who see no problem with answering. This should typically fall under the guidelines of prohibited questions, but sometimes aren't obvious to all users.

• Things you own: If you have purchased something and own it, there is generally not a problem with removing DRM for your own personal use or backup (this is a glittering generality, not legal advice). The site guidance on those cases is to give the benefit of the doubt:

  Therefore, unless the post looks egregiously illegal, assume it is being asked in good faith about removing DRM on things you own, for your own fair use.

• Things you don't own (this includes things on a web site for which you may have limited access rights): This may seem different from piracy when the question is about information on a public web site that is locked or protected against routine copying.

  Our user base with the knowledge to answer is generally pretty good at closing those, or at least challenging the OP for a legitimate justification. But there are often users in the knowledge-sharing camp who see no problem with answering. This should typically fall under the guidelines of prohibited questions, but sometimes aren't obvious to all users.

Intellectual property restrictions. Many users (particularly those who don't create software or web sites for a living, or work in IT), don't think in terms of intellectual property; that someone invested time to create it, and relies on it for their livelihood. Or they may be aware of it but consider certain big corporations to be undeserving of all of the revenue from their products. So we get questions about circumventing restrictions on intellectual property. This may seem different from piracy when the question is about information on a public web site that is locked or protected against routine copying.

Our user base with the knowledge to answer is generally pretty good at closing those, or at least challenging the OP for a legitimate justification. But there are often users in the knowledge-sharing camp who see no problem with answering. This should typically fall under the guidelines of prohibited questions, but sometimes aren't obvious to all users.

Intellectual property restrictions. Many users (particularly those who don't create software or web sites for a living, or work in IT), don't think in terms of intellectual property; that someone invested time to create it, and relies on it for their livelihood. Or they may be aware of it but consider certain big corporations to be undeserving of all of the revenue from their products. So we get questions about circumventing restrictions on intellectual property. There are basically two categories: things you own and need access for personal use, and things you don't.

• Things you own: If you have purchased something and own it, there is generally not a problem with removing DRM for your own personal use or backup (this is a glittering generality, not legal advice). The site guidance on those cases is to give the benefit of the doubt:

  Therefore, unless the post looks egregiously illegal, assume it is being asked in good faith about removing DRM on things you own, for your own fair use.

• Things you don't own (this includes things on a web site for which you may have limited access rights, and also applies to "warez" -- making copies of protected material for non-personal use): This may seem different from piracy when the question is about information on a public web site that is locked or protected against routine copying.

  Our user base with the knowledge to answer is generally pretty good at closing those, or at least challenging the OP for a legitimate justification. But there are often users in the knowledge-sharing camp who see no problem with answering. This should typically fall under the guidelines of prohibited questions, but sometimes aren't obvious to all users.

The Stack Exchange has wrestled with the grey line virtually since its inception. At the extreme, there is a limited policy. We don't answer questions that enable blatantly illegal activity. That includes things like software piracy and circumventing protection against theft of services. The SE is also pretty vigilant about protecting and honoring copyrights.

The grey line runs through terms of service and user agreements. Half of the members believe it is unethical to facilitate violation of such contracts between a publisher/provider and the user. The other half believe it isn't our role to police such contracts and we should share technical information regardless of how it might be used.

Hackintosh is the biggest example, and the SE made an administrative decision to not support those. Any other questions of this type stand a 50/50 chance of being answered or closed, depending on who sees them (assuming they're otherwise good questions).

Many users (particularly those who don't create software or web sites for a living, or work in IT), don't think in terms of intellectual property; that someone invested time to create it, and relies on it for their livelihood. Or they may be aware of it but consider certain big corporations to be undeserving of all of the revenue from their products. So we get questions about circumventing protections on intellectual property. This may seem different from piracy when the question is about information on a public web site.

Our user base with the knowledge to answer is generally pretty good at closing those, or at least challenging the OP for a legitimate justification. But there are often users in the knowledge-sharing camp who see no problem with answering.

Controls by repressive governments tend to be on the other side of the grey line. Many/most users view answering how to circumvent these as the morally correct side. But it's a slippery slope deciding what's repressive and what's legitimate.

People will apply their own moral compass. Hopefully, vigilant users will notice questions or answers that are ethically suspect or potentially dangerous. They can comment on the post to educate and warn, raise the issue here or on the Ask a Super User Moderator chat, or flag or vote to close or delete, depending on rep.

The Stack Exchange has wrestled with the grey line virtually since its inception. There are a number of categories of issues.

Blatantly illegal activity. The SE has official policy in this area. We don't answer questions that enable it. That includes things like software piracy and circumventing protection against theft of services. The SE is also pretty vigilant about protecting and honoring copyrights.

Civil contract issues. The grey line runs through terms of service and user agreements. Half of the members believe it is unethical to facilitate violation of such contracts between a publisher/provider and the user. The other half believe it isn't our role to police such contracts and we should share technical information regardless of how it might be used.

The merits have been argued for years and the SE has generally avoided taking an official position. The exception is Hackintosh, which has been a recurring, high volume topic; the SE made an administrative decision to not support those questions. Any other questions of this type stand a 50/50 chance of being answered or closed, depending on who sees them (assuming they're otherwise good questions).

Intellectual property restrictions. Many users (particularly those who don't create software or web sites for a living, or work in IT), don't think in terms of intellectual property; that someone invested time to create it, and relies on it for their livelihood. Or they may be aware of it but consider certain big corporations to be undeserving of all of the revenue from their products. So we get questions about circumventing restrictions on intellectual property. This may seem different from piracy when the question is about information on a public web site that is locked or protected against routine copying.

Our user base with the knowledge to answer is generally pretty good at closing those, or at least challenging the OP for a legitimate justification. But there are often users in the knowledge-sharing camp who see no problem with answering. This should typically fall under the guidelines of prohibited questions, but sometimes aren't obvious to all users.

Controls by repressive governments. These tend to be on the other side of the grey line. There is no official policy on these. Many/most users view answering how to circumvent these as the morally correct side. But it's a slippery slope deciding what's repressive and what's legitimate, and which countries are repressive and in what ways. Some people consider any restriction by any government as repressive, and opinions vary as to which countries' governments are "good" and "bad".

Computer security. This encompasses issues like accessing a computer without the password or malicious attacks. Here, the ethical question is in how the information might be used, not necessarily in the question, itself. There are legitimate uses for the information, like getting into your own computer, learning about computer security, and developing protections against malicious activity. There are also obvious unethical uses.

I'm not aware of any official guidance, but there is precedent. Generally, bypassing passwords has been an acceptable topic, perhaps because it is such a common innocent requirement and the information is readily available, anyway. I've seen a few questions on the theory of how various malware works, how to get malware samples, and how to conduct specific types of hacking.

The responses often reflect the question. These generally don't raise concern when the question is asked about accessing the user's own system, or an academic exercise using commonly available tools. However, questions that don't express a "legitimate" need or intent often get push-back. This isn't so much due to any official guidance as readers exercising common sense.

Bottom line: the SE has very limited official guidance on ethical issues; it's tangential to the technical nature of the sites like Super User. So for much of the ethical territory, there is no official "should or should not". People will apply their own moral compass. Hopefully, vigilant users will notice questions or answers that are ethically suspect or potentially dangerous. They can comment on the post to educate and warn, raise the issue here or on the Ask a Super User Moderator chat, or flag or vote to close or delete, depending on rep.