I’m probably one of the last people to weigh in on this issue, but I felt compelled to talk about the infamous Harvard 119.
A couple of things struck me. First, I don’t consider what these individuals actually did to be hacking. Anyone with any ability at all could have easily browsed to find their decision. Hacking – a term I also think is frequently erroneously used in place of the term “cracking” – would involve some means of a break-in. These potential students did nothing more than cut and paste a URL and then edit the link to represent their own personal information.
Second, the criteria used to either accept or reject these individuals as students at HBS did not change. Yes, all 119 did in fact make an error in judgment. Was it illegal? Not a chance. Was in unethical? Probably, but I’m not sure. I don’t know what each person who accessed the site was thinking. Was Harvard’s decision date already set? I know that Kellogg publishes a date by which you will receive your decision, but often informs individuals much earlier. If Harvard is prone to doing the same thing, then perhaps all 119 could have reasonably assumed that they were acting within their rights as represented by HBS.
Interestingly, I find this very similar to be very similar to the issue of gun control. Recent cases have attacked gun manufacturers for not making guns “safe” enough, which I find similar to finding ApplyYourself most at fault in the Harvard 119 matter. When it comes to guns I’m firmly in the camp of gun owners (in the interest of full disclosure, I am one) and believe that criminals – not guns – should be regulated. Due to my strong belief in individual responsibility, I feel that the most fault should be attributed to the person who uses the gun. In the case of the Harvard 119, I’m not 100% sure that they are truly the ones to blame. I don’t think this is hypocritical, though. The applicants may or may not have known what they were doing to be wrong. An individual using a gun for a nefarious purpose most definitely understands they are violating the law.
I found it remarkable that the professed view most similar to my own is from The Harvard Crimson college newspaper. Their article here echoes my sentiments almost exactly.