By Dr. Jeff Mirus ( bio – articles – email ) | Sep 09, 2024
I suppose the name of Planned Parenthood should be changed to Parenthood Denial since the bulk of the organization’s work consists not only of preventing pregnancy but of terminating pregnancy, that is, of preventing birth. The organization’s traffic in embryonic tissue has also been well-documented. There is, of course, a great deal of money involved in its operations, and even if many Planned Parenthood employees and promoters are sincere in their misguided convictions, the organization has to be one of the most cynical on the planet. However, the flight from parenthood in the West is nearly as strong a trend as the desire for “sexual experiences”, and so the organization continues to prosper.
For these reasons, I think most pro-life readers will take a certain pleasure in the recent announcement that Planned Parenthood has been hacked. RansomHub, a relatively new “Ransom-as-a-Service” (RaaS) organization that has recently emerged as a leader in the field, announced last week that it had stolen 93GB of data from Planned Parenthood through the Intermountain Planned Parenthood branch in Montana. RansomHub threatened to leak the stolen data this week if the ransom is not paid. Stolen records may include “health” records as well as donor information.
Hacking as a new job
Illegally holding individuals and companies up for ransom is not the only way for hackers to make money. Over the past generation, “legitimate” hacking organizations have emerged through which those skilled at exploiting deficiencies in network and computer security probe for vulnerabilities. When they find them, they formally notify the organizations of the discovery and offer to disclose the location and nature of the vulnerability in return for a fee. They will make the vulnerability public after a certain waiting period if the organization does not pay that fee.
Major corporations have found it wise to go along with the trend. Not only do they employ their own hackers to find vulnerabilities, but they frequently pay the fees to learn the nature of the vulnerabilities that these hacking groups discover. In this form, the process is legal and sometimes even helpful.
But it can also be a bit of a pain to smaller companies. Last year CatholicCulture.org was informed of a discovered vulnerability. The asking price was $400 to avoid the publication of that vulnerability after 30 days. I looked into it and became convinced that the vulnerability did not exist, and so I declined to participate, and in fact nothing ever came of it. This sort of activity is, again, perfectly legal, though whether it should be is another question. It is one thing to ask to be paid for disclosing a bona fide vulnerability so that a company can fix it. It seems to me quite another thing to make that vulnerability public if one is not paid. (Note: The sensitive information involved in donation processing on CatholicCulture.org is always encrypted. Therefore, finding a way to steal it is only half the battle; a hacker also has to break the encryption to be able to decipher it, which is very difficult.)
Nonetheless, the hacking of an organization like Planned Parenthood raises an interesting moral question. There is probably no need to mention that most of my readers would be delighted if Planned Parenthood failed to protect its medical and financial data, for that would be a good reason for the organization’s employees, vendors, donors and “patients” to shy away from both Planned Parenthood and its patently immoral activities. In many cases, of course, such persons are proud of what they do and should not object to a bit of publicity. On the other hand, very often those who do evil hate the light (John 3:20). In any case, it reduces confidence in any organization when that organization does not protect the information it retains about those who support it and use its services.
A moral issue?
All of this raises the question of whether it would be moral for someone to hack into an abortion provider’s computers, grab the information stored there, publicize the breach, and release the acquired information into the wind in an attempt to discredit the organization effectively enough to save lives. It seems to me that the answer to this question is a resounding “Yes!” Of course, that is not the issue in this instance, and one would in any case have to weigh the pros and cons of various options to determine whether such a strategy would be both feasible in the short-term and sustainable in the long-term. But it is clearly moral—indeed even morally obligatory—to devise effective means to deter and restrain both individuals and organizations from committing evil actions, even if those actions may not be against the law.
Moreover, it is perfectly clear that when the actions in question are protected by law and government, the means of combatting such evils will often violate the law. That in itself is not a legitimate moral deterrent, even if one must take into account the consequences of any increased disrespect for the law. Consider for example the many laws one must disobey in totalitarian societies merely to avoid complicity in evil. Although it is wrong to promote disrespect for what we might call “law and order” in any society, we are obliged to disobey laws which force us to act in sinful ways, and it is certainly morally permissible to violate even ordinarily unobjectionable laws to attempt to protect others from evil, or to reduce the ability of others to commit significant evils under the protection of the law.
To act in morally legitimate ways, of course, is not always to act prudently, and prudent actions must take into account not only immediate but long-term consequences, including the feasibility of sustaining such actions if sustained activity is required for a successful strategy. In all cases, of course, we must refuse to participate directly in any significant evil, but that is not the same issue as whether or not to go beyond prayer and witness in attempting to combat particular evils which may—or may not, with the right strategy—lie beyond our control.
The nothing option
As a case in point, an underground hacking organization—assuming it were clever enough to operate without exposure for an extended period of time—could certainly do some good. The question, I think, is primarily whether it could do enough good to justify both the effort and corresponding risks—not only risks for its own operations but for fostering an ever-growing hostility to the cause which it serves.
I make no recommendations about this or any other new and unusual course of action. I do not have the necessary answers to the strategic time, energy, risk and effectiveness questions. But I do think the time is coming throughout the West when, if we consider only the same old “out of the box” political solutions to the mess we are in, we will run out of options—not only options for broad socio-political success, but options for giving any effective witness at all. It is, after all, the most vital aspect of being a Christian to bear witness, which is the root meaning of the word “martyr”. But we tend to reserve “martyr” for those who bear witness in the face of suffering or death.
In a situation in which the best options may well be various forms of martyrdom, the questions ought not always to center on how to be faithful without danger, how to stave off persecution until the last possible moment, or how to suffer it with the least possible public witness. Such questions must, of course, be answered personally through deep prayer and reflection. Nonetheless, it is well even in worldly defeat to be remembered for having stood for something. It is well even in worldly defeat to have been recognizable as a Christian.
Jeffrey Mirus holds a Ph.D. in intellectual history from Princeton University. A co-founder of Christendom College, he also pioneered Catholic Internet services. He is the founder of Trinity Communications and CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.
Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
