The following was written in response to self-proclaimed 'hacker' to whom 'hacking' means more than most people think, or even care to think. To him, hacking is a style of thinking, and a hacker has a special relationship with the computer. More than just 'warez pups' , hackers for him are a new breed of programmer/super-human who can, should, and in his eyes, do control the world. For him hackers have deep insight into technology as compared to most who do not even know where to look. From a psychosocial standpoint he also argues that they are misunderstood by their peers and that therefore they stand out, so they have been made renegades of a society which should imbrace them. He thinks that hacking is a deep-dark mysterious knowledge, of the same ilk as that which wizards of ancient lore were claimed to have had. He makes the often seen argument that hackers are born, they are not taught. They have a god-given talent that most will never have. ---- I view my summary of the above-mentioned post of the person whom I'll name R., as typical of the growing and promulgated mystique of technology -- that anaesthetic mist which permeates the soul of the techno-repressed lamb -- and yet fortifies itself with the blood of that same lamb, falsely making crude sustenance into critical thought. Yet a response would help define boundaries of current technological ideology...it could, if used in further debate, form a perspective basis of the structural content of such. ---- I only agree with what the above writer calls the "style of thinking" of a hacker. Yet it is not a "special relationship", at least not in any more a sense than one has a relationship with that in which they invest their time and energies. Not surprisingly, I'm talking about plain old-fashioned hard work. The rest of what the writer says is trite to the point of being meaningless. By contemporary definition hackers are nothing more than those who tend to have some sort of established recognition of their peers (numerous groups/clubs, and very competitive) regarding their knowledge of computers. Comparatively, older definitions were more notorious. Today it is commonly accepted (ex. Que's 'Computer Users's Dictionary') that 'hackers' "learn skills that prove valuable to organizations." Even modern management books tell supervisors to enlist the help of the 'office hacker' in order to sway over end-users into higher computer performance practices. But R. contributes nothing to the historical debate. R.'s thinking is typical of the younger generation of 'hackers' who feel a need to amputate what skills they have from the more common computer users who have not learned such skills. This type of 'hacker' feels the need to belong to an 'elite' who can snub their collective noses at simple disinterest in their ambition as if it were an attack on their personage. Since 'hacking' obviously means many things to many people, increased non-analytical interest in it only succeeds in further polarizing the lines of its demarcation. Perhaps the most condeming instance of the historical change of the 'hacker' is the fact that usenet hacker groups can be subscribed to on practically all news servers... that says enough in itself. If one has the desire to appeal to authority, there are a myriad documents (dissertations, reports, theses, tommes, etc.) regarding the subject of 'hackers' and the rise of interest in the term available via the net and/or your local Public Library. As for myself, taking a standard anthroposociological perspective, I find that hackers can now be classed with those who have little more than a petty-criminal interest in getting something for free. Even the distinction between hackers, crackers, phreakers, warez/filez collectors, and power-users has become blurred. This blurring mirrors the huge growth of its source: the rapid specialization in these respective areas (eg., hacking, or what was at one time was, generally speaking, systems hacking, now includes irc hacking, web hacking, netw ork hacking, OS hacking, and many many more areas) and technological growth in general. These areas would have, at one time, all been seen as the domain of the systems hacker. But there is no one who can now consider themselves totally knowledgeable in all these areas because the respective technological changes are too great. Just to keep up with the growth in the computer languages would mean reading more than any one person could read. Sociologically, as has been numerously notated, the typical hackers are young (the mystique wears off after a while -- at least for the most part), mostly middle to upper-class (they had to afford those computers somehow) males -- yang-ly it is. Myself, I'm not satisfied with the class divisions. They too, are not distinct. The ever increasing ease of access to computers must play a factor. Although there have been microcomputers for approx. 20 years now, it has only been in the last 4-5 years that computers have saturated the 'have' countries home markets. Curiously, this also coincides with the growth in popularity of the Web. Weaved together, this spread of the technological blanket has allowed the younger age group to enter into the equation. As companies such as MS become the owner of the 'means of production' (please pardon my use of an over-used phrase), and as the internets' growth approaches what I have elsewhere called the 'infinite-nexus', it is typical for those bent on preserving individuality to try whatever can be done to stop from falling into the techno-sleep of common commodities (i.e., computers). But this is the wrong direction! For the real commodity we are talking about here is one of techno-anarchy, derived from a feeling of success in, in no order, dizz'n the world through 'no op'-ing or 'jmp'-ing around in some simple assembler or other compiler, figuring out a grade 11 or 12 math algorithm, doing a little de-encryption, playing with some network protocols, learning unix table manners (i.e., at least the 'fork'), reading about the security holes of a standard OS (esp. standard email procedures), playing with a little hardware, and several other time-honoured procedures. The results are shared amongst their mostly territorially defined friends (a pecking order), and this further develops the specialization trends. These youth are backed by our ineffective socio-legal system which, in its attempt at nurturing, has bred a disaffected new generation. One without need of a conscience. In fact, what was just a few years ago an interesting, almost gang-like presence (with it' s own graffiti style/members' name.... ex., MiNdFuCkZ) has now become embellished with all the normative territorial markings and icons(sic) of any sociological phenomenon (d4c, thc, etc., etc.). Since class lines are blurred amongst these groups so have been their abstraction. Do a simple W3 search for '+Hackers +Crackers'. The list is huge, with many sites up and running for over a year now. The fear of being 'shut down' has long since been passed into the confusion surrounding the free expression forum. Older organizations, such as L0pht, and Cult of the Dead Cow are now considered respectable (not that I had any problem with them to begin with).. But even more interesting, newer organizations such as 2600 are not even going through the process of being seen as non-respectable. The old saying that 'what was once radical is now conservative' is indeed true in this case. Many of the older organizations were not just experimenting with technology that were experimenting with cul ture. In the 70's and 80's, because one doing this type of thing would stand out (there were far less tools/books/materials, and even less communication between hackers), and the results were so much more devastating, one had to be very nimble and able to avoid detection. On the other hand, the modern presence (as in the form of a topically devoted BBS) would not have been tolerated (because it would have been too visible) by the legal system. Now it is commonplace. And as anything that is commonplace -- it belongs to common minds. This is not necessarily bad, it merely mirrors our technological growth as a planet. Interestingly, many of the sites that are continuously running pirate warez and techniques seem to surround the U.S., just outside of its borders (Mexico, Bermuda, Puerto Rico, Canada, Japan)... like a technological hormone extracted from some dna giant and made available to those world-citizens willing to look for it. I'm not wailing for the good old days here, merely makin g an historical comparison. As far as 'hacking' methodology goes, as always, their most useful tool is a good hex editor. Though now, unlike 10 years ago, there are numerous other programs which make the hacker's job (in this context) definitely easier, ex., -- this is not a list of my favourites, in fact these few will no doubt be quickly replaced by many other newer more powerful packages -- InterSnoop, NetXray/WebXray, Win-expose-IO, Hex Factory (to not even scratch the surface), a multitude of specialized programs to help one do specific tasks (glide, keytrap, crack, satan, jolly, wsockspy), numerous disassemblers/decompilers and related high-level programming tools at the professional level (look at any software store specializing in programming products)....down to VirusLab, DynamIP, IpTools, Modem-jammer, CCManager, WebHacker, millions of code snippets waiting to be implemented, scads of texts on breaking/hacking UNIX/Novell/Firewalls/ATM's/Ma Bell, and a literal wealth of related materials at the amateur do-it-yourself level. This material is no longer hard to find. It is easy. These technoid weapons no longer have to be made, they are available as a collective arsenal. This is the educational material of the hacker of today, and the wealth of it is a problem in and of itself. So much the more so now that the mechanism for its dissemination, the internet, is replete. The problem is, only a few care to learn. So R., hackers today are indeed taught...if they want to be. But the real message here is not about R. at all. It is about what is behind this all-consuming techno-fluff. It is about the ideological constructs that popularizes the criminal (Bonnie and/or Clyde) with media glitz included as some sort of fantastic anti-hero. So whether criminal or information warrior, hacker or cracker or phreaker (this article isn't really about the differences between them and the others mentioned above, I'll leave that to someone else), one thing for certain contributes the most to the blurring of distinctions between them all -- the Net and how we use it. It is a new virtual frontier -- and we are on the nexus to that frontier. And we have our share of virtual gun-slingers and lawmen just like the old Wild West. That is why we are having so many problems with it now (as in the areas of security, freedom of speech, and legalism). Yet as we progress, this seeming bedlam will reduce to mere civility, as it is apt to do. Perhaps that which will be gone will be that which I miss the most.