Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 19:01:13 CDT
From: Jim Thomas <tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu>
Subject: File 1--Hacking, Then and Now

In CuD 4.18, Jerry Leichter raises several points for discussion.
Each reveals the rapid changes that continue to occur both in computer
technology and computer culture. Jerry writes:

      2.  "Information" and "computers" should be free, hackers are
     just      trying to learn, there is nothing wrong with learning.

     Point 2 I don't want to get into; it's old, tired, and if you
     don't recognize it for its moral bankruptcy by this time, nothing
     I can say will change your mind.

I doubt that Jerry means to imply that the debates over the
accessibility of information are morally bankrupt or that the goal of
learning through "hacking" is improper.  Rather, the cynical use of
the rhetoric of freedom by many "wannabe cybernauts" to justify
intrusion or blatant predatory behavior distorts the original
meaning of the term used by the early hackers.  The original hackers
found the challenge of the new machine intriguing. Few resources were
available for exploring its limits other than hands-on
trial-and-error, and there were no ethical or legal models to guide
the initial exploration. Two decades ago, control over the new
technology appeared limited to a relatively small elite who, if
unchecked, would amass what some considered unacceptable power over
the dissemination and use of computer technology and use.  Things
change.  This raises Jerry's second point: Whatever one may think of
hacking activity, its meaning is not the same in 1992 as it was even
as recently as the late-1980s. Bob Bickford's definition of hacking as
"the joy of exceeding limitations" is no longer the current dominating
ethos of too many of those who have assumed the "hacker" mantle. The
label has become a romanticized activity for teenagers and others who
see password cracking, simple computer intrusion for its own sake,
numbers-running, and credit card fraud as ends in themselves.

Like the counter-culture of the sixties, the "hacker culture" emerged
quickly, shaped a new generation of youth exploring beyond the
confines of conventional culture, and then disintegrated under the
excesses of those who adopted the trappings while losing sight of the
core of the new cultural message.  Like the counter-culture, the ease
of access into "hacking, the romanticized media depictions, the focus of
newcomers on the fun to the exclusion of corresponding
responsibilities, and the critical mass of exploiters able to
manipulate for their own ends fed the darkside of the culture.

All meanings occur in a broader context, and the context of hacking
has changed.  Social changes in the past decade have led to changes in
the definition of "hacking" and in the corresponding ethos and
culture.  The increased learning curve required to master contemporary
computers, the proliferation of networks to share information, and the
ease of distribution of software have reduced much of the incentive
for many amateur hackers to invest the time and effort in moving
beyond all but the simplest of technological skill.  As a consequence,
there has emerged a fairly large core of newcomers who lack both the
skill and the ethos that guided earlier hackers, and who define the
enterprise simplistically.

The attraction of original phreaking and hacking and its attendant
lifestyle appear to center on three fundamental characteristics: The
quest for knowledge, the belief in a higher ideological purpose of
opposition to potentially dangerous technological control, and the
enjoyment of risk-taking.  In a sense, CU participants consciously
created dissonance as a means of creating social meaning in what is
perceived as an increasingly meaningless world.  In some ways, the
original CU represents a reaction against contemporary culture by
offering an ironic response to the primacy of a master technocratic
language, the incursion of computers into realms once considered
private, the politics of techno-society, and the sanctity of
established civil and state authority.  But, the abuses of this ethos
have changed the culture dramatically.  Consider two fairly typical
posts from two defunct self-styled "hacker" boards in the early 1990s:

     Well, instead of leaving codes, could you leave us
     "uninformed" people with a few 800 dialups and formats?  I
     don't need codes, I just want dialups!  Is that so much to
     ask?  I would be willing to trade CC's %credit cards% for
     dialups.  Lemme know..

     or:

     Tell ya what.  I will exchange any amount of credit cards
     for a code or two.  You name the credit limit you want on
     the credit card and I will get it for you.  I do this cause
     I to janitorial work at night INSIDE the bank when no one is
     there..... heheheheheh

Unfortunately, this is the "hacking" that the public and LE officials
dramatize, but it is simply an infantile form of social predation.
There is no adventure, no passion for learning, and no innocence
reflected in today's CU culture.  Jerry is, therefore correct: Times
have changed. If Altamont symbolized the death the counter-culture,
Cliff Stoll's _The Cuckoo's Egg_ symbolizes the end of the "golden age
of hacking." culture and those who participate in it have lost their
innocence.

Baudrillard observed that our private sphere now ceases to be the
stage where the drama of subjects at odds with their objects and with
their image is played out, and we no longer exist as playwrites or
actors, but as terminals of multiple networks.  The public space of
the social arena is reduced to the private space of the computer desk,
which in turn creates a new semi-public, but restricted, public realm
to which dissonance seekers retreat.  To participate in the computer
underground once was to engage in what Baudrillard describes as
"private telematics," in which individuals, to extend Baudrillard's
fantasy metaphor, are transported from their mundane computer system
to the controls of a hypothetical machine, isolated in a position of
perfect sovereignty, at an infinite distance from the original
universe.  There, identity is created through symbolic strategies and
collective beliefs.  Sadly, this generally is no longer the case for
most young computerists.  Times have changed.  Very few who currently
attempt to justify the "right to hack" as a form of social rebellion
recognize--let alone engage in--the tedious struggles of others (such
as EFF or CPSR) that would civilize the Electronic Frontier.  In the
battle to expand civil liberties to cyberspace, contemporary "hackers"
have not only *not* been part of the solution, they have become part
of the problem.

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253