home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- 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.
-
-
-