The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/n_z/pirate5.002

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 6.2 KB | 106 lines

***************************************************
***  Pirate Magazine Issue I - 5 / File 2 of 11 ***
***  Commentary (By Ellis Dea)                  ***
***************************************************


A contributor sent over this opinion by Ellis Dea that was found on an
Illinois BBS. It equates the current witch hunts against the computer
underground with McCarthyism. It says it nicely, so here it is.

----------------

                 "The Hunt for the CU: The New McCarthyism?"
                              >> By Ellis Dea<<

I just read a paper that discussed the Post-Modernist ramifications of
"hacking" within the context of criminology {eds' note: This is apparently a
reference to an academic paper called "The Computer Underground as Postmodern
Resistance" that's appeared on a number of boards}.  I found it interesting,
especially the earlier parts.  This is not to say that the later parts were
uninteresting, but then I already knew much of the material presented therein.
What was new about the first part was the theoretical construct placed upon
the entire CU subculture, a construct I have hinted at perviously, but never
really formulated.

The paper takes an analytical stance, analyzing the phenomenon from a
post-modernist perspective and, I must confess, that these very aspects of the
situation constitute the attractiveness of it.  However, the paper tends to
ignore much of the political aspects of the problem.  The situation seems to
me not much different from the 1968 convention where the real issue was a
class struggle manifesting itself primarily in the Vietnam war while the media
manipulation was a matter of style (the "Yippies").

Today we are seeing a 90's version McCarthyism involving many of the same
elements including mass-hysteria, misinformation, and self-aggrandizement by
governmental functionnaires.  The masses out there are firmly convinced that
any problem with their telephone is a result of "hackers."  Police reports of
the arrests of 14 year olds constantly use the phrase "The Legion of Doom is
one of the most dangerous organizations in the country." Obviously, "hackers"
have replaced "communists" as the favorite scapegoat -- a villain we can all
fight and who is relatively harmless.  How many of these nefarious "hackers,"
for example, have been found with any sort of weapons in their hands?

It seems also that there is a certain amount of prestige attached to the
apprehension of these "hackers."  While no Senator has attained the prominence
of a McCarthy of the 50s, it would certainly be unwise for any of them to take
a position favoring a more realistic criminal code.  The political climate and
media competence (or incompetence) is such that attempting to distinguish
between someone who has a genuine interest in computers from someone out to do
damage would be every bit as damaging to ones political and professional
career as it would be to distinguish between the recreational use of cannabis
and the sale of crack or heroin.  All is lumped together under the term
"hacker" and anyone who makes distinctions is ultimately in danger of being
considered threats to national security.

The recent 911 affair is symptomatic of this.  Reports of it on the media gave
the impression that the entire emergency system hade been damaged or destroyed
and one was left with the impression that people out there with heart attacks
and fending off rapists were left without telephone and, hence, assistance.
Only those who pursued th the documentation for the program that ran parts of
the system had been downloaded without any damage at all to the operation,
present or future, of the system.  The only possible damage to the system is
in the embarrassment of those responsible for the security of the system.  The
act did prove that the system could be brought to it knees, so to speak, but
if also proved that "hackers" had a much higher code of ethics since the
system was not affected in any way.  If anything, the system is now more
secure as a result of the activities of these people and, rather than
castigating them in the press, the establishment should give them a medal of
some sort.  The people who left the computer so open to penetration (notice
how C.I.A. language tends to creep in) are the ones who should be prosecuted.

They will not be prosecuted, however, because they were operating within the
system and were hence subject to its code.  In other words, they subscribe, at
least openly, to the propaganda currently directed against "hackers."
Furthermore, to allow these public servants who pointed out the weaknesses of
the computer system to escape would be to admit incompetence.  The "reasoning"
is that the prosecuted is wrong, they are prosecuted, therefore nothing was
wrong with the computer system.  This is the same sort of convoluted reasoning
that is behind so many of the other domestic and foreign policies of our
country and nothing will happen to alter it.  It is sobering to realize today
that perhaps the single most important figure against McCarthy, and the one
that made his decline possible, was Edward R.  Murrow, a news journalist.
Murrow knew quite a bit about the dangers of fascism and knew how the soviets
were our allies during World War II.  I do not see any parallel to him today
as relates to "hacking."

Lest we think that the media, especially the news components thereof, might be
able to inform the public about this, allow me to share with you an example of
how it works.  I recently saw a segment on Shakespearian productions that
contained such bits of information as the fact that the dialect spoken in
appalachia today is closer to Shakespeare's than is the dialect spoken today
in England.  The announcer then said, "On the serious side, George Bush hung
blue ribbons on the masts of . . . ."  The only rational reaction is to tie a
yellow ribbon to your modem.

I will end this with a brief observation.  Their are, of course, distinctions
between the "hackers" of today and the "communists" of the 50s --the "hackers"
need not be defenseless.  They are not criminals, but our government's
persistance is turning them into criminals.


                 >--------=====END=====--------<