The Hacker Chronicles - A…the Computer Underground/The Hacker Chronicles - A Tour of the Computer Underground (P-80 Systems).iso/cud1/cud106d.txt

Text File | 1992-09-26 | 17KB | 297 lines

  ****************************************************************************
                  >C O M P U T E R   U N D E R G R O U N D<
                                >D I G E S T<
               ***  Volume 1, Issue #1.06 (April 27, 1990)   **
  ****************************************************************************

MODERATORS:   Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer
REPLY TO:     [e-mail]

COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the
            views of the moderators. Contributors assume all responsibility
            for assuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright
            protections.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


***************************************************************
***  Computer Underground Digest Issue #1.06 / File 4 of 5  ***
***************************************************************

                                Review of:
THE CUCKOO'S EGG: TRACKING A SPY THROUGH THE MAZE OF COMPUTER ESPIONAGE.
by Clifford Stoll. New York: Doubleday; 326 pp.

           Reviewed by Jim Thomas, Northern Illinois University
                              23 April, 1990

Ah, shucks, Clifford Stoll is just a regular guy, like, ya know?  He likes
the Grateful Dead, eats bagels, tries to get out of work, doesn't like the
FBI, cheers the monsters in GODZILLA VERSUS MONSTER ZERO, and, gee, wants
his friends to think he's politically correct.  His tennies even squish
when they're wet.  Just "good ol' Cliff," a self-styled former hippy with
long hair who apparently doesn't know that Hippy died before he could
possibly have been one. But, no matter. Cliff just wants to re-assure us
that he's not such a bad guy.

But, Clifford Stoll grew up. He says so. Chasing those nasty hackers via
modem and a slew of computers made him see the error of his ways. Those
nasty perpetrators (he prefers "varmint," "eggsucker," "skunk," "louse,"
"bastard," and he's oh, so clever in translating bureaucratic-speak into
Cliffspeak (p. 256-257)).

THE CUCKOO'S EGG is a book of ironies: An amoral moralist produces a
diatribe against hackers that is perhaps the best hacking primer for
novices around. Although taking swipes against law enforcement agents at
every opportunity, Stoll nonetheless assumes the role of Kafka's Joseph K. in
acquiescing to those he seems to loath.  In protecting the public by
tracking down an alleged spy, he subverts the public trust by distorting
his topic and inexcusably glossing over the complexity of issues.  He is a
scientist by profession while ignoring the factual precision of his craft
in his writing.

For all the posturing and moralizing, Stoll produced a compelling mystery
of sorts. A hacker has broken into the University of California/Berkeley's
system, and only a minor error gave him away.  Stoll notices the error and
alerts his superiors who begrudgingly allow him to track down the culprit.
Any computer undergrounder can identify with and appreciate Stoll's
obsession and patience in attempting to trace the hacker through a maze of
international gateways and computer systems.  But, Stoll apparently misses
the obvious affinity he has with those he condemns. He simply dismisses
hackers as "monsters" and displays virtually no recognition of the
similarities between his own activity and those of the computer
underground. This is what makes Stoll's work so dangerous: His work is an
unreflective exercise in self-promotion, a tome that divides the sacred
world of technocrats from the profane activities of those who would
challenge it; Stoll stigmatizes without understanding.

Stoll's work is irresponsible because his image of the world reminds us of
a simpler time, one where everything sprang from either the forces of light
or of darkness.  Hackers are bad: They trash things, are immature, should
be punished, and threaten the foundations of hi-tech civilization as we
know it. Stoll, on the other hand, is good: He hates hackers, single
handedly saved civilization from the modem-macho demons, and fought the
good fight as any true he-man would.  God help the hacker when Clifford
Stoll gets angry: "It was him against me now. For real" (p.  106).

Stoll's disdain for hackers' alleged violations of privacy hardly stood in
the way of his own activities, but, for a good obsession, one that's "for
real," what can a few violations of his own hurt?  God forbid that hackers
monitor others' communications.  Stoll, however, suffered only the briefest
of qualms when he himself monitors them.  But, his "sweetheart Martha," a
law student, absolved him of any ethical violations:

    "'Look,' she mumbled, burning the roof of her mouth on the
    vulcanized mozzarella. 'You're not the government, so you don't
    need a search warrant. THE WORST IT WOULD BE IS AN INVASION OF
    PRIVACY %emphasis added%.  And people dialing up a computer
    PROBABLY HAVE NO RIGHT TO INSIST THAT THE SYSTEM'S OWNER NOT LOOK
    OVER THEIR SHOULDER %emphasis added%.  So I don't see why you
    can't.'
         So with a clear conscience, I started building a monitoring
    system" (p. 20).

Why be bothered that he neither is the owner of the system nor, according
to his continual complaining, possesses the authorization to monitor from
his superiors. He has been self-absolved and can proceed with a clear
conscience, and proceed he does--with a vengeance.

Stoll "borrows," without authorization, "thirty or forty monitors" by
"liberating personal computers from secretaries' desks." No big deal.
"THERE'D BE HELL TO PAY ON MONDAY, BUT IT'S EASIER TO GIVE AN APOLOGY THAN
GET PERMISSION" (p. 22, emphasis added).

How does Stoll's excitement for learning about phone traces (p. 30) differ
from the typical hacker's? How do his own efforts in phone traces differ
from a phreak's?  Like any good p/hacker, he enlists allies to feed him
information, and then uses that information.  The difference is that Stoll
is on a mission. For Real.  And what are a few indiscretions to a man on a
mission?

     "I worried about how the hacker might abuse our network
     connections over the weekend. Rather than camping out in the
     computer room, I pulled the plugs to all the networks.  To
     cover my tracks, I posted a greeting for every user logging
     in:  'Due to building construction, all networks are down
     until Monday.' It wold surely isolate the hacker from the
     Milnet.  By counting complaints, I could take a census of
     how many people relied on this network.
          Quite a few, it turned out. Enough to get me into trouble."

Complaints led to a request for Stoll to look into the "problem."

     "It took five minutes to patch the network through. The boss
     thought I'd done magic. I kept my mouth shut" (p. 88).

Stoll's depiction of hackers as emerging from the slime of some primordial
ethical muck for engaging in behaviors that he himself relishes is
bothersome.  It is this immoralism that makes the work so dangerous.  Stoll
has found a way to play the hacking game without suffering the risks to
which hackers are subject. Some might call this cowardly.  To assure that
the reader understands the difference between "white deviance" and "black
deviance," he goes to great pains to establish considerable distance
between himself and those he criticizes in a ploy similar to historical
witch hunts.  Witch hunts begin when the targets are labelled as "other,"
as something quite different from normal people. In Stoll's view, hackers,
like witches, are creatures not quite like the rest of us, and his
repetitious use of such pejorative terms as "rats," "monsters," "vandals,"
and "bastard" transforms the hacker into something less than human. This
transformation contributes to the hysteria of the media, legislators, and
law enforcement agents who use such observations to justify the purge of
the sacred temples from this techno-menace. After all, says Stoll, hackers
aren't just bright kids:

     "They're technically skilled but ethically bankrupt programmers
     without any respect for others' work--or privacy. They're not
     destroying one or two programs.  They're trying to wreck the
     cooperation that builds our networks" (p. 159).

Stoll would never wreck "a wonderful playground for everybody else by
putting razor blades in the sand," and analogy he uses to describe hackers
in a recent NEWSWEEK article ("The Hacker Dragnet," NEWSWEEK, April 30,
1990: p.  50). Or, if he did, he would just apologize on Monday morning!

In a classic example of a degradation ritual, Stoll--through assertion and
hyperbole rather than reasoned argument--has redefined the moral status of
hackers into something menacing.  The imagery he presents is not of normal
people engaging in occasionally questionable activities, but of a demonic
force intent on destroying the fabric of computer networks.  His logic
implies a pathological syllogism:

   a) Cancer is a disease and must be eradicated
   b) Hackers are a cancer of the techno-body
   c) THERFORE: Hackers must be eradicated.

Such unchallenged logic has led to the flurry of anti-computer abuse laws,
confiscation of equipment, a chilling effect on speech on BBSs,
media fright stories, and to a public perception of hackers that
seems--judging from existing data--quite unjustified.  Stoll's lack of
reflection on the SOCIAL MEANING and significance of the computer
underground and his identification of ALL hacking activity with those of
the dramatic and quite rare example of an alleged spy both distorts the
nature of all computer underground activity and grossly over-estimates its
danger.  I call this dangerous because it is demagoguery of the worst sort:
Under the guise of a story-telling narrative, it creates an imagery of a
target population for control, but allows little room for debating the
assertions and values that justify scapegoating on the other.  Consider
just a few of many examples.

First, Stoll claims that hackers are a menace because they "trash"
programs. True, some hackers may trash programs, just as some drivers use
automobiles in bank robberies. But, Stoll ignores a primary tenet of the hacker
ethic, which is "though shalt not trash!" The image presented in THE
CUCKOO'S EGG ignores this, which obscures the respect that hackers
generally have for the work of others.

Second, Stoll believes hackers are a danger to computerized information
processing:

        Information in databases? They've %hackers% no qualms, if they
     can figure out how to get it. Suppose it's a list of AIDS
     patients? Or your last year's income tax return? Or my credit
     history? (p 287).

Even if hackers are able to obtain such information, they are scarcely the
threat that Stoll claims. Hackers are not interested in credit histories,
but in mastering computer technology. Yes, some individuals may illegally
obtain such information, but these are not the breed of hackers about whom
Stoll writes. Further, the danger of misuse of personal information hardly
comes from hackers, but from those who claim authorized access to it and
use it for profit.

Third, Stoll compares hacking into computers with house invasion.  Such a
comparison is dramatic but unconvincing.  Even if we were to concede the
impropriety of accessing a university or corporate computer, which most
hackers target, this is hardly the same as forcibly entering one's home. A
better analogy might be to compare hacking with the person across the
street who focuses binoculars through the bedroom window of a copulating
couple, or, at worst, an independent entrepreneur who sets up an
unauthorized lemonade stand on the corner of a private yard.  But, even if
I were to concede that hacking is akin to forcible entry, which I do not,
should it be criminalized? In England, trespass is a civil, not a criminal,
wrong, and it is up to the party to bring civil charges.  Unfortunately,
computer technology is changing faster than the law is able to keep up with
it, and rather than seek new ways to deal with new problems, Stoll's logic
implies the simple continuation of the "law-'n-order" mentality.

Finally, Stoll believes that hackers destroy the community of computerists,
and "if that trust is broken, the community will vanish forever" (p. 288).
Dramatic? Yes. True? No.  This threat to some imaginary commonweal would
seem a critical indictment if accurate, but most computer users do not
share a sense of community, or, if they do, some convincing data would be
helpful. Stoll's presumed empiricist bent when analyzing problems in his
own field of astronomy does not seen to carry over to his social commentary.
But, perhaps men on a mission need not worry about facts.  In fact, being
unencumbered by data, Stoll the scientist seems particularly unrestrained
in his comments.

Stoll's work is disingenuous for several reasons. At the intellectual level,
it provides a persuasive, but simplistic, moral imagery of the nature of
right and wrong, and provides what--to a lay reader--would seem a
compelling justification for more statutes and severe penalties against the
computer underground. This is troublesome for two reasons. First, it leads
to a mentality of social control by law enforcement during a social phase
when some would argue we are already over-controlled. Second, it invokes a
punishment model that assumes we can stamp out behaviors to which we object
if only we apprehend and convict a sufficient number of violators. We
already have existing laws sufficient to prosecute those who destroy
private property, trespass, defraud, spy, or engage in many of those
activities by which Stoll stigmatizes hackers. We do not need more. In
addition, there is little evidence that punishment will in the long run
reduce any given offense, and the research of Gordon Meyer and I suggests
that criminalization may, in fact, contribute to the growth of the computer
underground.

The computer underground is a complex group comprised of many different
activities. One need not approve of these activities to recognize that, in
some ways, they constitute a resistance to the strains produced by an
increasingly centralized and inaccessible technology. Although I hesitate
to carry the analogy too far, participants in the computer underground can
at least in part be understood as a form of social resistance to the rapid
domination of technological knowledge production and the new forms of
control and social arrangements that it creates.  Whether one agrees with
this this specific judgment or not, it is quite obvious that the computer
underground is a phenomenon far more complicated and rich than described in
THE CUCKOO'S EGG.

I have found that, when writing about hackers, there is always the inane
question: "Do you approve of hacking? Why do you defend them?" This, it
seems, strikes at the heart of the problem with Stoll's book: It is, at
root, a self-serving and ideological diatribe that condemns but provides no
understanding.  To provide a balanced account of the computer underground
in 1990 is akin to what Stoll might have experienced if he studied
astronomy in seventeenth century Italy: Some issues are so beclouded by
public hysteria whipped up by obscurantists with a stake in promoting
ignorance that any account counter to the National Party Line is heretical.
Perhaps this is why Stoll took the easy path consistent with the dominant
law enforcement and media view.  Or, perhaps Stoll really believes his
new-found maturity has transformed him from a pseudo-hippy into a model
citizen:

          Omigod! Listening to myself talk like this, I realize that
     I've become a grown up (sob!)--a person who REALLY HAS A STAKE
     %original emphasis%. My graduate student mentality of earlier
     days let me think of the world as just a research project: to be
     studied, data extracted, patterns noted. Suddenly there are
     conclusions to be drawn; conclusions that carry moral weight.
          I guess I've come of age. (p 322).

One suspects that, had Stoll lived in the time of Galileo, he would have
told that troublesome astronomer to quit acting like a child and grow up.

The acknowledgments in the book list Stoll's e-mail address as:
                           [e-mail]


=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
+                               END THIS FILE                                +
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253 12yrs+