STDIN

We began our Wednesday, September 24, class discussing how our previous perceptions of hackers are changing as we move further through our readings for the semester. Overwhelmingly, both those in the class who had no previous knowledge of the culture before starting the course and those who had, noted they now have a better understanding of hackers. Previous perceptions were based on dichotomous representations that positioned the hacker as being either a vandalizing criminal or an antisocial nerd obsessed with math and numbers. Through our discussions and course materials, hackers are revealing themselves as a complex and heterogeneous group that changes and evolves with the advancement of new technologies.

In one of our earlier readings for the course, Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution by journalist Steven Levy, we learned about the “hacker ethic” that originated with the early hacker community of the 50s and 60s who formed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Due to the advancements and availability of technologies, such as, the commodification of the personal computer and the rise of the internet, the nature of hacker activity has since changed. With it, also shifted the philosophies surrounding the ethics of their practices, such as those of the “hacker underground”.

We spent a significant portion of class attempting to understand the “hacker underground”. The term hasn’t yet been clearly defined in our readings. However, a strict and precise definition would pose difficulty, because the computer world, as previously stated, is complex with rapid advancements and with overlapping ideals and philosophies amongst hackers. Some of our comprehension of the term came from our last reading, The Digital Underground by Bruce Sterling. He expressed a shift had occurred from “the original hackers, the ones that basically wanted to help the world through the computer, to the hackers described in this piece, the ones who are known to be thieves and criminals” (Brod, Jenny). The term carries a dark connotation and like other “underground” cultural subgroups in society, it exists hidden and separate from the mainstream culture.

To get a sense of who the members of the Hacker Underground are, we watched the video clip Disinformation on the Cult of the Dead Cow.

Our current readings’, chapter four of, Representing Hacker Culture: Reading Phrack, by the Acedemic, Douglas Thomas and two Phrack Magazine articles from issue 65: The Phrack Profile on the Unix Terrorist and The Underground Myth, functioned as a window to understanding the group. The hacker underground rose along with the introduction of the bulletin board system (BBS). Holding some of the same values that traced back to early hacker ethics, particularly those of access, sharing, and community, BBS was embraced. Groups formed around different boards and hackers utilized the systems to share knowledge and learn from one another. This atmosphere would give rise, in the 80s, to the online publication; Phrack Magazine. On the ezime, articles are posted by hackers providing useful information to other hackers. Douglas describes it as being core to the underground as he writes:

While Phrack does impart information to the hacker underground in its articles and exploits, its more important function has been in creating a culture for the underground and in transmitting news, and lore about the hacks and hackers that define hacker culture. In doing so, Phrack established itself as essential reading for the culture of the underground and as a result had a central and defining role in shaping what the culture would look like for nearly fifteen years (Douglas 2002: 140).

Phrack gave the underground a place to congregate. It also “perpetuated the anarchical opposition to society” (Chang, Tiffany). Douglas describes the underground’s separation from mainstream, “it is a world about secrets that operates in secrets” (Douglas 2002:134). He discuses the paradox of the “culture of secrecy”, the hacker wants all information to be free and accessible, but he will utilize secrecy for his own advantage.

Another element found in our readings of Phrack that we discussed in class was notion of a “the perpetual death of hacking”. In the Unix Terrorist profile it was argued that the underground is dying. As Charlotte Horton noted in her response paper, this has been incorrectly stated in the past, and yet hacking still remains. It is a form of the elitist contempt (being a “hater” like Maxwell Salzberg stated in class) The hacker asserts his power of knowledge over the rest. “What each hacker points to when predicting the end of the ‘scene’ is his fear that he will no longer be part of a secret and sacred elite. Without membership in this elite, a hacker loses the empowerment he hacked so hard to find” (Horton, Charlotte E).

An example of the “elitist contempt is depicted in the SNL skit Nick Burns Your Company’s Computer Guy. The Nick Burns Character asserts his knowledge power over Jamie Fox’s character.

In The Underground Myth the anonymous author listed reasons for why he predicts hacking will die. Some include his belief that the culture will lose hackers to jobs of the security industry, hackers will shy away from hacking for fear of criminalization, and because of changing technologies. Arguments like these have been made throughout the evolution of computers, but yet hacking still remains. It is clear that the hacker will continue to change and evolve with the technologies of the times, always along side of those technologies.

-Adriana