Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology Honours Seminar - Soci 409/3 Submitted April 27, 1994

# Computer Hackers: Rebels With a Cause

Author: Tanja S. Rosteck
HTML-version: Markus Hübner

##

##

##

##

##

##

##

##

##

##

##

##

    Introduction
         Since the introduction of the personal computer in the late
    1970s, the vocation of computer hacking has not only grown in scope
    and membership, but the dynamics of the institution have changed as
    well, as a result of the changing role of technology in society.
    Consequently, the public image of the "typical" hacker has been
    transformed from harmless nerd to malicious techno-criminal.
    Fuelled by media sensationalism and corporate zealousness, their
    activities have been criminalized and hackers are now being legally
    persecuted on a scale disproportional to the actual threat they
    pose.  Hackers want their motivations and ethics to be viewed as
    legitimate, or at least understood, instead of being simply written
    off as devious teenagers who have nothing better to do than crash
    every available computer.

         Despite this, there has not been much sociological research
    done on hackers and their culture.  I find this strange; the
    academic community widely accepts the concept of the "Information
    Society", yet this future version of common society has not been
    given its due within the discipline of sociology.  The prospect of
    a dual-class society, in which the population is segregated into
    the information-rich and the information-poor, certainly qualifies
    as a serious social problem.  The computer hacker community, and
    the important role this subculture plays in the Information
    Society, must therefore be studied with equal attention.

         Most of the available studies approach the subject from one of
    two perspectives: one, a criminological perspective, employing
    deviance theory to explain the formation and organization of the
    hacker community; two, a civil-liberties approach that focuses on
    current computer-crime laws and how apprehended hackers are being
    denied their Constitutional rights.  (All such studies focus on
    United States constitutional law - a similar comprehensive
    treatment on Canadian hackers has not yet been done.)

         Although these approaches are essential to understanding the
    hacker culture, it must be also be studied from a number of diverse
    perspectives in order to properly show its depth and richness of
    content.  Therefore, this project will analyze the hacking
    subculture as a form of organized revolutionary collective, by
    utilizing a theory of social movements developed by Stewart, Smith,
    and Denton (1984).  Through its activities, this subculture
    actually plays a vital role in the progression of technology, and
    also performs a regulatory function for social control, by
    protesting, mocking, and subtly undermining state and corporate
    control through computers and related technologies.

         It will be shown that the hacker's relatively harmless
    activities are forms of such protest; yet, this cannot be
    effectively vocalized to the public because of the nature of the
    activities, ie., hacking is widely considered illegal.  As with any
    revolutionary subculture, the hacking movement is stigmatized,
    discredited, and persecuted by the media and corporate culture as
    juvenile, disruptive, and criminal.  And, all the while, being
    generally misunderstood.  Because of this problem, it is necessary
    to bring the hacker's plight to the attention of sociologists
    through a theoretical framework; that is the primary purpose of
    this paper.

         Because of the lack of current, comprehensive studies
    available, this is a largely exploratory project.  By surveying
    common hacker communications, the various social and political
    themes of their activities can be examined, and conclusions drawn
    about what hacking represents for the participants.  Hacker
    communications on electronic bulletin board systems (BBSes) -
    electronic message and file transfer bases that are connected to by
    a computer and modem - are generally considered "underground".
    Private, heavily screened, and generally short-lived, these
    bulletin boards are invisible to the general public, and most
    require private invitation.  Such types of communication are
    therefore difficult to observe and study; a different channel of
    hacker communication will be utilized here.

         As with any subculture which has been sparsely studied,
    various definitions of what constitutes a "hacker" abound, and
    these definitions vary according to the socio-political position of
    the defining group or individual.  For the purposes of this study,
    hackers are defined as computer enthusiasts who have an ardent
    interest in learning about computer systems and how to use them in
    innovative ways (Denning, 1991:25).

         This definition, therefore, does not include, for instance,
    malicious hackers who deliberately crash systems and delete files,
    but those hackers who explore systems purely for the intellectual
    challenge and leave no traces of their wanderings.  In addition,
    there are often misuses of the term, as the computer underground is
    made up of not only hackers, but other kinds of computer
    enthusiasts - for instance, phreakers, software pirates, and
    carders as well.  For a complete discussion of the organization and
    topography of the computer underground, see Meyer, "The Social
    Organization of the Computer Underground", 1989.

    Literature Review
         As previously mentioned, the hacker culture is a relatively
    new phenomenon and major writings on it have only begun to surface
    in the past 10 years, beginning with the 1984 publication of Steven
    Levy's landmark work, _Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution_.
    Levy examines the evolution of the Hacker Ethic, a sextet of credos
    that emerged from the activities of the "pioneer" hackers of the
    late 1950s:

         1.   Always yield the Hands-On Imperative!  Access to
              computers - and anything else which might teach you
              about the way the world works - should be unlimited
              and total.

         2.   All information should be free.

         3.   Mistrust Authority - Promote Decentralization.

         4.   Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not
              bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race, or
              position.

         5.   You can create art and beauty on a computer.

         6.   Computers can change your life for the better.

         (Levy, 1984)

         This original code of ethics forms the political basis of the
    modern hacker's activities.  Although the methods used by the
    hacking community have changed somewhat over time, the principal
    motivations and ethics have remained the same.  This point is
    reiterated in several studies and commentaries (Felsenstein, 1992;
    Meyer, 1989; Sterling, 1992).  There is also much support for the
    contention that the hacking community is rich in cultural diversity
    (Levy, 1984; Hafner and Markoff, 1991; Meyer and Thomas, 1990;
    Wessels, 1990).

         However, contradictory findings are available; there are also
    those studies and media reports that reinforce the stereotypical
    image of the hacker as a teenage loner, devoid of social skills,
    who is often petty and malicious in their actions and hold
    absolutely no morals or ethics whatsoever (Forester, 1987; Parker,
    1991; Stoll, 1989; Turkle, 1983).  Sensationalist "pop culture" TV
    shows such as Geraldo and NBC Dateline have featured episodes on
    hackers; such episodes are wildly exaggerated in their claims and
    portray the featured teenage hackers as brilliant-but-devious
    thieves that spend their days stealing credit information.

         These latter works are often ill-researched; their opinions
    and "facts" come not from extensive observation, contact with the
    diverse hacker community, or investigations into the motivations
    behind the actions of hackers, but rather from media reports and/or
    encounters with only one particular breed of hacker.  To base
    entire judgements on the findings from a segment of a culture,
    rather than a representative whole, leads to inaccurate reports and
    certainly does the hacker community no good in having their side
    properly understood.

         Reports like these simply perpetuate the popular image of the
    lonesome computer criminal, without making crucial divisions
    between the anarchists and the explorers, for instance.  Yes, there
    _are_ hackers who destroy files and crash systems intentionally, but
    they certainly do not comprise the overwhelming majority of
    hackers; they are in fact only a small percentage.  Many hackers,
    as is their primary intention, go completely unnoticed on the
    systems they choose to hack and are never discovered.  Leaving no
    path or trace is of the utmost importance to hackers.

         And at this point, many people assume we would then
         proceed to copy everything we find and then trash the
         system so we could then sell the only remaining copy of
         the data to the highest bidder, preferably a foreign
         agent or the richest competitor of the company...

         It makes no sense.  We thirst for knowledge and
         information, and then you can possibly think we are going
         to destroy that which is sacred to us? To take away
         someone else's chance to succeed in getting in as we did?
         To fuel an already terrible reputation and increase our
         chances of getting caught and thus have our lives and
         careers effectively ruined? ("Toxic Shock", 1990)

         For this reason, it is often difficult to estimate the number
    of active hackers at any given time (Denning, 1990; Landreth,
    1989).  Not only is leaving no trace on a system intellectually
    challenging and part of the "hack", but leaving a trace makes it
    much easier to lead the law enforcement authorities right to you -
    and, most importantly, any detection will likely lead to the
    hacker's stolen user account to be changed or deleted by the system
    administrator.

         On the other hand, the studies and commentaries from the
    hacker's point of view are often written by current or ex-members
    of the computer underground.  This "insider's view" is most likely
    to present a more balanced picture, of the type that only a member
    of the studied culture can produce.  These studies explain the
    primary motivations behind hacking and how the original code of
    ethics is adhered to in the modern computer community.
    Publications such as _Computer Underground Digest_ and _2600: The
    Hacker Quarterly_ strive to show a balanced view of hackers that is
    both academic and well-debated, as a contrast to often erroneous
    media hype.

         In addition, the literature strongly supports the notion that
    the hacking culture contains a strong element of rebellion and/or
    (Denning, 1990; Hollinger, 1991; Levy, 1984; Meyer and Thomas,
    1990; Sterling, 1992).  Hacker groups often compile their own
    newsletters and electronic journals, as well as debate topics on
    BBSes, many of which are devoted strictly to those with a
    rebellious and anarchist bent.  Such electronic publications will
    be discussed in detail in Methodology, and will comprise the data
    set for this project.

    Theoretical Approach
         As stated earlier, the majority of approaches to studying
    hackers are either criminological or civil-liberties ones.  This
    paper will employ theory of social movements, in order to
    demonstrate the existence of socio-political protest within the
    hacker culture.  Stewart, Smith, and Denton (1984) outline the six
    essential requirements for the existence of a social movement:

         1.   A social movement has at least minimal
              organization.
         2.   A social movement is an uninstitutionalized
              collectivity.
         3.   A social movement proposes or opposes a program for
              change in societal norms, values, or both.
         4.   A social movement is countered by an established
              order.
         5.   A social movement must be significantly large in
              scope.
         6.   Persuasion is the essence of social movements.

         Through the application of this criteria, the hacking
    subculture can clearly be considered a social movement:

    1.   Minimal organization: the hacking culture has a significant
         membership of "followers", and its share of "leaders".  Such
         leaders may be "gurus" - programming experts who are legendary
         for their knowledge and helpful expertise (Raymond, 1993) - or
         outspoken members of the community, such as "Emmanuel
         Goldstein" (editor and publisher of 2600: The Hacker
         Quarterly).  Hackers often form small groups of their own,
         which network with other groups through various channels of
         communication; this type of organization efficiently serves
         the needs of the community without the necessity of a large-
         scale single organization.

    2.   Uninstitutionalized collectivity: The social movement is
              always an "out group" and is criticized for not handling
              the controversy through normal, proper channels and
              procedures - even when the channels and procedures are
              denied to the movement.  The movement has virtually no
              powers of reward and punishment beyond personal
              recognition and expulsion, and expulsion often leads to
              competing organizations created by the exiled. (Stewart,
    	  Smith, and Denton, 1984: 5)

         Hackers have always been considered an "out group", in schools
         (where the hackers are simply "nerds") and in larger society
         (where they are labelled "criminals").  They are not
         considered part of any social institution.  In addition, they
         are often denied their own voice in the mass media, which
         often leaps at chances to discredit and undermine members of
         the hacking community.

    3.   Proposes or opposes change: this is what the hacking culture
         is all about.  Hackers wish to change the attitudes of the
         mass public towards technology, and believe above all that
         knowledge is power.  If people are not willing to learn all
         they can about technology, they are allowing themselves to be
         controlled by state and corporate power; therefore, their
         activities both oppose current norms and propose new ones.

    4.   Countered by an established order: The enemy of hackers are
         those who try to oppress them the most - the state and large
         corporations.  Hacking, as a form of socio-political protest,
         is therefore vilified and denounced through the media by these
         two institutions.  Hackers' innate knowledge of this manifests
         itself in various forms: in anarchist collectives, in anti-
         establishment collective action (Meyer and Thomas, 1990), and
         the fact that corporate and state computers are most often the
         intended targets of hackers.

    5.   Significantly large in scope: As stated earlier, it is often
         difficult to estimate the number of hackers currently
         operating because of the lack of trace they leave on systems.
         However, there have been several estimates as to the number of
         hacker bulletin board systems currently operating - another
         difficult survey because most hacker BBSes are "underground"
         and the phone numbers are not widely available - Meyer and
         Thomas (1990) estimate that there are currently a few hundred
         in the United States alone, compared to over a thousand non-
         underground boards.  Hacking is an international phenomenon,
         and its membership cuts across ethnic, racial, gender, and
         vocational lines.  For instance, there have been many
         documented reports of extensive hacking activity in Europe
         (Hafner and Markoff, 1991; Stoll, 1990).

    6.   Persuasion:    The typical uninstitutional, minimally-
                        organized social movement enjoys few means of
                        reward or punishment necessary either to
                        coerce people to join or to remain loyal to a
                        cause or to coerce the established order to
                        capitulate to all or some of its demands. ...
                        Persuasion is pervasive when a movement
                        attempts to bargain.  For instance, a social
                        movement that decides to bargain must convince
                        both supporters and opposition that it is
                        serious, that it is operating from a position
                        of strength, and that it has something of
                        value to exchange for concessions. (Stewart,
                        Smith, and Denton, 1984: 11)

         Persuasion, in this case, is also present.  For the first part
    of the defintion, the hacking culture complies by offering a subtle
    system of reward or punishment to its members.  For instance, the
    code of ethics is strongly enforced; if a member derides this and
    deliberately deletes some files, for instance, other hackers will
    in turn deride him or her.  Snitching, backstabbing and turning one
    another in to the authorities is not uncommon ( Hafner and Markoff,
    1991; Sterling, 1992).  This is done primarily out of fear and
    mistrust of authority and the law - that if they do not offer
    information, they will be prosecuted as an associate in the crime -
    rather than out of spite for a fellow hacker.

         As a bargaining chip with state and corporate powers, hackers
    offer the explanation that they are doing them a favor by
    unearthing security holes in their systems (Denning, 1990;
    Goldstein, 1990; Hittinger, 1991; Landreth, 1989.)  In the words of
    one hacker:

         A major problem in Cyberspace is the lack of
         communication between hackers and non-hackers.
         Corporations are fully entitled to their privacy, and so
         they feel threatened by the hacker "menace". ... If
         hackers and corporations and security companies and
         software companies, etc., were to overcome their
         differences much could be done.  By trading bits and
         pieces of knowledge, the two opposing groups could
         together develop revolutionary advances in computing that
         would benefit all.  ("The Dark Adept", 1990)

         Therefore, through this model of social movement construction,
    the assertion can be made that the hacker community indeed
    comprises such a movement.  An analysis of relevant data will
    further support this conclusion.

    Data and Methodology
         This project utilizes an ethnographic approach, using
    qualitative data and document analysis, to studying the hacker
    culture.  By analysing various electronic hacker journals and
    commentaries, support for the theory of hacking as a social
    movement, employing socio-political protest, can be found.  As
    discussed previously, "underground" communications such as those
    found on BBS message bases provide much richer and representative
    sources for study; hacker journals and commentaries are mainly
    representative of only the more outspoken members of the culture.
    However, there are several methodological problems inherent in
    gathering BBS data.

         Firstly, hacker BBSes are very well-guarded, and difficult for
    an outsider (even a well-meaning researcher) to access.  There are
    "new-user" questionnaires to fill out, and such questionnaires
    usually include technical questions, in order to test the potential
    worth of the new user (Meyer and Thomas, 1990).  Sometimes the new
    user is given a small test, such as finding the unlisted phone
    number to a certain computer, or asked to provide a piece of
    information such as a account name and password to a well-secured
    corporate system.

         Such tests serve as filters for worthy and un-worthy potential
    new members; it is imperative that new users be screened properly.
    If a system operator (referred to as a "sysop" - the one who
    maintains the bulletin board system) does not screen users
    properly, any kind of computer user could gain access - even a
    police officer or government agent.  It is in the sysop's best
    interests to weed out unsuitable members, for if the user is not
    going to contribute in the sharing of information on the board,
    there is really no use for them; if all they do is constantly take
    information or files and not contribute anything equal in value
    (referred to as a "sponge"), they are ridiculed and their account
    deleted from the board.

         Secondly, there is an innate mistrust of new users among the
    hacker community.  This is fuelled by the fact that police officers
    or government agents often try to gain access to the board under
    false pretenses - and quite a few succeed.  Anyone, upon discovery,
    claiming to be simply a sympathetic reporter or researcher will
    likely be instantly shut out, and blacklisted on other hacker BBSes
    - the word gets around fast.  The mode of computer communications,
    where you cannot see, hear, or physically speak to another person,
    makes it easy to masquerade as someone you are not.

         Law enforcement people with an excellent technical knowledge
    of computers and some conception of the underground culture can
    easily pass as a hacker.  For this reason, phone numbers of hacker
    BBSes are closely guarded and are not publicly distributed.  Lists
    of other hacker BBS numbers are often maintained and are available
    on the board; but these lists are often outdated, since BBSes are
    extremely volatile and usually have extremely short lives (Meyer,
    1989).

         For these reasons, I have chosen to employ as data underground
    hacker publications and newsletters rather than BBS communications.
    Although not as representative of the diverse hacker community as
    BBS data, publications and newsletter analysis avoids the problems
    inherent in ethnographic research, such as winning the trust and
    cooperation of the members of the underground in order to gain
    entry to the culture - which, because of their justifiably paranoid
    nature, would take a very long time.  As well, there is the problem
    of being intrusive in the culture.

         It is important to avoid intruding on the way the group
         normally functions.  Nothing sinks a field project faster
         than interfering with the group's way of thinking and
         doing things.  At the very least, such intrusiveness will
         change the situation you have come to study; at the
         worst, it may result in your expulsion.  (Northey and
         Tepperman, 1986: 71)

         By utilizing document analysis, however, these problems are
    avoided, without a difference in quality of data.  Many passionate
    debates on underground BBSes are summarized by individuals and
    submitted to hacker journals, which (with a limited amount of
    technical skill, research, and Internet access) can be found on
    several public archive sites.  These are still the words of
    hackers, yet it is not completely necessary for this study to enter
    the culture itself as an observer.

         As mentioned, several hacker journals and newsletters comprise
    the data set.  Each journal or newsletter is comprised of articles,
    usually on a specific how-to topic (eg., "Hacking Answering
    Machines", by Predat0r; "The Improved Carbide Bomb", by The
    Sentinel), as well as commentaries, written by various authors.  As
    with underground BBSes, hacking journals and newsletters tend to
    spring up and disappear in a very short time, with no explanations.
    The ones used for this study, in no particular order, are:

         PHRACK:   (A contraction of the words Phreak/Hack)  This
                   journal is generally recognized as the "official"
                   electronic publication. (The other "official"
                   publication, 2600: The Hacker Quarterly, is
                   available only in print form.) Phrack is the
                   oldest hacker journal in existence, with its first
                   issuance in 1985.

         COMPUTER UNDERGROUND
         DIGEST:   Known as CuD. This weekly electronic newsletter
                   features both academic articles and commentaries
                   from members of the underground community, and
                   began publication in March 1990.

         DIGITAL
         MURDER:   Issued first in October 1991.  A general
                   hacking/phreaking/ newsletter.

         FBI:      (Freaker's Bureau Incorporated)  General
                   newsletter, started in September 1991.

         HACKERS
         UNLIMITED: Began in December 1989.

         INFORMATIK: (The Journal of Privileged Information), 1992.

         MAGIK:    (Master Anarchists Giving Illicit Knowledge), 1993.

         THE NEW FONE EXPRESS:  June 1991.

         P/HUN:    (Phreakers/Hackers Underground Network)  One of the
                   better-known and longer-running journals, began in
                   1988.

         NARC:     (Nuclear Phreakers/Hackers/Carders)  Another long-
                   lasting journal, started in 1989.

         TAP
         ONLINE:   (Technical Assistance Party)  First established in
                   1972 as YIPL (Youth International Party Line) by
                   Abbie Hoffman, and soon thereafter changed its name
                   to TAP.  Recognized as the "grandfather" of hacker
                   publications (Meyer, 1990).

         TPP:      (The Propaganda Press)  Barely a year old, and one
                   of the "fly-by-night" newsletters.

         NIA:      (Network Information Access)  Another relatively
                   new publication, bearing the motto "Ignorance,
                   There's No Excuse".

         H-NET:    Begun in June 1990.

         LOD/H TECH
         JOURNALS: These are the technical journals of LOD/H - the
                   elite Legion of Doom/Hackers group.  This four-part
                   set was released in January 1987 as a one-time
                   release.

         These periodicals constitute a rich cross-section of the
    computer underground culture.  The authors of articles that appear
    in these journals and newsletters are generally considered the more
    "elite" or knowledgeable hackers in the culture, especially those
    who write the how-to articles.  Therefore, these periodicals can be
    considered adequately representative of the culture's ethics,
    beliefs, and values.

         The following sections will provide and discuss data, culled
    from these periodicals, supporting each of the six characteristics
    of social movements outlined by Stewart, Smith, and Denton (1984).
    These six points were provided as the theoretical framework for
    this study - please refer back to Theoretical Approach for an
    outline of this model.

    Characteristic #1: Minimal Organization
         Gordon Meyer (1989), in "Social Organization of the Computer
    Underground", provides a comprehensive study of how hackers and
    computer underground members organize through BBSes and other
    illicit channels of communication, such as corporate voice-mail
    bases and telephone "bridges".  These methods allow hackers to
    share vital information such as who's been arrested or searched,
    which systems have shut down, new numbers to try, security holes
    that have been discovered, etc.  Although hacking is primarily a
    solitary activity, hackers need to network, through BBSes and other
    channels of communication, into groups to share information and
    technique, and also to give a feeling of community.

         Such groups usually do not have leaders in the real sense
    (Meyer, 1989), but some members are bound to know more than others,
    and the veterans of the group act as "big brothers" and guides to
    novice hackers.  For instance:

         I learned as much as I could as fast as I could, and
         after several months of intensive hacking and
         information-trading, the Cracker was no longer a novice.
         I knew a lot about hacking by then, and because I liked
         to share what I knew, I gained the reputation of being
         someone to go to if you were having trouble. ... As the
         Cracker's reputation grew, answering such requests became
         a matter of pride.  (Bill Landreth (aka "The Cracker"),
         1989: 16)

         In addition, hackers regularly get together socially, whether
    in small groups, or at large national gatherings called "cons"
    (conventions).  Cons are organized by elite groups and tend to draw
    fairly large crowds.  Cons feature guest speakers, who are usually
    elite and well-known hackers, and occasionally academic or
    professionals in the computer fields as well.  Once planned, cons
    are advertised on underground boards and through hacker
    publications.  Each convention has a unique name - the HoHoCon in
    Houston, SummerCon, PumpCon at Halloween, and DefCon, to name a few
    main ones.  Conventions as social gatherings, however, have their
    own set of problems:

         Friday, October 30, 1992, Pumpcon began, at the Courtyard
         of the Marriott, in Greenburgh, NY.  All in all, about 30
         hackers showed up, and had a great time.  At least until
         the evening of Oct. 31st, when 8-10 members of the
         Greenburgh police force showed up and raided the Con.  A
         few hackers who had been out driving around during the
         time of the bust returned a few hours later, and when
         they were seen by police, they were immediately taken to
         255 and questioned.  (They were walking down the hall,
         when a cop appeared, and told them to step into a room.)
         The cops asked them if they were hackers, and when they
         didn't answer, one police officer reached into the coat
         pocket of one of the people, and produced an auto dialer.
         This in itself was enough to send the three to room 255,
         where the rest of the hackers were being held for
         questioning.  My question to you - isn't that just a bit
         illegal?  Bodily search without probable cause OR a
         warrant?  Ooops - I'm forgetting - we're HACKERS!  We're
         ALL BAD!  We're ALWAYS breaking the law.  We don't have
         RIGHTS!. ... In one of the rooms, there were about 2
         dozen computer magazines which were apparently
         confiscated, although the warrant did not specify that
         magazines could be taken.  But, when you're busting
         HACKERS, I suppose you can take what you want.  After
         all, hackers are evil geniuses, and don't have the same
         rights as NORMAL criminals do.  (by "Someone

    Characteristic #2: Uninstitutionalized collectivity
         Hackers have always been considered an "out" group in society.
    In schools, hackers are seen as "nerds" and "loners" without social
    skills (Levy, 1984; Turkle, 1983); in larger society, they are
    prosecuted by those in power.  In the words of a hacker:

         "I am a hacker."  If I ever told that to anyone, it would
         immediately be assumed that I am a malicious,
         vandalising, thieving, pseudo-terrorist out to take over
         the computers of the world for personal gain or quite
         possibly to glean some morbid satisfaction from deleting
         megs upon megs of valuable data.

         "I am associated with the computer underground."  If I
         ever told that to anyone, there would be a flash flood of
         foolish associations in that person's mind between myself
         and The Mafia, with Saddam Hussein, Syria, Libya, Abu
         Nidal, and who knows what else.

         Almost universally, among the ignorant majority, we
         hackers are considered to be dangerous thugs whose sole
         purpose in life is to cause as much damage as we can in
         as little time as possible to the largest number of
         people.

         Sure, there are those little kiddies (mental and
         physical) who call themselves "hackers" and fit the above
         descriptions.  There are also people who call themselves
         "human beings" that rape, murder, cheat, lie and steal
         every few minutes (or is it seconds, now?).  Does that
         mean that all "human beings" should then be placed in
         prison?  ("Toxic Shock", 1990)

         As with any minority group, hackers are judged as outcasts,
    and social, economic, and political resources are withheld from
    them as a result.  The commentary on the police raid at the PumpCon
    convention (see page above), as well as the commentary above,
    are reflections of hackers' anger at being constantly derided and
    looked down upon as a worthless menace.  The hacking culture is
    definitely not a part of any established institution.  However,
    hackers often express a wish to work with an established
    institution, such as the police, for both personal gain (less
    chance of being prosecuted yourself) and for the good of the
    movement (hackers feel that police should be spending their time
    and resources going after the real computer criminals, such as
    corporate embezzlers).

         We cannot, we WILL not, allow this tyranny to continue!
         The United States Government has ignored the voice of the
         Electronic Community long enough! When we told the
         government that what they were doing was wrong, they
         refused to listen! When we formed political action groups
         to bring our cases to court and before Congress, we were
         told that we were using loopholes in the law to get away
         with crime!!! We have, in a peaceful and respectful
         manner, given our government more than reasonable
         petition for redress of our grievances, but if anything
         the situation has gotten worse!

         Government administrations use computer crime as a weapon
         in internal battles over jurisdiction. Government
         officials, who have only the slightest understanding of
         computer science, use computer crime as a tool for career
         success. Elected Representatives, who have absolutely no
         understanding of computers, use "information
         superhighways", computer crime, and cryptography to gain
         constituent money and voter support! The Electronic
         Community, the only group who fully understands the
         issues involved here, and the only group who is effected
         by the decisions being made, has been completely ignored!
         ("The White Ninja", 1994)

    Characteristic #3: Proposes or opposes change
         Here, hackers definitely qualify under this criteria.  As
    stated previously, a primary hacker ethic is that information and
    knowledge is power (Denning, 1990; Landreth, 1989; Levy, 1984).  In
    fact, the motto of the electronic hacker journal NIA (Network
    Information Access) is "Ignorance, There's No Excuse".  There is a
    general call to the public to educate themselves in technology,
    lest it be used to control them:

         As we can see, this has not been the case.  The computer
         system has been solely in the hands of big businesses and
         the government.  The wonderful device meant to enrich
         life has become a weapon which dehumanizes people.  To
         the government and large businesses, people are no more
         than disk space, and the government doesn't use computers
         to arrange aid for the poor, but to control nuclear death
         weapons.  The average American can only have access to a
         small microcomputer which is worth only a fraction of
         what they pay for it.  The businesses keep the true state
         of the art equipment away from the people behind a steel
         wall of incredibly high prices and bureaucracy.  It is
         because of this state of affairs that hacking was born.
         ("Doctor Crash", 1986)

         Most, if not all, of us think information should be
         exchanged freely... If everyone is kept abreast of the
         newest technologies, techniques, what have you, then
         everyone can benefit...The more each of us knows, the
         fewer past mistakes we will repeat, the greater knowledge
         base we will have for future developments. ("Toxic
         Shock", 1990)

         Many hackers share a common utopian vision - that of an
    electronic society where information is free and uncontrolled,
    democracy reigns on the "information highway", and creativity and
    ingenuity are revered traits:

         The hackers are needed again.  We can solve problems, get
         it done, make it fun.  The general public has a vested
         interest in this!  The public has a vested interest in
         electronic privacy, in secure personal systems, and in
         secure e-mail.  As everyone learns more, the glamour and
         glitz of the mysterious hackers will fade.  Lay people
         are getting a clearer idea of what's going on.  ("Johnny
         Yonderboy", 1990)

         For further reference, see Steven Levy's landmark work,
    Hackers: Heroes of the Compu

    Characteristic #4: Countered by an established institution
         As was seen in the previous section, hackers are angry at the
    way they are portrayed in the mass media.  In this case, the
    "established order" includes most of those - the legal authorities,
    the corporations, the government - that have a vested interest in
    keeping hackers and their socio-political messages at a standstill.

         This is our world now... the world of the electron and
         the switch, the beauty of the baud.  We make use of a
         service already existing without paying for what could be
         dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and
         you call us criminals.  We explore... and you call us
         criminals.  We seek after knowledge... and you call us
         criminals.  We exist without skin color, without
         nationality, without religious bias... and you call us
         criminals.  You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you
         murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe
         it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals.

         Yes, I am a criminal.  My crime is that of curiosity.  My
         crime is that of judging people by what they say and
         think, not what they look like.  My crime is that of
         outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me
         for.  ("The Mentor", 1986)

         Hackers are very prolific on this topic, and certainly don't
    mince words when it comes to voicing their anger at those
    institutions that oppress them:

         But, even as I type this, I begin to realize just why we
         are such a feared group of people...

         We are misunderstood by the majority.

         You cannot understand someone who judges others by what
         they say, think, and do, rather than how they look or how
         large their income is.
         You cannot understand someone who wants to be honest and
         sharing, instead of lying, stealing, and cheating.

         You cannot understand us because we are different.
         Different in a society where conformity is the demanded
         norm.  We seek to rise above the rest, and then to pull
         everyone else up to the same new heights.  We seek to
         innovate, to invent.  We, quite seriously, seek to boldly
         go where no one has gone before.

         We are misunderstood, misinterpreted, misrepresented.

         All because we simply want to learn.  We simply want to
         increase the flow of information and knowledge, so that
         EVERYONE can learn and benefit.  ("Toxic Shock", 1990)

         Such oppression, without a proper venting of anger and
    frustration, can lead to  anarchy - and many hackers have an
    anarchist/rebellious bent for this very reason (Meyer and Thomas,
    1990).

         There is one last method of this war against computer
         abusers.  This is a less subtle, less electronic method,
         but much more direct and gets the message across.  I am
         speaking of what is called Anarchy.  Anarchy as we know
         it does not refer to the true meaning of the word (no
         ruling body), but to the process of physically destroying
         buildings and governmental establishments.  This is a
         very drastic, yet vital part of this "techno-revolution."
         ("Doctor Crash", 1986)

         Many anarchist newsletters and journals began circulation in
    1989 and 1990, which were the beginning years of a massive legal
    crackdown on hackers in the United States.  Suspected hackers'
    houses were raided, equipment confiscated (and to this day, much is
    not yet returned), and various charges laid.

         Several high-profile trials went to session, such as that of
    "Knight Lightning".  One of the more paranoia-fueled raids was done
    on Steve Jackson Games, a company that produced role-playing
    simulation games.  The accompanying book for one game, GURPS
    Cyberpunk, was admonished by legal authorities as "a manual for
    computer crime" (Sterling, 1992: 142).  For a complete discussion
    of these raids and accompanying legal hassles hackers faced, refer
    to The Hacker Crackdown by Bruce Sterling (1992).  These arrests
    and trials were also closely monitored by the Electronic Freedom
    Foundation, a lobby group started as a response to this crackdown.
    Various commentaries, responses, and angry manifestos regarding
    these raids are also published regularly in The Computer
    Underground Digest.

    Characteristic #5: Significantly large in scope
         As mentioned, the hacker culture is not unique to North
    America; many hackers in other countries have been similarly
    prosecuted and hounded by the media.  The best-known case of this
    is the hackers of Europe.  One group, the Chaos Computer Club, has
    members in France and Germany.  The Netherlands has their own
    prominent group, HACK-TIC.  These groups, as well as others from
    around Europe, gather each year for the Chaos Computer Club's
    annual conference in Germany.

         Contrary to the name, the CCC is well-organized, publishes its
    annual conference proceedings, and is generally considered a
    resource base for other European hackers.  Most famous of the
    German hackers is Markus Hess, whose long-distance explorations
    into American systems was documented by Cliff Stoll, in his 1989
    book The Cuckoo's Egg.  Another example of large-scale organization
    are the hacker conventions in the United States.  Also, the number
    of hacker bulletin board systems in the United States alone,
    previously stated as somewhere around a few hundred, are a
    testament to the wide scale of this phenomenon.

         Hackers maintain that there are others just like them all
    around the world, and when they realise they are intellectually and
    mentally different than most other people, it's like a revelation.

         And then it happened... a door opened to a world...
         rushing through the phone line like heroin through an
         addict's veins, an electronic pulse is sent out, a refuge
         from the day-to-day incompetencies is sought... a board
         is found.

         "This is it... this is where I belong..." I know everyone
         here... even if I've never met them, never talked to
         them, may never hear from them again... I know you all...

         I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto.  You may stop
         this individual, but you can't stop us all... after all,
         we're all alike.  ("The Mentor", 1986)

    Characteristic #6: Persuasion
         As previously discussed in Theoretical Approach, the hacker
    culture often employs reward and punishment in keeping their
    movement together.  Hackers that defy the ethics and values of the
    underground are castigated, and the word of the deed and the
    offender quickly travels through the social network.

         For instance, in Out of the Inner Circle, Bill Landreth (aka
    "The Cracker") documents the development of the Inner Circle, an
    elite group of hackers which he helped create.  The Inner Circle
    had unwritten rules similar to the Hacker Ethic, and such rules
    were strictly enforced:

         The fact that we tried to invite only those people who
         already met these two requirements quickly resulted in an
         unwritten "code of ethics" that was, and remained, the
         philosophy that held the Inner Circle together. ... We
         had many good reasons to follow these basic rules.  But
         the most important, as far as the Inner Circle was
         concerned, had to do with the basic principle of
         respecting other people's property and information.  We
         wre explorers, not spies, and to us, damaging computer
         files was not only clumsy and inelegant - it was wrong.
         (Landreth, 1989: 18)

         Some hackers think the time has come - that those in power are
    finally willing to listen to them:

         Just exactly how far should the government go to protect
         companies and their data?  Exactly what are the
         responsibilities of a company with sensitive, valuable
         data in their computer systems?  There is a distinct
         feeling that private-sector companies should be doing
         more to protect themselves.  Hackers can give an
         important viewpoint on these issues, and all of a sudden
         there are people willing to listen.  ("Johnny Yonderboy",
         1990)

    Others become activists, and one hacker actively seeks out the
    corporate sector by submitting technical security articles to The
    Computer Underground Digest, a journal that is widely read by both
    hackers and computer professionals alike:

         ... I hope to break down this barrier of resentment by
         crossing over the lines of the Underground into the
         "real" world and providing valuable information about
         systems, security, interfacing, etc.  I hope other will
         follow suit, and that the private sector will reciprocate
         by allowing technical information to flow into the
         Underground.  Ultimately, I hope there will be a rapport
         between hackers and members of the private sector so that
         we may learn from each other and make the best use
         possible of this greatest of inventions, the computer.
         ("The Dark Adept", 1990)

         Overwhelmingly, it looks like The Dark Adept's vision is not
    being realised so far.  Hackers continue to be raided and charged
    under newly-constructed computer crime laws that are vague at best,
    and constitutionally improper at worst.  This largely misunderstood
    culture is extending the symbolic olive branch to corporate
    industry, by offering to share their knowledge and expertise to
    create better technology for everyone.

         However, corporate culture constantly denies this offering.
    Preliminary experiments have been done in the United States, with
    hackers being hired by companies to test their systems, and the
    results have been overwhelmingly positive (Denning, 1990).  Why,
    then, is this practice not adopted widely?  A discussion of the
    implications of this, including power relations and econo-political
    control, could easily comprise another thesis; for this reason, it
    will not be delved into here.

    Conclusions and Summary
         In this paper, the conception of the computer hacking
    phenomenon as a social movement has been explored.  Working with a
    theoretical model of social movements developed by Stewart, Smith,
    and Denton (1984), various hacker writings have supported the idea
    of the existence of social collectivity.  As the hacker culture is
    relatively new and astonishingly under-studied, these conclusions
    can be taken as preliminary.  I hope this study has laid a
    groundwork for further sociological study of the computer
    underground.

         As the proliferation of hackers' anarchist tendencies
    suggests, this culture desperately needs some understanding, as
    well as a sympathetic ear.  We have seen that corporate industry
    rejects the knowledge and technical expertise of hackers; could not
    a higher level of technology be realised if these two factions were
    to work together?  The answer to this will be found in the future.
    As the possibility of a global Information Society draws closer,
    people must be willing to take their technical education into their
    own hands.  We could all learn a valuable lesson from hackers: that
    intellectual hunger and the quest for knowledge should be central
    in our society.

         The coming of the Information Society has been heralded by
    academics and non-academics alike.  The notion of a free,
    democratic, electronic society has been beholded as a sort of
    utopia, where information flows unencumbered and freedom of speech
    is key.  However, there is a dark side to this as well.
    Information is becoming increasingly private, and many people fear
    the Information Society will actually be a sort of Orwellian 1984-
    type society instead:

         There's something wrong with the Information Society.
         There's something wrong with the idea that "information"
         is a commodity like a desk or chair. ... Knowledge is
         power.  The rise of computer networking, of the
         Information Society, is doing strange and disruptive
         things to the processes by which power and knowledge are
         currently distributed.

         I don't think democracy will thrive in a milieu where
         vast empires of data are encrypted, restricted,
         proprietary, confidential, top secret, and sensitive.  I
         fear for the stability of a society that builds
         sandcastles out of databits and tries to stop a
         real-world tide with royal commands.  (Sterling, 1992)

    The debate goes on; either we can sit, wait patiently, and see how
    it all turns out; or we can act, educate ourselves and each other,
    and be ready for whatever hits.  I will end this project with an
    appropriate quote from a hacker:

         If you need a tutorial on how to perform any of the above
         stated methods, please read a file on it.  And whatever
         you do, continue the fight.  Whether you know it or not,
         if you are a hacker, you are a revolutionr Crash", 1986)

    Bibliography

    Doctor Crash (1986) "The Techno Revolution". Phrack 1:6,
         June 10, 1986.

    Sterling, Bruce (1992) "A Statement of Principle". Computer
         Underground Digest 4:47, September 30, 1992.

    Denning, Dorothy (1990) Concerning Hackers Who Break Into
         Computer Systems. In Proceedings of the 13th National Computer
         Security Conference, October 1990.

    The Dark Adept (1990) "The Ultimate Interface: Hackers and
         the Private Sector". Computer Underground Digest 2:9, October
         23, 1990.

    Johnny Yonderboy (1990) "A Hacker's Perspective". Computer
         Underground Digest 1:13, June 12, 1990.

    Landreth, Bill (1989) Inside the Inner Circle. Microsoft Press:
         Redmond, WA.

    The Mentor (1986) "The Conscience of a Hacker". Phrack 1:7,
         January 8, 1986.

    Stoll, Cliff (1989) The Cuckoo's Egg. Simon and Schuster: New York.

    Sterling, Bruce (1992) The Hacker Crackdown. Bantam: New York.

    Meyer, Gordon and Thomas, Jim (1990) "The Baudy World of the Byte
         Bandit: a Postmodernist Interpretation of the Computer
         Underground". Forthcoming in F. Schmalleger (ed.), Computers
         in Criminal Justice, Wyndham Hall: Bristol, Indiana.

    Toxic Shock (1990) "Another View of Hacking: The Evil that Hackers
         Do". Computer Underground Digest 2:6, October 6, 1990.

    Levy, Steven (1984) Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution.
         Dell: New York.

    The White Ninja (1994) "A Declaration of Complaints and Grievances
         of the United States Electronic Community". Phrack 5:45, File
         6/28, March 30, 1994.

    Turkle, Sherry (1984) The Second Self: Computers and the Human
         Spirit. Simon and Schuster: New York.

    Someone who has been there but wishes to remain anonymous (1992)
         "A Bird's-Eye View of the PumpCon Problem". Computer
         Underground Digest 4:60, November 22, 1992.

    Meyer, Gordon (1989) The Social Organization of the Computer
         Underground. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of
         Northern Illinois.

    Stewart, Charles, Smith, Craig, and Denton, Robert E. (1984)
         Persuasion and Social Movements. Waveland Press: Prospect
         Heights, Illinois.

    Hafner, Katie and Markoff, John (1991) Cyberpunk: Outlaws and
         Hackers on the Computer Frontier. Simon and Schuster: New
         York.

    Wessells, Michael (1990) Computer, Self, and Society. Prentice
         Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Northey, Margot and Tepperman, Lorne (1986) Making Sense in the
         Social Sciences. Oxford University Press: Toronto.

    Parker, Donn (1991) "Response to Dorothy Denning", in The United
         States vs. Craig Neidorf: A Debate on Electronic Publishing,
         Constitutional Rights and Hacking. Communications of the ACM
         34:3, March 1991, p. 34.

Back to the Security-Page