The War Against The Hackers 205
The war underway between the FBI and supporters of a well-known hacker group -- the latest round in the War Against The Hackers -- is as familiar as it is dubious.
For years now, federal law enforcement agencies from the Secret Service to the FBI have garnered enormous publicity tracking down people like Kevin Mitnick, who has languished in jail far longer than genuine criminals like white collar robber baron Michael Milken, (or than lots of robbers and drug dealers have). Or the hapless creator of the recent, short-lived but very famous Melissa Virus, whose arrested was trumpeted by the FBI and the Governor of New Jersey before a horde of reporters in New Jersey recently as if he were John Dillinger.
Nobody wants to or ought to romanticize criminals, but journalism and law enforcement have for years demonized hackers out of all proportion to the harm they do or the dangers they pose.
If they treat every computer "intrusion" like the Moon Landing, they also ignore the very real contributions hacking has made - namely the building of the Internet and World Wide Web, the building of much of the software and hardware fueling one of the biggest economic booms in American history, and for helping to create the freest, most interesting culture on the planet. The things hackers are often accused of doing frequently turn out to be trivial, misunderstood, or if you want a year or so, not crimes at all.
Wired News reported last week that the Sun Microsystems operating system that Mitnick was accused of hacking into - a major justification of the media and criminal case against him, and of the need for his imprisonment - is now being given away by Sun for free.
Since the Cold War has ended, most of the Mafia been busted up and its leaders imprisoned, bureaucracies like the FBI and Secret Service are nervously trawling for new evils to stalk, new budgets to acquire and justify. Law enforcement bureaucracies have to have bad guys, and they have to be well-publicized and dangerous. Otherwise, Congress doesn't give them any money. For them, the Internet in general, and hackers and techno-criminals in particular are a Godsend.
The FBI is trumpeting its new high-profile computing unit, having finally won a long bureaucratic wrangle for jurisdiction over the Net. In the l980's, the Secret Service made a bid for Net policing by conducting "Operation Sunrise" a series of infamous pre-dawn attacks on the bedrooms of a handful of suburban teenagers who were patching together the first BBS's and mostly making free long-distance telephone calls.
Although the arrests made some big noise in the media, they yielded little in the way of bad guys. The Net has changed a lot, but this by-now-predictable scenario hasn't.
In an era when crime is plummeting, it's perhaps no accident that law enforcement officials are sounding more alarms than ever against online pornographers, alleged child-stalkers, and computer outlaws, even as the number of actual victims is microscopic when compared to crimes like drugs and child abuse.
The country's in the mood to police the Net and hunt down hackers. The Internet is scaring the pants off of some of the country's most powerful institutions, from the moral and sex police clustered in Washington, to the music industry to Wall Street to banking to journalism. And nothing is more frightening to many of the people running these institutions than the mythologized image of the hacker.
The idea that there are hordes of techno-criminals out there waiting to disrupt business, government and society and trigger the next World War with their evil mastery of computing is pervasive. The fact that they are mostly young, invisible and politically powerless doesn't hurt either.
This campaign takes a number of different forms: there's the Mitnick stereotype: the dysfunctional all-powerful wizard breaking into our most important computing programs. There's the con-artist hacker waiting to read our credit card numbers. Then there's the kid turned killer by computing game. Journalism is as happy to pass along one as the other.
The fact that few hackers have ever done any serious damage to government or any other institutions, and have never to my knowledge caused any sort of physical harm to a real human being (hackers do far less damage to the country than, say, the Washington reporters who helped cripple the government for a year over Monica Lewinsky), is lost in the general hysteria over what geeks are capable of. The hacker scare is much like the child-snatching scare of the 80's or other media-driven hysterias. It essentially one more ephemeral media hysteria, supported by little in the way of concrete facts
Last week, MSNBC.com reported that the FBI's Houston office was investigating allegations of "computer intrusions" involving a hacker who goes by the handle "Mosthated."
Mosthated told MSNBC that he was the founding member of gH, and that at least eight other hackers around the country had been searched in the FBI inquiry. Last week, gH member Eric Burns (Zyklon) was arrested in connection with three separate attacks on U.S. government computers, including some systems at the U.S. Information Agency.
Mosthated told MSNBC he was raided by agents at about 6 a.m. CT Wednesday in what he described as a "huge hacker crackdown." Four other Houston-area hackers, three in California and one in Seattle also received FBI visits. None was arrested, but all had computer equipment confiscated.
After the FBI raids, the bureau's Web site was taken offline. "Somebody-some person or persons - attempted to gain unlawful access to it. They did not, but as a result we decided to shut it down," the FBI said at the end of last week. As of Friday, it was still down.
"The FBI WILL Not FUCK WITH MY FRIENDS FROM GLOBAL HELL," a hacker allegedly wrote in an e-mail to Antionline.
Antionline reported that more than 20 Web sites - none of which had any apparent connection to the FBI - were defaced by a member of Global Hell known as "Infamous." Mosthated told MSNBC he didn't support these retaliatory attacks, and asked that they stop.
Like the word geeks, the term hackers is often-misapplied. The public thinks a hacker is a computer pirate who breaks into computing systems, sometimes illegally, and often posing great risks to security, privacy or information.
Hacker authority Eric Raymond describes hacking as a a good, usually time-consuming piece of computing work that gets results. A hacker is a person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most computer users, who prefer to learn the minimum amount necessary. Hackers wants to know everything about their technology.
A hacker is also somebody who programs enthustically or obsessively, rather than just theorizes about programming.
(When I first got my new Linux box up and running - it isn't any more - a number of hackers e-mailed me and congratulated me on finally beginning to "hack," that is to understand how a computer and a computer program worked. But they and I knew that I am not and will never be a hacker.)
Raymond also writes about something I've repeatedly experienced - the hacker ethic. In contrast with the greedy, mass-marketed, corporate-controlled mainstream media, hackers believe that information sharing is a powerful and positive good, and that it is also an ethical duty of hackers to share their expertise by writing free software and facilitating access to information and computing resources wherever possible. Many hackers believe that system-cracking for fun and exploration is ethically OK as long as the hacker commits no theft, vandalism, or breach of confidentiality.
I started writing about hackers nearly 10 years ago. Since them I've talked to hundreds. I've never met one who stole for profit or vandalized anything. People who do are thieves and thugs, and vandals, the same as they are off-line.
The single traits I associated with hackers are freedom, knowledge and generousity. Hackers are constantly fighting to keep the Net free, sometimes by going places they're not wanted. They knock borders and walls down. They instinctively struggle to keep the Net from being balkanized by the many interests and corporations who are eager to put up as many walls as possible so they can restrict access and make money.
Raymond has written that the most reliable manifestation of the hacker ethic is that almost all hackers are actively willing to share technical expertise, programs, software and computing resources. Because of these instincts - to be free, to share, and to spread comprehension of computing, hackers have a sense of community and a political ethic still unique to the Internet, and almost completely unknown off-line.
Sometimes kids will flame people claiming to be kick-ass hackers, but they give themselves away as bogus by their hostility. Hackers rarely waste time on hostility, unless provoked. They first and foremost want to share what they know, convert the unconverted, help the helpless and confused. They are unfailingly patient and generous, almost never getting more satisfaction than when they help the techno-impaired use a computer, understand a program, or get online.
When I was struggling to learn Linux, I was flooded with messages from hackers, offering everthing from 24-hour tech support to their home numbers to offers to offers to fly to my house and work with me. When I was writing for Hotwired and was mail-bombed by Wal-Mart supporters angry at a column I wrote criticizing the chain for selling sanitized music, hundreds of hackers rushed to help out, sending me virus protection programs, even lethal mail bomb response programs.
To me, there is a heroic streak to hacking. Off-line, people rarely mention the word freedom. In the context of school, media or government, it's usually a tired and reflexive cliché, constantly invoked but rarely celebrated or practiced. Hackers talk about it all the time.
Hackers are constantly patrolling the Net to keep it, and the vast information on it, free.
Hackers share. The first thing a hacker does when he or she discovers something new, useful or cool is share it with other people.
Hackers teach. Hackers have spend literally thousands of hours helping technologically-impaired people (like me) get online and function.
Hackers fix. Hackers are problem addicts. They love nothing more than to crack a problem, no matter how long or how many people have to get involved.
Hackers give. Hackers are constantly giving gifts. I've gotten telephone numbers for aircraft carrier flight decks, a White House summer vacation command post, my long-lost Uncle Harry's home telephone number, free long distance telephone test numbers, countless bits of music, hundreds of software programs and updates and 24/7 tech support.
Hackers are funny. They have a bizarre sense of humor based on their own language, metaphors and in-jokes. Outsiders can never quite get it. Hackers got and downloaded "Star War" last week even though it took all night and they planned to see it in a theater anyway. Hackers got their hands on the season finale of "Buffy The Vampire Slayer," scrapped in the U.S. but shown in Canada, even though many aren't "Buffy" fans. Hackers have downloaded CD's of the Matrix and every episode of "Futurama," mostly because it's there. Hackers have playlists with 1,000 songs. Hackers don't buy computer games, but they get online anyway, managing to get their hands on registration access codes.
I don't know the details of the FBI's latest war against the Hackers. Maybe these are evil criminals in need of capture by one of the word's best known law enforcement agencies.
I doubt it. If recent history is any judge, the group getting hauled into bureau offices and having their computers seized is more likely to have committed foolish mischief than crimes against the state. You're likely to hear a lot about the arrests and raids, and the subsequent intrusion, but little or nothing about the charges that won't be filed, or if they are, that end up dismissed or reduced. Raids on Hackers are usually to send message, rather than correct a real injustice.
The sad truth is that there are people out there online and off who will steal your money, invade your privacy, send vicious flames, or damage your property, digital and otherwise. Real hackers are not among them.
More than any other single group, with the possible exception of engineers and programmers, hackers have built the Web and the Net, given it what sense of community it has, helped countless people empower themselves through the use of technology, and kept it as free as possible from government intrusion and corporate control. They are not dangerous. They are not criminals. They should be celebrated, not feared and thrown in jail.
Hackers??? Crackers??? Jon, Now I am confused... (Score:1)
What does this mean? I assume its Jon being stupid...or its sarcasm perhaps. Maybe Jon does understand the difference between cracking and hacking and this is his subtle way of proving it? Unless Mitnick had the source code and was truely hacking the Sun OS...
what a dork...
Re:If only the masses read /. (Score:1)
If kids come up to your window at night and shout in the window, waking you and your family, you should not try to have them punished. It was possible for them to shout into the open window, therefore they should be able to do so. You should thank them for demonstrating to you that it's possible to shout into your window at night and wake your family.
Hackers need to be free to shout into your window at night, and drink beer on your sofa, because that's freedom. (It's not free beer, though)
It begins with one step. (Score:1)
Given how much Katz hangs out here (or does he just submit articles with reading the page), he SHOULD know the difference.
Unless he doesn't care and is just here to get PR by stroking your egos.
Re:My god, Katz (Score:1)
oh the irony... it hurts.
Re:Oh Dear (Score:1)
Decades, decades before this recent 'cracker awakening,' hackers were and are people who studied the deep magic of computing, making the way clear for the computer revolution with all its attendant good and bad consequences... including, unfortunately, crackers and script kiddies who trespass, vandalize, and defraud. I have no respect for and am actively hostile to anyone fitting this latter description. They are beneath respect.
other ideas: (Score:1)
Monitor-tanned phosphor worshipper.
Source Code poker-arounder.
Code Wizard.
Hair Shirt Wearer (reserved for the Microhates)
Obsessive Compulsive
Eunich Wizard.
Unix wizard.
Munich blizzard.
Twirling Staplegun from Hellski.
Six pound bag of cheeseburger widgets
Anti Free Beer Metaphoricians
"Free molecules! Not black holes!"
Re:My god, Katz (Score:1)
ESR and other hackers build the things that crackers attempt (usually in vain) to tear down. Hacking is a constructive activity; cracking is a destructive and generally illegal one.
Hacking and "social engineering" are disjoint.
Hacking is about strengthening computer security, not overcoming it.
Hacking is all about "middle-aged geeks who like to stroke their egos by calling themselves a 'hacker'," especially in view of the fact that many of them have been doing this, and contributing incredibly useful tools to the community, longer than "pimple-faced geeks" and crackers alike have been alive.
Re:New Hackers Dictionary (Score:1)
I repeat..hackers don't behave maliciously, cept for good political reasons.
You missed ESR point! You should have say hackers don't intrude, even for good political reasons. Also you don't use the latest version of the Jargon File: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/ [tuxedo.org]. It is much more clear:
cracking n.
[very common] The act of breaking into a computer system; what a cracker does. Contrary to widespread myth, this does not usually involve some mysterious leap of hackerly brilliance, but rather persistence and the dogged repetition of a handful of fairly well-known tricks that exploit common weaknesses in the security of target systems. Accordingly, most crackers are only mediocre hackers.
Re:Harmless? (Score:1)
Seriously, I think this is one of the points that Katz was trying to make (although I don't think he made it very well). While cracking may be wrong, it's generally a crime of about the same magnitude as trespassing. And instead of being treated like trespassing, it's being treated like an enormous threat to western civilization. You don't see the FBI mounting massive operations against teenagers who like to explore buildings by climbing in through unlocked windows, do you?
I think some parallels could be drawn between our current situation vis-a-vis [cr|h]ackers and witches and the supernatural in medieval Europe. The peasants (Joe Websurfer) live on the edge of the great dark forest (the 'net), and occasionally venture a little way into it, but they don't really know much about it or understand it at all, and so they imagine it as a place full of terrible dangers...goblins and trolls and all sorts of terrors live there, don't they? Who knows what they might do to you if they caught you?! And so when they see someone who goes into the dark heart of the forest for purposes unknown, and returns unharmed, rather than be reassured, they wonder all the more. Why aren't you afraid of the terrible dangers lurking in the forest ('net)? Because...YOU MUST BE IN LEAGUE WITH THEM! And so we're crucified because of other people's ignorance, regardless of our actual motives or actions.
No, the FBI's new "war" to replace the Soviets (Score:1)
The FBI's been after 'hackers' since the mid eighties, with Operation Sundevil and all. The "War" against hackers is merely a reflection of the closed nature of our society. Information is money, and power.
Personally, I don't want any 'cracker' reading my credit card information, medical records, or purchase history. Even though it may be information, and 'information must be free', it's still MY information, and I don't want ANYONE reding it unless they have a legitimate reason to. Also, it's a short step from reading information to changing information. The next time Jon Katz gets out his credit card, would he want anyone seeing all the purchases he's made? How much money he has in his bank accounts? His IRA? His stock fund? His personal medical history? His education? How much Wired paid him? What he views on the web? What he runs on his computer?s (heh)? If he has no problem with this, then he can post his information on
To a lesser extent, corporate data has the right to be protected also, except in cases of fraud, negligence, or malpractice. Corporation A's private financial records may be useless to you or I, but to say Company B, who's considering an accuisition of Company A, it may be very valuable information. Or if Company A and Company B are competitors, Company A's marketing plans shouldn't be public domain.
As for hacker, a derivitive of the word hack, indicating a clever or onorthodox approach, I'm all for it.
As an aside- Has anyone ever seen Katz actually post in one of these forums? Defended one of his articles? Or are his articles read-only, sermons that are preached, rather than discussion pieces?
-No Name Specified
I don't recall... (Score:1)
Hrm? (Score:2)
Re:Oh Dear (Score:2)
Re:I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but... (Score:2)
Well, maybe most of the crackers, but only a marginal proportion of the hackers.
I have learn 6502 assembly only because it was the way to go to make sound on a Apple-II. I have learn x86 assembly because I wanted to know how Turbo Pascal generated code, and latter because I wanted to make TSR programs (Terminate and Stay Resident). I have learn socket programming in school ; and I applied it to make a Virtual Reality server with VR386 clients (back in 1993/94, just after Doom was out). I never used assembly to have a peek at virus code (beside I use Linux so it would be very hard for me to find virus code).
In fact of all the people I know very few have ever cracked ; much more have PhDs. You are very wrong in thinking that the cracker communauty is huge and big. That's simply not true. The number of people having contributed code in a typical Linux distribution, is probably much bigger than the total amount of crackers in the US (I exclude the clueless wannabe who will go nowhere, except for some Visual Basic programming jobs).
Another complication: hacker ethics just don't jibe with what passes for ethics in today's society. How can you say "crackers are criminals, hackers aren't" when many of the hackers in question have filled their hard drives with software and music obtained illegally?
Yes but they are leaving others alone. This is a privacy problem. Cracking is a clear agression ; copyright infrigement isn't. Now if you would crack unused systems put in some place, say, only to see if the electricity plug works, and that no one will use, then it would no longer be an agression. The problem is that many crackers won't crack these systems exactly because this wouldn't be an aggression, and will not be fun for them.
The worse mixing of hackers and crackers. (Score:3)
Definition: "cracker" = person who (attempts to) intrudes systems belonging to other people.
Fact: "cracker" != "hacker", because nowadays, free Unices, Windows, WindowsNT, and applications provide enough/sufficiently complex programs and source code to play with. If most of the hackers only had ZX81s (Basic, 1 KB RAM), then at least, it would be understandable that they tried to get access to bigger computers. But nowadays its definitly no longer the case ; the "hacker" really interested in systems would read Linux kernel source, or use SoftICE to watch Windows kernel running ; and certainly not intrude in people systems.
Fact: "crackers" should be called "crackers", because "hackers", the ones who leave others' systems alone, existed and used this name many years before most current crackers were born ; see the Jargon file history: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/jar gon.html [tuxedo.org].
Of course it's no surprise that The Jargon File maintained by ESR make these points clear:
One who breaks security on a system. Coined ca. 1985 by hackers in defense against journalistic misuse of hacker (q.v., sense 8). An earlier attempt to establish `worm' in this sense around 1981-82 on Usenet was largely a failure.
Use of both these neologisms reflects a strong revulsion against the theft and vandalism perpetrated by cracking rings. While it is expected that any real hacker will have done some playful cracking and knows many of the basic techniques, anyone past larval stage is expected to have outgrown the desire to do so except for immediate, benign, practical reasons (for example, if it's necessary to get around some security in order to get some work done).
Thus, there is far less overlap between hackerdom and crackerdom than the mundane reader misled by sensationalistic journalism might expect. Crackers tend to gather in small, tight-knit, very secretive groups that have little overlap with the huge, open poly-culture this lexicon describes; though crackers often like to describe themselves as hackers, most true hackers consider them a separate and lower form of life.
Ethical considerations aside, hackers figure that anyone who can't imagine a more interesting way to play with their computers than breaking into someone else's has to be pretty losing. Some other reasons crackers are looked down on are discussed in the entries on cracking and phreaking. See also samurai, dark-side hacker, and hacker ethic. For a portrait of the typical teenage cracker, see warez d00dz.
[originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe] 1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming. 3. A person capable of appreciating hack value. 4. A person who is good at programming quickly. 5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; as in `a Unix hacker'. (Definitions 1 through 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.) 6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example. 7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations. 8. [deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence `password hacker', `network hacker'. The correct term for this sense is cracker. [...]
Honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would loose his time craking systems, and then whining because justice is harsh. Maybe that's the case, but why the e2fscking hell have these morons to mess with systems that don't belong to them ? Why ?
This is getting out of hand (Score:1)
Is it just me, or is there a problem here? Since when are malicious hackers worse than cold-blooded murderers?
All you have to do is ask yourself this question: which act causes more money to be lost by big corporations? Killing or cracking? Justice may be blind, but she knows the meaning of money.
Linux box up and running - it isn't any more (Score:1)
Why?
Geeking (Score:1)
No, I don't think so... but then, you weren't to know that 'geeking' already has a meaning. Geeking is what a crack head does when they can't get their crack- sort of vibrating and sweating and going insane and paranoid and out of control
Therefore, Windows geeking is not surprising, but making a filter for the GIMP would hardly qualify- at least not if the filter is to be any good
Re:You've got it wrong again. (Score:1)
Case in point: Steve Wozniak.
Few would disparage his hacking credentials, building the Apple I and Apple II nearly singlehandedly. He was also into the hacking/phreaking scene in the 70s (what slashdotters would call the "cracking/phreaking scene") and was actually taken in once for selling red boxes.
Re:Oh Dear (Score:1)
Re:New Hackers Dictionary (Score:1)
Re:Confusing the issue (Score:1)
Re:There is a difference... (Score:1)
Sometime I wonder if /. is completely populated by fruits. This guy didn't read the article, that much is plain. He is spewing out garbage that he doesn't understand. Hackers and crackers are all bad. They ruin things and cause trouble for sys admins. All hackers should be sent to China!
TK427 - Do you copy?Crime and Punishment (Score:1)
Yes, abuses of the judicial and criminal system are every citizen's business - but there are more drastic abuses that should trouble any of us, like the manner in which death sentences are handed out, and the manner in which parole is granted to violent criminals.
Jon, please don't be so arrogant as to determine for all of us what is important and what isn't. You haven't demonstrated the wit to be my philosopher king just yet.
Crime and Punishment (Score:1)
Yes, abuses of the judicial and criminal system are every citizen's business - but there are more drastic abuses that should trouble any of us, like the manner in which death sentences are handed out, and the manner in which parole is granted to violent criminals.
Jon, please don't be so arrogant as to determine for all of us what is important and what isn't. You haven't demonstrated the wit to be my philosopher king just yet.
Katz - The Great Tech Apologist (Score:2)
Once again Katz replaces a stereotype with one of his own choosing.
Gee, if I had only known "hackers" (whoever they are) are such great people, I would have invited them to dinner.
By the way - Milken has donated huge sums to the fight against cancer (yes, this is prompted partly by his own battle with it), so please do not paint him with your broad brush. Most people who actually know something about finance will tell you that many of Milken's "junk" techniques revolutionized aspects of corporate finance - and are still in use today.
Re:Duh..No..actually..hackers, not crackers (Score:1)
You don't understand. If you *like* breaking into systems and gaining expertise in that area, you're a CRACKER, whether you think of yourself as a hacker or not. It's the difference between a car thief and an auto mechanic.
You're claiming that so long as the thief only breaks in but doesn't steal the car, he's a mechanic.
Why don't you stop pretending to be an expert about computer culture and go pretend to be an expert about something else?
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Re:New Hackers Dictionary (Score:1)
There are people out there who have massive political disagreements with you; do you think this should give them carte blanche to rewrite your web site in protest?
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
The crack/hack war is lost (Score:5)
there is an older, nobler meaning. Gay used refer to light-hearted happiness, but if you insist on saying "I'm gay" to mean that you're happy you can't blame people for misunderstanding you.
We need another word, the closest we have is "developer" but that doesn't cover many of the conotations of hacking - does anyone have any ideas ?
Books on the subject (Score:1)
This time its a Bruce Sterling book called 'The Hacker Crackdown.' As I remember (it's some time ago since I read it), it goes into some detail on the Mitnick case and lots of others. Definately worth reading -- I rate Sterling more as a journalist than a writer!
I think he published it on the web, too. Anyone have a URL?
Illusions of Names (Score:1)
If I spend all my spare time optimizing my home network am I any less skilled for being called a cracker?
If I spend my time installing Back Orifice on people machines do I sudenly understand more about my computer because someone calls me a hacker?
Do "real" hackers unlearn anthything from it?
I think the distinction between hacker and cracker is a little silly anyway. It's not like real people are all hacker or all cracker anyway.
Most of the people I know have a wide variety of interests. I practice Karate, I cook better than alot of profesional chefs, I play video games, I write code, I maintain my network, and sometimes I circumvent security.
So go ahead, label me. Call me hacker, cracker, looser, idiot, wannabe, whatever. But when I'm sitting at home eating sauteed chicken with white wine sauce over rice, and recompiling my kernel guess how much I'll care.
"languishing in jail" (Score:1)
--
Re:...built the net (Score:1)
While it's true that TCP/IP and not Fidonet forms the foundation of the modern 'net (and thus state funding and not hacking was the initial seed), I suggest that this is an accident of history -- TCP/IP would have evolved without a shred of state funding soon enough.
Why is it, that when the state contributes a miniscule fraction toward something useful, it is deemed "non-existant, were it not for the benevolent government?"
...built the net (Score:4)
I'd suggest that the engineers and programmers that "built" "the Net" are hackers: the evidence is the clear tendency toward decentralization as much as possible, for political as much as technical reasons.
Finally (Score:1)
Hostility... (Score:1)
Seems he should read more of the comments here
BBses being busted (Score:1)
I love to log on to bbses. they migth become a alternative for power user the day the net will only have newbies and unresponsible persons
Re:Demonizing Michael Milken (Score:1)
AFAIK, the real crime of Mike Milken was his success in selling junk bonds
Unfortunately, this success was due, in part, with misrepresentation of the risk involved in buying junk bonds. As a result, a lot of due dilligence was corrupted and the American taxpayer had to help clean up the mess. He got what he deserved.
Re:Lots of people need conversion.. (Score:1)
Which is really what you are counting on, isn't it? Other journalists reading your work I mean....
If you want to write for
mitnick (Score:1)
Re:mitnick (Score:1)
Re:I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but... (Score:1)
As far as hacker ethics go... I consider myself a hacker (albeit a minor hacker), and I don't have any illegal software or music on my computer. As for software, that is the beauty of Linux for me. There isn't even a temptation to grab other software... I've got all I need.
As far as ethics go, perhaps I just don't have the hackers ethic. If I don't agree with a license agreement, then I don't open/use the software. By opening or using it, I am in effect making a promise. If I am not willing to uphold that promise, then I shouldn't have made it. So I don't. Now I am getting back at the manufactorer by using capatalism to my advantage.
Web-wide joke? (Score:1)
"Drat! If it wasn't for those meddlesome kids..."
Nothing personal, Mr. Katz, but your formula seems all too clear. You gush on about some cause or another and then mix in what you hope are a few 'geek-kulture' pats to the back, in the hopes of getting a call from Time or Rolling Stone admiring your latest tirade, backed-up by an intelligent / passionate discussion amongst 'todays tchnological youth' to show what a significant 'find' you've made.
Your posts are 'hot' in terms of topic, but low in terms of actual substance. It is your hope, i believe, that by initiating discussion of such popular 'hot' topics as Hacker/Cracker, Mitnick, whatever, the intellectual level of the ensuing discussion will be accredited to YOU, when in fact you had little or nothing of any worth to say.
In essence, you are trying to get the readers of Slashdot to write your articles for you, and you get *angry* and *indignant* when folks refuse to play along, and instead call a spade a spade, and have a field day flame-fest at your expense instead, embarrassing you before your valued publishing peers.
When people point out your foolishness, you grumble and shout like an old hippie that "It's not for me, it's for the PEOPLE! Your BAD VIBES against me are hurting THE PEOPLE!"
The flip side, of course, is that your presence here is an occasional humorous diversion, and for that I am grateful.
At your best your mildly insightful and entertaining. At your worst, you're a Middleman, which is just another form of Lawyer.
Re:Slashdot cracked? (Score:1)
Theft is theft (Score:2)
Yeah, right. Okay. So, If I shoot somebody out of curiosity (I just want to see what it looks like) then I suppose I shouldn't be arrested for murder, should I...
If he did it just out of curiosity then did he put the money back? Did he turn himself in?
There is a difference... (Score:2)
This article is confused about the nature of hacking and hackers. I've known a lot of people who are considered hackers and none of them stole registration codes, or broke into government computers. This hacker/cracker confusion is prevalent in everything I've read coming from outside the hacker culture. Only those who are hackers understand, because hackers are individuals. How can anyone try to analyze a collection of individuals? It will always lead to confusion and stereotypes.
Loader of Code, Hacker not Cracker (there is a difference)The War against the Crackers (Score:2)
DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER!!!
~ George Winston (1984)
Scott
Well done... (Score:1)
Nice one! :)
--
I like JK but... (Score:1)
[snip]
>> hackers don't steal, vandalize or damage. They are most often freedom-loving and generous problem solvers and information sharers
Hackers may be, but they're not who're being chased.
The problem is crackers, and "real crackers" are not [gush, gush], they're anti-social malicious self-righteous spolit brats.
I know the article goes on to draw a difference, but it implies that all crackers are hackers "crossed over to the dark side" (my quote, not JK), I'd disagree
Once you've started down the path of computing, the choice is hacking vs. cracking, not one as a specialisation of the other.
Tim
Huh?? (Score:1)
Oh well, maybe you'll get it right next time...
Duh..No..actually..hackers, not crackers (Score:1)
No crackers steal...hackers don't..That's sort of the point OGL
Lots of people need conversion.. (Score:2)
...in case you forget,
New Hackers Dictionary (Score:2)
Crackers: The act of breaking into a computer system; what a cracker does. also: a malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around.
hacker: also tends to connote member in the global community defined bythe net.
hacker: a person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities..
2. one who programs enthusiastically even obsessively or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming.
I repeat..hackers don't behave maliciously, cept for good political reasons.
I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but... (Score:5)
How many of you got into socket programming because you wanted to write an IP sniffer, maybe snarf a few passwords? How many of you who know assembly have never used it to peek at virus source code? How many of you learned assembly so you could write/modify a virus?
I'm not saying all hackers are crackers -- that's the conventional stupidity. But crackers often become hackers, and many hackers still crack sites or phreak long-distance. Most of the skills are the same; to talk like the groups are mutually exclusive is silly.
Another complication: hacker ethics just don't jibe with what passes for ethics in today's society. How can you say "crackers are criminals, hackers aren't" when many of the hackers in question have filled their hard drives with software and music obtained illegally?
Not that they necessarily should be illegal, mind you, but consider your audience. The only ethic that makes any difference (in the US, at least) is money -- if you don't have any, you're evil, and if you try to take money from those who have it, you're a criminal. (If you steal from the poor, of course, it's perfectly legal -- just look up the definition of "fringe banking".)
The issue here is an ethical dissonance, and, yes, insisting that some activities are those of "crackers" and not "hackers" has some merit -- it denotes acts using (mostly) hacker skills that the hacker community deems unethical. It's just that the distinction is lost to those on the Outside (who don't have a clue what ethics are anymore anyway). What makes a difference is how well we evangelize our ethics. Go out, all of you, and make hackers of men. :)
phil
A Hacker possesses two souls (Score:1)
Let's stop the lyrics. Hackers are not Good. Nor they are Evil. They are humans like anyone else. The difference between the hacker and the "common mortal/citizen" is that he has a bigger knowledge of a power that moves our civilization today. So their actions can be a lot more constructive/damaging than anyone else.
Hackers have made great achievements. Yes they made the Internet. They made a whole new OS out of nothing. They made most of what is now the modern computer industry today. And they made serious damage also. They invaded, lapidated, robbed, crashed networks, computers, whole systems around the Globe. They even manage to start to ruin businesses.
But there's an assymetry here. Can anyone remember of "evil" actions that can be compared to the make of Linux? With the exception of Linux itself many will scratch their heads...
Yes Linux is by itself an "evil" and we know very well about that. Most of us feel happy to see how some guys in Redmond start to worry about it. There is some sadistic thinking in this feeling.
However no one of us will ever judge Linux. No one will ever dream about it. Why? Because it goes above Good/Evil. It gives freedom. And in the middle of an anarchy it creates order. And the same can be said in relation to Internet.
In fact most of the actions I have done and seen shows that, here, we don't have a problem of Evil/Good. Most Hackers are stranger to these conceptions. At least on how the layman understands it. There is a hacker's Morale. But this set of unwritten laws is made of a rather pragmatic hunt for knowledge and human relations. Justice in hackers world exist but possesses a lot of specificities. I would say that instead of a Evil/Good "emotional" conception, hackers possess a sense of "Right/Wrong" in a very "rational" frame. Somehow this is a typical reflection of a world they dealing with. Computers are quite far from emotions. And it seems that they fanatics are less prone to "emotionalize" their life in this world.
Half year ago I saw a terrible epidemics on cracking. Hackers of different levels who roaming all over turning the work into a warfield. Some guys started to seriously consider a small "sunrise" to hold things. However a change of OSes (guess what!
Absolutely not. What changed was the level of freedom given to them. Before they had a crappy, cosmetic OS, that was supposed to work, with a lot of restrictions due to its cosmetic security. Now they face another OS, tremendously incomplete, quite buggy in a few places, with a small piece of "fundamental" security and with a chance to roam nearly everywhere. Freedom changed the relation people had and seems to have changed "Evil" by "Good". The common human morale remains the same in the souls of each one of them. What changed is that minds had a chance to expand they field of action into a more vast environment than before. Before it was a reaction of self-defense. Now the same is a reaction of self-education.
There are of course variations, exceptions in this structure. But they are also specific to each individual and situation. In general the picture was Dr Jekyll turned Mr. Hyde. Or is Mr. Hyde turned Dr. Jekyll?
The media's hassle is a cheap borrowing of that typical picture we all see in the comics: The Muscular Hero vs. The Evil Mind. A cheap stupid product that is easy to sell. Because anyone has read comics in his childhood. However they do not see where they are leading us with such freakness.
Do you think that hackers will not start shutting? Ok I am now an admin, some sort of "good guy". But on the first moment I fell that someone is endangering my freedom he can be sure that he will have to deal with me. And as me there are thousands that think the same. Any sort of "Sunrise" on the fast foot. Any type of restriction taken from the magician's hat. Any sort of "collateral damage". Any type of thing that hackers will see as a global danger to their lifestyle and thinking. Nukes will be child toys. III World War would never had so many people stepped in such a mess.
It's about time for society and hackers to think about those things that generate such situations like the present one. There is a massive pressure on turning people to Big Mac's. Some sort of consumer much like the typical TV user. However this is not the world of TV. This is something that deals with the most important part of the human being: his mind. An attempt to christianize the christians, here, can have deep consequences in the future.
The society must think that the hacker is already here. It might be quite a strange guy. Some sort of beer lover ET in blue jeans. But it is here. And made already its part in this world. It is no angel but also no devil. But it can be quite destructive if society tries itself to destroy him.
Re:curiosity got the cracker arrested... (Score:1)
Ok, (Score:3)
Re:Harmless? (Score:1)
Re:Harmless? (Score:1)
For example: I think that sex is a good and right thing. Suppose I see a woman that I would like to have sex with, but who doesn't want to have sex with me. From my point of view, wearing a condom would prevent any untoward repurcussions, since no one would get sick or pregnant. These are the only valid concerns I can see anyone raising. So if I wear a condom, she will be no worse off than she is now, and I will be so much happier. Surely if she were as informed as I am, she would agree. Why should I let her ignorance and narrow-mindedness prevent me from having this fun. THIS STILL WOULD BE RAPE IF SHE DOESN'T CONSENT. It's not my evaluation of what she should or should not think about appropriate use of her body that counts. It's hers.
My system is not your toy. Just because you return my car with the tank full in the morning doesn't mean you can steal it and joyride tonight.
Harmless? (Score:2)
I don't even want to think about the criminal casing my house who discovers the laxity with which I enforce my property rights in the above scenario.
Tresspassers should be prosecuted. Cyber or otherwise.
Stop Kissing Milken's A$$ (Score:1)
Jeez, if I read one more post about 'how could Katz come down on the poor, downtrodden, unjustly treated (!!!) Mikey Milken' one more time I think I'll be nauseous.
As this article [freep.com] reminds us, Mikey got in trouble for the highly illegal practice of INSIDER TRADING, NOT because the 'big bad govt wanted to put down our oh so holy saint of blessed junk bonds'. As it also shows, he can't be bothered to obey the law even in recent times.
I guess in tomorrow's episode we'll be treated to the story of 'The Saintly, Mistreated Charlie Keating' and other fractured fairy tales...
Re:Getting over ourselves (Re:Oh Dear) (Score:2)
In answer to your question: Yes ,IMHO, it is important. One of the things that the OSS movement is going to have to overcome is the image that some people have (and I mean decision-making people) of anything created by ``hackers''. If the news media insists on confusing ``hacker'' and ``cracker'' when reporting on criminal activity performed by ``crackers'', we'll never get past the issue of trust that these people need to have. It's great that you don't have a problem with the misuse of the term. If the general public has the idea that hackers engage in breaking into systems and other illegal activity, I would not want to run around calling myself a hacker except to a carefully selected few who understand the difference. If you are at all about your professional reputation you might wish to avoid calling yourself a hacker.
Even if they publicly renounced their past activities (``youthful indiscretions''?), I would not trust anyone like Kevin Mitnick or Phyber Optick (sp?) to do anything more sophisticated than insert a floppy on one of my systems... and maybe not even that.
Letting the press continue to misuse this term makes our advocacy efforts that much more difficult. If they can't or won't change their use of the term then, perhaps, it's time to create a new term (much like OSS was created in response to some of the negative connotations attached to ``Free Software'').
Hackers and Crackers and Newbies, oh my! (Score:1)
Recently, I needed to write something that would append to
Re:If you needed more proof.. (Score:1)
/me dons asbestos suit.
Re:The rise of the Digitati. (Score:1)
Re:Hackers??? Crackers??? Jon, Now I am confused.. (Score:1)
In fact, those files are part of the evidence being used to incriminate him.
Hacker has multiple meanings--and this is ok! (Score:1)
I think it's about time that the computing community woke up to the fact that the word hacker can and does have multiple meanings. There are plenty of words like this in the English language; bitch has two distinct meanings, one derrogatory and one not; why cannot hacker too? In fact, even in use within the community we deal with different meanings for variants: the hackers I admire are the ones that don't produce hacks, but produce good code instead.
cjs
Re:Lots of people need conversion.. (Score:1)
Name confusion (Score:2)
If you can't beat 'em... (Score:1)
It seems to me one must start with attempts at synonyms to "hack", and work from there. The ones I can think of offhand are kind of lame, to wit: :: hacker-> feater(?!?) :: hacker -> stunter(?!?)
hack -> feat
hack -> stunt
But I'm certain the august readers of this forum can do better...
You've got it wrong again. (Score:1)
TA
Re:Oh Dear (Score:1)
TA
Re:Oh Dear (Score:1)
TA
Other ideas. (Score:1)
One possible reason..... (Score:2)
When was the last time you heard of a computer criminal doing so?
If you're a law enforcement agency, which one are you going to choose to go after?
Yup, it's lost all right. Does anyone give a fuck? (Score:1)
The war is lost, put your effort elsewhere (Score:3)
It might have helped (eons ago) if the word chosen to mean what we mean by "hacker" hadn't sounded so violent (like the word "hack", as in "to chop violently at something"). It's too late now.
Let them call Mitnick a hacker. You can't stop them anyhow. What about the word void for people like us, you ask? If we stopped fighting so hard, one will develop. English abhors a vacuumn. "Techie"? "Techy?" "Ultra-geek?" Who knows, but you won't be able to control that either. And it will be co-opted and corrupted too.
Have patience, and let time take its course. The press certainly can't be educated any other way.
Your effort is better spent elsewhere.
Hackers don't steal... they just code... (Score:1)
(Crackers) don't buy computer games, but they get online anyway, managing to get their hands on registration access codes.
No crackers steal...hackers don't..That's sort of the point OGL
Care to blurr the line a bit more?
Seriously tho... romanticizing crackers will get you nowhere. There is a world where little kids log on to BBS's and download Doom 2 a month before its release allongside 'boxes.txt' and 'qcrack.zip'. This is the world of the cracker.
There is another world where bright young semiprofessionals figure out that encryption algorythm, or how to build their own tellephone, or how to get ahold of some id beta tester's computer. This is the world of the hacker.
One creates the exploits, but is too noble to use them. The others use the exploits, but are too ignorant to make their own.
You would expect that one would move from one world to the other. I would hope this happens when they turn 18 (when juvinile records wonderfully dissipate), but there are some crackers that refuse to grow up.
They do have common traits. Crackers wants to be hackers so why not emulate your heroes? Cusade for justice and a free copy of Quake 3! Smash online censorship and mailbomb that governor who proposed the dumb anti-porn (i mean anti-free speech) law!
When do the hackers grow up? When they figure out it's cooler to code up a constructive piece of software than to distribute 'papasmurf.c' to a zillion script kiddies. Then they are programmers.
We need less blurring of the lines here. We don't need to call programmers hackers and hackers crackers and romanticize all three. We need to learn that positive contribution to the community means a kernel bugfix, not redistributing a film, song, or game that cost some honest professional spent part of his life creating.
No, you are ... Re:Missing the point ... (Score:1)
What is a person? Is he molecules or the sum total thereof? Or is he the total of that and his actions attitudes and effects that he has on the universe?
[engage flamage]
You are what you post. and likewise when your post is linked it is a link to YOU...
Don't even pretend that when one of your comments is moderated up you don't get a little ego trip... OF COURSE you do... i'm sure everyone does...
if YOU didn't care about moderator points then you would post as AC! and likewise if JON didn't care about "being linked all over the place" then he would have posted this to USENET!
oh, it's all about getting your due... Jon Katz has made that perfectly clear. In fact he wrote a WIRED article but posted it on slashdot. WHY? Maybe Wired wouldn't post it!!!
Now Jon, does that hurt? If it does you're nothing but EGO. If not then I have seriously misjudged you.
As the numerous posts quoting the jargon file has probably allready exhibbited, you should start putting more thought and research into what your write instead of just churning out a flashy newsbite because people are going to link it!
[disengage flamage]
Jon Katz ~= Marilyn Manson... (Score:1)
take one bit sensitive audience
one bit insulting/disparaging sentiment
mix well....
INSTANT ATTENTION!
Bryan Warner did it and became Marilyn Manson... now Jon Katz did it and is becoming the suit formerly known as Jon...
Re:Oh Dear (Score:1)
Of course the popular media mean by `hackers' what
most of us mean by `crackers'. Script kiddies (or
the people who help them by writing the scripts) who need a life so bad that they have nothing else to do but find a way into my system and read my memos (which bore the hell out of *me*) are pitiful.
I yield to no one in my admiration for real hackers, but the attacks are not against them. The attacks are against crackers.
Yum, crackers. anyone have some cheese? (Score:1)
Nevermind the fact that they are a total minority among a majority that has been using the word with a negative connotation for years.
Gee... why hasn't the mass-media gotten this straight? Because the word "cracker" sounds so stupid! Crackers are something you put cheez-wiz on. There is nothing sinister or scary about them. The word "hacker" on the other hand sounds baad.(with 2 a's. example: Val Kilmer is a BAAD ASS!)
The only reason slashdotters are in such a frenzie about this is because they don't want to be called geeks, nerds, or dorks. They want to be BAAD ASS hackers!
Sorry guys but it's time to quit denying the truth. I'll be the first to admit it: "OK... My name is Peter and I'm a big nerd."
US cracking Satalites/Europe (Score:4)
Secondly, I'd just like to point out the direct hipocricy of the federal government putting so much effort towards capturing people who's crime is the theft of information while simultaniously monitoring any and all data they can...
Witness both the recent Australian announcement of the satalite systems that filter and save any messages that pass through, and the abuse of key escrow (like we didn't see that one coming from day one) by the US in the European arena.
More over, the US government has more motive and oppurtunity to put there stolen data to use than do most individuals.
hmm... long-winded? (Score:3)
I think all of that could have been said in
two or three sentences. No need to preach to
the choir, Jon.
I used to be interested in Katz's articles.
I really did. I swear...
curiosity got the cracker arrested... (Score:1)
More about Milken (Score:2)
misrepresentation of the risk involved in buying junk bonds
Well, caveat emptor, as the Romans used to say. He didn't sell junk bonds to widows and orphans, but rather to financial institutions that were perfectly capable of evaluating the risk themselves. I tend to have very little sympathy for, say, a hedge fund which bought risky assets (because they offered high return, why else!) and when the risk turned against them started crying misrepresentation. BTW, the Milken junk bond career started with an academic book which proved that historically a well-diversified (key word!) portfolio of junk bonds provided better risk/return ratio than a portfolio of blue-chip bonds.
a lot of due dilligence was corrupted
Er.. I don't really understand what you mean and I doubt it had anything to do with Milken.
and the American taxpayer had to help clean up the mess
There was no need. A lot of financial institutions (like pensions funds) became too greedy and gobbled up junk bonds. When the junk bond market collapsed they ran to the government for help. I don't see any *need* for helping them out of the mess they got themselves into. The situation is similar to the smoking debates: are the tobacco companies guilty that the people smoke, or they just provide a choice and some, or maybe a lot, people *choose* to smoke. I personally tend to take the latter position.
Kaa
Demonizing Michael Milken (Score:4)
Yes, the government went out of its way to make Kevin Mitnick's life miserable and demonize him, but in an ironic twist lost on Jon Katz, this is the fate of Mike Milken as well.
Kaa
Potential Damage (Score:3)
I agree that these crimes are blown out of proportion, nothing like stealing atomic secrets or genocide. But they are crimes none the less. I don't see any need to romanticize it.
I think the real hypocrisy here is that the government is working hard both to crack down on the crackers and to keep our computers less secure by restricting cryptography.
Re:This is too important (Score:4)
Ooh, Jon's being linked all over the place... guess that means we better listen up, huh!
If you can't take the time to read through the comments and find the "real" discussion, or click the little button to restrict your view (reflecting moderation), why complain? There is a *reason* that functionality was put into slashdot.
I'm so glad you can take the time to tell us that you're being linked all over the place, but we (the posters) are a joke.
Ever read a newsgroup? Are newsgroups the "joke of the 'net"? Newsgroups are much more prone to flames, BS, and all around nonsense than slashdot, yet I see no one laugh them out of existence. With slashdot, we have a unique community of people who are willing to think for themselves (generalizing here), and use the voice they were given to 'share' their opinion. Sure, sometimes that might be in the form of a flame, but right behind them (and probably me
If you wish to look at someone being "laughed at", try yourself, that's what's happening here. The difference: slashdot readers don't really *care* what the "rest of the web" thinks, while you feel the need to come in and defend yourself, insulting those that read your column in the first place.
Doesn't the fact that they READ your column say something in itself? They took the time to read the thing, instead of just ignoring it and moving on. It probably made them think about the issue, if even just a little bit you *did* get some of your point across.
Insulting your "target audience" doesn't get you far... of course, you seem to be more interested in getting yourself brilliant e-mail responses and 'linked everywhere' than respecting the very people who read your columns in the first place.
-nicole
Getting over ourselves (Re:Oh Dear) (Score:2)
It's such an incredibly self-referential and arrogant response to something that just doesn't seem all that important. For all their posturing of strength, "hackers/crackers" get all bent out of shape when someone calls them the wrong freakin' word, as if their efforts for Good Things and Truth were instantly diluted when an outsider refers to them incorrectly.
Ever since computing hit the media, the word "hacker" has had lots of uses, as has "cracker." (I still think "cracker" just sounds silly, as it makes me envision some overall-clad hayseed saying, "Wimmin, fix me a sammich.") Now for hell's sake, are we so insecure that we have to fly off the handle when we think the general public might be misinformed?
If that's the case, we should all calm down and just pass around some beers, because the general public already has its perception.
[ now, before you flame me saying I would say there's no difference between, say, "nigger" and "african-american," let me just pre-empt you with a response: are you really that daft? ]
-schoitz
Re:Oh Dear (Score:2)
Maybe you want to call him a cracker, but don't forget his case is making history for everyone working with computers. Taking such basic rights from a human being is the first step towards totalitarism, and I suggest you protest this kind of behavior before it affects you directly (and it can, just read the Hacker Crackdown)!!!
Re:This is too important (Score:2)
Geek-grrl in training
"Leave it to the computer industry to shorten the year 2000 problem to Y2K. It was thinking like this that got us into this trouble to begin with."
Confiscation (Score:2)
Now, it's quite possible that I'm terribly out of date, but if I recall correctly the confiscation of equipment is not based on conviction (or even arrest!), only suspicion, and that confiscated equiptment is non-recoverable. Is this still the case?
It seems to me that there is a genuinely usefull (and eminently abusable) power there. If the fear is of governement opression (as it so often is) then the FBI's ability to seize my computer systems without warning, explanation, or recourse, seems to represent a true ability to cripple my effectiveness as a hacker/cracker, social activist, or business person. Granted there are always resources to be had, but to get right down to it I could not afford to have my servers and workstations replaced. Certainly not right away. (or my DVD player, or play station, or speak'n'spell -- they take it all -- for that mater) Worse, even assuming a fairly paranoid set of offsite (unknown to the feds) backups, the amount of intelectual property (I almost hate to use the term in this context) loss can be immense.
Is there a way that this doesn't amount to unchecked punative action by the FBI? I figure I must be missing somthing, because I never hear anyone talk about this at all...
--
Civil disobedience (Score:2)
This is... interesting. The US (and others) will deliberately sail warships through waters claimed by other states, but recognized by most as international waters, to keep them free. They call it "showing the flag."
In the 60's, individual citizens did something similar to protest what they viewed as unjust laws. It was called "civil disobedience" and while many people were convicted, few people were felt (in retrospect) to have been criminals.
But in our brave new world we suddenly have everything cast as property rights, and not just on the net. For instance, most people don't realize that they can't picket many stores anymore since the mall is private property and protesters can be ejected. Picketing on the distant sidewalk, if it even exists, is still possible, but it exerts far less pressure on a store than the pickets of the 50's and 60's.
How do you picket a web site? Because of the emphasis on property rights, some decisions are going against protesters who register variants of the real domain name for protest sites. It sounds like this will be even more common in the future. We can still put up our protest sites under innoculous domain names, but what happens if no search engine will link to them out of fear of legal action?
I don't have a solution to this problem, and I don't know if a net-based solution even exists since there are related problems in p-space as well. But it does seem damning that the corporate media focuses on "hackers" instead of the bigger issues.
Re:My god, Katz (Score:2)
arrogant and full of himself, the claim that he's not a hacker is simply ridiculous.
Take a look in
use fetchmail to access their pop-mail accounts.
He's a hacker all right. And a pretty darned good one.
Equivocation and rationalization (Score:2)
So, how can Katz pillory the media for making this same mistake? Answer: the media do it out of ignorance, while Katz is deliberately equivocating to draw a specious connection between the criminals the FBI is pursuing (who often make no useful contribution to the hacker community) and the people who ``built the web.''
You see, it's hard to get people worked up over the FBI arresting actual criminals, but if you hint that they're really after the benign sort of ``hacker,'' well, then, that's a different story. Then it's us they're after.
Katz also engages in the most pernicious form of rationalizing when he states that ``Many hackers believe that system-cracking for fun and exploration is ethically OK as long as the hacker commits no theft, vandalism, or breach of confidentiality,'' and ``few hackers have ever done any serious damage to government or any other institutions, and have never to my knowledge caused any sort of physical harm to a real human being.'' First, the notion that you have to cause physical harm to a real human being in order to cause any harm at all is ridiculous. Second, implicit in the second statement is the admission that some people do break into systems and cause harm, and this is where the first statement falls down. Since harmful intruders do exist any intrusion must be treated seriously. Causing time and resources to be diverted to respond to these supposedly "harmless" attacks is itself causing harm. There is no such thing as a benign computer break-in, any more than there is such a thing as a benign home or business break-in.
It seems to me that the time wasted breaking into other people's computers is better spent hacking on systems that we have legitimate access to. Best of all, when you do that you have no FBI raids, no media demonization, and best of all you don't have to sacrifice your intellectual integrity concocting specious arguments to justify behaviors that no real hacker should condone.
-r
Preaching to the converted ... (Score:2)
Having a WIDER audience with the power to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT read and discuss the Hellmouth series or this article is damn important if it gets them to do something about the problems described in the article. Otherwise, you're preaching more or less to the converted.
I know that a lot of people would like to shut their eyes and pretend the Outside World from their particular interests doesn't exist. Hell, I'm as guilty of that as the next person. But that's not going to happen. We (whatever "we" is comprised of) DO need to interact with the "outside world" once in a while.
Missing the point ... (Score:3)
The point isn't that Jon Katz, author, is getting linked all over the Web. The point is that the articles he wrote are getting linked all over the Web. Some of these articles are on some pretty important topics. The Hellmouth series was one (and was how I found
And the default moderation for
Which means that someone following a link to the site might end up seeing a bunch of "Why Katz Sucks" appended to the bottom of the Katz's writing. Or worse yet, just plain "Katz sucks" (though admittedly that's more likely to get the negative 1 rating).
I don't think Katz is tooting his own horn here. I'm a writer myself and recently got accused of doing the same thing. I think the point he is trying to make is the exact opposite: this stuff is important to him, it's getting talked about outside the usual
Confusing the issue (Score:4)
--
Re:Confusing the issue (Score:2)
Perhaps we should s/hacker/attacker/ or more simply s/hacker/criminal/ instead. While there are no guarantees that this will work any better, at least it will stand out better and so be less readily confusable.
--tom