I can't really remember a time when the hacker community wasn't trying to distance itself from script kids. It seems like a moot point among the tech savvy, but an uphill battle with the general public. I guess the layman's concept is focused on effects, which almost makes the script kids more "hackerly" than the author of the DDoS script itself... I guess this is a good juncture to try to correct this perception.
It depends on how you look at the words hacker and tech savvy. Tech savvy these days is anyone with enough common sense to know their way around the computer to accomplish tasks, it is just a matter of digging and googling now. So everyone in this forum is "tech-savvy". So then it is not a moot point because some assume the title of hacker when they have not even took one step inside of bash (I have lurked in the background while I read people speak about hacker being a flexible term that can be applied anywhere but then it becomes one of those metaphors - He was able to put together that item as savvy as a hacker with his tools not a different set of meanings). Hacker is now used for every and anything so the value in the word is lost. 1337 has become a big joke and more of a game play slang. HackerNews (change ay yc spotlight, entrepreneurship,politics,web design freelancing,life advice, jobs, apple, microsoft , app development etc etc.) ,Household Hacker , Hacker (the Movie) all watered down and sometimes misused version of the original meaning.
If hackerly means using tools without needing to know the inner workings then I guess that is one man's way to put it, because you will want to remove the boring repetitive sections of your method and make it automated (not having to resolve the problem every time). An other way would be to open things and observe until it is understood how it works.
You can also think of the a graphic designer being offended every time someone says they know web/graphic design because they got a pirated version of Photoshop and Dreamweaver online.
Or when people "hack" in games, they are using software that exploited the system. He (the original coder) has accomplished his task maybe even learned something new (about the registry , about game mechanics) along the way... The teenager on the other hand who acquired the software ends up just trying to feel like he is better than everyone else when in fact he has unfair advantage. No real "superiority" there.
Useless battle or not, it is a title the author prefers to keep as clean as possible (even if that puts him in a elite set)
Exactly. And this case is even worse since they are willfully cooperating bot-net nodes, they are not even script kiddies. What about "bot sheep" or "script sheep."
Those websites claim running a node is "virtually zero risk" or something along the lines.
So, from the latest issue of 2600, I'm led to believe that someone who cuts "$119.95" of a web page and replaces it with "$59.95" so they can get a discount at Best Buy is a hacker, but someone Emmanuel disagrees with is not a hacker?
More accurate headline: "Emmanual Goldstein (once again) gets his knickers in a twist over someone using the word 'hacker' in a way he doesn't like...."
It's actually interesting that there's very little pretense about what the major issue is....
While I don't think I could support something like a DoS attack, I always find it amusing when Emmanuel feels the need to throw a hissy fit about the "correct" use of the word hacker. I guess it's because I find it a little hypocritical...he invariable downplays things like this (as he does in the Press Release) by saying "anyone could have done this, it takes no skill at all...."
The problem is he's always saying stuff like "you don't need skill to be a hacker, you just need the hacker spirit"...the hacker spirit being a sort of inquisitive, industrious, and mischevious nature.
2600 Magazine presents all manner of simple and no-skill-needed activities as "hacking", so please forgive my bemusement...
It's also funny that it seems like a lot of his associates don't feel the same way... there are occasionally embarrassed silences on Off The Hook when Emannual goes on about how some incident he doesn't approve of "isn't hacking".
It seems to me what Emmanual really wants to do is impose arbitrary (though possibly agreeable) moral restrictions on what "hacking" is, and simply changes the definition to suit that without having to admit it.
If I'm a little sarcastic, it's because I truly believe this is counter-productive and will backfire.
Emmanuel will say "this takes no skill at all, anyone can do it".
John Q Public and Suzy Cream-cheese will think "I sure as heck dunno how to do this....it's pretty impressive to me". Meanwhile Emmanual tries to slap down any attempt to distinguish between ethical hackers and the "blackhats".
..."Why do we need that?" he'll say..."We already have a word: 'criminals'".
Well....because there clearly is a phenomenon in need of a description here....and "computer criminals" doesn't have quite as nice a ring and isn't as descriptive. Nobody complains we don't need the word "pick-pocket" because we can just call them "criminals"....
I think it's a losing battle.
Emmanual is bolstering (through implication) the opinion that "any complicated trick is hacking"...and his assurances that this is simple are discarded by people who consider it magical.
Meanwhile, he gives them no alternatives...it's "hackers" or nothing....so of course they go with "hackers".
Personally, I'm happy if they just qualify it with something like "black-hat hackers"...
Overall I'm inclined to agree that these shenanigans are likely unproductive, not difficult to do, and hard to support ethically....still, I think it's fair to say they fit the rather liberal rubric 2600 generally uses to judge what constitutes "hacking" or at least what belongs in a "hacking magazine".
I upvoted you for the insight, but I disagree.
Even some geek friend of mine has defined anon's DDOS as a "revenge of the hacker culture". I think it doesn't hurt to remind people that 4chan is to hackers what a tagger is to banksy.
As for the sterility of the discussion around the world hacker, I don't see anything bad with it. In fact I find much more ridiculous the new fashion that anything is hacking. Hack your brain, hack your coffee, hack your wife and hack your dog.
To be honest, I even dislike the definition hacker for someone who is "simply" an outstanding programmer but that's borderline, I recognize it.
> I think it doesn't hurt to remind people that 4chan is to hackers what a tagger is to banksy.
Well I'm not saying that...my problem is when someone paints this as something completely removed from hacking....especially when it certainly falls within the realm THEY call hacking elsewhere.
I believe the solution is to add information....
Instead of insisting "this has nothing to do with hacking" when it pretty clearly does, we should come up with a name for this new phenomenon....not try to shoe-horn it into some less descriptive term.
This sort of digital vandalism quite clearly evolved alongside hacking and has ties to it....I think we should acknowledge that and then move on to explain the differences.
2600 refers to all sorts of completely easy (harmless) things as "hacking", but once it's something they don't like then all of a sudden skill is a requirement for hacking.
FWIW, I personally don't have such a liberal view on what constitutes hacking, but I think you should be consistent.
"I always find it amusing when Emmanuel feels the need to throw a hissy fit about the "correct" use of the word hacker."
Why do people get upset about correct usage and definitions of the word hacker. If one closely examine statements like:
'''
These attacks, in addition to being a misguided effort that doesn't accomplish very much at all, are incredibly simple to launch and require no technical or hacker skills. While writing such programs requires a good degree of ingenuity and knowledge of security weaknesses, this doesn't mean that everyone who runs them possesses the same degree of proficiency, nor should we necessarily believe people who claim to be doing this on behalf of the hacker community. '''
-- Emmanuel Goldstein
one understands Emmanuel's main concern is with correctly portraying the "hacker community." This means he believes in an ideal hacker community. One composed of certain types of individuals with certain types of beliefs. Whether or not such a community has every existed is unimportant. Emmanuel and others like him, hold up the community as what we should be striving for.
Emmanuel is not the first person to use such language. We can trace many of these sentiments back to RMS. See my article on the subject "Interpreting the Free Software Movement as Religion" (although perhaps I should have titled it Interpreting the Free Software Movement in the Context of Religion :sigh:). I intepret the Free Software movement's philosophy using a critical religious theory. What emerges is a portrait of a movement that from a certain point of view is concerned with highly religious subject: the demarcation of the sacred vs the profane. The sacred is this past ideal community, and the movement strives to return to it. For the detailed analysis see:
The parent commenter has articulated the issue broadly and imprecisely but effectively. You're noting the imprecision and snagging on it. The issue is subtle. It's not a battle over the word "hacker". It's a complaint over the migrating center of gravity of a particular subculture. It bothers Eric that someone else is setting the standard for the (gag) hacktivist response to WL. Eric would like his (once relevent, always inessential) magazine to set that standard instead of teenagers from 4chan.
You can sum his "press release" up thus: "Kids these days...".
Apropos nothing: I love this particular story. It's a great litmus test. Is it important to you that the "editor" of 2600 has "condemned" "Anonymous"? Good to know.
I attempting to do a bit more than just snagging on his imprecise language. Broadly, I am trying to develop a critical theory for interpreting various social phenomena on the net.
I do agree with you, Thomas, that the battle is over a migrating center of gravity, [axis mundi] and I also view it as a litmus test. In some sense it is important that Emmanuel has condemned Anon because it clarifies the philosophical and religious issues at the heart of the debate. It is my goal to bring out these facets of internet culture for people to recognize and understand. I find it fascinating.
I totally understand and can appreciate that....my problem is: who gets to decide what constitutes "the hacker community" and what's accurate about it?
That's where I take umbrage... I don't think Emmanual is concerned with correctly portraying "the hacker community".
I think he's concerned with it being portrayed the way he considers it to be....that is:
"The hacker community is the stuff I approve of"
In reality "the hacker community" is disjointed and comprised of a lot of individuals of varying skill levels, morals, and politics.
The problem is Emmanuel doesn't seem to be saying "Hey hey now...these people do not represent the entirety of the hacker community....they possibly represent part of it's darker side...but let's talk about the positive aspects."
Instead it seems to me, he seems to be saying "There is no bad side to hacking! Everything I approve of is hacking, everything I don't is not! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
The problem is no matter how much they may overlap and be intertwined, hacking is at heart something removed from politics and ethics.
It's a state of mind....
It's true there are certain tendencies in the Hacker community...laudable ones....but the same is true of Artists but nobody pitches a fit about Hitler not being a painter because he was an asshole.
To be a painter, you must apply paint to a canvas...end of story. To be hacker you must hack.
Hacks are big, hacks are small. There are easy hacks and hard hacks...hacks for good and hacks for bad.
Better I think to distinguish the good painters who paint well and for the right reasons rather than trying to twist the definition of what it is to paint to only cover the painters you like.
I completely understand wanting to distance yourself from the script-kiddies....but I feel the way to do that is by adding information....not trying to remove it. A meme is a hard thing to beat...
Who decides what is right Christianity or Islam or Buddhism? These questions dog every religious faith, every philosophy. Is it any surprise we have such argument in the theoretical "hacker community." Understand, your clash with Goldstien and others is not about definitions or who decides but rather core beliefs. They have one belief about the hacker community you have another. Their language "Others" you. Which means it places you on the outside as an alien. You language in a mirror way Others them. In my opinion, both sides need to respect the point of view of the Other. Not reject it. See the philosophy of Levinas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Levinas
I'm not suggesting I know what is the "correct" way of portraying the Hacker community.. I'm suggesting nobody knows.
I'm also suggesting that Emmanuel seems to think he knows how to precisely define the Hacker community. That's the impression I personally get, maybe I misunderstand.
Comparing it to Christianity (etc) is probably reasonable... "Christianity" is a term that envelops a shocking variety of practices and beliefs....some completely contradictory..
Though I disagree with him, I'd encourage him to speak his mind about it...I think this sort of discussion is good.
I hope I didn't give the wrong impression, I don't think him speaking is counter-productive, I think his "strategy" of trying to distance this sort of vandalism from hacking is....especially since it's something that has always been a part of hacker culture, or at least has had ties to it and evolved along side of it.
I don't like the word "hacker" at all [ * ]. Trying to get people to use it "correctly" circa 2010 is like trying to persuade everybody that "gay" should only be used to mean "happy". You'll just waste your breath and look stupid in the process.
[ * ] "Well why are you on Hacker News then, huh?" asks the inquisitive reader. Hey, when I started it was called Startup News. I never liked the new name at all.
It comes from a 19th century French slang for a horse for hire (hack ney) which became hackney carriage (the British legal term for a minicab) being any vehicle you could just hire for a trip.
Then it came to be used for freelance writers - who could be hired to write what you wanted. Especially journalists on British newspapers where the term 'hack' comes from.
Hacker in the sense of somebody who does boring unpleasant work for hire is considerably older than it's usage to mean somebody who tinkers with things for fun.
I think you'll find the derivation for this usage is actually hacher (to chop or hack; hatchet comes from the same root borrowing), and means one who works in an inelegant manner (hacks away at a problem until it is solved). The British usage of bodger (outside of the realm of making greenwood chairs) would be more-or-less equivalent.
It's not about the word hacker. It's about what the word represents and that go so much beyond the /b/tards.
Keeping your analogy: there's a lot of gay people who think the "fabulousity" of the gay parade may hurt their cause in getting au pair with civil rights. Whether this is true or not, I think it's a valid argument to be discussed.
Same goes for hacker: those who attribute hackerism only to black hats, vandals and script kiddies may hurt the values true hackers stand for.
I could agree with that, the point I'm making is some people set the standard for "hacking" very loosely...(if you read 2600 Magazine there's all manner of equally simple things presented as "hacking") and some of those same people then turn around and use the argument "well it doesn't take any skill" to put down what they don't like.
Also, he spends less words on the 'hacking' terminology issue in his piece than you do here and there is far more in the piece than just that. So I think your 'more accurate headline' only applies to the first part of the introduction, roughly 1/3rd of the text, the rest is about his problem with the activities as such and the effect on the reputation of WikiLeaks and what can be done instead.
Yes, thanks for correcting the typo. I actually spelled it right a couple places but it's hard to see right now without my glasses.
> Also, he spends less words on the 'hacking' terminology issue in his piece than you do here and there is far more in the piece than just that
Well let's see...
The first and last sections are press bites about 2600 magazine. A little self-promoting, but I think they're more or less fair...gotta give background.
However, what's the very first topic brought up? ...that's right...complaints about the use of the word "hacker".
It's a topic Emmanuel has spoken about at length many times, and it's clearly a theme that permeates this press release, including sections not explicitly about it.
That's actually the problem: I feel it's counter-productive for his presumable goal of promoting the "good" hacker community, and also distracts from the good points made in the press release.
I think the rest of the points are great and more or less agree with them.
In light of wikileaks, his article is probably influenced by the large number of teenagers who's within grabbing distance of the law that subscribe to 2600 or attend meetings whose ideals are well intentioned but their implementation suck.
"Overall I'm inclined to agree that these shenanigans are likely unproductive, not difficult to do, and hard to support ethically....still, I think it's fair to say they fit the rather liberal rubric 2600 generally uses to judge what constitutes "hacking" or at least what belongs in a "hacking magazine."
DoS attacks have been introduced by 2600 from many many years ago. It's tired now. That's the point.
I hate to ask the question, but how is 2600's view of any relevance in the modern world? 2600 Magazine always was to me a kind of basic script kiddie magazine that couldn't even hold a candle holder, let alone a candle to some of the e-zines like Phrack.
Great piece, but reading it absolutely hurt my eyes. Is there are reason why they enjoy instigating migraine on visitors or is this meant as some kind of obscure test if you really want to read the contents or not ?
If you highlight the text it gets marginally better.
I know about readability. I just don't understand why people that take the time to write a piece like that don't take the time to make their site readable. It is really totally counterproductive. It should not normally require a browser add-on in order to unlock the content of a webpage for someone with normal (or better than normal) eyesight.
Printer friendly format at the bottom. 2600 doesn't care about readability or design really, it's not their MO and they're cool with it. The site has looked like that for at least 10 years now. I think if a lot of them had their way, you'd still be reading their press stuff on Usenet and only Usenet.
I get and agree with what you are saying though the design has stayed the same since 2000. I am sure people have complained in the past but others (maybe even the majority who read 2600 on the regular not just the occasional view from a news aggregation site) have grown accustomed to it. Just a different way to look at the issue.
I've been playing around with it for a bit and it seems that the most important factor here is viewing angle. If I tilt the monitor the text goes from absolutely illegible to somewhat legible. It's never 'good' though, no matter how I tweak the settings.
I love the way they (2600) make an attempt to disconnect themselves from the DDOS attacks in the first part of the letter, but then admit to hosting the material in dispute at the end of the letter. The web is so informative and nonsensical at the same time. Makes for great cinema...
Thank goodness for Open Source software though, or we'd never hear about any of this, because it would all be shut down even before anyone could notice. :P
Unlikely. I get the impression that the channers and their friends care less about whether or not they are "hackers" (by whatever mostly-arbitrary definition of the word is being used this week), and more about (1) not being arrested, and (2) making a plausible effort at being useful.
I agree. It seems the "hacker" term is from the media still stuck in the past and not realizing that the Internet is pretty mainstream. I think the people that participate in Anon (since there really isn't a group) look at themselves more as citizens of the Internet using tools available to them. I've heard some guest on a news outlet equate the DDoS attacks as Internet sit-ins. This concept, while not exact is probably the closest analogy I've heard of.
'The assault on Wikileaks must not be overshadowed by the recent denial of service attacks and these certainly must not be allowed to be associated with the hacker community. This will play right into the hands of those who wish to paint us all as threats and clamp down on freedom of speech...'
