Can we Reform the Hacking Culture?
Academic Essay: Sociology & Culture
The following is an essay I wrote for my courses in Police Sciences, circa 2002-2004. Enjoy.
Do you feel safe while browsing the internet in the comfort of your home? Do not let the serene glow of your computer monitor fool you. In this day and age of fast evolving technology the individual referred to as a “hacker” may not see the “information super-highway” as the apparent infinite well of knowledge it is. Instead they may see it as a potential battlefield on which they can wage war. To better our chances of solving the social enigma the hacker poses, we must first understand their origin; define who they are and what they stand for. We must understand their methods and “the why of” what they do; only then can we truly hope to make a sound judgment of character, attempt to reform a hacker and learn from them.
Where did it all begin? The beginning of cyber-crime could date back as far as the invention of the telegraph and telephone. Crimes resulting from the use of these tools were only scams or cons. In other words, people would use them to “rip-off” others (Sterling, 1992). However, for the purpose of this research paper, let us fast forward to the 1960’s. The first modern computers were studied at the illustrious MIT during these years. They were physically large and very difficult to program (“CNN.com,” 2001). The scientists using them quickly discovered “holes” (now referred to as “exploits”) in long and meticulously written documents that were read by the machines to make them work. Thus the term “hack” or “hacking” was coined to describe a person who used shortcuts to get the same results from the machine without laborious hours of work (“CNN.com,” 2001).
The next decade [1970’s] only brought with it to the “digital underground” a new and more malicious individual: the “phreak”. Computers were still in transformation from the dinosaurs of the 60’s to the more accessible ones of today. Thus, the attention of the electronically curious mind was turned to an old toy gathering dust: the telephone. A man named John Draper, (a.k.a. Captain Crunch, also spelled Cap’n Crunch) discovered one day that a whistle found inside the box of cereal bearing the same name as his alias, [Captain Crunch] produced the same tone (2600 Hz) needed to access AT&T’s long distance service (“CNN.com,” 2001). Draper then had to build a device which he named the “blue box” to emulate various tones needed to make calls to various areas around the world on the long distance network. The only skill required to use tools was to know how and when to play the correct tones into the phone receiver(“CNN.com,” 2001) . This was the first documented case of an individual willfully using an “exploit” to “steal” a service provided by a corporation (Sterling, 1992). It was a legendary performance of which the hacking community still pays homage to.
With the authorities now chasing phreaks worldwide, one must wonder how things could possibly get any worse. Technology moving ever onward finally made the computer a household tool in the 1980’s; and with the same era came the hacker’s new and most prized possession: the modem. This device launched and opened a whole new of area of “cyber-space” no one had ever seen or heard before: “Computer Networks” or “Networking”. All sorts of information (anything from credit card numbers to bomb building manuals) began to be stored in computers and shared over these “networks”. This was, however, before the “point and click” revolution of the 1990’s and the Internet (Sterling, 1992). A smaller and more closed type of server existed. One to where people could “remotely” connect, interact (chat, read and write in forums) or share files and information. This server was named a Bulletin Board System (BBS for short). Obviously, “hackers” of the 80’s swarmed all over these and christened them their leading resource for “forbidden knowledge” (Sterling, 1992). Of course, this led to another intriguing piece of history, the creation of many groups, organizations, or gangs of hackers. In other words the wide spread birth of a new subculture referred to as many by the following: “The Digital Underground” (“CNN.com,” 2001) (Sterling, 1992). Some of the more popular examples of the early 1980’s gangs would be: The Legion of Doom, Project Genesis, The Cult of the Dead Cow, and the Neon Knights (Sterling, 1992, p. 73).
Law enforcement officials were having a very hard time to keep up with the underground now costing hundreds of people exorbitant amounts of time and money. The deterrent that the subculture needed to think twice about the consequences of their actions came on May 8th 1990. It was the beginning of Operation Sundevil, a U.S. wide sting of hackers and BBS’S that resulted in a temporary breakdown in “Hackerdom” (“CNN.com,” 2001). Nevertheless, it only returned bigger, better and stronger in the later part of 1990’s with a faster and more sophisticated tool at their disposal: the internet. This is where our adventure through history comes to an end; since we are currently still trying to deal with hackers at this level.
We now know more of how this social problem came to be. This knowledge can also be used to unlock and analyze the hacker’s mind. We can first do so by assessing the sociological side of the situation. People that deal in “Cyber-space” are technically divided into three categories: hackers, agencies who try to catch them, and the hundreds of innocent bystanders. What the masses fail to understand is that hackers usually mean more by their work then putting X amount of computers out of commission for X amount of time (where these Xs can be rather large numbers); or even create large economical losses. The evidence gathered during this research draws a larger picture where a battle against the system is taking place. Let’s borrow a piece of hacker philosophy from Count Zero, a hacker with the “Cult of the Dead Cow” (mentioned previously). This gentleman makes a comparison between an unstable Microsoft product crashing and the user losing all his current files and work; and, a car randomly blowing up causing the driver to lose all his belongings on board (“PBS,” 2001). In contrast, someone might challenge this statement as simply rationalizing illegitimate behavior prohibited by the law. In addition, there is also another downfall to Count Zero’s brilliant analogy. Not all hackers are “professionals” and follow what is considered to be “Hacker Ethics” by the underworld, as well as Douglas Thomas (an associate professor at the Annenberg School for Communications). Many people who consider themselves a “hacker” break into systems for their own pleasure and brag about it, may not be seen so powerful by other individuals in the subculture (such as Count Zero) who do the same work with a specific purpose (or so they say). Mr. Thomas also emphasizes this topic of discussion in a radio broadcast with the following words: “What hackers see as a public service (dismantling products and pointing out dangerous and troubling security risks), many people see as criminal activity” (Thomas, 2002). Thus, we can conclude what we are dealing with is rather a large scale conflict of perception in process between two very smart adversaries.
Another fact that should be well noted is a popular myth. Even though some exist, not all members of the underground are young white males who are “bored and eat a lot of pizza” (Saita, 2001). Let’s make reference for a moment to John Draper. He was young when he first developed his tools to cheat the phone system. Is it safe to assume this man is still twenty years old and forgot all his knowledge? The answer is no on both counts and this draws a whole different profile of hacker; an older more mature one. Yet, some psychodynamic characteristics are generally common in all individuals of the subculture. Some of these include the following: Intense curiosity, lack of social contacts and friends, poor self-esteem, a dislike of daily routines, no concern for the consequences of their actions, and above all else, an extreme hate of the quote-unquote “system” (Thomas, 2002). One may easily be drawn to a life of crime where it is so easy to cripple the lives of many innocent by-standers on a mission to destroy what brings “structure” to their life. This would ultimately boost their ego and self-esteem and restore their freedom. Ironically enough if we return to the battlefield theory previously explained and put the hacker camp under a magnifying glass, what we can see (figuratively speaking) is already an example of the hacker’s ultimate mission: A subculture chaos free, and liberated from regimented and dictated ways to live. Everyone existing in it has different needs and motivations behind their actions. Some do it for the thrills, some for the attention, others to make consumers aware they’re buying faulty software etc… In every way shape or form, the work of these criminals is serious and must not go overlooked; on the other hand, how do we deal these individuals? Remember: With great knowledge comes great power. Perhaps the power to solve crimes?
Who is the more qualified individual to browse through a computer and find heavily encrypted and incriminating evidence for an embezzlement case; a graduate from MIT, or someone like Count Zero? The unfortunate answer is Count Zero. Even though the work of a hacker is the most common and annoying type of cyber-crime, many other forms of common crimes are now finding their way into cyber-space. For example: stalking, prostitution, and drug trades can be solicited easily through the use of the internet. If we could successfully reform these “hackers” and make them adapt a more realistic philosophy, they would be a great asset to have at our disposal to solve more serious forms of cyber-crime (or simply crimes that involved the use of a computer). Furthermore, Bruce Sterling, author of the book “The Hacker Crackdown” offers this phrase: “Forbidden Knowledge is the basic currency of the digital underworld” (Sterling, 1992, p. 59). In other words, if we are going to catch a hacker we are at some point going to have to use their own tools against them. It would be then interesting to see who’s rights a judge in a court of law would decided were violated. To this effect, in Canada, section 342.1 and 342.2 of the Canadian Criminal Code protect us from such acts (Greenspan & Rosenberg, 2003). These laws also set forth the maximum punishment for these acts to ten years of imprisonment (Greenspan & Rosenberg, 2003). But, as previously discussed, it seems like an equally harsh sentence towards society to revoke the liberty from of the “well of information” a hacker is, capable of solving very sophisticated crimes. For example: counter- attacks against hackers such as Operation Sundevil are excellent deterrents to stop the onslaught, but they leave out the opportunity of seeing the big picture: learning and sharing information. We must uncover a way to reform the hacker in a way that is more beneficial to society then wasting tax payer money by simply sending to them to jail. This will only increase anger throughout the underground causing more unnecessary intrusion of privacy in cyber-space.
In conclusion, we have visited a subculture that has revolutionized the way crime is committed. We have a better understanding of their origin. We know who they are, and can formulate our own opinions about hackers based upon this information. We must listen and learn from them. But, all the while, still encourage them to realize their behaviour is in fact a nuisance and unlawful. There exists better outlets to exert influence, and feel empowered. One does not have to take advantage of innocent and ignorant people, or release viruses on the internet just to make a point (or gain attention). We can all learn a great deal from each other to solve more serious cyber-crimes such as cyber-stalking, or the distribution of child pornography. If we can learn to work together against foes that we agree are acting in an immoral and criminal manner… Ultimately, cyber-space will be much safer for work, leisure, and business environments to live, dwell, and interact.
References
CNN.com. (2001). Timeline: a 40-year history of hacking. Retrieved March 15, 2003, from http:www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/19/hack.history.idg/?related
Greenspan, E.L. & Rosenberg M. (2003). Martin’s annual criminal code 2003 student edition. Aurora: Canada Law Book Inc.
PBS. (2001). [Interview with Count Zero and Reid, hackers from the Cult of the Dead Cow organization]. Frontline: hackers: interviews with reid and count zero. Retrieved March 24, 2003, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hackers/interviews/reidcount.html
Saita, A. (2001, June 1). Hacker Psychology: Understanding “Peopleware”. Information Security Magazine. Retrieved March 24, 2003, from http://www.infosecuritymag.com/articles/june01/features_hacker_psychology.shtml
Sterling, B. (1992). The hacker crackdown: law and disorder on the electronic frontier. Toronto: Bantam Books.
Thomas, D. (2002). Cyberterrorism. (Congressional Testimony, July 24, 2002). Retrieved April 3, 2003 from http://www.elibrary.ca/s/plusca//getdoc.cgi?id=255666541x127y48584w0&OIDS=0Q001D000&Form=RL&pubname=Congressional_Testimony&puburl=http~C~~S~~S~www.emediamillworks.com&querydocid=54701054@urnbigchalk:US;Lib&dtype=0~0&dinst=0