Month: January 2019

While the “hackers” from MIT explored the limits of the computing resources available, developing their array of games and hacks on the PDP-X machines, the actors in West Coast were tackling different challenges. Akin to the “true hacker” idea of anti-bureaucracy, the “hardware hackers” wanted to truly abolish power from authority. The “true hackers” were fixated on the idea of challenging the priesthood that restricted computational power, but they were still piggy backing off “the man” by using resources their university would purchase/receive and allow them access to. There was a layer of authoritarianism that they belonged to, despite their opposition to it. This was not the case for the “hardware hackers”.

“Hardware hackers” had the counter-culture mentality of civil rights for all and equality across the board. On top of movements like second wave feminism and anti-war activism, “hardware hackers” wanted to make computers more accessible and affordable for the everyday man. Initially, this began as offering easy communication amongst terminals connected to a centralized mainframe by Lee Felsenstein and Jude Milhon. This new idea paved the way for normalized computers and to introduce programing to the youth. This allowed Bill Gates and Paul Allen to develop Micro-soft’s BASIC, an “easy” to use programming language that limited some control from the user but made the process altogether more streamlined. In tandem with the application of Moore’s law at the time, it was becoming much easier for the common person to learn to program for their own benefits, as opposed to just creating tools for the government, a la the Department of Defense.

However, this created a new breed of hackers. These hackers were no longer just nerds that wanted to program for the advancement of the field, but they were businessmen. To utilize the power of BASIC, the user had to purchase the interpreter. With the ability to make more personalized computers, there opened up a new market that was ripe for the picking, which pioneers like Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs took control of and found success in that climate. Of course, this could not have been done without the initial sharing of ideas and resources. Without the Homebrew Computer Club – operating similarly to the Tech Model Railroad Club – there would not be an Apple computer.

This is quite different from the “true hacking” sense of programming, which is driven by the belief that all information should be open and free. In order to have a competitive edge, there is a necessity to have secrets in your product. This obvious difference creates quite the contrast between groups, as programming was no longer a niche hobby, but it is now an untapped goldmine of pure profit. However, these differences would not combine and compromise, rather they now were opposite teams of the same game.

However, tensions were not just present between the old-head hackers and the new, but they were between each other. Since programming was not just a hobby anymore, but becoming a household item, finding an advancement in the tech was not just a personal victory, but a way to make money. This even divided the Homebrew Computer Club, the birthplace of Apple, by creating an almost toxic environment and no longer drawing the same crowds. The mere idea of sharing code upset Gates, as seen in his open letter to code hobbyists.

So now, there are almost two extremes in the computing world. The free and open world that used computing to bring good to the world and solve problems with fun little hacks, and the commercial world that used this new tech for profit and corporation, effectively oppressing those who rely on it. While these are two different views, they are not mutually exclusive. Technology can clearly be a force for good, making lives more efficient and finding solutions to otherwise costly problems, as well as a dangerous tool of oppression. And these different viewpoints do not have to align with one particular group of “hacking”. The “true hackers” can bring good through their passions, but it can also be damaging to the hacker and their relationships, as well as the application of their hacks. On the flipside, the commercial world opened up a whole new world of computing for those that would not experience it otherwise, driving the affordability with Moore’s law, while also creating tension to the businessmen and killing passion. Much like any hobby, there are pros and cons that must be outweighed at any turn.

With regard to the implications of my own creations, I choose to not think of it. While disgusting technologies can emerge – like nuclear weaponry – there is a beauty that can be created from that source – like radiography and nuclear power, perhaps one of the most sustainable energies discovered to this day. With any technology, someone will eventually create the nuclear weapon and someone will create nuclear power plant with or without weighing the ethical, moral, and social impacts of such a tech beforehand.

According to Steven Levy’s Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution, a “true hacker” does not mean the malicious technical savant that is often portrayed in media, such as USA Network’s Mr. Robot or the 1999 hit blockbuster The Matrix, but is someone that takes the resources they are given, whether that be a computer system, a model train set, or what have you, and find new ways to manipulate their system. While “manipulate” also carries a negative connotation colloquially, it means using craftiness and advanced skills to change the application of such systems in this context. For example, in the age of early computers, where accessible programs are few and far between, a “hacker”, such as Peter Samson, could take what they know about how the TX-0 processes input data to have it play music, an unintended affect by the original creators.

Additionally, hackers believe that all information should be open-source and free, so that anybody else can study such techniques and admire or improve upon it. This idea allows many different minds and viewpoints observe some information and either contribute to the overall goal or apply it for their own benefit. It is a communal mindset that aims to advance technical knowledge by pooling the collective knowledge of the hacker community.

From these principles of hacking, the malicious behavior can be predicted. If all information is free (except the occasional security key), then different systems can be observed, and – with the right mindset – vulnerabilities can be discovered and exploited to the benefit of the hacker. However, this seems like the natural price to pay in order to have the “positive” benefits of the hacker mentality, that being the advancement of technology and a universal collective knowledge.

With this in mind, the idea of being a “true hacker” can seem appealing to many, especially those in the technical community, like myself and my fellow computer science students. So long as sensitive information is concealed, true hacking should be the bastion of this community. However, there are many facets of this mentality that bring more harm than good.

For instance, this community of “true hackers” often devote huge portions of their life to their beliefs, like any passion one may pursue. However, like any other hobby, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing, and this mentality often promotes too much of that good thing. In part by the community at large, where peers will constantly be contributing to this open source landscape, which may create an expectation for other users, but also by the hobby itself. Something about studying the computer system is addicting to the user. Solving problems seem easy, but often are extremely difficult and time consuming. But, once a working solution is found, the feeling of gratification more than makes up for all that time spent frustrated for possibly days on end. The outcome is attractive, but nowhere near as attractive as the solution that the user made. The user feels like they aren’t useless and have presentable skills. It’s an addicting cycle if you choose to put the time into it.

There is also an anti-authoritarian angle expressed with true hacking. The “man” has their secrets and refuse to share their information with the masses, stifling innovation. This isn’t exclusive to hacking either. This view is expressed often and is quite popular, whether that comes in the form of punk music, communistic revolutions, or the open source community. However, these methods never end in the way they are planned to be. Punk musicians either become part of the mainstream or suffer from obscurity. Communist countries develop power struggles and more class chaos. Open source communities rely on crowd sourcing to stay afloat or get bought out by the “man” themselves (a la RedHat/IBM). On a user level, users rely on equipment backended by these major corporations.

The idea of a “true hacker” is enticing, but, as Professor Douglas Thain would say, “there ain’t no free lunch” and the drawbacks to being a part of this community are certainly a turnoff to many. They certainly are to me. I value having a healthy balance between work, passion, and social lives. If all three are to be combined into one, I could make decent contributions to the community at large, but I don’t believe I will be happier than I am now. Quite the opposite, I think I would constantly be sad and only feed into it more, escaping into the hacking world. I wish to have moderation in my life and this lifestyle does not agree with that. However, I still admire those that do choose to live that lifestyle.