I think Mark Zuckerburg gives the best description of what a hacker is:
The word “hacker” has an unfairly negative connotation from being portrayed in the media as people who break into computers. In reality, hacking just means building something quickly or testing the boundaries of what can be done. Like most things, it can be used for good or bad, but the vast majority of hackers I’ve met tend to be idealistic people who want to have a positive impact on the world.
I really like his explanation of what a hacker is because it is optimistic and focuses more on the good a hacker can do than on the bad. He also includes
Hackers believe that something can always be better, and that nothing is ever complete. They just have to go fix it
I think this addition to his statement above solidifies his opinion that hackers are trying to better the world. Unfortunately, the other articles I read seemed to focus more on the freedoms that hackers deserve and the unfair treatment of hackers, and these are the arguments against the “negative connotation” that I personally find holes in and that cause me to relate less and less to the idea of being a “hacker.”
I relate to Zuckerburg’s core values he identifies: Focus on Impact, Move Fast, Be Bold, Be Open, and Build Social Value. These values I think are a great way to sum up the core values of what a hacker should strive for! However, as stated above, most articles on “hacker culture” focus on other values that I disagree with. According the the wikipedia article on Hacker Ethics, the core values of a hacker are: sharing, openness, decentralization, free access to computers, and world improvement. I was ok with this list until they continued the list with additions from Steven Levy. The two most problematic additions for me are “Access to computers—and anything which might teach you something about the way the world works—should be unlimited and total. Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative!” and “All information should be free.” In many articles I find that the biggest thing i disagree with is Hackers belief that they should just be able to access anything. I do not think Hackers should be able to access all information, and I think certain boundaries are necessary. This promotes Zuckerburg’s idea of nothing being complete, and that anyone can help to fix things that require fixing. But this also means bad people can exploit these errors, and can have access to information that is not necessary for them to have access to. By allowing all information to be free and anyone being able to access any computer, we are allowing the bad guys to also have access to any information and anyones computer.
The idea of anyone being able to access anyone’s information is selfish on the part of the hacker. I feel like this is allowing those who have the knowledge of hacking to be able to exploit those who do not. I think security and privacy are there for a very important reason and giving hackers too much power is dangerous.
I do however, agree with a few of Levy’s additions to hacker ethics.
- Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not criteria such as degrees, age, race, sex, or position
- You can create art and beauty on a computer
- Computers can change your life for the better
I think there should be more equality in computer science than there is now, and I think we should be judged solely on our skills. I also agree that hackers can create beautiful things and change peoples life in a positive way! These three statements support Mark Zuckerburg’s definition of a hacker that I so closely relate to and I find it a shame that anyone would take such a beautiful art and ruin it for others. It is not enough to encourage hacker ethics, unfortunately there will always be bad people out there who ruin the fun for everyone, and use their power for evil.
I agree with the author of “Hackers and Painters” that Hacking can be a beautiful and expressive art form. However, it is people like the author of”The Conscience of a Hacker” that ruin the fun and beauty for everyone. I find this author to be arrogant, whiny, and dangerous. He makes some valid points about hacking culture, however the paragraph where he admits he is a criminal whose crimes include being “curious” and “outsmarting you” is the reason hackers are given a bad name. People who believe they are above others because of their skill, and who should have access to whatever they want are dangerous.