Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
(Arthur C. Clarke, qtd. in Hafner and Markoff: 11)

Twenty years ago, a small fraction of Americans had access to computers, but now almost the majority of families own one (42.1% in 1998, source: Falling through the Net). Ten years ago hardly anyone used the Internet, now 26.2% of households do (Falling through the Net, 1998). Computer technology has gained an increasingly powerful grip over society. We are witnessing the emergence of a new economic system where information is more critical than production.

Most people understand little, if any, how computers work. For them, computers are magical devices with rapidly expanding mysterious powers. And if the actions of neutral computers acting on their own were not distressing enough, society must also deal with a growing number of deviant, possibly malicious, computer users known as "hackers".

What is hacking? Actually, the answer is very muddy as there are multiple groups competing for the hacker status. I will base my work in the history of hacking – the actions of hackers. This paper will explore the different discourses surrounding conflicting definitions of "hacker," identifying why and how they try to promote their definition at the exclusion of others. These discourses include the hacker discourse, juvenile/cracker discourse, nostalgic discourse, law enforcement and computer security discourse, and the media discourse.

Finally, I will address the role that computer hackers can play in resisting the newly developing technopower elite. The word "hacker" has power. The discourses surrounding defining "hacker" are important since whichever discourse wins will be able to invoke the hacker status for its own purposes. Thus this discourse conflict will decide whether hacking is an important source of resistance to the ruling class, or merely an annoyance.

"No, Ms. Smith, I didn't show my work. I did it in my head..."

Damn kid. Probably copied it. They're all alike

(Mentor, 1986).

I might be a hacker. In grade school, I always finished my work early and had plenty of free time to entertain and educate myself. I did math problems in my head, was told to show my work, and corrected the teacher when she or he made a mistake. The teacher did not always believe me. In grade five I was voted the least popular kid in the class. I was a social outcast. That same grade my family bought a computer (IBM XT). Eventually I was spending much of my free time either using the 1200-baud modem to call computer BBSes (bulletin board systems) or playing games. I took my first computer class in grade 11, where I assisted the best programmer in the class in writing a 1300 line drawing program (in Turbo Pascal) with a mouse interface. It was beyond anything I would ever have to write as a computer science major. Since high school, I have written over 10,000 lines of code (in Turbo Pascal) just for fun.

In college a friend told me about how he had easily found, by manually dialing, a couple of our college’s long distance phone codes. I proceeded to use a war-dialer program to identify them all, though sticking to my ethics I never used any of them even as a test. Whether I was, or am, a hacker or just a "hacker-wannabe" (a.k.a. a "lamer") depends on your definition. The ambiguity of my status is due to the conflicting discourses on hacking. This paper comes from my various life experiences with computers and activism, but most of all because one of the thousands of files I downloaded, was an electronic book about techno-rebels: Sterling’s The Hacker Crackdown.

Words have power. You can see it in the Internet that for most of its life was words and numbers. Words are combined to form sentences and languages. Different groups use distinct forms of language (or discourses), so that they can espouse and emphasize different values, creating and reproducing a subculture. Since one cannot look directly into an individual’s mind to see the power in words and language, a good alternative is to look at their actions. A subculture’s history frames its discourse, and its living history (a.k.a. actions) is a reflection of the meaning it finds in the discourse: its interpretation.

It is neither discourse alone, or action alone that best explains what computer hacking is. Discourse fails by its inability to base itself and its acceptance of a multiplicity of "truths." Simply put, it is easy to say one thing and mean or do another. For instance, hackers may claim that they are following the "hacker ethic," while they use their skills to get, and possibly sell, credit card numbers. Action by itself will also fail, as without a related discourse one cannot know its meaning. For example if you saw a defaced webpage where the original was replaced with hacker lingo, it would seem like a senseless act of vandalism. Likewise, would you be able to guess why people are spending hundreds of hours pouring over computer manuals, searching directories, running files, and writing programs to gain access to computers (much of which would appear to be very boring work for non-enthusiasts)? So this paper will look at both discourse and action (past and present) to create a fuller picture of the conflictingly defined hacker subcultures.

The last part of this paper is based on several political assumptions that I do not have the space to address here. I assume that popular resistance to the rule of the elite is good and necessary for reducing inequality, achieving a just global society, and ultimately ensuring the survival of the planet. Thus the importance in my arguments is not just to understand computer hacking, but to understand it through the perspective of its potential use for popular resistance.

As mentioned earlier, I shared much of the hacking-mindset before starting to research this topic. While doing research, I entered even deeper into the subculture. For that reason, I would categorize my approach as partially ethnographic. While the fact that I did not meet or talk to any computer hackers might indicate a serious shortcoming in my approach, as most hackers communicate primarily using computers, I believe that my experience is comparable to theirs’.

To study this topic, I read several books (both on hacking and two works of fiction – 1984 and the cyberpunk Neuromancer), articles (notably from Phrack – I skimmed issues 1 to 55), various pieces that were posted on the World-Wide Web (essays and how-to guides), and spent hours lurking on two hacking-related Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channels: #hack and #2600. I wanted to view a wide range of writings about and by the computer underground so that the quotes I highlight, and the hacking sub-discourses that I examine are representative. Most of the information, including half of the books, was found on the World Wide Web, with one resource leading to many others. This caused there to be more information about hacking than I could hope to cover in one paper, however I am making an effort to be representative.

The reliability of many of the sources, particularly those from the hacking community, is questionable. Material from the Internet in general is prone to error and people will forward information without confirming the source. After several permutations, much like the children’s game of whispering a message in the ear of the person next to you, it can get obfuscated. There is also a lack of accountability, as the source does not have to defend his or her claims in person. In the specific case of hackers, they tend to boast to increase their status, and criticize or lie about their enemies. As hackers they are able to hide behind pseudonyms and are thus even less reliable. Also their illegal activities are cloaked with mystery due to fear of prosecution. I hope that I was able to avoid most problems by examining a lot of material, comparing it, and not treating it purely as fact but as discourse. In doing so, I feel confident that my findings are accurate.

I will try to be consistent in my use of terms. Therefore I will use "cracker" (or black hat hacker) for individuals who behave in illegal computer activities that are mostly unethical (malicious or solely for personal gain), "hacker" (or white hat hacker) for individuals who behave primarily in ethical illegal activities (Ex. breaking-in to a system without causing harm), and "nostalgic hacker" for people whose computer activities are legal. In addition, "hacktivist" shall indicate people who use hacking as a tool of resistance, whether by legal or illegal means. I shall refer to hackers by their pseudonym, unless they are well-known by their real name (Ex. Kevin Mitnick).

One of the primary places computer hacking originated was at MIT during the late Fifties and Sixties. A group of students, many of who came from the Tech Model Railroad Club (which had an incredibly complicated switching system for its model railroad) were able to use a couple MIT computers very late at night. So they started to write programs. Showing how hierarchical computer access was, one computer (an IBM 704 worth several millions) was guarded by a group of people who were called "The Priesthood." Students were not even allowed to touch it! They would have to reserve time and then give their program cards to a priest to enter it into the machine. They preferred using a donated TX 0 computer that gave real-time feedback and whose owner was much more permissive in granting access, over the batch processing IBM which was maintained by a bureaucracy. Due to MIT’s computer rules, there was a lot of conflict between the "hackers" and the "Officially Sanctioned Users." The hackers used the computers to innovate and explore, whereas the others used them to speed-up traditional number crunching. The hackers believed that computers could create new paradigms, and wanted to expand the tasks computers could accomplish.

As computer time was so valuable, hackers developed the ethic of not wasting it. Computers ran around the clock and there were always a group of students ready to fill-in in case someone would not show up for their slot. It wasn’t only college students who were interested. One faculty kid turned hacker, Peter Dreutsch, got computer time under a false name and wrote his first program at the age of twelve. As they had to write basic programs to run the computer, they shared their work freely. They enjoyed such feats as fine-tuning a program to be as efficient with scan computing resources as possible. The Tech Model Railroad club defined a hack as, "a project undertaken or a product built not solely to fulfill some constructive goal, but with some wild pleasure taken in mere involvement," and the most proficient members were self-defined "hackers" (Levy). One first example of a "hack" was a computer "game" of Ping-Pong where a computer light would move from left to right (and back) changing direction if you flipped a computer switch at the right time. Other "hacks" included a program to convert Arabic numerals into roman numbers, and a program that attempted to play music.

It was based on early hackers, like at MIT, that Steven Levy developed the "Hacker Ethic" in his landmark 1984 book:

The key word in the first statement is "access." In the early computer-era, the vast majority of college students had no access to computers. Only the most advanced students were able to use the best technology, and the creative desires of the budding hackers were discarded in favor of the institution’s use of the machine for number-crunching or its own research agenda. Likewise, until the early nineties very few people had access to the Internet – large powerful networks were out of reach.

The power behind the second statement is that it calls for "all" information to be free, not just some. This is misleading to some extent, as most hackers do not want to abolish individual privacy (however corporate privacy is highly questioned). A better way to phrase it would be that all information whose release will not harm an individual should be free. Here again this ethic finds its roots in the early hackers who readily shared their programs, operating as a free scientific community. Also it comes from the structure of computers themselves which must freely copy information to operate (Levy). Bits (zeros and ones) are copied from disk into memory which is copied to the CPU where they are manipulated in calculations. Computers are constantly sharing information. The earliest computer networks did not bother to have security. Anyone who had physical access could copy or run any program they wanted to, however this would eventually change.

Hackers did not like large bureaucracies like IBM. This logically flows from the desire for access, as bureaucracies are excellent at creating rules which would ration scarcities (like computer time) according to organizational priorities, which would generally exclude hackers. That explains why hackers would want to "promote decentralization."

The fourth statement shows the meritocratic ideal of hackers. Like the desire for access (that allows illegal hacking to get it), this is also ends-oriented. An early example of this belief was the thirteen-year-old faculty child at MIT who was accepted by the college students because of his ability to program and critique the programs of others.

The final two statements assert the early utopic ideology of computer hackers. They believed that not only could technology be used to perform current jobs more efficiently, but that it could radically transform the world into an idyllic society. Hacker utopians believe that computers, and other advancements such as biotechnology, will lead to a qualitative improvement in life. Non-hackers did not, especially in the early stages of the computer revolution, believe that art and beauty could be created on the computer. The initial hacker utopia was later negated by the cyberpunk culture who recognized the possibility that technology would be used to assist an authoritarian corrupt state (like Orwell’s 1984 or Gibson’s Neuromancer), instead of promoting a radically decentralized democracy (akin to that promoted by the New Left in the 1960s). The last statement in the ethic comes from the belief that hackers became demi-gods through their total control over infallible machines.

Not only did this ethic challenge the mainstream computer community, but also it was intended as a universal critique of society. For as Levy argued:

Levy’s ethic contains some political ideas along the lines of libertarianism or mild anarchism; however, it does not provide a progressive framework that would be needed were hackers to play a significant role in the global resistance against the power elite.

Since the creation of this ethic, many people have claimed to adhere to it, however a controversy has emerged over whether they are true to its spirit. The problem comes from what is left out of the ethic. It is silent about what means hackers should use to get information. It implies that breaking bureaucratic rules is acceptable. Therefore many hackers felt that gaining access into computer or phone networks by hacking was also permitted, even encouraged. Others felt that illegal attempts at access would harm the networks, unintentionally or intentionally, and thus went against the MIT-based hacker ethic.

One group that is often subsumed (notably by the media) under the hacker label, is phreaks. Phreaking started with the Yippies! (a radical political off-shoot of the hippies). Abbie Hoffman’s Steal This Book: A Survival Guide for Yippie! Nation showed how Yippies! could survive and work for revolution, doing things for free or as cheap as possible. Some of the areas covered were clothes, drugs, housing, travel, and communications. The Youth International Party Line newsletter described how to get free phone calls, and in 1971 lost its political orientation though continued its leading role in the phreaking field under the name of Technical Assistance Program (TAP). The June 1972 issue of Ramparts (an alternative New Left publication) was confiscated for publishing a design for a phreaking box, and Ramparts soon ceased operation. The early phreaks used simple electronic boxes, or other devices, to alter voltages or generate tones that were able to control the phone network. One of the first inventions was the black box. It only required a switch and a 10k-ohm resistor, and allowed people to receive free calls by lowering the line voltage so it appeared that there was no conversation. The famous blue box produced a 2600hz tone which gave it control of a trunk, allowing a phreak to literally surf the phone network going from one switching station to another. A common trick was to use the box to hop around the world through a dozen locations to call the pay phone next to you. Phreaks not only wanted free phone calls (and they used their knowledge of the system to setup conference calls and build a phreak network), but also to explore the Ma Bell phone system. The ability to control switches and guide a phone call around the world is similar to the approach hackers would take on the Internet.

Phreaks had power, and some could even tap other peoples’ phone calls. In the mid-1970s AT&T was losing $30 million a year to phreaks, so in the 1980s they upgraded the system and started scanning for people playing tones on their lines and tracking them down. In 1983, the editors of TAP had an attempted arson on their house. In the mid eighties Phreaks started using computer programs called "war-dialers." These programs used the modem to call a range of phone numbers and keep a log of the results. Phreaks were looking for internal numbers used by the phone company. Hackers used them to find computers with dial-ups that they could try to break-in. The phone companies are now aware of these programs, and in some areas they are illegal. One easy phreak trick that still works in most areas is the red box. It fools a pay phone into thinking money was deposited by playing the same tone that the phone generates when you deposit of a nickel, dime or quarter.

The connection between phreaking and hacking grew as hackers wanted free, untraceable phone calls so that they could gain access into computer networks. Also as the phone system became digital, phreaks needed to learn how to hack into the computers that controlled the switches. Some individuals participated in both hacking and phreaking (Ex. Kevin Mitnick). Phrack, a hacking and phreaking electronic journal, is a prime example of the overlap between the two as it serves both communities.

That is how easy it was to hack into a computer network. The most prominent definition of hacking is the act of gaining access without legal authorization to a computer or computer network. A hacker first attacks an easy target, and then uses it to hide his or her traces for launching attacks at more secure sites. The goal of an attack is to gain complete control of the system (so you can edit, delete, install, or execute any file in any user’s directory), often by gaining access to a "super-user" account. This will allow both maximum access and the ability to hide your presence.

Often attacks are based on software bugs that a hacker can use to give himself or herself super-user status. The example above was used by West German hacker "Pengo" who exploited the fact that many systems came with default usernames and passwords which some buyers neglected to change. He succeeded by persistence.

Also one can get a copy of the password file (which stores usernames and encrypted passwords and is often publicly accessible) and either do a brute-force attack trying all possible combinations, or encrypt a dictionary and compare the results to see if anyone chose a password that is a dictionary word. Another method of hacking is to email someone a program that either automatically runs, or that runs when they click on an attachment. This can install a program that will give you control of their computer. L0pht Heavy Industry’s Back Orifice 2000 (a crude parody of Microsoft’s Office 2000) allows someone to have nearly complete control (running programs, deleting files, viewing the screen, logging typed keys, etc.) over the target computer without being noticed. One complicated method, known as IP spoofing, is to get one computer to pretend that it is another one which is trusted by the target system, thus gaining the access privileges of the latter.

Early hackers needed to be very knowledgeable so that they were able to identify bugs themselves (a task requiring extensive knowledge about the operating system, and reading complex manuals) and often write their own programs to exploit them. They had to keep track of the leading developments in the field (latest bugs, latest patches, latest bugs in the patches, etc.). Later hackers were able to increasingly rely upon the hacking community to identify bugs and write programs that could be adapted for their specific purpose. For instance, famed hacker Kevin Mitnick used a trojan horse written by the West German Chaos Gang to gain access to hundreds of systems. As another example, it does not take much intelligence to download a copy of Back Orifice 2000 from www.bo2k.com and send a copy of the client as an attachment disguised as a game or cute program, to an unsuspecting person. In fact, Back Orifice has been downloaded over 300,000 times (Deane 1999) and received substantial computer media coverage. In Pengo’s case it is often more a matter of dedication and trying well-known recipes until one finds a place that has not fixed the bugs, than genius.

The growing number of inexperienced hackers (deridingly called "lamers" or "crackers"), due to the growth first in BBSes and then in the Internet, helps explain the antagonism between the older generation that did more of the problem-solving for themselves and the new generation that can get a quick start by running hacker programs without understanding how they work. The reaction of the older generation is to shun the newbies, thus ignoring those who might show talent as well as those who are in it just to copy tactics.

So what motivates hackers? Next to Levy’s "hacker ethic," the most influential hacker document is "The Conscience of a Hacker" (a.k.a. The Hacker Manifesto). It can be found on many webpages showing that people believe it is a good representation of the hacking spirit. It appeared originally in Phrack 7 and was reprinted there after some busts in 1987 (Phrack 23). The last two paragraphs were even posted on a hacked www.votedbest.com webpage (see http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/1999/12/03/www.votedbest.com/), Also it was included in the movie Hackers.

Here it is, with some of the formatting preserved from the original Phrack 7 text:

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 The following was written shortly after my arrest...

                       \/\The Conscience of a Hacker/\/

                                      by

                               +++The Mentor+++

                          Written on January 8, 1986
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

        Another one got caught today, it's all over the papers.  "Teenager
Arrested in Computer Crime Scandal", "Hacker Arrested after Bank Tampering"...
        Damn kids.  They're all alike.

        But did you, in your three-piece psychology and 1950's technobrain,
ever take a look behind the eyes of the hacker?  Did you ever wonder what
made him tick, what forces shaped him, what may have molded him?
        I am a hacker, enter my world...
        Mine is a world that begins with school... I'm smarter than most of
the other kids, this crap they teach us bores me...
        Damn underachiever.  They're all alike.

        I'm in junior high or high school.  I've listened to teachers explain
for the fifteenth time how to reduce a fraction.  I understand it.  "No, Ms.
Smith, I didn't show my work.  I did it in my head..."
        Damn kid.  Probably copied it.  They're all alike.

        I made a discovery today.  I found a computer.  Wait a second, this is
cool.  It does what I want it to.  If it makes a mistake, it's because I
screwed it up.  Not because it doesn't like me...
                Or feels threatened by me...
                Or thinks I'm a smart ass...
                Or doesn't like teaching and shouldn't be here...
        Damn kid.  All he does is play games.  They're all alike.

 
 
        And then it happened... a door opened to a world... rushing through
the phone line like heroin through an addict's veins, an electronic pulse is
sent out, a refuge from the day-to-day incompetencies is sought... a board is
found.
        "This is it... this is where I belong..."
        I know everyone here... even if I've never met them, never talked to
them, may never hear from them again... I know you all...
        Damn kid.  Tying up the phone line again.  They're all alike...

        You bet your ass we're all alike... we've been spoon-fed baby food at
school when we hungered for steak... the bits of meat that you did let slip
through were pre-chewed and tasteless.  We've been dominated by sadists, or
ignored by the apathetic.  The few that had something to teach found us will-
ing pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert.

        This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch, the
beauty of the baud.  We make use of a service already existing without paying
for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and
you call us criminals.  We explore... and you call us criminals.  We seek
after knowledge... and you call us criminals.  We exist without skin color,
without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals.
You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us
and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals.

        Yes, I am a criminal.  My crime is that of curiosity.  My crime is
that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like.
My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me
for.

        I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto.  You may stop this individual,
but you can't stop us all... after all, we're all alike.

                               +++The Mentor+++

Overall this manifesto argues that hacking is a legitimate, but misunderstood, activity. For instance the media portrays hackers as criminals, and argues that they do it for personal gain. As most hackers start in their teens, they are influenced by their alienated experience in school where they might be seen as "under-achievers" or cheaters. The function of school is to condition students, with bells, grades, exams, and arbitrary rules, so that they accept working nine to five jobs and follow the orders of their boss, government, and other elites. It makes sense that the school experience would alienate many freethinking students. His sarcastic tone shows the alienation and frustration that he and other hackers are experiencing (and which in his case was increased by his recent arrest). Computers, and specifically computer networks in the grassroots form of bulletin board systems, provide an intellectual challenge for socially inept hackers and an escape from a cruel misunderstanding world. Whereas in socializing hackers have a disadvantage, in computer networks they have the advantage due to their specialized knowledge. Unfortunately, having just liberated themselves from social alienation, hackers find themselves stigmatized, and labeled as criminals for their efforts to break free.

The Mentor concludes by challenging the legitimacy of the legal system to determine the boundary between legal and illegal activity. Perhaps influenced by the anarchy files that are common on computer underground BBSes, he argues that the government is criminal and does not have the right to judge hackers. He probably does not expect hackers to win the legal argument, but proclaims that they will keep on hacking regardless. This manifesto has been read by, and encouraged, thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands or millions if you include the movie) of computer hackers or possible hackers – proving that the Mentor was right.

The Mentor’s critique of the media’s portrayal of hackers is an attempt to build a boundary between ethical hackers (a.k.a. "white hats") and unethical crackers (a.k.a. "black hats"). According to hacker Candy Man whereas hackers use their intelligence (Ex. extensive knowledge of Unix) to break into systems but will avoid harming data, crackers are dumb and get passwords using well-known techniques and do so with the intent of damaging the system. As another example of similar boundary drawing, Hafner and Markoff in Cyberpunk refer to Kevin Mitnick as a "dark-side" hacker due to his malicious activities such as tapping phone lines, personal threats and manipulation, breaking into telecom buildings, etc. Kevin Mitnick was eventually imprisoned for stealing 20,000 credit card numbers. Hackers are generally very supportive of this boundary. Phrack often interviewed famous phreaks or hackers, and about half of them would sharply criticize the new generation for their unethical and uneducated behavior. The criticism of crackers is fueled by the belief that they give hacking a bad name, but also they draw the attention of law enforcement and increase the chances of everyone getting caught.

Control C speaking to Phrack (Issue 45) about "What I think of the Future of the Underground:"

In an interview, former editor of Phrack and member of the Legion of Doom (a notorious hacker group), Erik Bloodaxe, explains that he strongly supports the hacker ethic. Commenting on the bad hackers he remarks: "I find it pretty repulsive and disgusting. I am certainly not blind to the fact that there are people out there that do it, but obviously these people have a s---ty upbringing or they are just bad people" (qtd. in Gilboa).

Interviews of Scan Man (Phrack 7), Tuc (Phrack 8), Agrajag (Phrack 12), Taran King (Phrack 20), all opposed malicious hacking and were notably critical of credit carding. In the Phrack interviews, no one ever defended credit carding. The closest thing to a defense of cracking was a passive one, where people did not say anything bad about their colleagues. So whether they were defending them or not was questionable. Phrack’s refusal to publish passwords or other codes, combined with their editorial stance and its move away from publishing "anarchy" files (like drug and bomb recipes); shows that it favors white hat hacking.

Crackers are criticized for their unethical hacking, but in fact the practices of both crackers and hackers are often juvenile. This reduces their potential for political resistance. There are differences between hackers and crackers that help hackers maintain their status and which they try to use to protect themselves from prosecution. Crackers and people striving to join the hacker elite have developed an alternative sub-culture. One method inexperienced people use to get into elite circles is to employ a hacker dialect. However, hackers resist attempts by crackers to bridge the boundary, because they need to have scapegoats to maintain their position.

Status is very important in the computer underground and experienced hackers want to guard theirs’ against the newcomers. Hacker turnover is very rapid because of the short frame in which typical people will hack, and the high rate of technological change. Many people will only hack for several years, until they get busted, retire, or go to college, and thus there is always a relatively large influx of newcomers. As shown above in the Phrack interviews, some of the nostalgic discourse which is mentioned in more detail below comes to play within the hacking community, as the older hackers revere the "good old days," which may be as recent as the late eighties or early nineties.

‘Elite’ is actually used more outside of hacker circles, but it still exists within the hacker community as a way of identifying who has the highest status. If you are elite then you would have access to private BBSes (which often required recommendations before they would give you a username), or to a special sub-board on a BBS which was otherwise hidden, to a private FTP site (with "special" files), and to chat sessions. Distinguishing between the "elite" and "lamers" also allowed hackers a measure of protection against undercover law enforcement by limiting the people they would discuss hacking techniques, and more critically specific exploits, with to fellow hackers. But it was primarily used as a status boundary.

Language helps re-enforce the barrier between computer hackers and non-hackers, as well as that between hackers and crackers. Computer hackers have developed their own language. Firstly there is vocabulary that non-hackers will not know (TCP, IP, winsock, Linux, root access, vi, etc) due to a lack of computer-related knowledge. Secondly, some computer hackers have modified English with a set of conventions. Hackers replace ‘f’ with ‘ph’ (likely coming from phreaks who were interested in ‘ph’ones), and ‘s’ with ‘z’. Also hackers use numbers in place of letters such as ‘1’ for ‘i’ or ‘l’ (though replacing ‘i’ is not the proper usage), ‘3’ for ‘E,’ ‘4’ for ‘a’, and ‘7’ for ‘t.’ Also it is important to use random caPitAlizaTioN, abbreviation, slang, emphasize words by putting ‘k-‘ before them ("k-rad"), and finish a statement with a series of characters for emphasis.

Take this example from an Internet Relay Chat message in a hacking group (#hack):

<elph> c4n sUm1 h31p m3 w1tH h4x0RiNg mY sk00lz c0mPz?!?!?!!?!?

Which translates to: "<elf> can someone help me with hacking my school’s computers?"

According to "Lamer Speak," elf’s statement comes from the warez and crackerz subcultures. "Warez d00dz" are software pirates who are interested in copying the latest program (warez) or game (gamez). Crackers, in this sense, may refer to people who crack software protection or people who crack computer networks. While one will rarely seen this extreme form of the dialect in serious computer hacking circles (thus distinguishing them from crackers and warez d00dz), some of it is widely adopted (notably using ‘ph’ and ‘z’) and thus helps to distinguish them from non-hackers and nostalgic hackers who would never use this dialect. Perhaps newcomers to hacking use this language because they think it will help them gain acceptance, substituting the proper language for their lack of knowledge, by the gate-keeping elite. Or perhaps it is just seen by young teens as a cool way of talking. In real life, elf was banned (i.e. removed) from #hack very promptly after writing that statement. This exclusion is incredibly common, as newcomers are shot-down repeatedly for requesting help in Phrack, on IRC, and on alt.2600 (a hacking Internet discussion group).

The use of this marginal hacker-lingo, combined with bad spelling and grammar, hurts the hacker image making it appear very juvenile. In fact, this is often very close to the truth. Many hackers are teenagers and approach hacking like it is a fun prank. For instance some webpages that are hacked / defaced simply contain a rant or "tag" in hacker lingo (which is only meaningful to a small number of hackers) or pornography. Vulgarity is also very common. For instance hackers who defaced hacked webpages put "fuck" on 584 of the 2145 pages (27.2%) for a total of 1269 times (June 1995 to 1999, source: www.attrition.org, ctd. in Phrack 55). It appears that these hackers are trying to imitate the actions of previous hackers, without taking on their values (for instance as expressed in the hacker ethic). A teen might see the movie "War Games" or "Hackers," persuade his or her parents to buy a modem, log-on to some BBSes (or now the Internet), find some anarchy/hacking/phreaking files and decide that they are going to be the greatest hacker ever, not realizing how much knowledge, dedication, and luck one needs to be successful. And if hackers are not brought-up by mentors who follow a no-harm ethic, then it’s a simple and relatively easy decision to start profiting from one’s activities through credit card (a.k.a. "carding") or calling card fraud. Thus some hackers become involved in harmful criminal activities, from which the ethical illegal hackers try to distinguish themselves.

"Juvenile" behavior is not limited to crackers. Hackers and hacker groups have fights. They will insult each other in public (like in Phrack where the editors wrote entire articles "ragging" on a person and were sarcastically replying to over a dozen letters per issue, on BBS message forums, or on IRC) disconnect a target’s phone service or stick them with a huge long distance bell (in the case of phreaks), or hack into their computer accounts with malicious intent. At conferences, hackers tend to wreck mild-havoc in the main hotel – setting off alarms, trying to hack into any hotel phone or computer systems, drinking large quantities of alcohol – including many under-age hackers, watching pornography, hiring strippers, etc. Also it is probable that some self-proclaimed "ethical" hackers have participated and profited from "unethical" behavior (perhaps the lower-key crime of using a calling card for free calls, though refraining the more serious crime of credit card fraud), but just never got caught and keep it a secret. So while there is an argument to be made for distinguishing between hackers and crackers, there are clearly times when the categories are inaccurate or when people transcend them.

In the 1960s and 1970s, to be a computer hacker was to wear a badge of honor.

(Hafner and Markoff, 11)

Hackers build things, crackers break them.

(Raymond)

The nostalgic discourse, as expressed by Raymond and others, defines hackers as the people who were responsible for many important computer developments such as the Internet, the World Wide Web, and Unix. It holds a nostalgic view of computer programming that idealizes the fifties through seventies. This discourse values myths like that "real programmers," which this discourse calls "hackers," once wrote flawless code in very difficult programming languages such as assembly. Much of its values (proponents might argue all) come from Levy’s hacker ethic. However, where Levy leaves space open for hackers to gain access by illegal means, the nostalgics draw a strict line against illegal means. They call hackers who break into systems "crackers" who deserve jail, and disdain them and phreaks for being stupid kids. They do not distinguish between the white hat and black hat hackers. Stoll (1988), a system administrator whose vigilance led to the successful prosecution of West German hacker Pengo, strongly opposed the white hats for betraying the trust on which the Internet was based and for potentially unintentionally causing damage.

Raymond urges that nostalgic hackers pursue a strategy of cultural separation. Nostalgic hackers should use proper spelling, grammar, and usernames based one’s actual name (instead of mythical ones such as "Lord Xandor"). Raymond recommends, "Don't call yourself a `cyberpunk', and don't waste your time on anybody who do."

Nostalgic hackers are not by any means completely based in the past. Raymond sees the success of nostalgic hackers as being strongly connected to that of open systems like Unix. His definition is strongly rooted in computer programming, specifically programming with the intent of distributing the software for free. According to him an example of a good hacker is Richard Stallman who founded the Free Software Foundation in 1984 which developed a free Unix-clone called GNU’s Not Unix (GNU). Stallman helped inspire Levy’s Hacker Ethic. Another example is how hackers collaborated using the Internet to develop Linux. Linux is a Unix operating system that is available free and may significantly challenge Microsoft’s Windows monopoly. On the political front, he sees hackers as the activists who defeating the Clipper chip and Communications Decency Act in the mid-1990s.

So the nostalgic hackers want to take back "hacker" for themselves.

"At the most recent conference called "Hackers 4.0" we had 200 of the most brilliant computer professionals in the world together for one weekend; this crowd included several PhD's, several presidents of companies ... and various artists, writers, engineers, and programmers. These people all consider themselves Hackers: all derive great joy from their work, from finding ways around problems and limits, from creating rather than destroying. It would be a great disservice to these people, and the thousands of professionals like them, to let some pathetic teenaged criminals destroy the one word which captures their style of interaction with the universe: Hackers

(Bickford 1988, qtd. in Meyer)."

Overall this discourse is an attempt to legitimize hacking’s status in the public view, by countering the media’s "mistake" beginning in the mid eighties when it started using "hacker" instead of "cracker" for the people who were gaining increasing amounts of attention by breaking into computer systems.

The old-school hackers may be closer to the new generation than it first appears. In "Old Hackers, New Hackers: What’s the Difference?" Mizrach argues that it is only a small group of new hackers, the crackers (though he does not call them such), who are causing the fight between old and new hackers over the definition and who gets the status. While the nostalgics argue that their activities are purely legal, Stallman contradicts this by explaining his experience at MIT where he started working in 1971:

It would be good to know how common hacking is, to be able to understand why the computer security discourse sees it as a large problem. Unfortunately figures vary widely and are hard to estimate with accuracy. In 1990, Sterling estimated that there were five thousand hackers, of which a couple hundred were "elite." Clough and Mungo (1992, ctd. in Jordan and Taylor) estimated two thousand "really dedicated, experienced, probably obsessed computer freaks" and up to ten thousand less dedicated ones. The primary in-print hacking magazine, 2600: The Hacker Quarterly, had under three thousand subscribers in 1990. With increasing access to computers and rapid growth in the Internet, hacking has undoubtedly grown since then.

Most corporations have problems with hacking, and it likely increasing. The Computer Security Institute survey of over 500 companies, banks, universities and government agencies showed 64% having a problem with hacking in 1997 (with ¾ of the attacks causing a financial loss), compared to 48% in 1996 (ctd. in Van Slambrouck). Military targets are especially popular. According to the General Accounting Office, the Department of Defense was attacked as many as 250,000 times in 1995. Taylor’s 1993 survey of 200 organizations found 64.5% had been hacked, 18.5% only had a virus (probably introduced unintentionally), and 17% had no known activity (ctd. in Taylor and Jordan). He argued that hacking was likely underestimated in surveys as companies do not realize or do not want to admit that their security is lacking. A 1996 WarRoom survey of 236 organizations found that during the past year 58% had been hacked, 29.8% did not know, and 12.2% had no attacks (ctd. in Taylor and Jordan).

The increase in website hacking, as documented by www.attrition.org, is obviously exponential:

The financial loss is also very hard to quantify but estimated in the billions. Estimates from computer or telco (telephone company) security companies are often biased upwards. In congressional testimony, Mr. Haugh, who works for a private telco consultation firm estimated telephone fraud at $4 to $5 billion in 1993. Peter Tippet, of Symantec Corporation, testified that the cost of viruses to companies was $1 billion, between 1990 and 1993, and rapidly growing.

The culture of criminal hackers seems to glorify behavior which would be classified as sociopathic or frankly psychotic.

(Mich Kabay, director of education, NCSA, NCSA News, June 1996, qtd. in Phrack 48)

The law enforcement discourse simply argues that there are people who are causing financial loss to corporations and that their activity should be viewed as criminal. Some people are using hacker-knowledge to defraud credit card companies (Ex. infamous hacker/phreak Kevin Mitnick was convicted for stealing 20,000 credit card numbers), long distance companies, banks, and plant viruses or otherwise damage a company’s computer system. 1For a company that does not know who is accessing its network and cannot tell their intention, it makes sense to lump all hackers together and depict them as criminals.

Of course computer security companies who benefit from over-playing the hacker threat, are not helping to calm corporate fears:

Computer hacking is in a gray legal area. It is only since 1980 that computer hacking became illegal in every state (Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce, 1988 - ctd in Meyer), but law officials have made up for their lack of activity with high profile raids such as those carried out in 1990 (see Sterling’s The Hacker Crackdown). In a May 9, 1990 press release, Mr. Jenkins, Asst. Dir. of the US Secret Service explained their newly found vigilance: "Our experience shows that many computer hacker suspects are no longer misguided teenagers, mischievously playing games with their computers in their bedrooms. Some are now high tech computer operators using computers to engage in unlawful conduct"(qtd. in Sterling).

With this kind of rhetoric aimed at hackers it is not surprising that Judge Stanton said the following while handing down an exemplary one year (and three years probation) sentence to hacker Phiber Obtik: "The defendant...stands as a symbol here today... Hacking crimes constitute a real threat to the expanding information highway" (qtd. in Dibbel 1994).

The legal discourse, in its attempts to figure out how to treat computer hackers yet often knowing very little about computers and/or hacking (especially judges and juries), fits it into the traditional criminal code. The problem with this approach is that computer hacker "crimes" can be qualitatively different from regular ones. For instance Prophet, a Legion of Doom member, hacked into a Bell South system and copied a file on the 911 system. Later he was charged with theft of a document valued at a highly inflated $79,449 for its approximately ten pages. He had not even stolen it. Bell South still had their original copy, and his document was of next to no value. In fact, this "stolen property" was distributed to thousands of people when it was edited and included in an issue of Phrack. Are they all guilty of a criminal offense? Another questionable parallel is that when a hacker gains access into a computer system it is treated like break and entry or trespassing. While in fact the actions of the white hat hackers are as if someone were to enter a house without breaking anything, read a couple books, and leave everything in such a condition that the house’s occupants will never realize or feel any loss from the intrusion. Not only that, but the hacker’s behavior inside the house is so low-key, that if you were to be home at the time of the intrusion you would likely not notice them.

The other major problem with the legal discourse is that it fails to distinguish between hackers who intend no harm and criminals. As an example, while questioning Emmanuel Goldstein, editor of 2600, chairman of the congressional committee Markey first wanted used the label "bad hacker," then twice insisted upon "crackers," and finally went with "criminal hackers," all while Goldstein insisted that the people in question were criminals. He does not even accept for them to be called the lesser term of "cracker." The criminals might be using hacker technology, but that does not make them hackers because they lack the values and technical knowledge.

In summary, the legal discourse contradicts both the ethical hacker one by lumping all hackers together as criminals, and the nostalgic one by preferring the computer underground’s definition of hacking to the nostalgic one.

The media serves a similar role to the legal system. Its net effect is to sensationalize illegal hacking and thus has caused the nostalgic discourse to lose out in the battle for public opinion. And like the legal discourse, the media generally fails to distinguish between ethical and unethical hacking.

There are some differences within the media. As hacking and computers have become increasingly prevalent, the reporters who cover hacking are better informed and more immune to the hype (Ex. the War Games theme that a teen hacker could set-off a nuclear war). Some reporters and particularly segments of the computer-media, like the magazine Wired, will present a more sympathetic and realistic story about the dangers and motivations of computer hackers.

However, it is media coverage like the following examples which sets the tone. First, Eddie Schwarz, a WGN radio talk-show host, rebukes hacker / phreak "Anna" who openly admitted to stealing $15,000 worth of long distance:

Schwarz creates a moral boundary between normal society and hackers / phreaks – who apparently are maliciously causing financial damage without adhering to any ethical values. This boundary is necessary for the criminalization and marginalization of hackers. And here is an example from an NBC TV special on "computer crime," hosted by Gary Collins who is talking to Jay Bloombecker, director of the National Center for Computer Crime Data."

The image of thousands of hackers working magic, penetrating every possible imagine computer system (the media covered successful attacks on military systems are the proof), whether it is coincidental or not, allows for pressure / repression to be brought to bear against hackers, conveniently ignoring the immense technical power that is being gathered and wielded by corporations and governments.

[2600] holds that technical power and specialized knowledge, of any kind obtainable, belong by right in the hands of those individuals brave and bold enough to discover them--by whatever means necessary.

(Goldman qtd. in Sterling)

The economy of the developed world is moving from focussing on producing goods (Ex. cars, houses, food, and computers) to being based on the exchange of information. This shift may be compared to the transition from feudalism to capitalism where the power shifted away from the landed aristocracy to the newly enriched bourgeoisie. In this case, the power will shift from the owners of productive capital (a.k.a. factories) to those of informational capital. Already we have seen a strong shift away from productive capital, as speculative investments are able to wreck havoc on national economies (such as Mexico’s 1994 crisis and the recent Southeast Asian financial crisis). Each day over 1.5 trillion dollars is traded in international currency markets (UNDP: 1999). Thus capital is overwhelming the power of the state. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) is attempting to liberalize trade and permits corporations to challenge and change national laws by appealing to the WTO to rule that they are barriers to free trade. Despite the WTO’s recent failure at the protest-marred Seattle meeting, corporate sponsored globalization will march on.

Now if the economy is entering a new stage, then a new class will gain power. The new class could be called an "info-bourgeoisie." Sterling argues that hackers and their critics are fighting over "technopower." While access to computers has been growing, there is still great inequality. According to the 1998 study, "Falling Through the Net," families with incomes over $75,000 were five times more likely than those under $15,000 to have a computer and seven times more likely to use the Internet. Inequality is even worse if you include race. Only 1.9% of black families with income under $15,000 used the Internet access, compared to 3.8% of Hispanic families and 8.9% of white ones.

Globally Internet usage was only 140 million people in mid-1998 (Human Development Report Office ctd. in UNDP), though expected to reach 700 million by 2001. There are many people who are not going to use the Internet for a very long time. The bottom 20% of nations only had 0.2% of Internet users, compared to 6.5% for the middle 60%, and a whopping 93.3% for the top 20%. So the difference between rich and poor is a ratio of 450.

Also even as more people gain access to the Internet there will still be vast inequality between users. For instance if you are a corporation and know how to market and design an effective website you will get thousands or more hits per day. By comparison, for two years my personal website was only visited once every several days. The World Wide Web was a medium where I could and did publish my opinions and research, however it did not matter as no one was reading. As more and more websites are created, search engines have started to rank sites by how many time other sites link to them. So if your website starts with a high-ranking on the search engine, more people will link to it, which will increase your search engine rank and so on (and vice-versly if no-one knows about your site, nobody will link to it, and it will never appear in the top hits for a search engine). This Internet-specific examples shows that an information or technopower based economy permits, and possibly promotes, inequality due to differences in technical knowledge, education, language, race, class, gender, and other factors.

In the software or "information management" market, Microsoft’s monopoly of the operating systems market and near-monopoly of the word processing and spreadsheet markets shows the danger of not questioning who owns the infrastructure of the developing information economy. The nostalgic discourse has a good argument when it says that the people collaborating to create one of Microsoft’s primary rival in operating systems, Linux, are hackers, if hackers are to be understood as individuals resisting monopolization of technopower. Though recently so-called "hackers" have been cashing-in big time by listing their Linux-related corporation on the stock market. On its first day of trading, stock in VA Linux Systems set a new record by soaring from its initial public offer price of $30 to $239 ¼.

What impact will the corporatization of the Internet (its growing use for e-commerce and the advertisements all over) have upon deciding whether it is used for resistance or to further domination? Will "free" mean "free because it comes with advertisements?" That is how it is for the free webpages, free email, free hard drive space, free phone calls (a couple companies offer free long distance which is interrupted for an ad every several minutes), free listservs, and free pirated software – all of which are being promoted for someone’s profit. Or will "free" be the start of a gift-giving, possibly post-capitalist and socialistic, economy? This is how it is with freeware like Linux and other programs, USENET, and discussion lists and webpages on nonprofit servers. Unfortunately, now Linux is also under threat of commercialization too. Is the Internet going to intensify capitalism by reducing transaction costs so that everyone can be an entrepreneur or will it help lead to socialism?

Are hackers revolutionaries? Some are. Part of the reason West German hackers (such as Pengo who was a punk and a Green) attempted to hack for the Russians (codename "Project Equalizer") was because they wanted to promote peace through reducing the West’s technical advantage. The 1960s New Left started Phreaking. Computer hackers and enthusiasts in general tend to be a mixture of libertarian, anarchist, and generally liberal. They are overwhelmingly opposed to authoritarian systems. Cyberpunk literature shows the individual using technology, somehow surviving in the midst of authoritarian structures.

More recently, "hacktivism" has emerged as people have learnt how to put their computer "in the way," instead of their body. Hacktivists have broken into websites to put a political message on the site (freeing computer hacker Kevin Mitnick, human rights in China, the Zapatistas, and East Timor have all been popular topics). Hacktivists invented the electronic sit-in. A program called "Floodnet" allows you to set your computer so that it is constantly requesting a webpage. Activists can cooperate from around the world, and if enough people join it will slow down the webpage, ultimately leading to a Denial of Service. In addition, it is possible to overload a target’s email account by sending them large attachments. Hacktivists flooded and email bombed the World Trade Organization during its meeting in Seattle.

It is also possible to legally use computers and the Internet to share information and build movements of resistance. The reduction of costs of communication helps both multi-national corporations and encourages the creation of a global alliance of anti-corporate resistance. For instance the student anti-sweatshop movement (United Students Against Sweatshops) has used an email list as its primary organizing tool and has arguably become the most cohesive and powerful progressive student movement in only two years.

The master's tools will never destroy the master's house.

(Audre Lorde in Sister Outsider)

The institutions that are in power create the technology that helps them.

(Kirkpatrick Sale, qtd. in Robin 1996)

What limitations are there to hacking as a source of resistance? Structurally Sale argues that the technology in the computer revolution is designed to be undemocratic. He thinks we should take a Luddite position and reject the digital revolution. He pessimistically forecasts that the elite will win the fight for technopower. The statistics on inequality in Internet use back him up.

More critically, the illegal hackers, who meet the most accepted definition of hacker, show potential for resistance, but also major problems before that potential can be realized. Namely, overall hacker support for progressive causes outside of libertarian issues is shallow. While one might expect hackers who by operating anonymously can be free of their sex, race, and sexual orientation to be very accepting of diversity ("We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias..." – The Mentor), this is not the case. Probably 80-90% of hackers are male and they tend to act sexist. Phrack includes many letters that were generally accompanied by sarcastic editorial comments. If the letter-writer’s name or handle was female, then the editor would usually suggest that they "hook-up". In past summer conferences organized by hackers and Phrack, people hired strippers and watched pornography videos (along with drinking) as a form of entertainment. Women are generally treated as sex objects. Men who try to get help from more experienced hackers or phreaks have trouble, but women receive favorable treatment, probably in hope that they will return the favor. Phrack ragged on one hacker, Oryan Quest, for being a Mexican ("illegal alien") and using Spanish commands on his BBS. However as they also attacked him for a series of other things (Ex. to try and boost his reputation he filed fake news stories to Phrack) so one cannot know whether the editors were primarily motivated by racism or not.

Some hackers are more concerned about their status within the movement, than about building the movement. There is a lot of teaching happening in the underground with BBSes, webpages, electronic journals, files, and chat rooms; however hackers need to change their attitude. Instead of assuming that everyone who has an AOL account is a loser and kicking off an Internet Relay Chat channel anyone who asks a question (just because they seem a little new), hackers need to write a friendly response and bring the newcomers into hacking culture like other social movements do. By contrast, if a new person shows up at a National Council meeting of the Student Environmental Action Coalition (large national progressive student environmental network) they get a lot of attention and are welcomed into the fold. If they are willing, they will end up with a very high level of responsibility.

The word "hacker" carries weight. People strongly disagree as to what a hacker is. Hacking may be defined as legal or illegal, ethical or unethical. The media’s portrayal of hacking has boosted one version of discourse. The conflict between discourses is important for our understanding of computer hacking subculture. Also, the outcome of the conflict may prove critical in deciding whether or not our society and institutions remain in the control of a small elite or we move towards a radical democracy (a.k.a. socialism). It is my hope that the hackers of the future will move beyond their limitations (through inclusion of women, a deeper politicization, and more concern for recruitment and teaching) and become hacktivists. They need to work with non-technologically based and technology-borrowing social movements (like most modern social movements who use technology to do their task more easily) in the struggle for global justice. Otherwise the non-technologically based social movements may face difficulty continuing to resist as their power base is eroded while that of the new technopower elite is growing – and the fictionesque cyberpunk-1984 world may become real.

CandyMan. Online definitions, http://www.mgmua.com/hackers/inventory/definitions.html.

Crash, Doctor. "The Techno-Revolution." Phrack, 1 (6), 1986.

Deane, Joel. "Has Back Orifice gone legit?" http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1015473,00.html, ZDNET: July 12, 1999.

Dibbel, Julian. "The Prisoner: Phiber Optik Goes Directly to Jail." Online Village Voice article, http://www.levity.com/julian/phiber.html, 1994.

"electrohippies website." http://www.greennet.org.uk/ehippies/, 1999.

"Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide." Online Report, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html, 1999.

Gibson, William. Neuromancer. Electronic book, http://www.cyberpunkproject.org/idb/gibson_neuromancer.html, 1984.

Gilboa, Netta. Interview of Erik Bloodaxe. Online, http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Security/Hacking_cracking_phreaking/Net_culture_and_hacking/Hackers/bloodaxe-goggans_94.interview, 1994.

Hafner, Katie and John Markoff. Cyberpunk: Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991.

"Human Development Report." Online report, http://www.undp.org/hdro/, 1999.

Jordan, Tim and Paul Taylor. "A Sociology of Hackers." The Sociological Review, 46 (4), 1998, 757-780.

"Lamer Speak." Online text file, http://www.fwi.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/l/Lamer-speak.html, 1996.

Levy, Steven. Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. Electronic book, ftp://sailor.gutenberg.org/pub/gutenberg/etext96/hckrs10.txt, 1984.

Mentor, The. "The Conscience of a Hacker." Phrack, 1 (7), 1986.

Phrack. Online electronic journal, http://www.phrack.com. Issues 1 – 55 : 1985-1999.

Meyer, Gordon R. "The Social Organization of The Computer Underground." Online Masters Thesis, http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Security/Hacking_cracking_phreaking/Net_culture_and_hacking/Hackers/soc_org_of_comp_underground.paper, 1989.

Mizrach, Steve. "Old Hackers, New Hackers: What's the Difference?" Online essay, http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Security/Hacking_cracking_phreaking/Net_culture_and_hacking/Hackers/old_and_new_hackers.article.

Online Congressional Testimony. http://eff.bilkent.edu.tr/pub/GII_NII/Commerce_online/Digital_money/Crypto_misc/Computer_security/markey_goldstein.testimony, 1993.

Raymond, Eric S. "A Brief History of Hackerdom." Online essay, http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/hacker-history/hacker-history.html, 1999.

Robin, Michael. "Technology For The Coming Millennium." Interview of Kirkpatrick Sale. Online, http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/dc/activism/saleludd.htm, 1996.

Sterling, Bruce. The Hacker Crackdown. Electronic book, ftp://uiarchive.cso.uiuc.edu/pub/etext/gutenberg/etext94/hack11a.txt, 1994.

Stoll, Clifford. "Stalking the wily hacker." Online journal article, http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Security/Hacking_cracking_phreaking/Net_culture_and_hacking/Hackers/stalking_the_wily_hacker.article, 1984.

Trigaux, Robert. "A history of hacking." St. Petersburg Times Online, http://www.sptimes.com/Hackers/history.hacking.html, 1998.

Van Slambrouck, Paul. "Cyber threats: How serious?" Christian Science Monitor, 03/09/98, p. 1.