|
<<
Every profession or trade tends to have an
ethical code which suggests that it is capable of self-regulation of its members. The code
demonstrates the shared core values necessary for people to practice within the
professional community. And it enables the public and the government to have some degree
of trust for the profession. Some of these codes may be very ancient and formalized, such
as the Hippocratic Oath sworn by physicians. Others may be very modern and legalistic,
like the code of ethics for applied or academic anthropologists. Some ethical systems may
be "underground," (such as the Pirates' Code of 18th century buccaneers or Mafia
oaths of loyalty) enabling members of subcultures or groups to survive, cooperate, and
escape outsiders. Yet others like the original Hacker Ethic are very informal and simple -
rules of thumb to live by.
Groups employ different means of enforcing their ethical systems. Some provisions are
often recognized as simply being archaic and are ignored. This is why most doctors do not
heed the prohibitions in the Hippocratic Oath against abortion or euthanasia, yet most
(but not all!) believe in the ethical principle of not refusing critical treatment to a
patient who is unable to pay. Other groups (such as anthropologists) often devise ethical
codes simply because they are forced to by the bad behavior of some of their members in
the past, and their provisions are specifically tailored to probems that have arisen.
Violating some ethical codes can get you banned from the profession or worse, when
professional associations exist to enforce the regulations; with hackers, breaking the
Hacker Ethic seems to result mostly in anathema or social ostracization, a time-honored
method of social control.
The original Hacker Ethic was sort of an impromptu, informal ethical code developed by the
original hackers of MIT and Stanford (SAIL) in the 50s and 60s. These "hackers"
were the first generation of programmers, employing time-sharing terminal access to 'dumb'
mainframes, and they often confronted various sorts of bureaucratic interference that
prevented them from exploring fully how technological systems (computers, but also model
trains, university steam tunnels, university phone systems, etc.) worked. The ethic
reflects their resistance to these obstacles, and their ideology of the liberatory power
of technology. The six principles of the Hacker Ethic
are listed below, with some text samples showing where it appears within these documents.
A concise summation of it can be found in Steven Levy's 1984 book Hackers: Heroes of the
Computer Revolution. Levy suggested that because of their Ethic and their unconventional
style, hackers like Jobs and Wozniak were able to launch the "computer
revolution," resulting in the first personal computer (the Apple) which was easy to
use and which put programming power in the individual's hands. Here I cite documents from
my sample which reiterate some of its principles.
1. Hands On Imperative: Access to computers
and hardware should be complete and total. It is asserted to be a categorical imperative
to remove any barriers between people and the use and understanding of any technology, no
matter how large, complex, dangerous, labyrinthine, proprietary, or powerful.
As we can see, this has not been the case. The computer system has been
solely in the hands of big businesses and the government. The wonderful
device meant to enrich life has become a weapon which dehumanizes people.
To the government and large businesses, people are no more than disk space,
and the government doesn't use computers to arrange aid for the poor, but
to control nuclear death weapons. The average American can only have access
to a small microcomputer which is worth only a fraction of what they pay
for it. The businesses keep the true state of the art equipment away from
the people behind a steel wall of incredibly high prices and bureaucracy.
It is because of this state of affairs that hacking was born. ("Doctor
Crash", 1986)[1]
2. "Information Wants to Be Free" "Information wants to be free" can
be interpreted in three ways. Free might mean without restrictions (freedom of movement =
no censorship), without control (freedom of change/evolution = no ownership or authorship,
no intellectual property), or without monetary value (no cost.) Some hackers even take
this to mean information is alive, free to act on its own agency, as viruses, genetic
algorithms, 'bots and other software programs do. Most hackers seem to advocate this
principle in different senses of the word "free" at different times. In any
case, when asked about the content of the Hacker Ethic, most people assert this as the key
principle.
There is much knowledge that is disallowed, hidden. Government activities, corporate
crime, and "illegitimate" information needs to be disseminated. People without
access to technology need it - they can contribute to the world. Distributing this
information is illegal, potentially dangerous. This, in my humble opinion, is the best use
of hacked accounts. Obtaining information, disseminating information needs anonymity. This
protects your hide. This is important. Whistle blowers are only
silenced when their identity is known...
Access to information
Yes, access is a right you have. You need to know when the government is
killing people, radiating them, listening to them, lying to them, lying to
you. You have a right to gain access to information about OUR government.
This government is supposedly of the people, by the people, power granted
by a social contract.[2]
3. Mistrust Authority. Promote decentralization. This element of the ethic shows its
strong anarchistic, individualistic, and libertarian nature. Hackers have always shown
distrust toward large institutions, including but not limited to the State, corporations,
and computer administrative bureaucracies (the IBM 'priesthood'). Tools like the PC are
said to move power away from large organizations (who use
mainframes) and put them in the hands of the 'little guy' user. Nowhere is this ethos
stronger than among the anti-statist cypherpunks and extropians.
In fact, technology represents one of the most promising avenues available
for re-capturing our freedoms from those who have stolen them. By its very
nature, it favors the bright (who can put it to use) over the dull (who
cannot). It favors the adaptable (who are quick to see the merit of the new
(over the sluggish, who cling to time-tested ways). And what two better
words are there to describe government bureaucracy than "dull" and
"sluggish"?[3]
The State will of course try to slow or halt the spread of this technology,
citing national security concerns, use of the technology by drug dealers
and tax evaders, and fears of societal disintegration. Many of these
concerns will be valid; crypto anarchy will allow national secrets to be
traded freely and will allow illicit and stolen materials to be traded. An
anonymous computerized market will even make possible abhorrent markets for
assassinations and extortion. Various criminal and foreign elements will be
active users of CryptoNet. But this will not halt the spread of
cryptoanarchy.[4]
4. No Bogus Criteria: Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not by "bogus
criteria" such as race, age, sex, or position. Nowhere is this ethos more apparent
than in the strong embrace by most hackers of the levelling power of the Internet, where
anonymity makes it possible for all such 'variables' about a person to remain unknown, and
where their ideas must be judged on their merits alone since such contextual factors are
not available.
The Internet is one of the best hacks the world has to offer. It has
continually shattered deeply ingrained social prejudices concerning
characteristics such as age, race, wealth, and sex. In fact, it is common
to find 14 year olds arguing philosophy with 41 year olds on America's
computer networks![5]
5. "You can create truth and beauty on a computer." Hacking is equated with
artistry and creativity. Furthermore, this element of the ethos raises it to the level of
philosophy (as opposed to simple pragmatism), which (at least in some quarters) is about
humanity's search for the good, the true, and the beautiful.
Without question, good/great programming (hacking) is art and as with art
each person has their own signature and style (which changes over time).
Quite a few years ago I was reviewing some derivative works of one hacker,
and found the lack of signature and style of the original.[6]
6. "Computers can change your life for the better." In some ways, this last
statement really is simply a corollary of the previous one. Since most of humanity desires
things that are good, true, and/or beautiful, the fact that a computer can create such
things would seem to mean that axiomatically it can change peoples' lives for the better.
However, this is merely a declarative statement, which like the previous one reflects a
deep-felt love of technology. It does not state explicitly that computers should always
change peoples' lives for the better, or the principle that would follow from that, which
is that it is unethical to use them to make peoples' lives worse. .. Many hackers see the
Internet as an immense positive force, and this reiterated again by hacker Emmanuel
Goldstein --
The future holds such enormous potential. It is vital that we not succumb
to our fears and allow our democratic ideals and privacy values to be
shattered. In many ways, the world of cyberspace is more real than the real
world itself. I say this because it is only within the virtual world that
people are really free to be themselves - to speak without fear of
reprisal, to be anonymous if they so choose, to participate in a dialogue
where one is judged by the merits of their words, not the color of their
skin or the timbre of their voice. Contrast this to our existing "real"
world where we often have people sized up before they even utter a word.
The Internet has evolved, on its own volition, to become a true bastion of
worldwide democracy. It is the obligation of this committee, and of
governments throughout the world, not to stand in its way.[7]
Thus, the ethical principles of the Hacker Ethic suggest it is the ethical duty of the
hacker to remove barriers, liberate information, decentralize power, honor people based on
their ability, and create things that are good and life-enhancing through computers. It
remains an open question (of interpretation) as to whether it advocates the free
distribution of software (the GNU/Richard Stallman position), the injunction against using
computers for malicious purposes (the Clifford Stoll position), or the need for secure
networks based on trust (the Steven Levy position.) Each of these document samples show
that new hackers are aware of, and advocate (whether intentionally or accidentally)
elements of the original Hacker Ethic.
<<
|
|