Hackers Essay, Research Paper
The Computer Underground.
The beginning of the electronic communication revolution
that started with the public use of telephones to the emergence
of home computers has been accompanied by corresponding social
problems involving the activities of so-called “computer
hackers,” or better referred to as the computer underground (CU).
The CU is composed of computer aficionados who stay on the
fringes of legality. The CU is composed of relatively intelligent
people, in contrast to the media’s description of the ultra
intelligent and sophisticated teenage “hacker.” The majority have
in common the belief that information should be free and that
they have “a right to know.” They often have some amount of
dislike for the government and the industries who try to
control and commercialize information of any sort. This paper
attempts to expose what the CU truly is and dispel some of the
myths propagated by the media and other organizations. This paper
also tries to show the processes and reasons behind the
criminalization of the CU and how the CU is viewed by different
organizations, as well as some of the processes by which it came
into being. What the CU is has been addressed by the media,
criminologists, secuity firms, and the CU themselves, they all
have a different understanding or levels of comprehention, this
paper attempts to show the differences between the views as well
as attempt to correct misunderstandings that may have been
propagated by misinformed sources. The differences between the
parties of the CU such as, “hackers,” “crackers,” “phreaks,”
“pirates,” and virus writers have rarely been recognized and some
deny that there are differences thus this paper attempts to give
a somewhat clearer view and define exactly what each party is
and does as well as how they relate to one another.
Every individual in the CU has a different level of
sophistication when it comes to computers, from the height of the
advanced virus writer and network hacker to the pirate who can be
at the same level as a novice computer user. The prevalence of
the problem has been dramatized by the media and enforcement
agents, and evidenced by the rise of specialized private security
firms to confront the “hackers.” The average person’s knowledge
about the CU has been derived mostly from the media. The media
gets their information from former CU individuals who have been
caught, from law enforcement agents, and from computer security
specialists. The computer underground, as it is called by those
who participate in it, is composed of people adhering to one or
several roles: “hacker,” “phreaker,” “pirate,” “cracker,” and
computer virus developer. Terms such as these have different
meanings for those who have written about the computer
underground, such as the media, and those who participate in it.
The media’s concept of the Computer Underground is the main
cause of the criminalization of the activity and has largely
occurred as the result of media dramatization of the “problem”
(Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce, 1988). In fact, it was a
collection of newspaper and film clips that was presented to the
United States Congress during legislative debates as evidence of
the computer hacking problem (Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce, 1988,
p.107). Unfortunately, the media assessment of the computer
underground displays a naive understanding of CU activity. The
media generally makes little distinction between different types
of CU activity. Most any computer- related crime activity can be
attributed to “hackers.” Everything from embezzlement to computer
viruses have, at one time or another, been attributed to them.
Additionally, hackers are often described as being sociopathic or
malicious, creating a media image of the computer underground
that may exaggerate their ability for doing damage. The labeling
of the CU and especially hackers as being “evil” is well
illustrated by these media examples. The first is from Eddie
Schwartz, a WGN-Radio talk show host.
Here Schwartz is addressing “Anna,” a self-identified hacker
that has phoned into the show: You know what Anna, you know what
disturbs me? You don’t sound like a stupid person but you
represent a . . . a . . . a . . . lack of morality that
disturbs me greatly. You really do. I think you represent a
certain way of thinking that is morally bankrupt. And I’m not
trying to offend you, but I . . .I’m offended by you! (WGN Radio,
1988)
Another example is from NBC-TV’s “Hour Magazine” featured a
segment on “computer crime.” In this example, Jay Bloombecker,
director of the National Center for Computer Crime Data,
discusses the “hacker problem” with the host of the show, Gary
Collins.
Collins: . . . are they (hackers) malicious in intent, or
are they simply out to prove, ah, a certain machismo amongst
their peers? Bloombecker: I think so. I’ve talked about “modem
macho” as one explanation for what’s being done. And a lot of the
cases seem to involve proving that he . . . can do something
really spiffy with computers. But, some of the cases are so evil,
like causing so many computers to break, they can’t look at that
as just trying to prove that you’re better than other people. GC:
So that’s just some of it, some kind of “bet” against the
computer industry, or against the company. JB: No, I think it’s
more than just rottenness. And like someone who uses graffiti
doesn’t care too much whose building it is, they just want to
be destructive.
GC: You’re talking about a sociopath in control of a
computer! JB: Ah, lots of computers, because there’s thousands,
or tens of thousands of hackers. (NBC-TV, 1988)
The media’s obsession with the computer underground, that is
generally labeled as hacking, focuses almost entirely upon the
morality of their actions. Since media stories are taken from the
accounts of the police, security personnel, and members of the
computer underground who have been caught, each of whom have
different perspectives and 20 definitions of their own, the
media’s definition, if not inherently biased, is at best
inconsistent.
Criminologists, are less judgmental than the media, but no
more precise. Labels of “electronic trespassers”(Parker, 1983),
and “electronic vandals” (Bequai, 1987) have both been applied to
the CU’s hacking element specifically. Both terms, while
acknowledging that “hacking” is deviant, shy away from labeling
it as “criminal” or sociopathic behavior. Yet despite this
seemingly non-judgmental approach to the computer underground,
both Parker and Bequai have testified before Congress, on
behalf of the computer security industry, on the “danger” of
computer hackers. Unfortunately, their “expert” testimony was
largely based on information culled from newspaper stories, the
objectiveness of which has been seriously questioned (Hollinger
and Lanza-Kaduce 1988 p.105).
Computer security specialists, on the other hand, are often
quick to identify the CU as criminals. Similarly, some reject the
notion that there are different roles and motivations among the
computer underground participants and thereby refuse to define
just what it is that a “hacker” or “phreaker” does. John
Maxfield, a “hacker expert,” suggests that differentiating
between “hackers” and “phone phreaks” is a moot point, preferring
instead that they all just be called “criminals.” The reluctance
or inability to differentiate between roles and activities in the
computer underground, as exhibited in the media and computer
security firms, creates an ambiguous definition of “hacker” that
possesses two extremes: the modern-day bank robber at one end,
the trespassing teenager at the other. Thus, most any criminal
or mischievous act that involves computers can be attributed to
“hackers,” regardless of the nature of the crime.
Participants in the computer underground also object the
overuse and misuse of the word hacking. Their objection centers
around the indiscriminate use of the word to refer to computer
related crime in general and not, specifically, the activities of
the computer underground: Whenever the slightest little thing
happens involving computer security, or the breach thereof, the
media goes *censored*ing bat*censored* and points all their fingers at us
‘nasty hackers.’ They’re so damned ignorant it’s sick (EN,
message log, 1988). . . . whenever the media happens upon
anything that involves malicious computer use it’s the “HACKERS.”
The wor
card.” What someone should do is tell the *censored*en media to get it
straight (TP2, message log, 1988).
The difference between the different elements of the
computer underground has been generally obscured by the media.
Terms such as Cracker, Phreaker, Pirate, or Virus writer have
been generally replaced with the all encompassing word “HACKER”.
Each element is associated with the computer underground and some
are bigger players than others but none of them can qualify
individually as the total sum of all the elements. There are
major differences between the elements of the CU that is rarely
understood by someone on the outside.
The use of the word “hacker”, which is now generally
accepted to be part of the CU, has gone through drastic changes
in definition. “Hacker” was first applied to computer
related activities when it was used by programmers in the late
1950’s. At that time it referred to the pioneering researchers,
such as those at M.I.T., who were constantly adjusting and
experimenting with the new technology (Levy, 1984. p.7). A
“hacker” in this context refers to an unorthodox, yet talented,
professional programmer. This use of the term still exits today,
though it is largely limited to professional computing circles.
The computer professionals maintain that using “hackers” (or
“hacking”) to refer to any illegal or illicit activity is a
corruption of the “true” meaning of the word. Bob Bickford, a
professional programmer who has organized several programmer
conferences, explains:
At a 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 (including large companies, such as Pixar), 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. (Bickford,
1988).
The more widely accepted definition of “hacker” refers to one who
obtains unauthorized, if not illegal, access to computer systems
and networks. This definition was popularized by the movie War
Games and, generally speaking, is the one used by the media. It
is also the definition favored by the computer underground. Both
the members of the computer underground and professional
computer programmers claim ownership of “hacker,” and each defend
the “proper” use of term. However, since computer break-ins are
likely to receive more media attention than clever feats of
programming, the CU definition is likely to dominate simply by
being used more often.
A “computer hacker” could be defined as an individual,
associated with the computer underground, who specializes in
obtaining unauthorize access to computer systems. “Hacking”
refers to gaining access and exploring computer systems and
networks. “Hacking” encompasses both the act and the methods used
to obtain valid user accounts on computer systems. “Hacking” also
refers to the activity that occurs once access to another
computer has been obtained. Since the system is being used
without authorization, the hacker does not, generally speaking,
have access to the usual operating manuals and other resources
that are available to legitimate users. Therefore, the hacker
must experiment with commands and explore various files in order
to understand and effectively use the system. The goal here is to
explore and experiment with the system that has been entered. By
examining files and, perhaps, by a little clever programming, the
hacker may be able to obtain protected information or more
powerful access privileges. Once a hacker has managed to gain
access to a computer system he will generally try make sure that
his activities are hidden so that he can keep access on the
system. This is the difference between hacker and cracker. Unlike
the hacker a cracker is only really interested in “cracking” the
machine/system and once the feat is accomplished he is generally
disinterested and leaves, he could be called the tourist of
the hacking element. (Bill Landreth, Outside the Inner Circle)
Another role in the computer underground is that of the
“phone phreak.” Phone phreaking, usually called just “phreaking,”
was widely publicized when the exploits of John “Cap’n Crunch”
Draper, the “father of phreaking,” were publicized in a 1971
Esquire magazine article. The term “phreaking” encompasses
several different means of getting around the billing mechanisms
of telephone companies. By using these methods, long distance
phone calls can be placed without cost. In ma y cases the
methods also prevent, or at least inhibit, the possibility of
calls being traced to their source thereby helping the phreaker
to avoid being caught. Early phreaking methods involved electro-
mechanical devices that generated key tones, or altered line
voltages in certain ways as to trick the mechanical switches of
the phone company into connecting calls without charging. This
method of phreaking is generally called “(color) boxing,” where
the type of box is referred to by a color such as “blue boxing.”
However the advent of computerized telephone-switching systems
largely made these devices obsolete. In order to continue their
practice the phreaks have had to learn hacking skills. Phreaking
and hacking have just recently merged, because now, the telephone
companies are using computers to operate their network. So, in
order to learn more about these computers in relation to the
network, phreaks have learned hacking skills, and can now
program, and get around inside the machines (AF, message log,
1988).
For most members of the computer underground, phreaking is
simply a tool that allows them to call long distance without
amassing enormous phone bills. Because the two activities are so
closely related, with phreakers learning hacking skills and
hackers breaking into “telco” computers, reference is usually
made to phreak/hacking or p/hackers.” Those who have a deeper
and more technically oriented interest in the “telco” (telephone
company) are known as phreakers. They, like the hackers discussed
earlier, desire to master and explore a system that few outsiders
really understand: The phone system is the most interesting,
fascinating thing that I know of. There is so much to know. Even
phreaks have their own areas of knowledge. There is so much to
know that one phreak could know something fairly important and
the next phreak not. The next phreak might know ten things that
the first phreak doesn’t though. It all depends upon where and
how they get their info. I myself would like to work for the
telco, doing something interesting, like programming a switch.
Something that isn’t slave labor bull*censored*. Something that you
enjoy, but have to take risks in order to participate unless you
are lucky enough to work for the telco. To have access
to telco things, manuals, etc would be great (DP, message log,
1988).
Phreaking involves having the dedication to commit yourself
to learning as much about the phone system/network as possible.
Since most of this information is not made public, phreaks have
to resort to legally questionable means to obtain the knowledge