By Joe Barr
Originally published November, 1995

hacker 1. Someone who modifies computer hardware or software to achieve a different result than its original design. Commonly misused in a pejorative sense in referring to petty thieves dealing in stolen credit card numbers, electronic break-in's and drive-by's, theft of services, or liberation of copy protected software.

Years ago, it was OK to be a hacker. Not so today. It's not been a shift in public morality that's made the difference, but a redefinition of the term. Over the last twenty years, its attributes have moved quietly to the dark side. Heavy emphasis on dark: like a thief in the night. 

Today we are constantly bombarded with usage that forgets the benign, positive roots of the word. It seems every branch of the media, from film to radio to the computer£ press has succumbed. Three quick examples: the movie "hackers" from MGM, a recent article in Bloomberg Business News, and an 'advisory' from Sterling Software. 

Heather Green, writing about Microsoft being targeted for electronic break-ins on the Internet in a recent article for Bloomberg Business News, tells us in no uncertain terms that "Hackers are computer users and mathematicians who seek weaknesses in programs or networks." But please don't tell all those cryptographers and analysts at NSA that they are merely hackers. I think it would really hurt their feelings. 

Heather is not alone. Sterling Software has created a list of the top ten "Network Security Myths" which appears in the latest copy of Client/Server Journal. The number one myth: "Hackers work only at night." I expect more from a firm in the industry than from an industry 'hack,' so Sterling's usage disappoints me. 

MGM does it on the big screen. "Hackers" (the movie) advertises that the only crime their young heros were guilty of was curiosity. That means they were 'innocently' breaking into a corporate information system. Their curiosity leads them afoul of an evil Bill Gates clone, and that is the story line for the film. In spite of free publicity generated by claims that the MGM web site for the film had been 'hacked' by the real thing, it appears to be a box-office bust. I wanted to see it so I could discuss it in more depth for this article, but its run in Austin was much too short for that. 

I'm not the only old goat around who remembers the earlier, less felonious usage of the word. There were a number of Bixen who complained long and loud about its fall from grace a few years back. Today you occasionally see posts in alt.hackers or alt.hackers.malicious complain about modern usage. Language puritans, like those who put together "The Jargon File" (on the internet at http://dante.creighton.edu/jargonl jargon.html) do an excellent job discussing the etymology of the term. 

Personally, 1 didn't consider myself a hacker until I had physically hacked a piece of hardware. According to the Jargon File, the root usage referred to someone who hacked wood with an axe to make furniture, so possiblY it's a dweeb gene thing. To me, at least, hacking has always been more of a hardware than a software thing. 

Dweebs prefer their computers to be faster. Specifically, they like them to be faster than they currently are, no matter how fast that is. I am no exception. It was the siren call of blazing speed for my TRS-80 Mod 1 that made me cross the line. 

Even though I am much better looking than my older brother, he has been gifted with better hands. Cars and computers don't care too much for the physical beauty of humans, so he may have gotten the better end of the bargain. 

Being more the spiritual type, rather than physical, I always sought him out whenever I needed assistance with hardware. When I determined that I probably couldn't go much further in life without supercharging the 16k Tandy dynamo that was my prize possession, I turned his way. 

Allen took pity on me, as I knew he would, and did all the soldering. But I had to cut the trace that would disable the old timer so the new one would kick in and double the system speed. 

I hesitated. I held the X-Acto knife tightly in my sweaty palm. I made a completely inadequate pass at the metal highway. But then, encouraged by Allen's inspirational words ("Cripes, Joe, don't be such a wuss!"), I pressed the blade more firmly and slit a gap in the trace. I had 'hacked' my first computer. 

It's a rite of passage for dweebs, an entrance to the world beyond mere mortals. When we powered the system up and its new speed was obvious to behold, I basked in a warm, heady glow of pride and satisfaction. The only downside, if there was one, was that my actions voided once and for all the warranty from Radio Shack. But that was OK, hackers don't need 'no steenkin' warranties. 

I think we can blame the media for some of the distance between the meaning of the term today and what I've just described. Not all of it, mind you, but some. 

If the term was purer then, so was the community in which it was used. Those were the days before the revolution. IBM was just exploring the personal computer phenomenon and Bill Gates had only recently dropped out of Harvard. Neither had any vision at all as to how pervasive personal computers would become. Many, if not most, personal computer users in those days were amateurs, motivated by love rather than money. 

As the press usually does in covering niche subcultures, they focused on the sensational, the illegal, the 'newsworthy.' They simply took an existing term and subverted it to their own purpose. 

They understood neither the technology nor the terminology, but they understood that we, the public, needed sensationalism more than accuracy. Many believe that hasn't really changed over the years and the press today is just as much in the dark as always. But that's another story, or maybe several. Certainly both the trade and business press are eager to prove that point on a daily basis. 

But we have to take responsibility for our part in the sullying of the term as well. There were few of us who didn't resent the rude and greedy copy-protection schemes that began to appear in our little world. 

Freeware began to disappear. Shareware went from being a hobby with a 'Send it if you can' mentality to big business. Deviant minds somewhere invented dongles to restrict unauthorized software usage even further. 

So we hacked 1-2-3 to work wherever we needed it, at home or at work. We happily used Pro Comm forever without registering. There was much glee to be found in cracking games and dweebs could make a name for themselves by doing just that. 

More important than linguistic fire-fights over the meaning of the term is the widening gulf between the fringes (of what used to be a subculture) and society itself. Whether you call them hackers, or crackers, or phreaks, or cards, or phracks or "the uNDeAd dOOds wHO bE cYbErgHOsTs" doesn't really matter that much. 

I received an e-mail questionnaire recently from an English psychologist named Derek Scott. He is examining the "hacker ethic" as it reveals itself in the questionnaire with the way it is generally presented in the media. He asked for Yes or No responses to 35 questions or statements, ranging from "access to computers-and anything which might teach you something about the way the world works--- should be unlimited and total..." to "All information should be free." 

It seems to me that the main question addressed in his study is that of the concept of intellectual property. Those on one side of the line, the law- less ones whose only crime 'was curiosity', for example, don't recognize it as a valid concept. Those on the other side, the entire universe of business and industry, care very much about it. 

That line is the battle line between some on the fringes and those in the center. Crossing that line is today's rite of passage. A young woman I met recently explained briefly why she has no respect for the concept of intellectual property. She feels that World War II was an inescapable conclusion based on society's current values, and that the horrors of Nazi Germany completely invalidate the standards that sustain such concepts. 

Hey, I am a spiritual being myself. While I have no problem with idealism or with those who want a new world order based on some sort of spiritual foundation rather than economics, I think if such a thing is to be it will be in the next life, not in this one. 

Also I believe it does no good to ignore the fact that many crossing the line today do so with bad intentions. There is nothing noble or spiritual about felonious theft for profit, or electronic vandalism for thrills.