HACKER ETHICS

Originally the term hacker was used to refer to someone who is enthusiastic about computing, spends a lot of time figuring out how computers work, and is adept at using computers to accomplish extraordinary feats. Hacking referred to the activities of hackers. In the early days of computing hackers were exploring the full potential of computers: They were figuring out what it was possible to achieve with computers, doing things that had never been done before. In this sense hackers were like the imaginative mechanics of the early Industrial Revolution, automotive hot-rodders, barnstorming airplane pilots, and ham radio operators. In those early days there were few laws or policies specifying what individuals were allowed to do or prohibited from doing with computers. Many of the feats that hackers accomplished subsequently became illegal, for example, breaking into private systems, examining what was in those systems and how the systems worked, copying and distributing information and programs, and telling others how to do the same things.

The meaning of the terms hacker and hacking changed somewhat over time, and hacker began to be used to refer to those who engage in illegal computer activity. Many hackers objected to that usage and insisted that a distinction be made between hackers, who are generally law-abiding, and crackers, who use their computer skills to engage in illegal activity. Currently, the term hacker is used in both ways. Occasionally the term "hack" is used more broadly to refer to a playful feat involving scientific or technological expertise, for example, when a group of students break into a campus building undetected and leave visible and fanciful evidence of their success at breaking in (Laszlo 2004).

The Hacker Ethic

Individuals who identify with the original concept of hacking continue to exist and share ideas with one another online. They constitute a subculture that has coalesced around computer technology and the Internet. Members of that subculture share an attitude toward computing and a set of beliefs about how computers and the Internet should be used. This attitude and set of beliefs often is referred to as the hacker ethic.

Although expressions of the hacker ethic have varied over time, at the heart of the subculture is a view of the potential of computing that has two elements: the principle that all information should be free and the belief that access to computers should be unlimited. Surrounding these elements are enthusiasm about computing, a sense that computing is fun and even joyful, and the conviction that computing can be used to bring about positive change in the world by countering mainstream trends toward centralization and privatization. On one Internet site (Raymond 2003) the hacker ethic is defined as follows:

The belief that information-sharing is a powerful positive good, and that it is an ethical duty of hackers to share their expertise by writing open-source code and facilitating access to information and to computing resources wherever possible.
The belief that system-cracking for fun and exploration is ethically OK as long as the cracker commits no theft, vandalism, or breach of confidentiality.

From an ethical perspective the vision put forward by hackers points to the potential of computing to create a world in which there is no gap, or at least a smaller gap, between the haves (information-rich people) and the have-nots (information-poor people) and in which those who have expertise use it to help others. Moreover, insofar as hackers create open source software and encourage data sharing and access to the Internet, their activities can be seen as furthering the potential of computer technology for social good.

Criticisms and Defenses

The activities of hackers become subject to moral criticism only when hackers engage in illegal activity; using more precise terminology, moral questions arise when hackers become crackers. Once the law is broken, cracking behavior is not just illegal but also seems likely to cause others to be treated unfairly and to harm their interests. For example, when hackers launch viruses that disrupt the use of the Internet, their behavior interferes with the activities of innocent users; when they copy and distribute proprietary software, they are violating the legal rights of individuals to own and license software; and when they break into systems and examine files, they are violating the privacy and property rights of others.

In their defense crackers may argue that (1) they are doing no harm, meaning no physical harm to human beings; (2) they are liberating information that should be free; (3) the laws involving computing are bad and even unjust; or (4) they serve in the role of vigilantes testing and revealing the vulnerabilities of computer systems. All these claims rely on the deeper or prior presumption that sometimes it is permissible to break the law.

In moral philosophy and in democratic theory cases of justifiable law breaking are well recognized. The defense of hacking sometimes is couched in terms of civil disobedience. Acts of civil disobedience are those in which an individual refuses to obey a law either because obeying the law would violate the individual's conscience or because an individual wants to protest the law on the grounds that it is unjust. Although there may be particular acts that fit the definition of civil disobedience, in general cracking does not seem to fit into that category. Indeed, most cracker behavior seems difficult to defend, though there may be particular actions that can be justified.

Cracking behavior is difficult to justify because the laws that have been created around computing, though far from perfect, are aimed at defining the rights and responsibilities of users, and once rights and responsibilities are allocated, illegal behavior becomes prima facie harmful. Viruses disrupt the activities of computer users and force them to invest more resources (time, effort, and money) in securing their systems, resources that could be used in other ways. Pirating software deprives individuals of their legal rights of ownership. Gaining unauthorized access to systems and files violates privacy and property rights.

In recent years scholars have begun to explore new forms of behavior on the Internet that are related to but different from hacking. For example, the term hacktivism is used to refer to activists who use their computer skills to make political statements and protest actions by government or industry; in other words, those persons engage in political activism by using computers. Hacktivism may or may not be illegal depending on the actions taken. Cyberterrorism, by contrast, refers specifically to political action that involves violence against persons or property.

DEBORAH G. JOHNSON

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Himanen, Pekka. (2001). The Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Information Age. New York: Random House. A somewhat light look at hackers and what they think and do.

Laszlo, Pierre. (2004). "Science As Play." American Scientist 92(5): 398–400.

Levy, Steven. (1994). Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. New York: Delta. This book was one of the first to look at hackers and their place in popular culture; while not current, it is important for understanding the early history of hacking.

Thomas, Douglas. (2002). Hacker Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Provides an in-depth look at hackers with a historical perspective and an emphasis on the place of hackers in popular culture.

INTERNET RESOURCES

Denning, Dorothy. (2000). "Cyberterrorism. Testimony before the Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives, May 23, 2000." Available at http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/3denning/infosec/cyberterror.html. Denning is an expert on cyberspace security and in this testimony speculated on the potential for cyberterrorism.

Raymond, Eric S. (2003). "The Jargon File." Available at www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/. One of many Internet sites that provide definitions and information about cyberculture.

Hacker Ethics

views updated