A collection of words and phrases, and their meaning when I used
them. The purpose of this list is partly to minimize
misunderstandings of me and partly to clarify misconceptions in
general.
brainfuck:
A peculiar esoteric
programming language consisting of only eight commands, in extreme
minimalism. It’s not sexual penetration of ones brain, although
looking at the code might feel like it.
cracker:
One who breaks security on a
system. Coined ca. 1985 by hackers in defense against journalistic
misuse of hacker (q.v., sense 8). While it is expected that any
real hacker will have done some playful cracking and knows many of
the basic techniques, anyone past larval stage is expected to have
outgrown the desire to do so except for immediate, benign,
practical reasons (for example, if it’s necessary to get around
some security in order to get some work done).
Thus, there is far less overlap between hackerdom and crackerdom
than the mundane reader misled by sensationalistic journalism might
expect. Crackers tend to gather in small, tight-knit, very
secretive groups that have little overlap with the huge, open
poly-culture this lexicon describes; though crackers often like to
describe themselves as hackers, most true hackers consider them a
separate and lower form of life. See jargon
file.
hacker:
A person who enjoys exploring
the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their
capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only
the minimum necessary. RFC1392, the
Internet Users’ Glossary, usefully amplifies this as: A person who
delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal
workings of a system, computers and computer networks in
particular. See jargon
file.
The focus on security is a more recent development in the hacker
culture. Initially, hackers focused on exploring and understanding
the capabilities and limitations of computer systems, and pushing
the boundaries of what was possible with technology. Over time, as
the importance of computer security became more apparent, many
hackers turned their attention to security-related issues, and the
term "hacker" came to be associated more with those who sought to
find vulnerabilities in computer systems in order to improve
security, rather than those who simply enjoyed exploring
technology. However, the hacker culture remains centered around the
idea of using creative problem-solving and a deep understanding of
technology to push the boundaries of what is possible.
Media’s portrayal of the stereotypical hacker as a criminal has
led to a misconception of what hacking really means. Hacking is not
inherently criminal, and hackers can be individuals who explore and
experiment with technology in a creative and ethical way. What
hacking is used for is determined by the individual, and do not
forget, what is deemed criminal is determined by those who exert
power. By allowing a community to define itself rather than being
defined by outsiders, we can foster a culture of autonomy and
respect. This applies not only to the hacker community but to all
communities. Allowing individuals to define themselves promotes
diversity and a deeper understanding of different cultures, as well
as promoting self-expression and autonomy.
hacker ethic:
The hacker ethic
is centered around passion, hard work, creativity and joy of
creating software (Himanen, 2001).
Levy describes the following core principles to the hacker
ethic:
Sharing – improvement of yours and others public
creations.
Openness – all information should be free.
Decentralization – mistrust authority & promote
decentralization. Hackers are encouraged to think critically and to
challenge the status quo. Promoting decentralization dilutes the
concentration of power and redistributes the power among the
many.
Access to computers, and anything which might teach you
something about the way the world works, should be unlimited and
total. Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative!
World Improvement (foremost, upholding democracy and the
fundamental laws we all live by, as a society)
Meritocracy –
hackers should be judged by their hacking, not bogus criteria such
as degrees, age, race, or position
You can create art and beauty on a computer.
Computers can change your life for the better (Levy, 2010).
A system in which
advancement is based on individual ability or achievement.
Inherent to the hacker ethic is a meritocratic system where
superficiality is disregarded in esteem of skill, and "hackers
should be judged by their hacking, not bogus criteria such as
degrees, age, race, or position" (Levy,
2010).
In hacker ethic meritocracy is not meant as a form
of social system in which power goes to those with superior
intellects, or the belief that rulers should be chosen for their
superior abilities and not because of their wealth or birth.
NOTE: Then again, even if meritocracy in the sense of
hacking doesn’t refer to some sort of superiority, who determines
what is good hacking and what is not? Though I agree that hackers
should not be judged based on bogus criteria such as degrees, age,
race, or position, if hacking can be performed for the sake of
hacking without the need to be particularly useful, what is the
determining factor for it to be judged, and is it even necessary to
be judged at all?
References
Himanen, Pekka (2001). The Hacker Ethic
and the Spirit of the Information Age. New York: Random
House.
Levy, Steven (2010). Hackers – Heroes of
the computer revolution. Sebastopol, Calif: O’Reilly Media.
