I thought the Nissembaum article on hackers was pretty thought-provoking. Her point that society's view of hackers is no longer that of cyberspace pioneers or digital mavericks but as deviants and criminals represents a major ontological shift and reminded me a little bit of another group of maligned individuals.
The original pirates of the Caribbean (the people not the film) were privateers employed by the British navy to attack Spanish and Dutch ships. Once the war was settled, these privateers were out of job and their acts of smuggling and sabotage became illegal and punishable by death. Like the hackers, the pirates were now being hunted down for what they have previously been allowed and even encouraged to do.
In the case of the hackers, corporate interests, government institutions and the popular press have conspired to make hackers into criminals in order to justify greater security standards, regulation and enforcement of private property right. In our lifetime, we have witnessed the online world transformed from a sort "Wild West" scene to a kind of gated community where users have to register domains, create passwords and rely on Internet providers to obtain access. Nissembaum makes the case that the original hackers held to their own credo and code if you will and were responsible for many of the early innovations in computer programming and the development of the Internet, but now all hackers are reduced to villains and white collar criminals, the so-called "enemies of the Information Age" (p.199).
Even in Hollywood, we have seen this shift in public opinion of hackers play out on the big screen. Think of the 1983 movie War Games where a young Matthew Broderick hacks into a military computer program and almost starts World War III and compare it to a more recent film like 2001's Swordfish where Hugh Jackman is the world's greatest hacker who is employed by a terrorist to steal billions of dollars. Broderick is considered an innocent and naive computer whiz, where Jackman is a dangerous criminal and thief (Another example might be Keanu Reeves character in the Matrix).
I must admit that I don't usually think of hackers as freedom fighters or ideologues, but as vandals who steal and try to infect our computers with viruses. And maybe that's because the hackers who gain notoriety are the ones doing it for selfish and malevolent purposes. Or maybe it's because the media is mislabeling what it is to be a hacker. Either way, it's still worth thinking about. This effort to tame the online world and to drive hackers - and by extension, those who want freedom and autonomy in the online sphere - to the margins of society continues. Yesterday's Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 is today's SOPA and PIPA regulation.
I am having trouble finding this piece, can anyone share where they found it?
ReplyDeleteGood thoughts here, John. The more positive view of hackers does persist in some cases. Computer companies are constantly hiring former hackers to assist in software testing and development. Apple has been hiring people who jailbreak the iPhone for a while now. Here's a link to an article about it: http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/26/apple-hires-iphone-hacker-nicholas-allegra-comex/
ReplyDeleteNot so evil after all, I guess!
I think it's interesting when you say that maybe hackers are being mislabeled. I actually know someone e would be considered a hacker and he doesn't use his skills for malviolent reasons. His skills actually helped the city of Columbus OH with online security issues they were facing.
ReplyDeleteI agree that hackers and their intentions are not entirely akin to John Dillinger like criminals with hearts of gold nor satanic Manson family like creatures scurrying around in the shadows. They, as with most deviant sub-cultures contributing to our social ontology, probably fall somewhere in the gray/middle area. As a result of this constant shift in our broad perception of the term "hack3r", to quote Nissenbaum, "...we have lost the vocabulary with which to identify them"(p.213). The influence of all things digital/on-line grows and the easily defined concepts of "good hacker", "evil hacker", "typical hacker", "predatory hacker" become vague and confusing. When considering the ethical/moral substance of a hacker's work without "established instititional" noise and interference one could define the telos of the individual; ignore the hazy "conceptual schema" and focus on the target/goal of the hacker (214).
ReplyDeleteIf you search by the title of the article on Google scholar, it should pop up on the top of the list.
ReplyDeleteAll I could think of while reading this blog was Johnny Depp, eyeliner and the phrase “Hack the Planet!” I think that concept of hacking is interpretive and it reminds me of Robin Hood; hacking for the better of humanity like the hackers who exposed the morons that tortured a kitten are “good guys” but they are still hackers and at the end of the day they are still doing something perceived as illegal. Like mom always say: all it takes is for one apple to ruin the whole bunch and I guess the same goes for hackers.
ReplyDelete