The article lumps together attributes of hackers and hackers, without arguing for not distinguishing them. But there certainly is a commomality. e.g. rms/fsf's

The article lumps together attributes of hackers and hackers, without arguing for not distinguishing them. But there certainly is a commomality. e.g. rms/fsf's free software is subversive, "unalienating" by accessing the seamy side, the reality of how things work. And Thompson's Turing Lecture (Reflections on Trusting Trust) is about as subversive as it gets. There's politics and there's science/engineering - just about a different kind of law? Perhaps the important distinction is between rebelling for a better king versus rebelling for another king. Though maybe a lot of hacking is for its own sake, not a means to an end... rebelling without a cause. Poor esr, once he became an authority with CatB, he lost the antiauthoritarians.