3 ms·

I really enjoyed this essay, even though I think I disagree (at least partially) with its primary conclusion. I especially liked the discussion of the map/terri

by darawk 10y ago

I really enjoyed this essay, even though I think I disagree (at least partially) with its primary conclusion. I especially liked the discussion of the map/territory problem and its application to programming. I think I even agree partially that the most literal version of the hacker ethic is a bit flawed. But I think there is still a lot of value there, even if Levy's book didn't necessarily show it in the best light, or deal equitably with all of his characters. Here i'd say: the map is not the territory. Levy's book is not the hacker ethic, even though he may have made an attempt to map it. The examples he cites may or may not meet the criteria that he himself specified in all cases, but that says more about his choice of example than it does about the ideas themselves. I think there's a way of understanding these principles that comports well with a, shall we say, more mature view of the world than perhaps some of us had growing up on them: > Access to computers should be unlimited and total. I think this one stands on its own. Access should be unlimited and total. For everyone. As the author rightly pointed out, the 'hackers' denied access to Margaret Hamilton. That makes this event a bad example of the hacker ethic, not a good one. But I think the principle fits rather well with the philosophy of the author, provided the definition of 'access' is probably expanded and contextualized. > All information should be free. To me, this is more ideal than implementation. All information ought to be free. In an ideal world. Where possible that information should be free, and we should be working towards a world where it is moreso. However, information should never be more free than the maturity and tolerance of the society its embedded within permits at any given time. As free as possible, but no freer, to put it on a bumper sticker. > Mistrust authority—promote decentralization. I think this is an unequivocal good not limited to the hacker ethic. Authority should be mistrusted. Decentralization should be promoted where we can avoid compromising the other ideals (e.g. access).

hibikir 10y ago
Even your modified interpretation has dangerous side effects. We can probably modify the access to computers line to only over computing hardware you own, and that probably works, but the other two lines you comment on are often in opposition. If all information is free, then it's also free to access to authority. Authority can do a lot of things with information that few hackers would like: Read on what full transparency leads to in a place like Bridgewater. Once it's clear that we don't want authority to have free access to our information, it's clear that the 'all information should be free' line is not an idea, it's just hypocritical. What it really means is that hackers should have access to all the information they want, but they should be able to hide all the information they need from authority: Enough of that, and now you have a new authority, which happens to be the people that have access to the information. All information should be free is a phrase that gives permission to developers to creates databases that are better at predicting election results than pollsters. It's what allows people to tell if someone is pregnant, has an undisclosed mental illness, can list everyone's favorite kinks, where has their cellphone been since it was purchased, and everything they've bought on the internet the last 10 years. When it comes to information quantity has a quality all to itself, and I don't think that hackers in the 70s had really internalized this. This breakdown on the hacker ethos builds two camps: One that finds privacy more important, and doesn't really want information to be free, and those that put the freedom of information first, and are happy to hand tremendous guns to authorities, whether they are governments or silicon valley corporations. And this is why the hacker ethics breaks, and we should be careful about the future. There's a lot of uses to all that centralized, free information: A lot of things become very convenient, computers systems are capable of pretty much reading our mind, and fraud detection algorithms become so very good that many things become cheaper. Unfortunately the same tools can be used for far less friendly uses. This is a question we'll all be wrestling with for years, as choosing privacy would make most tech giants collapse, while choosing information freedom is just waiting for the right kind of authority to show us that East Germany's Stasi was just a small scale exercise.
- darawk 10y ago
  > Even your modified interpretation has dangerous side effects. We can probably modify the access to computers line to only over computing hardware you own, and that probably works, but the other two lines you comment on are often in opposition. I wouldn't even make that modification. Illegally accessing computer hardware in pursuit of a higher or better purpose can be good, provided that purpose avoids harm to others. Of course, people playing God with their own interpretations of when that standard is met can lead to disastrous results. But sometimes it's ok to break something or break into something to learn about it. It's a thin line, but it is there. A Chinese hacker poking holes in the great firewall, for instance. I'd say that's a good thing, even though they do not own the hardware. > f all information is free, then it's also free to access to authority. Authority can do a lot of things with information that few hackers would like: Read on what full transparency leads to in a place like Bridgewater. Once it's clear that we don't want authority to have free access to our information, it's clear that the 'all information should be free' line is not an idea, it's just hypocritical. What it really means is that hackers should have access to all the information they want, but they should be able to hide all the information they need from authority: Enough of that, and now you have a new authority, which happens to be the people that have access to the information. Ya, I couldn't agree more. That's why I added the proviso that information wants to be free only in the ideal case. It is aspirational, not pragmatic. We want to live in a world where all information can be free, and we should all work towards that. That does not, however, mean going around 'liberating' information arbitrarily. And it also does not mean that, in even our most progressive societies, that we are ready for all information to be free. > This breakdown on the hacker ethos builds two camps: One that finds privacy more important, and doesn't really want information to be free, and those that put the freedom of information first, and are happy to hand tremendous guns to authorities, whether they are governments or silicon valley corporations. Ya, you have no argument from me there. I do not think all information should be free in the actual world that we live in. But I do think it's an interesting way of modeling an ideal world. Underneath all forms of necessary secrecy lie blights of some kind. Weapons are secret for war, sexual preferences can be secrets due to shame or even criminalization, etc. Sometimes that secrecy is justified by the faults of the world, and sometimes it is used to further the interests of an individual or group. In the latter case we should strive to reveal it, and in the former to address the justification for that secrecy.
ktRolster 10y ago
information should never be more free than the maturity and tolerance of the society its embedded within permits at any given time. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. It sounds like you're justifying censorship, and I'm not sure why.
- darawk 10y ago
  Some forms of secrecy are good, in certain contexts. A homosexual hiding his or her sexuality in Saudi Arabia, for instance. That is the sort of openness commensurate with the maturity of your society I was referring to. Ideally, no one should have to hide anything about themselves. But we unfortunately aren't quite there yet.
  - jack9 10y ago
    > Some forms of secrecy are good, in certain contexts I disagree. Because my ethic says that secrecy always benefits those of ill-intent. I must not make exceptions for those of goodwill, because exceptions disprove the rule. I am not wary of those of other intent. An ethic doesn't need to be practical. Subscription is not required for it to be virtuous.
    - randallsquared 10y ago
      > because exceptions disprove the rule. You may be aware (since you turned it around), but the phrase "the exception proves the rule" is meant to provoke thought about the rule in question, not announce it as broken. This is so because the meaning of "prove" in that phrase is "test", as noted in https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove at 2.a.
      - jack9 10y ago
        No offense, but your deflection into another topic of debate (that you seem to care about) has no bearing on my ethics. You completely ignored the point, which was the issue of ethics vs practicality that you seem to misunderstand.

by darawk 10y ago

hibikir 10y ago

Even your modified interpretation has dangerous side effects. We can probably modify the access to computers line to only over computing hardware you own, and that probably works, but the other two lines you comment on are often in opposition. If all information is free, then it's also free to access to authority. Authority can do a lot of things with information that few hackers would like: Read on what full transparency leads to in a place like Bridgewater. Once it's clear that we don't want authority to have free access to our information, it's clear that the 'all information should be free' line is not an idea, it's just hypocritical. What it really means is that hackers should have access to all the information they want, but they should be able to hide all the information they need from authority: Enough of that, and now you have a new authority, which happens to be the people that have access to the information. All information should be free is a phrase that gives permission to developers to creates databases that are better at predicting election results than pollsters. It's what allows people to tell if someone is pregnant, has an undisclosed mental illness, can list everyone's favorite kinks, where has their cellphone been since it was purchased, and everything they've bought on the internet the last 10 years. When it comes to information quantity has a quality all to itself, and I don't think that hackers in the 70s had really internalized this. This breakdown on the hacker ethos builds two camps: One that finds privacy more important, and doesn't really want information to be free, and those that put the freedom of information first, and are happy to hand tremendous guns to authorities, whether they are governments or silicon valley corporations. And this is why the hacker ethics breaks, and we should be careful about the future. There's a lot of uses to all that centralized, free information: A lot of things become very convenient, computers systems are capable of pretty much reading our mind, and fraud detection algorithms become so very good that many things become cheaper. Unfortunately the same tools can be used for far less friendly uses. This is a question we'll all be wrestling with for years, as choosing privacy would make most tech giants collapse, while choosing information freedom is just waiting for the right kind of authority to show us that East Germany's Stasi was just a small scale exercise.

darawk 10y ago
> Even your modified interpretation has dangerous side effects. We can probably modify the access to computers line to only over computing hardware you own, and that probably works, but the other two lines you comment on are often in opposition. I wouldn't even make that modification. Illegally accessing computer hardware in pursuit of a higher or better purpose can be good, provided that purpose avoids harm to others. Of course, people playing God with their own interpretations of when that standard is met can lead to disastrous results. But sometimes it's ok to break something or break into something to learn about it. It's a thin line, but it is there. A Chinese hacker poking holes in the great firewall, for instance. I'd say that's a good thing, even though they do not own the hardware. > f all information is free, then it's also free to access to authority. Authority can do a lot of things with information that few hackers would like: Read on what full transparency leads to in a place like Bridgewater. Once it's clear that we don't want authority to have free access to our information, it's clear that the 'all information should be free' line is not an idea, it's just hypocritical. What it really means is that hackers should have access to all the information they want, but they should be able to hide all the information they need from authority: Enough of that, and now you have a new authority, which happens to be the people that have access to the information. Ya, I couldn't agree more. That's why I added the proviso that information wants to be free only in the ideal case. It is aspirational, not pragmatic. We want to live in a world where all information can be free, and we should all work towards that. That does not, however, mean going around 'liberating' information arbitrarily. And it also does not mean that, in even our most progressive societies, that we are ready for all information to be free. > This breakdown on the hacker ethos builds two camps: One that finds privacy more important, and doesn't really want information to be free, and those that put the freedom of information first, and are happy to hand tremendous guns to authorities, whether they are governments or silicon valley corporations. Ya, you have no argument from me there. I do not think all information should be free in the actual world that we live in. But I do think it's an interesting way of modeling an ideal world. Underneath all forms of necessary secrecy lie blights of some kind. Weapons are secret for war, sexual preferences can be secrets due to shame or even criminalization, etc. Sometimes that secrecy is justified by the faults of the world, and sometimes it is used to further the interests of an individual or group. In the latter case we should strive to reveal it, and in the former to address the justification for that secrecy.

ktRolster 10y ago

information should never be more free than the maturity and tolerance of the society its embedded within permits at any given time. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. It sounds like you're justifying censorship, and I'm not sure why.

darawk 10y ago
Some forms of secrecy are good, in certain contexts. A homosexual hiding his or her sexuality in Saudi Arabia, for instance. That is the sort of openness commensurate with the maturity of your society I was referring to. Ideally, no one should have to hide anything about themselves. But we unfortunately aren't quite there yet.
- jack9 10y ago
  > Some forms of secrecy are good, in certain contexts I disagree. Because my ethic says that secrecy always benefits those of ill-intent. I must not make exceptions for those of goodwill, because exceptions disprove the rule. I am not wary of those of other intent. An ethic doesn't need to be practical. Subscription is not required for it to be virtuous.
  - randallsquared 10y ago
    > because exceptions disprove the rule. You may be aware (since you turned it around), but the phrase "the exception proves the rule" is meant to provoke thought about the rule in question, not announce it as broken. This is so because the meaning of "prove" in that phrase is "test", as noted in https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove at 2.a.
    - jack9 10y ago
      No offense, but your deflection into another topic of debate (that you seem to care about) has no bearing on my ethics. You completely ignored the point, which was the issue of ethics vs practicality that you seem to misunderstand.