4 ms·

"I always find it amusing when Emmanuel feels the need to throw a hissy fit about the "correct" use of the word hacker." Why do people get upset about correct

by timtadh 16y ago

"I always find it amusing when Emmanuel feels the need to throw a hissy fit about the "correct" use of the word hacker." Why do people get upset about correct usage and definitions of the word hacker. If one closely examine statements like: ''' These attacks, in addition to being a misguided effort that doesn't accomplish very much at all, are incredibly simple to launch and require no technical or hacker skills. While writing such programs requires a good degree of ingenuity and knowledge of security weaknesses, this doesn't mean that everyone who runs them possesses the same degree of proficiency, nor should we necessarily believe people who claim to be doing this on behalf of the hacker community. ''' -- Emmanuel Goldstein one understands Emmanuel's main concern is with correctly portraying the "hacker community." This means he believes in an ideal hacker community. One composed of certain types of individuals with certain types of beliefs. Whether or not such a community has every existed is unimportant. Emmanuel and others like him, hold up the community as what we should be striving for. Emmanuel is not the first person to use such language. We can trace many of these sentiments back to RMS. See my article on the subject "Interpreting the Free Software Movement as Religion" (although perhaps I should have titled it Interpreting the Free Software Movement in the Context of Religion :sigh:). I intepret the Free Software movement's philosophy using a critical religious theory. What emerges is a portrait of a movement that from a certain point of view is concerned with highly religious subject: the demarcation of the sacred vs the profane. The sacred is this past ideal community, and the movement strives to return to it. For the detailed analysis see: http://blog.hackthology.com/interpreting-the-free-software-movement-as-re http://blog.hackthology.com/interpreting-the-free-software-m... [edit: clarity]

M1573RMU74710N 16y ago
I totally understand and can appreciate that....my problem is: who gets to decide what constitutes "the hacker community" and what's accurate about it? That's where I take umbrage... I don't think Emmanual is concerned with correctly portraying "the hacker community". I think he's concerned with it being portrayed the way he considers it to be....that is: "The hacker community is the stuff I approve of" In reality "the hacker community" is disjointed and comprised of a lot of individuals of varying skill levels, morals, and politics. The problem is Emmanuel doesn't seem to be saying "Hey hey now...these people do not represent the entirety of the hacker community....they possibly represent part of it's darker side...but let's talk about the positive aspects." Instead it seems to me, he seems to be saying "There is no bad side to hacking! Everything I approve of is hacking, everything I don't is not! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" The problem is no matter how much they may overlap and be intertwined, hacking is at heart something removed from politics and ethics. It's a state of mind.... It's true there are certain tendencies in the Hacker community...laudable ones....but the same is true of Artists but nobody pitches a fit about Hitler not being a painter because he was an asshole. To be a painter, you must apply paint to a canvas...end of story. To be hacker you must hack. Hacks are big, hacks are small. There are easy hacks and hard hacks...hacks for good and hacks for bad. Better I think to distinguish the good painters who paint well and for the right reasons rather than trying to twist the definition of what it is to paint to only cover the painters you like. I completely understand wanting to distance yourself from the script-kiddies....but I feel the way to do that is by adding information....not trying to remove it. A meme is a hard thing to beat...
- timtadh 16y ago
  Who decides what is right Christianity or Islam or Buddhism? These questions dog every religious faith, every philosophy. Is it any surprise we have such argument in the theoretical "hacker community." Understand, your clash with Goldstien and others is not about definitions or who decides but rather core beliefs. They have one belief about the hacker community you have another. Their language "Others" you. Which means it places you on the outside as an alien. You language in a mirror way Others them. In my opinion, both sides need to respect the point of view of the Other. Not reject it. See the philosophy of Levinas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Levinas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Levinas
  - M1573RMU74710N 16y ago
    I'm not suggesting I know what is the "correct" way of portraying the Hacker community.. I'm suggesting nobody knows. I'm also suggesting that Emmanuel seems to think he knows how to precisely define the Hacker community. That's the impression I personally get, maybe I misunderstand. Comparing it to Christianity (etc) is probably reasonable... "Christianity" is a term that envelops a shocking variety of practices and beliefs....some completely contradictory.. Though I disagree with him, I'd encourage him to speak his mind about it...I think this sort of discussion is good. I hope I didn't give the wrong impression, I don't think him speaking is counter-productive, I think his "strategy" of trying to distance this sort of vandalism from hacking is....especially since it's something that has always been a part of hacker culture, or at least has had ties to it and evolved along side of it.
tptacek 16y ago
The parent commenter has articulated the issue broadly and imprecisely but effectively. You're noting the imprecision and snagging on it. The issue is subtle. It's not a battle over the word "hacker". It's a complaint over the migrating center of gravity of a particular subculture. It bothers Eric that someone else is setting the standard for the (gag) hacktivist response to WL. Eric would like his (once relevent, always inessential) magazine to set that standard instead of teenagers from 4chan. You can sum his "press release" up thus: "Kids these days...". Apropos nothing: I love this particular story. It's a great litmus test. Is it important to you that the "editor" of 2600 has "condemned" "Anonymous"? Good to know.
- timtadh 16y ago
  I attempting to do a bit more than just snagging on his imprecise language. Broadly, I am trying to develop a critical theory for interpreting various social phenomena on the net. I do agree with you, Thomas, that the battle is over a migrating center of gravity, [axis mundi] and I also view it as a litmus test. In some sense it is important that Emmanuel has condemned Anon because it clarifies the philosophical and religious issues at the heart of the debate. It is my goal to bring out these facets of internet culture for people to recognize and understand. I find it fascinating.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Don't be mean.

by timtadh 16y ago

M1573RMU74710N 16y ago

I totally understand and can appreciate that....my problem is: who gets to decide what constitutes "the hacker community" and what's accurate about it? That's where I take umbrage... I don't think Emmanual is concerned with correctly portraying "the hacker community". I think he's concerned with it being portrayed the way he considers it to be....that is: "The hacker community is the stuff I approve of" In reality "the hacker community" is disjointed and comprised of a lot of individuals of varying skill levels, morals, and politics. The problem is Emmanuel doesn't seem to be saying "Hey hey now...these people do not represent the entirety of the hacker community....they possibly represent part of it's darker side...but let's talk about the positive aspects." Instead it seems to me, he seems to be saying "There is no bad side to hacking! Everything I approve of is hacking, everything I don't is not! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" The problem is no matter how much they may overlap and be intertwined, hacking is at heart something removed from politics and ethics. It's a state of mind.... It's true there are certain tendencies in the Hacker community...laudable ones....but the same is true of Artists but nobody pitches a fit about Hitler not being a painter because he was an asshole. To be a painter, you must apply paint to a canvas...end of story. To be hacker you must hack. Hacks are big, hacks are small. There are easy hacks and hard hacks...hacks for good and hacks for bad. Better I think to distinguish the good painters who paint well and for the right reasons rather than trying to twist the definition of what it is to paint to only cover the painters you like. I completely understand wanting to distance yourself from the script-kiddies....but I feel the way to do that is by adding information....not trying to remove it. A meme is a hard thing to beat...

timtadh 16y ago
Who decides what is right Christianity or Islam or Buddhism? These questions dog every religious faith, every philosophy. Is it any surprise we have such argument in the theoretical "hacker community." Understand, your clash with Goldstien and others is not about definitions or who decides but rather core beliefs. They have one belief about the hacker community you have another. Their language "Others" you. Which means it places you on the outside as an alien. You language in a mirror way Others them. In my opinion, both sides need to respect the point of view of the Other. Not reject it. See the philosophy of Levinas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Levinas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Levinas
- M1573RMU74710N 16y ago
  I'm not suggesting I know what is the "correct" way of portraying the Hacker community.. I'm suggesting nobody knows. I'm also suggesting that Emmanuel seems to think he knows how to precisely define the Hacker community. That's the impression I personally get, maybe I misunderstand. Comparing it to Christianity (etc) is probably reasonable... "Christianity" is a term that envelops a shocking variety of practices and beliefs....some completely contradictory.. Though I disagree with him, I'd encourage him to speak his mind about it...I think this sort of discussion is good. I hope I didn't give the wrong impression, I don't think him speaking is counter-productive, I think his "strategy" of trying to distance this sort of vandalism from hacking is....especially since it's something that has always been a part of hacker culture, or at least has had ties to it and evolved along side of it.

tptacek 16y ago

The parent commenter has articulated the issue broadly and imprecisely but effectively. You're noting the imprecision and snagging on it. The issue is subtle. It's not a battle over the word "hacker". It's a complaint over the migrating center of gravity of a particular subculture. It bothers Eric that someone else is setting the standard for the (gag) hacktivist response to WL. Eric would like his (once relevent, always inessential) magazine to set that standard instead of teenagers from 4chan. You can sum his "press release" up thus: "Kids these days...". Apropos nothing: I love this particular story. It's a great litmus test. Is it important to you that the "editor" of 2600 has "condemned" "Anonymous"? Good to know.

timtadh 16y ago
I attempting to do a bit more than just snagging on his imprecise language. Broadly, I am trying to develop a critical theory for interpreting various social phenomena on the net. I do agree with you, Thomas, that the battle is over a migrating center of gravity, [axis mundi] and I also view it as a litmus test. In some sense it is important that Emmanuel has condemned Anon because it clarifies the philosophical and religious issues at the heart of the debate. It is my goal to bring out these facets of internet culture for people to recognize and understand. I find it fascinating.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Don't be mean.