My network deployment kit is available here (not much usable for anyone but me I guess, still I am too lazy to Google the net for my printer driver whenever I re-install my OS or configure PCs around).

English: Do you use Social Bookmarking/Networking pages such as Digg, Yigg, Mister Wong or Del.Icio.Us? If so, which?

German: Nutzt Du Social Bookmarking/Networking Seiten wie Digg, Yigg, Mister Wong oder Del.Icio.Us? Wenn ja, welche?

On my website h4x3d.com I am using digg, technorati, del.icio.us (hate to spell that!), sphere.com, blogmarks.net, ma.gnolia.com and furl to offer my users all the social bookmarking tools that are currently popular. Mr. Wong is not yet available in English, so a strict no-go for me. Personally I only use digg and del.icio.us.

English: Do you watch videos on video portals such as YouTube, Sevenload or DailyMotion? If so, what kind of Videos?

German: Schaust Dir Videos bei Videoportalen wie YouTube, Sevenload oder DailyMotion an? Wenn ja, was für Videos guckst Du Dir meistens an?

I do not waste time on YouTube, because for some reason it is extremely slow whenever I am trying to find something. DailyMotion is great, but Videos you watched one day are gone the other. I used to collect Simpsons videos on the internet, but with one swift move, DailyMotion deleted them all. From time to time I watch the remaining FamilyGuy episodes on bolt.com. Actually that’s only because I am lazy, since I do own the original FG DVDs.

English: Do you know/use Flickr?
German: Kennst bzw. nutzt Du Flickr?

Who does not know flickr? I am using flickr to share all my pictures from university, trance events or whatever I capture using my crappy cellphone camera. When I need to post newly accquired vinyl covers, I use the flickr API which comes built in with some cool plugin in WordPress. Really makes posting fun.

English: What do you think of services such as Twitter or Frazr?
German: Was hältst Du von Diensten wie Twitter oder Frazr?

I have been using Twitter only for testing their API (it’s actually only a RSS Feed…) and I am not using it daily. I think twitter is great waste of time and can be addictive for some people. Facebook offers similar twitter abilities. I don’t know Frazr. Cool name though! Oh btw. Alex, I deleted you from my friends list (it’s empty now), not as I don’t like you :p but as you were filling up my LifeStream (stupid RSS-Feed)!

English: How many RSS-Feeds are you subscribed to?
German: Wie viele RSS-Feeds hast Du abonniert?

Between 4 and 5, it really depends on the quality of content. I am subscribed to LifeHacker’s RSS-Feed and love it. However, sometimes it can become quite spammy, as they post 9–10 times a day. RSS-Feeds are a good way of catching up with other websites’ development, but again: also a great waste of time. I have subscribed to my own RSS-Feed in order to check if there are errors from time to time. I am using Feedburner to direct my posts to Feeds.

English: Do you read them daily?
German: Liest Du die alle täglich?

No, not really. Only if I need to waste time..

English: How many blogs do you maintain/author?
German: In wie vielen Weblogs bloggst Du? (Eigene oder Mitautor)

Only h4x3d.com and some minor small blogs that are not yet ready for public release.

English: Do you comment on other blogs? If so, what?
German: Kommentierst Du in anderen Blogs? Wenn ja was?

Yes, sure. Whenever I find something useful and commentworthy I leave my 5cent.

(there are more questions, but as I have to go now and have loads of other things to do today I am not going to comment on those. Thanks to keasone for throwing this stick to me, and hereby I am throwing back.. enjoy)

Mirabilis (ICQ) started to give away ICQ # starting at 10000 so basically this is the 8039th number.

Anyway, I registered this PC when I was waiting for my dad in the office. I have always been interested in the Internet and always been reading stuff on the internet. Back then ICQ was announced in some news and I was so curious about this “new way of chatting” (before I was only using IRC – Internet Relay Chat) that I signed up.
Back then I didn’t have my own domain, not to dream of server or web space, so I was using a freemail service such as yahoo. Account registered, details entered (birthday, Nationality, Languages spoken, About etc) and then for long time (after some non-frequent use) nothing happened. ICQ kind of became unpopular for me, since all my friends were using IRC and no one could be bothered to sign up. So I kind of binned it, leaving the details “saved” on my (well actually this is quite important: it was not my PC, but my father’s companies one!) PC.

After two or three years, I can not really remember I started to use ICQ again, but I wasn’t really aware of my old account and thus registered a new one which I was from then on using more frequently to chat with my friends abroad. This was even long before anyone at school or in my class even knew ICQ as a chat tool, so much for the gap of internet knowledge at early times (not meant to glorify my internet use!).

Here is where it gets interesting, I think it was more a chain of coincidences, that lead me to my old ICQ account 108039: My father changed companies and brought home this particular PC (which I was using before, but then was given back to the office clerk, then back to my father for home use and so on.. back then (again) it was not very usual to format PCs every few weeks and forth)) and asked me whether I’d use it as a new router for our newly established DSL broadband internet access.

Since I didn’t have that much to do (contrary to today), I agreed to spend some time looking into things, googling for one-disk linux routers. But before I formatted thee ol’ mill, I had to look through files that had to be backup’ed. Under C:\Program Files\ I found something interesting which raised my attention. A folder called ICQ. Wow! I had discovered my old account! But I couldn’t login, since the PC was not connected to the Internet. So I had to go to the local PC store, get a compatible Ethernet card (one with a BNC clip – ugh) and set it up to connect to the net. Some hours later I was able to login using the saved password! And it worked! It worked out of the box like a charm!. You cannot imagine how happy and surprised I was to find all my old contact in place, people that I didn’t speak with for years.

But another problem occurred, I didn’t know the password but wanted to use the account from my own PC upstairs. After some research a found different programs that were able to unmask the stars and showed the password. The password I had it set was so stupid:
JAyJAy0208.
I used a program similar to the one I am using nowerdays, it is called SIW. See the information below (also links to download it).

SIW is a System Information tool that gathers detailed information about your system properties and settings. [...] SIW also displays currently active network connections, Passwords hidden behind asterisks [...] A standalone tool that does not require installation.

Get it at author’s website | direct download (exe) | torrent download | mirror (exe)

Anyway, I was using my new ‘old’ account on my desktop PC and decided to change the password to one that I was using for other services such as e-mail, bouncer etc.
It was lowercase letters and 6 digets only and contrary to the password I had used when I signed up (read above), JAyJAy0208 had a change of uppercase and lowercase as well as numbers.
In terms of security the old password was stronger then the one I selected.

This is, at least so I think, what lead to the loss of my account, from one day to the next I was unable to login anymore. At first it was some kind of issue with Trillian or the ICQ service in general, but since the error code was remaining the same (Wrong Password) for days I assumed there was something wrong with my account. Of course official e-mail to ICQ didn’t receive a reply, post in the forums where ignored or deleted and in general no one felt like helping. After some time I figured out that my account could have probably been hacked, because I was not even able to get to the security question which could be used to reset my password. Also most of my personal information was deleted from the account profile. The only things left were my date of birth, my nationality and my spoken languages. My name, e-mail address and nickname were erased.

I started to research things, and googled for sites where you could buy UINs on, here are two exemplary excerpts:

It seemed like as if people were willing to pay great amounts of $ for low diget ICQ account, such as mine (108039). I checked many sites, russian sites, turkish sites, czech sites, german sites and asian sites, to no success. So I started to add so called “UIN dealers or Shop owners” and asked them to acquire the UIN 108039 for me (I used another account and said I wanted this ICQ number badly and was willing to pay, just to check whether it was available from a pool of hacked icq numbers or not), but no one was able to get it.
So where was my ICQ number? Who owned it, or hacked it? Was it a database error or mistake by ICQ?
Obviously the account was not deleted because of inactivity because ELSE I could not have logged in initially and changed the password and then again used it for weeks before the loss occurred.

I was running out of ideas and started to accept the “loss”, I began to re-add the folks of my old contact list to my new account and let grass cover the hole for some days. I was then approached by some russian dude, who had read my post on the ICQ forums. He said that he was experiencing the same symptoms, and that he had gotten a contact to some ICQ admin (I am not allowed to write here, I promised) and that he was willing to share that with me for $5 to be transfered to him via western union. Quite promising I thought, also because he had sent me an e-mail log (conversation) with this particular admin and he seemed quite cool and helpful. Thus I decided to take the risk and pay the five bucks. I received the contact the day after, added the person and told him my story in short. I knew that this admin wouldn’t have loads of time and was also worried of his contact given around like a stray dog, so I summed things up, explained how I got the contact and my situation, said that I could proof that I was the legal owner of this ICQ account and so on. This admin was not working in the security/account department , so he couldn’t promise anything, and of course he had 100s of better things to do then to help out some random dude from the internet. But he was so kind to ask his mate who’d worked in the security department if he wanted to look at things. He told me that I had to convince this admin with good proof and reasons that I am the owner and not some scammer wanting to make some quick bucks!

So I scanned in my Identity Card, my driving licsence and my travel passport and sent it to his e-mail address. He printed it out and went with these documents to his friend in the lunchbreak, and the next thing I remember is that I received an e-mail from ICQ three hours later, saying that my primary e-mail address had been reset, to enter all new security questions and with a brand new password with lowercase, uppercase, digets and special characters. I logged in using this password and it worked like a charm! wow, amazing! I am so thankful, still.
The password is similar to this (of course this is not my password, duh): s&Bo$7i!

If there is anything, ever, that I can do to repay you guys, in case you read this, I will do my best to sort things out.

* As a response to increasing UIN theft of attractive or very short UINs by hackers, ICQ started to store email addresses previously associated to a UIN. UINs that are stolen with phishing or brute force techniques can since then be retaken by their rightful owners using the password retrieval service on ICQ.com, even after the associated primary email address has been changed or replaced by the hacker. This only applies if a valid primary email address has been entered into the user profile since 1999.

further reading (not encouraged actually)

That article does not contain the full and detailed description of system – at present it is impossible. We shall consider only general moments.

Earlier all was rather simple. In details of ICQ UIN was specified e-mail on which it was possible to send the password. Use for restoration of older e-mail’s kill newer. Who owned root primary e-mail (the first entered) – that owned UIN and always could send the password from UIN on this e-mail. It was the “classical” system of retrieve and it did not cause any difficulties in users in understanding of mechanisms of the work.

At the end of March, 2005 ICQ has added an opportunity of retrieve of the password through answers to the questions earlier established by the owner of ICQ UIN.

Has appeared two variants of installation of questions/answers to UIN:

1. Through page of questions/answers: /password/setqa.php.

We enter ICQ UIN and the password and at once we get on page of entering of questions/answers.

2. Through page of retrieve of the password: /password.

In the form we enter our UIN, ” Next>>”. At first use of this page you will need to send a code on primary e-mail. Then, using the received code to enter questions/answers. You automatically get the new password from UIN on the present primary e-mail.

After installation of questions – answers, we get two variants of restoration of the password from ICQ UIN:

1. Get the new password under the entered questions/answers to any e-mail.

On the /password At the left we enter UIN, we press ” Next > > “. Here it is necessary to reply established by us earlier and to specify anyone e-mail.

2. Get a code on primary e-mail, entering of new questions/answers, get the new password.

At already entered questions/answers to page of retrieve of the password on any e-mail hardly is lower than the first question there is a small reference “If these are not your questions & answers, click here.” it is used for change of questions/answers through getting of a code on e-mail.

Let’s note some features of new system:

1. That e-mail, entered in a detail of ICQ UIN, set as primary e-mail, it is necessary at first to enter questions – answers again.

2. Primary e-mail can work only once. I.e. after use of the code sent on primary e-mail, primary “killed”.

3. The ladder of primary, characteristic for “classical” system of retrieve here was kept. Certainly, with note, that primary can be used once.

4. To replace the established questions – answers it is possible only through getting of a code on e-mail..

New rules of work of retrieve were generated somewhere within one month and prior to the beginning of February 2006 all worked without changes while ICQ again has not changed a rule of work of system:

1. After installation of questions – answers new primary e-mail in UIN it is not entered.

I.e. in a detail of ICQ UIN e-mail certainly registers, but by system of retrieve it is not perceived. Because of it UINs in general without primary e-mails have appeared, questions – answers on which to change it is impossible.

2. Root primary does not disappear in general.

In the previous version ??????? all e-mails worked only once.

However the most interesting has taken place in June 2006:

1. On the page for installation of questions – answers /password/setqa.php Now one question, instead of two is entered.

For the user there is no special difference two questions – answers to use or one.

2. If in UIN questions – answers were entered throw the page /password/setqa.php it became possible to change the first question – answer.

At last users who have received in the last version of retrieve UINs without primary, with unchangeable questions – answers could change even one question – answer. However now in case of theft of UIN to return it through answers it will not turn out any more since the malefactor most likely will replace first of answers. It puts under a question introductions of system of confidential questions – to return number it is possible only through primary e-mail.

3. Many primary e-mails have ceased to work. As though them have simply removed from base ICQ.

For example, have killed almost all old primary which were once entered in numbers, have disappeared the majority e-mails which were entered till January of 2006 (then still it was necessary to put questions – answers that e-mail was fixed in base). Thus work e-mails, entered in the invisible being this year (without preliminary installation of questions – answers). A principle on which primary have disappeared it is not clear. It is more similar to failure in system, rather than on the planned change of logic.

It is obvious, that it is necessary for usual users ICQ only with the maximal attention and severity to observe all rules of ICQ-security, to keep number ICQ, since to hope for changeable system of restoration ICQ it is practically useless.

So here is the waterbed, sized 2x2m, that’s what Americans call Queen size I think:

Take a closer look:

Here is what you need: A simple tube/hose (length depends on your situation)

You stick one end of the tube into the opening of your waterbed, make sure it does not spill!

Put the other end of the tube outside, don’t bother with ups and downs:

Now here is where it might get tricky, you need to suck (yes I mean literally suck) on the tube to get the water flowing. Using this simple trick the water will flow through the pipe even though it goes up (pitches). The effect behind that is called (if I am not wrong) capillary effect which was discovered by Mr. German Einstein himself
You need to suck real hard, so that you create some kind of maelstrom, undertow, pull etc

After approximately two hours the waterbed was empty enough to be movable (around 800 liters sucked out)

You can then move it around freely and refill it using another pipe. Make sure you don’t spill any water, else you get all kinds of crap growing under your waterbed…

You have successfully moved 1600 pounds / 800 kg (liters) from point A to B :)

1. Make Firefox remember open tabs after reboot/shutdown the QUICK way
2. Use Torpark to surf ‘really’ anonymous
3. Chill-out with soothing music
4. Work in blocks of 30 minutes
5. Sketch, map and scribble

Click those links above to get directly to the tip you are interested in.

1. Save open Firefox tabs the easy way (brain hack)

Sometimes it is just too much hassle saving (and later on deleting*) all the Tabs (sites) you have currently open
if you are either in a hurry (got to go due to phone call) or are just shit-house tired. So why not leave on the PC and use it when you are back? While nothing speaks against doing it for a short break (an hour or so), it might turn you nuts if you sleep in the same room. After all you are tired and don’t want any humming noise… so in rage you just rip out the power cable to silence your pc.
Of course this is not the best treatment for your hard drive, but the effect you will experience the next morning after booting your PC and clicking Firefox will be the same as I will describe you can achive without wasting your PC:

Of course you will want to restore your tabs, because this way you get them all back, don’t have to waste time deleting them from bookmarks and can continue your work where you left the evening before.
Now here is where the ‘what I call’

Brain hack

comes into play:

just be nice to your PC and hard drive, shut it down,
but make Firefox think your "system crashed"
by "killing the process firefox.exe".

Press CTRL + ALT + DEL at the same time,
you will then get an Windows Screen with various options,
press Task Manager (or T)
then press F till you arrive at "firefox.exe",
press "End Process". Voila!

Firefox is simply superior to Internet Explorer when it comes to tabs.
The new Internet Explorer 7.0 does also feature tabs, but in order to install it you have to run through loads of hassle such as Windows validation (got genuine?), downloading through ‘web-downloader’ etc.

So do me a favor and get Firefox, don’t surf with Internet Explorer, it’s evil and smells, also I get 1$ from Google for each installed Firefox from the below link (redirects to Google owned Firefox site).

*because then later on you will have to delete the ones you don’t need and this again will cost some time again =7

2. Use Torpark to surf ‘really’ anonymous

Torpark is a free program for windows which allows you to surf the internet anonymously. It requires no installation, leaves no track, is small, portable and does even fit on an USB-Stick.
It is partly based on Firefox and somewhat idiot safe to use. Nothing (unless you want) required to configure, just out of the box ready to surf with a different IP-address. It blocks cookies, javascript and other stuff that could eventually identify your PC and thus you. Torpark got build in routines that connect your browser to other PCs, proxies or whatever these ‘circuits’ are.
Some additional information from the Torpark website itself:

To run Torpark, just double click on the Torpark program. First you will see a notice about how Torpark should be used. It is important for your security that you understand the scope and limitations. Then you see a splash screen which shows you the version information and credits. It will display for a few seconds then disappear. Then Torpark will display a throbber in the form of a progress bar as Torpark begins to establish some tor circuits.

It may take a little longer if you are running Torpark from a USB flash drive or using a slow internet connection because Torpark has to download directory information from the Tor network. After it has established at least one circuit, it will start the browser.

Source: http://www.torrify.com

3. Chill-out with soothing music

While working silence can be nice, but I found out that some chill-out soothing music really helps concentrating.
Opinions are controversial concerning this issue, but why not listen to the short excerpt below. It’s 1 minute long and encoded at 160kbps (certainly good quality).

[audio:http://mp3.trancin.com/chill-out.mp3]

4. Work in blocks of 30 minutes

After the results this semester I had quite some free time. Too much free time can eat you up,
so basically I tried working in 30 minutes blocks, concretely this means 30 minutes of work, 30 minutes of either reading on the web, chilling with music, watching The Simpsons, spinning a record or whatever just came handy.
It works similar to the rewarding method mentions on other sites. By rewarding yourself with something of your own choice you subliminally train yourself to work consequently and straight to the point. Of course again this is subject to contrary discussion.

5. Sketch, map and scribble

Often the easiest things are made too complicated: googling for mind mapping tools, downloading them, eventually applying a crack here and there (so I was told), then reading the manual and still after 30 minutes you don’t have a solution, a sketch to your problem.

So why not just draw a map yourself and scribble?!

It doesn’t take an artist to do a mind map or a sketch, just do it, you will be surprised by the effectiveness of this method.
Keep it simple, simplify your daily life.

I hope you enjoyed reading these tips and comment plenty

Geert Hofstede? is a trademark of Geert Hofstede BV, Velp, the Netherlands
Source: (and their content)
http://www.geert-hofstede.com/
http://www.itim.org/

Bereits wenige Stunden nach dem Attentat des 11.Septembers 2001 gab der handtierende Pr?sident George Bush bekannt, dass kein anderer als der Terrorist Osama Bin Laden (teilweise in der amerikanischen Presse auch gef?hrt als Usama bin Laden) verantwortlich war f?r dieses ?organisitorische Meisterwerk des Grauens?.
Bush rechtfertigte einen nach wenigen Wochen beginnenden Krieg in Afghanistan mit dem Fakt, dass die afghanische Talibanregierung eine Auslieferung Bin Ladens verweigerte. Bin Laden gilt als F?hrer des Terrornetzwerkes Al Qaida, welches sich nachdem 11.September als die Verantwortlichen ausgaben. Zwei Videob?nder die von dem arabisch sprachigen Sender ?Al jazeera? gezeigt worden waren gelten als ?die ersten Erkl?rungen zum Krieg gegen den kaptialistischen Westen?. Bin Laden, der auf dem ersten dieses 10 min?tigen Bandes gezeigt wird, spricht von einem ?gro?en Erfolg gegen die USA? und warnt alle L?nder sich auf die Seite dieser zu stellen.
Im Dezember 2001 fielen bereits die ersten 100000$ Bomben auf die 10$ Zelte in Afghanistan. ? Ein Krieg der gewissermassen nicht viel Sinn machte und nur als Scheinkrieg im Rahmen einer massiven PR-Offensive f?r Bush gef?hrt wurde.
Afghanistan besitzt ein Eisenbahnnetz von 30 Kilometern, nur eingeschr?nkte kommunikative Infrastrukturen (kein Mobiltelefonnetzwerk) und vorallem ?was Bush nat?rlich als einen der Bewegsgr?nde neben ?wir stoppen vor keinem Land, welches den internationalen Terrorismus unterst?tzt oder Terroristen beherbergt? -keine Demokratie .
Man hat Bin Laden bis heute nicht gefasst. Im Vergleich zum Irakkrieg waren ?nur? 10000-25000 amerikanische Soldaten in Afghanistan und es gab kaum K?mpfe zwischen Talibananh?ngern und den amerikanischen GIs. Der Krieg wurde zum gr??ten Teil aus der Luft und mit Hilfe von Distanzwaffen gef?hrt.
Man k?nnte nun zynisch behaupten, dass aufgrund der erfolglosen Suche nach Bin Laden, Bush in Saddam Hussein und seinen nicht existierenden Massenvernichtungswaffen einen neuen ?S?ndenbock? gefunden hatte. Damit verbunden war, dass Saddam seitens der US- Regierung nun in Verbindung mit den Anschlag auf das World Trade Center gebracht wurde.
Eine Entwicklung, die keiner so wirklich verstehen kann. ? Selbst das amerikanische Volk nicht. Mit Hilfe massiver PR Kampagnen im amerikanischen Fernsehen (CNN/FOX, etc) wurde das Volk zu einer Zustimmung des Krieges ??berzeugt?. (vor dieser PR-Offensive stimmten ?nur? 47% einem Pr?ventivkrieg gegen den Irak zu und nach ihr ganze 74%!)

In der Hierarchie der 27 meist gebrauchten Begr?ndungen f?r den Krieg lagen die folgenden acht ganz vorn (die sogenannten. “Hauptgr?nde”):
1. Krieg gegen den internationalen Terrorismus,
2. Verhinderung der Weitergabe von Massenvernichtungswaffen,
3. mangelhafte oder fehlende Waffen-Inspektionen,
4. Beseitigung des Regimes von Saddam Hussein,
5. das schlichte Argument: “Saddam Hussein ist b?se”,
6. Befreiung des irakischen Volkes,
7. Bruch von Vereinbarungen bzw. Versprechungen
8. Irak stelle eine Bedrohung dar (“imminent threat”). (siehe 2.)
Die zweitwichtigsten Begr?ndungen f?r den Krieg waren (teilweise weder logisch noch sinnvoll):
? “Weil wir dazu in der Lage sind”,
? wir m?ssen die unerledigte Aufgabe (“unfinished business”) zu Ende bringen,
? der Irak m?sse entwaffnet werden,
? Verbindung zu Al Qaida
? mehr Sicherheit f?r die Welt.

Die ?brigen Begr?ndungen bewegten sich auf folgenden Ebenen:
? Rache,
? Krieg ums ?l,
? Irak sei eine Bedrohung f?r die Region,
? “um der Geschichte Willen”,
? Bewahrung des Friedens,
? Irak bedrohe die Freiheit,
? Verpflichtung gegen?ber den Kindern f?r eine sichere Welt zu sorgen,
? Vorteile f?r den Nahen Osten erzielen,
? Belebung der Wirtschaft,
? Irak als Beispiel f?r andere L?nder (Iran/Syrien?!),
? weil Saddam Hussein die USA hasst
? die Verletzung des V?lkerrechts durch den Irak.
Die acht zuerst genannten “Gr?nde” f?r den Krieg haben sich in allen drei Untersuchungsphasen als die wichtigsten herausgestellt. Viele von den ?brigen “Gr?nden” tauchten irgendwann einmal auf und verschwanden auch wieder aus der Diskussion… warum ist eigentlich klar.

Weiterhin gab es folgende Behauptungen:
? Behauptung 1: Der Irak hat versucht Uran vom afrikanischen Staat Niger zu kaufen. – Der Bericht beruhte, laut der Atomenergieagentur IAEA, auf gef?lschten Dokumenten.
? Behauptung 2: Der Irak besitzt bis zu 20 Scud-Raketen mit unerlaubter Reichweite. – Bisher wurde keine gefunden.
? Behauptung 3: Der Irak besitzt mobile Laboratorien zur Herstellung von biologischen Kampfstoffen. – Drei derartige Fahrzeuge wurden gefunden, es steht aber noch nicht zweifelsfrei fest, dass sie tats?chlich dem vermuteten Zweck dienten.
? Behauptung 4: Der Irak produziert weiterhin chemische und biologische Kampfstoffe. – Weder Senfgas noch Sarin, VX oder andere Giftstoffe wurden entdeckt.
? Behauptung 5: Der Irak beherbergt Al-Qaida-K?mpfer. – Kein Beweis daf?r konnte erbracht werden.
Keine dieser Behauptungen oder Aussagen haben sich als wahr behauptet. ( d.h. Der Krieg war unbegr?ndet!)

Vor einigen Tagen stand in der FAZ, dass nun ein OFFIZIELLER Bericht ergeben h?tte, dass es wirklich keine Massenvernichtungswaffen im Irak gab.

Somit verringen sich Bushs Chancen auf eine Wiederwahl im November 2004, da seine Gr?nde f?r eine Invasion/Intervention im Irak sich beweisbar als L?gen entpuppten. Sein Pr?sidentschaftsgegner Kerry benutzt diese nun um seine eigene Position zu st?rken und Bushs Glaubw?rdigkeit anzuzweifeln.

You may have neglected to close an element, or perhaps you meant to “self-close” an element, that is, ending it with “/>” instead of “>”.

I march my own standard; a great article posted on mikeindustries.com tells you even more about the idea of invalidity.

For all lazy clickers, here an excerpt:

[...] this site renders my entire domain XHTML 1.0 Non-Compliant. Invalid. Erroneous. Whatever you want to call it. Here are the various crimes this one line of code commits:

* An ampersand is not properly encoded
* An alt tag is missing
* An attribute called ‘myfavoritetag’ is made up
* An attribute is missing quotes
* A script tag is missing its type and language attributes
* A non-closing tag is missing its trailing slash
* A tag is upper case? gasp!

By invalidating my entire site with this one line of code, I ensure that I am made aware the instant it matters. The instant this stuff starts to break anything in the real world, I will know. If I only had a few small errors on a few random pages around my site, I could easily miss the day when ?the big switchover? happens and wind up with broken pages I don’t know about. And since this code is in the form of a server-side include, I can freely remove it with a few clicks.

It’s kind of like carrying a canary down a mine shaft with you. As long as the canary is alive and chirping, you know you’re okay for air. Actually, I guess it’s not really like that.

Hi there, long time no speak: Since last weeks monday I have been on jersey in england. More or less england, because jersey is located in the channel near france. Anyhow, I am doing fine and really enjoying myself aswell as meeting old mates again.
Enjoy these Photos taken with my razr v3i.

Is there a Hacker Ethic for 90s Hackers?

Introduction

The goal of this text analysis project was to take the texts of the
computer underground and to analyze them for the presence of a)
knowledge about the Hacker Ethic and b) evolution of that Ethic. Many
writers, such as Steven Levy, bemoan the fact that modern-day hackers
(the computer underground) are not worthy of the name because they do
not live up to the principles of the original Hacker Ethic, and as
unethical individuals, should simply be called “computer terrorists”
or “juvenile delinquents.” I sought to examine whether 90s new hackers
knew of the old Hacker Ethic, if they had added anything to it, and
the reasons why they felt they acted differently from their
predecessors. I broadened my text analysis to look at what they saw as
ethical violations, and reasons why some might repudiate the Hacker
Ethic or the idea of having an ethic.

As my text project evolved, I found that after discovering the
existence of a new hacker ethic for new hackers, I was wondering if
people expressing the principles of the new ethic also expressed the
old. I expected that the adoption of a new set of ethics would not
necessarily mean the complete abandonment of the old. This would
establish some continuity between both groups of hackers, and some
familiarity by new hackers with the old ideals. If the hypothesis of
continuity turns out to be true, then new hackers are not as different
from old hackers as authors like Levy (or certain computer security
professionals) might claim. They would then not only have their own
ethics, but also utilize some ethical principles of their
predecessors.

I coded 29 documents from the computer underground online using the
NUD*IST text analysis system. I allowed new codes to emerge from other
codes, based on the sort of interactive text-searching and
investigation process that NUDIST makes possible. I decided to code a
few factors that were not directly relevant to my tests, but could
provide avenues for future investigation. Finally, after coding, I
came up with two tests to look at evidence for continuity between the
old and new hacker ethics.

Who is the Computer Underground?

I define the computer underground as members of the following six
groups. Sometimes I refer to the CU as “90s hackers” or “new hackers,”
as opposed to old hackers, who are hackers (old sense of the term)
from the 60s who subscribed to the original Hacker Ethic. See below.

1. Hackers (Crackers, system intruders) – These are people who
attempt to penetrate security systems on remote computers. This is
the new sense of the term, whereas the old sense of the term
simply referred to a person who was capable of creating hacks, or
elegant, unusual, and unexpected uses of technology. Typical
magazines (both print and online) read by hackers include 2600 and
Iron Feather Journal.
2. Phreaks (Phone Phreakers, Blue Boxers) – These are people who
attempt to use technology to explore and/or control the telephone
system. Originally, this involved the use of “blue boxes” or tone
generators, but as the phone company began using digital instead
of electro-mechanical switches, the phreaks became more like
hackers. Typical magazines read by Phreaks include Phrack, Line
Noize, and New Fone Express.
3. Virus writers (also, creators of Trojans, worms, logic bombs) -
These are people who write code which attempts to a) reproduce
itself on other systems without authorization and b) often has a
side effect, whether that be to display a message, play a prank,
or trash a hard drive. Agents and spiders are essentially
‘benevolent’ virii, raising the question of how underground this
activity really is. Typical magazines read by Virus writers
include 40HEX.
4. Pirates – Piracy is sort of a non-technical matter. Originally, it
involved breaking copy protection on software, and this activity
was called “cracking.” Nowadays, few software vendors use copy
protection, but there are still various minor measures used to
prevent the unauthorized duplication of software. Pirates devote
themselves to thwarting these things and sharing commercial
software freely with their friends. They usually read Pirate
Newsletter and Pirate magazine.
5. Cypherpunks (cryptoanarchists) – Cypherpunks freely distribute the
tools and methods for making use of strong encryption, which is
basically unbreakable except by massive supercomputers. Because
the NSA and FBI cannot break strong encryption (which is the basis
of the PGP or Pretty Good Privacy), programs that employ it are
classified as munitions, and distribution of algorithms that make
use of it is a felony. Some cryptoanarchists advocate strong
encryption as a tool to completely evade the State, by preventing
any access whatsoever to financial or personal information. They
typically read the Cypherpunks mailing list.
6. Anarchists – are committed to distributing illegal (or at least
morally suspect) information, including but not limited to data on
bombmaking, lockpicking, pornography, drug manufacturing, pirate
radio, and cable and satellite TV piracy. In this parlance of the
computer underground, anarchists are less likely to advocate the
overthrow of government than the simple refusal to obey
restrictions on distributing information. They tend to read Cult
of the Dead Cow (CDC) and Activist Times Incorporated (ATI).
7. Cyberpunk – usually some combination of the above, plus interest
in technological self-modification, science fiction of the
Neuromancer genre, and interest in hardware hacking and “street
tech.” A youth subculture in its own right, with some overlaps
with the “modern primitive” and “raver” subcultures.

The Documents

These 29 text files come from the following sources: the WELL (Whole
Earth ‘Lectronic Link) BBS, the MindVox BBS archives, various other
hacker boards, the Usenet newsgroup alt.2600, World Wide Web HTML
documents, the gopher.eff.org hacking ‘zine archive, the
cypherpunks.org ftp site, and a netwide search on documents containing
the search term “hacker ethic.” Documents were selected for this study
for relevance, and thus do not constitute a fully randomized sample of
electronic text.

1. Discussion begins
2. An unwritten manifesto?
3. Government ethic
4. Hacker theory to practice
5. The Manifesto
6. The MetaForum
In 1990, the online bulletin board system (BBS) known as the WELL
(Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link) co-hosted a conference with Harper’s
magazine to discuss the future of hacking. Old and new hackers
were invited to participate. These are transcripts of the various
postings to the topic headings in the conference.
7. Cracker subculture
8. Hackers wanted
These are transcripts of postings to two other topic headings in
the WELL Hacker Conference forum.
9. Assert your rights
10. Defense of Piracy
11. Revolt
These are three “propaganda” text files by hacker Subvert, where
he attempts to make the moral case for hacking.
12. From Crossbows to Cryptography: Thwarting the State via Technology
13. The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto
These two documents from the cypherpunks ftp archive attempt to
make the case for strong encryption and cryptoanarchy.
14. Pirate
15. Pirate Newsletter
These are two e-zines for pirates.
16. Ethics of Hacking by “dissident”
17. Hack Ethics — A definition of the hacker ethic from the MIT
“Fishwrap Gallery”
18. Jargon File hacker ethic — Definition of “hacker ethic” from the
Hacker’s Jargon File (online companion to Hacker’s Dictionary) 3.0
19. The Hacker’s Code of Ethics by “Darkman”
These are four texts which deal directly with ethical issues
pertaining to hacking. Two are simply definition files.
20. CDC — Cult of the Dead Cow description file
21. Digital Free Press — a hacker e-zine
22. Emmanuel Goldstein testimony– Testimony of the 2600 leader before
a Congressional hearing on hacking
23. Hacker Manifesto — “The Conscience of a Hacker” by Mentor
24. Hacker vs Cracker — ” The Difference between Hackers and
Crackers” by CandyMan
25. Novice’s guide to hacking — A guide by Mentor and the Legion of
Doom (LOD), circa 1989
26. Phrack- Declaration of Grievances of the Electronic Community –
An imitation of the grievances clauses from the Declaration of
Independence, updated for the cyberspace era, containing
complaints about current technology policy.
27. Rebels with a Cause — A 1994 honors essay by Anthropology student
Tanja Rosteck, containing some transcripts of hacker interviews
and statements.
28. What is hacking? — Definition file from Hacker’s Haven Website
29. The Anarchist’s Guide to the BBS — a description of using BBSes
for CU purposes.

Other miscellaneous files.

The Original Hacker Ethic

Every profession or trade tends to have an ethical code which suggests
that it is capable of self-regulation of its members. The code
demonstrates the shared core values necessary for people to practice
within the professional community. And it enables the public and the
government to have some degree of trust for the profession. Some of
these codes may be very ancient and formalized, such as the
Hippocratic Oath sworn by physicians. Others may be very modern and
legalistic, like the code of ethics for applied or academic
anthropologists. Some ethical systems may be “underground,” (such as
the Pirates’ Code of 18th century buccaneers or Mafia oaths of
loyalty) enabling members of subcultures or groups to survive,
cooperate, and escape outsiders. Yet others like the original Hacker
Ethic are very informal and simple – rules of thumb to live by.

Groups employ different means of enforcing their ethical systems. Some
provisions are often recognized as simply being archaic and are
ignored. This is why most doctors do not heed the prohibitions in the
Hippocratic Oath against abortion or euthanasia, yet most (but not
all!) believe in the ethical principle of not refusing critical
treatment to a patient who is unable to pay. Other groups (such as
anthropologists) often devise ethical codes simply because they are
forced to by the bad behavior of some of their members in the past,
and their provisions are specifically tailored to probems that have
arisen. Violating some ethical codes can get you banned from the
profession or worse, when professional associations exist to enforce
the regulations; with hackers, breaking the Hacker Ethic seems to
result mostly in anathema or social ostracization, a time-honored
method of social control.

The original Hacker Ethic was sort of an impromptu, informal ethical
code developed by the original hackers of MIT and Stanford (SAIL) in
the 50s and 60s. These “hackers” were the first generation of
programmers, employing time-sharing terminal access to ‘dumb’
mainframes, and they often confronted various sorts of bureaucratic
interference that prevented them from exploring fully how
technological systems (computers, but also model trains, university
steam tunnels, university phone systems, etc.) worked. The ethic
reflects their resistance to these obstacles, and their ideology of
the liberatory power of technology. The six principles of the Hacker
Ethic are listed below, with some text samples showing where it
appears within these documents.

A concise summation of it can be found in Steven Levy’s 1984 book
Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. Levy suggested that
because of their Ethic and their unconventional style, hackers like
Jobs and Wozniak were able to launch the “computer revolution,”
resulting in the first personal computer (the Apple) which was easy to
use and which put programming power in the individual’s hands. Here I
cite documents from my sample which reiterate some of its principles.

1. Hands On Imperative: Access to computers and hardware should be
complete and total. It is asserted to be a categorical imperative
to remove any barriers between people and the use and
understanding of any technology, no matter how large, complex,
dangerous, labyrinthine, proprietary, or powerful.

As we can see, this has not been the case. The computer system has
been solely in the hands of big businesses and the government. The
wonderful device meant to enrich life has become a weapon which
dehumanizes people. To the government and large businesses, people
are no more than disk space, and the government doesn’t use
computers to arrange aid for the poor, but to control nuclear death
weapons. The average American can only have access to a small
microcomputer which is worth only a fraction of what they pay for
it. The businesses keep the true state of the art equipment away
from the people behind a steel wall of incredibly high prices and
bureaucracy. It is because of this state of affairs that hacking
was born. (“Doctor Crash”, 1986)[1]
2. “Information Wants to Be Free” “Information wants to be free” can
be interpreted in three ways. Free might mean without restrictions
(freedom of movement = no censorship), without control (freedom of
change/evolution = no ownership or authorship, no intellectual
property), or without monetary value (no cost.) Some hackers even
take this to mean information is alive, free to act on its own
agency, as viruses, genetic algorithms, ‘bots and other software
programs do. Most hackers seem to advocate this principle in
different senses of the word “free” at different times. In any
case, when asked about the content of the Hacker Ethic, most
people assert this as the key principle.

There is much knowledge that is disallowed, hidden. Government
activities, corporate crime, and “illegitimate” information needs
to be disseminated. People without access to technology need it -
they can contribute to the world. Distributing this information is
illegal, potentially dangerous. This, in my humble opinion, is the
best use of hacked accounts. Obtaining information, disseminating
information needs anonymity. This protects your hide. This is
important. Whistle blowers are only silenced when their identity is
known…
_____________________________________________________________

Access to information

Yes, access is a right you have. You need to know when the
government is killing people, radiating them, listening to them,
lying to them, lying to you. You have a right to gain access to
information about OUR government. This government is supposedly of
the people, by the people, power granted by a social contract.[2]
3. Mistrust Authority. Promote decentralization. This element of the
ethic shows its strong anarchistic, individualistic, and
libertarian nature. Hackers have always shown distrust toward
large institutions, including but not limited to the State,
corporations, and computer administrative bureaucracies (the IBM
‘priesthood’). Tools like the PC are said to move power away from
large organizations (who use mainframes) and put them in the hands
of the ‘little guy’ user. Nowhere is this ethos stronger than
among the anti-statist cypherpunks and extropians.

In fact, technology represents one of the most promising avenues
available for re-capturing our freedoms from those who have stolen
them. By its very nature, it favors the bright (who can put it to
use) over the dull (who cannot). It favors the adaptable (who are
quick to see the merit of the new (over the sluggish, who cling to
time-tested ways). And what two better words are there to describe
government bureaucracy than “dull” and “sluggish”?[3]
_____________________________________________________________

The State will of course try to slow or halt the spread of this
technology, citing national security concerns, use of the
technology by drug dealers and tax evaders, and fears of societal
disintegration. Many of these concerns will be valid; crypto
anarchy will allow national secrets to be traded freely and will
allow illicit and stolen materials to be traded. An anonymous
computerized market will even make possible abhorrent markets for
assassinations and extortion. Various criminal and foreign elements
will be active users of CryptoNet. But this will not halt the
spread of cryptoanarchy.[4]
4. No Bogus Criteria: Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not
by “bogus criteria” such as race, age, sex, or position. Nowhere
is this ethos more apparent than in the strong embrace by most
hackers of the levelling power of the Internet, where anonymity
makes it possible for all such ‘variables’ about a person to
remain unknown, and where their ideas must be judged on their
merits alone since such contextual factors are not available.

The Internet is one of the best hacks the world has to offer. It
has continually shattered deeply ingrained social prejudices
concerning characteristics such as age, race, wealth, and sex. In
fact, it is common to find 14 year olds arguing philosophy with 41
year olds on America’s computer networks![5]
5. “You can create truth and beauty on a computer.” Hacking is
equated with artistry and creativity. Furthermore, this element of
the ethos raises it to the level of philosophy (as opposed to
simple pragmatism), which (at least in some quarters) is about
humanity’s search for the good, the true, and the beautiful.

Without question, good/great programming (hacking) is art and as
with art each person has their own signature and style (which
changes over time). Quite a few years ago I was reviewing some
derivative works of one hacker, and found the lack of signature and
style of the original.[6]
6. “Computers can change your life for the better.” In some ways,
this last statement really is simply a corollary of the previous
one. Since most of humanity desires things that are good, true,
and/or beautiful, the fact that a computer can create such things
would seem to mean that axiomatically it can change peoples’ lives
for the better. However, this is merely a declarative statement,
which like the previous one reflects a deep-felt love of
technology. It does not state explicitly that computers should
always change peoples’ lives for the better, or the principle that
would follow from that, which is that it is unethical to use them
to make peoples’ lives worse. .. Many hackers see the Internet as
an immense positive force, and this reiterated again by hacker
Emmanuel Goldstein –

The future holds such enormous potential. It is vital that we not
succumb to our fears and allow our democratic ideals and privacy
values to be shattered. In many ways, the world of cyberspace is
more real than the real world itself. I say this because it is only
within the virtual world that people are really free to be
themselves – to speak without fear of reprisal, to be anonymous if
they so choose, to participate in a dialogue where one is judged by
the merits of their words, not the color of their skin or the
timbre of their voice. Contrast this to our existing “real” world
where we often have people sized up before they even utter a word.
The Internet has evolved, on its own volition, to become a true
bastion of worldwide democracy. It is the obligation of this
committee, and of governments throughout the world, not to stand in
its way.[7]

Thus, the ethical principles of the Hacker Ethic suggest it is the
ethical duty of the hacker to remove barriers, liberate information,
decentralize power, honor people based on their ability, and create
things that are good and life-enhancing through computers. It remains
an open question (of interpretation) as to whether it advocates the
free distribution of software (the GNU/Richard Stallman position), the
injunction against using computers for malicious purposes (the
Clifford Stoll position), or the need for secure networks based on
trust (the Steven Levy position.) Each of these document samples show
that new hackers are aware of, and advocate (whether intentionally or
accidentally) elements of the original Hacker Ethic.

New Hacker Ethic

From my documents, I found that there is a new hacker ethic which 90s
hackers live by. There are fragments of continuity from the old hacker
ethic, as one can see. The new ethic appears to have developed like
the old one, informally and by processes of mutual reinforcement. The
new ethic seems to contain some ambiguities (like the old one) and a
few contradictions. This may be due to the fact that its practicioners
are more numerous and more dispersed than the original 60s hackers.

1. “Above all else, do no harm” Do not damage computers or data if at
all possible. Much like the key element of the Hippocratic Oath.

According to the “hacker ethic,” a hack must: * be safe
* not damage anything
* not damage anyone, either physically, mentally or emotionally
* be funny, at least to most of the people who experience it
[8]

_________________________________________________________________

It is against hacker ethics to alter any data aside from the logs
that are needed to clean their tracks. They have no need or desire
to destroy data as the malicious crackers. They are there to
explore the system and learn more. The hacker has a constant
yearning and thirst for knowledge that increases in intensity as
their journey progresses.[9]

_________________________________________________________________

2. The belief that system-cracking for fun and exploration is
ethically OK as long as the cracker commits no theft, vandalism, or
breach of confidentiality.[10]

Of course, the key problem with this ethical position is its stance on
intent. One should not damage data deliberately. But what if, as often
happens in hacking attempts, one accidentally erases or alters data
while trying to alter system log files or user records? Is that an
ethical violation? Also, the question of what constitutes “harm” is
left open. Most hackers seem to see pranks and practical jokes as
harmless, regardless of their psychological impact. Yet their victims
may not feel these are so ‘harmless,’ especially if this causes them
to lose valuable time or effort.

Protect Privacy People have a right to privacy, which means control
over their own personal (or even familial) information. Privacy rights
are notably missing from the U.S. Constitution, but they have been
brought to the forefront of modern legal argument due to the growing
surveillance power of technology. There still is no codified right to
privacy for U.S. citizens, although the Supreme Court has ruled that
it is contained implicitly in its judgements legalizing the
distribution of birth control and the right to first-trimester
abortion.

How far do privacy rights go, however? Do people also have an
intrinsic right to online anonymity? Do I have the right to conceal my
health status, criminal record, or sexuality from my employer? Are
some people (politicians, celebrities, etc.) entitled to less privacy
than others? Does my social security number, credit history, or
telephone number belong only to me? Further, the strange thing about
hackers asserting a right to privacy is that it declares a certain
kind of information to not be free. Thus, in some ways this is a
contradiction to the original hacker ethic.

Your right to Privacy

Privacy is a right we beleive we have. Unfortunately privacy is not
explicitately protected in the constitution. Our consitution is
dated in that respect, there weren’t the threats to privacy then as
there are now. Technology is truly a double-edged sword. The
abscense of privacy provisions in the constitution does not make it
any less important. Indeed, the lack of constitutional protections
have allowed our privacy to be gravely threatened.[11]

_________________________________________________________________

The concept of privacy is something that is very important to a
hacker. This is so because hackers know how fragile privacy is in
today’s world. Wherever possible we encourage people to protect
their directories, encrypt their electronic mail, not use cellular
phones, and whatever else it takes to keep their lives to
themselves. In 1984 hackers were instrumental in showing the world
how TRW kept credit files on millions of Americans. Most people had
never even heard of a credit file until this happened. Passwords
were very poorly guarded – in fact, credit reports had the password
printed on the credit report itself.[12]

The second argument is an interesting one. The problem most hackers
had with TRW is not they kept files on most peoples’ credit histories
without their knowledge (thus they couldn’t see if they contained any
errors), and it was on that (unknown) basis that they were denied
loans, credit cards, mortgages, etc. It was that those files were
insecure.

“Waste not, want not.” Computer resources should not lie idle and
wasted. It’s ethically wrong to keep people out of systems when they
could be using them during idle time. This is what some people call
the “joy riders’ ethic.” If you borrow someone’s car, and return it
with no damage, a full tank of gas, and perhaps even some suggestions
for improved performance, have you not done them a favor? Especially
if they never know you borrowed it in the first place for a few road
trips? Isn’t it wasting that precious engine power to leave the car in
a parking spot while somebody else could be using it for a grocery
trip? (Is it an ethical violation to borrow the car and make a set of
keys for yourself so you can borrow it whenever you feel like? This
is, after all, what most hackers do when they give themselves sysadmin
privileges.) Yet most are possessive over the use of their own
personal computer.

The hacker ethics involves several things. One of these is avoiding
waste. Over the internet, we have about a quarter million computers
each of which is virtually unused for 10 hours a day. A true hacker
seeing something useful that he could do with terraflops of
computing power that would otherwise be wasted might would request
permission to use these machines and would probably go ahead and
use them even if permission was denied. In doing so, he would take
the greatest possible precautions to not damage the system.[13]

Exceed Limitations Hacking is about the continual transcendence of
problem limitations. Some old hackers assert this principle, as an
informal seventh addition to the original Ethic. Telling a hacker
something can’t be done, is a moral imperative for him to try.
“Extropians” believe there is a universal force of expansion and
growth, inverse to entropy, which they call “extropy.” Hacking is seen
as extropian because it always seeks to surpass current limits.
Technology is seen as a necessarily exponential force of growth.
Limitations must be overcome. For some hackers, these limitations
might be unjust laws or outdated moral codes.

To become free it may be necessary to break free from medieval
morality, break unjust laws, and be a disloyal employee. Some may
call you an disloyal, sinful criminal. To be free in a room of
slaves is demoralizing. Free your fellow man, give him the tools,
the knowledge to fight oppression. Do not infringe on others’
rights.[14]

The Communicational Imperative People have the right to communicate
and associate with their peers freely. The United Nations
International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has stated in many
conferences that this should be a fundamental human right, with which
no nation should ever interfere. The sweeping freedoms given to
amateur radio hobbyists internationally reflect this belief. Globally,
it remains a significant moral problem, in that most developing
nations lack the infrastructure to grant this right. Various UN
reports have shown that despite the rhetoric, many Third World nations
do not have access to the “global” information superhighway because
they lack “onramps.” Their telecommunications infrastructure is
lacking.

Most hackers strongly support the 1st amendments’ rights to
communication and assembly, since these are necessary for the free
flow of information. Phreakers take this a step beyond, however, in
asserting that people should have the right to communicate with each
other cheaply (thus poor people have as much right to talk on the
phone long distance as the rest of us) and easily . When
telecommunications companies are an obstacle to this right to
communicate, phreaking (blue boxing the phone system, making
unauthorized ‘bridge’ conference calls, using empty voicemail boxes,
etc.) is said to be the answer.

The Right to communicate

Communicate!
This is our strongest right, and our most crucial. There mere fact
that this page is allowed to exist is proof that our 1st amendment
has not crumbled completely. Despite the governmental protection,
there are threats to our freedom to communicate.[15]

Leave No Traces Don’t leave a trail or trace of your presence; don’t
call attention to yourself or your exploits. Keep quiet, so everyone
can enjoy what you have. This is an ethical principle, in that the
hacker follows it not only for his own self-interest, but also to
protect other hackers from being caught or losing access. Such a
principle can be found among various criminal or underground
organizations. Of course, there is a contradiction between asserting a
need for secrecy (as well as privacy), and the need for unrestricted
information.

The rules a Hacker lives by:
1. Keep a low profile.
2. If suspected, keep a lower profile.
3. If accused, deny it.
4. If caught, plea the 5th.[16]

Share! Information increases in value by sharing it with the maximum
number of people; don’t hoard, don’t hide. Just because it wants to be
free, does not mean necessarily you must give it to as many people as
possible. This principle can be seen as an elaboration on an original
ethical principle. The Pirates’ ethic is that piracy increases
interest in software, by giving people a chance to try it out and
experiment with it before paying for it. So sharing software with your
friends is a good thing.

Pirates SHARE warez to learn, trade information, and have fun! But,
being a pirate is more than swapping warez. It’s a life style and a
passion. The office worker or class mate who brings in a disk with
a few files is not necessarily a pirate any more than a friend
laying a copy of the lastest Depeche Mode album on you is a pirate.
The *TRUE* pirate is plugged into a larger group of people who
share similar interests in warez. This is usually done through
Bulletin Board Systems (BBSs), and the rule of thumb is “you gotta
give a little to get a little…ya gets back what ya gives.”
Pirates are NOT freeloaders, and only lamerz think they get
something for nothing.[17]

Self Defense against a Cyberpunk Future Hacking and viruses are
necessary to protect people from a possible 1984/cyberpunk dystopian
future, or even in the present from the growing power of government
and corporations. It’s a moral imperative to use hacking as the
equivalent of ‘jujitsu,’ allowing the individual to overcome larger,
more impersonal, more powerful forces that can control their lives. If
governments and corporations know they can be hacked, then they will
not overstep their power to afflict the citizenry.

I believe, before it’s all over, that the War between those who
love liberty and the control freaks who have been waiting for to
rid America of all that constitutional mollycoddling called the
Bill of Rights, will escalate.

Should that come to pass, I will want to use every available method
to vex and confuse the eyes and ears of surveillance. Viruses could
become the necessary defense against a government that fears your
computer.[18]

What’s interesting is that this principle recognizes and asserts that
it’s not only possible but also likely for computers to have a dark
side and to be used for purposes other than truth and beauty, and that
we need to be wary of technology, or at least technology in the wrong
hands.

Hacking Helps Security This could be called the “Tiger team ethic”:
it is useful and courteous to find security holes, and then tell
people how to fix them. Hacking is a positive force, because it shows
people how to mend weak security, or in some cases to recognize and
accept that total security is unattainable, without drastic sacrifice.

Sense 2 is more controversial: some people consider the act of
cracking itself to be unethical, like breaking and entering. But
the belief that `ethical’ cracking excludes destruction at least
moderates the behavior of people who see themselves as `benign’
crackers (see also samurai). Based on this view, it may be one of
the highest forms of hackerly courtesy to (a) break into a system,
and then (b) explain to the sysop, preferably by email from a
superuser account, exactly how it was done and how the hole can be
plugged — acting as an unpaid (and unsolicited) tiger team.[19]

Many software companies today, including Lotus, regularly use tiger
teams to test their security systems. So, this ethical principle seems
to be agreed upon by some members of the industry — to a certain
extent. Even Lotus does not want its systems being tested by hackers
who are not under its employ or control.

Trust, but Test! You must constantly test the integrity of systems
and find ways to improve them. Do not leave their maintenance and
schematics to others; understand fully the systems you use or which
affect you. If you can exploit certain systems (such as the telephone
network) in ways that their creators never intended or anticipated,
that’s all to the better. This could help them create better systems.
One of those systems that may require constant revision, testing, and
adjustment, apparently, is constitutional democracy.

Democracy is always being tested — it’s an inherent part of what
it stands for. whether it’s flag burners, gay activists, klansmen,
or computer hackers, we’re always testing the system to see if it
holds up to pressure. i stress that this is NOT an end iwe do
because it interests us, but in the bigger picture we’re actually
testing the sincerity of the democratic system, whether we’re aware
of it or not.[20]

One of the most important manuals for British hackers was called
“beating the system.” The essential argument is that as systems (like
the phone network) become more and more complex, they become
impossible to manage from a centralized office. Hacking at the edges
of the system not only becomes possible, in some cases it becomes
necessary. It becomes an ethical imperative to test the system, lest
it fail when it is most needed (like the AT & T phone switches did in
1990.)

So, in short, the new hacker ethic suggests that it is the ethical
duty of new hackers (or the CU), to : 1) protect data and hardware 2)
respect and protect privacy 3) utilize what is being wasted by others
4) exceed unnecessary restrictions 5) promote peoples’ right to
communicate 6) leave no traces 7) share data and software 8) be
vigilant against cyber-tyranny and 9) test security and system
integrity of computer systems.

Violations/Transgressions

These could be considered the “thou shalt nots” of the new hacker
ethic, as opposed to its affirmative “you shoulds.” Some of these
transgressions of the hacker ethic are already implied by some of its
basic affirmative principles. We can get an idea of what hackers
believe they should do, based on what they reject as unsuitable
activities of their peers.

1. Bootlegging Commercialism; selling pirated software; hacking for
profit; selling out. Bootlegging violates the new ethic of sharing
and the original hacker ethic which eschewed profit (and embraced
personal satisfaction) as a reason for creating software (hence
the existence of Richard Stallman’s GNU Free Software Foundation.)

On occasion the possibility of making a profit from these advances
tempts hackers into commercialism. On other occasions, they see
commercialism as the only way to get their work into the hands of
the masses. When they succeed they become rich, and usually get
moved further and further from hacker life and more and more into
paperwork and then don’t live happily ever after.[21]
_____________________________________________________________

Bootleggers are to pirates as a chop-shop is to a home auto
mechanic. Bootleggers are people who DEAL stolen merchandise for
personal gain. Bootleggers are crooks. They sell stolen goods.
Pirates are not crooks, and most pirates consider bootleggers to be
lower life forms than child molesters.[22]
Bootlegging seems to contradict new hacker ethic 7, share!
2. Freeloading Always taking and never contributing. Profitting from
other peoples’ efforts without adding to them. “Warez d00dz” and
“Codez d00dz” who are hunting for free software or phone codes
without offering anything in return (a hack, a number, whatever)
are looked down upon. Hoarding and refusing to tell others about
your hacks are seen as wrong. This also violates the new ethic of
sharing.

In fact, pirates may be one of the best forms of advertising for
quality products, because sharing allows a shop-around method for
buying warez. Most of us buy a program for the documents and the
support, but why invest in four or five similar programs if we
aren’t sure which best suits our needs? Nah, pirates aren’t
freeloaders. We are against freeloading.[23]
3. Trashing Crashing systems; destroying hardware; hurting other
users; malicious vandalism; irreversible damaging or destroying of
data; unleashing destructive viruses, Trojans, logic bombs.
Prankful (non-harmless) games with users and sysops and systems is
acceptable… This is seen as the obvious corollary of the new
ethic to “do no harm.”

I. Do not intentionally damage *any* system. Trashing BBSes is
wrong, plain and simple.
II. Do not alter any system files other than ones needed to ensure
your escape from detection and your future access (Trojan Horses,
Altering Logs, and the like are all necessary to your survival for
as long as possible.)[24]
_____________________________________________________________

The one thing I hate, is the way some self-appointed hackers find
there way into a system, and ruin the name of the rest of us by
destroying everything they can find. Now that is pathetic. First of
all, as I said, it ruins the name of the rest of us. Thus, once
again, the “Destructive Computer User” Stereotype… A board
crasher is no more a “hacker” than my grandmother is.[25]
4. Excessive Selfishness Self interest overrules any concern for
other hackers whatsoever. This violation implies others… once
again, we run into the strange divide at the heart of the Hacker
Ethic, which is deeply individualistic, yet also fiercely
communal. Individuals are expected to be highly self-motivated,
but not selfish.

I think you’d be less agitated if you define your categories as
hackers and criminals. The former are in it to explore and the
latter are in it for themselves and nothing else. Of course, some
hackers do break laws on occasion but I don’t think that
necessarily turns them into criminals, at least not in the moral
sense.[26]
_____________________________________________________________

Also, some hackers have this massive ego problem… I must name one
here, for that problem, and he is Corporal Punishment… I have had
numerous run-ins with this guy. He seems to think he is a God,
constantly running everyone into the ground. He even went as far as
saying “PHRACK sucks!” But he isn’t the only one with that
problem… Some feel that if they put others down, they will
elevate to a higher level. Sorry to burst you bubble guys, but your
only viewed as massive ego-maniacs that deserve nothing less than
being run down yourselves…[27]
_____________________________________________________________

Let us not forget that hackers, crackers, chippers, crunchers, and
whatnot all have ego, and one thing that bothers me about using the
Hacker Ethic to describe people is that ego and self-interest are
not accounted for. How else can you explain crackers selling
pirated software, otherwise intelligent people distributing viruses
to the general public in hope of causing maximum damage to other
users, or hackers breaking into some system and erasing files for
laughs? People break into computers because it’s fun and it makes
one feel powerful, not because there is untapped power waiting to
be used if only the right programming “wizard” comes along.[28]
5. The (Selective) Anti-Stealing Ethic Information, services, and
software are not property; hardware, physical property, money, and
monetary services (credit cards, digital cash, phone card numbers)
are. Theft of these is still wrong. Also, the target makes a
difference. Stealing phone service (say, voicemail boxes) from a
large institution like a corporation or the government is OK.
Stealing it from an individual or a small nonprofit is not.
Thus the new hacker ethic, according to its propagandists, does
not embrace theft; instead it simply defines certain things (like
information) as not being personal property, or certain actions
(using phone service) as “borrowing” rather than theft.

So where is the boundary between the hacker world and the criminal
world? To me, it has always been in the same place. We know that
it’s wrong to steal tangible objects. We know that it’s wrong to
vandalize. We know that it’s wrong to invade somebody’s privacy.
Not one of these elements is part of the hacker world.[29]
6. Bragging Calling too much attention to oneself. It is acceptable
(‘elite’) to brag in private hacker circles, unacceptable to brag
or make taunts and dares to sysops, law enforcement, or
authorities, or in any public forum where they tend to listen.
Some hackers even consider the first unacceptable, since hacker
boards are monitored by the Secret Service as well. Bragging and
boasting to the media or other non-hackers violates the ethic of
‘leave no trace’ and keeping a low profile.

Bragging after a neat hack may seem like the natural thing to do.
But just remember that it can only call attention to yourself, and
not everyone who pays attention to hackers are admirers. You may
jeopardize your friends and anyone else who ever accesses the same
system as you.[30]
_____________________________________________________________

True hackers are quiet. I don’t mean they talk at about .5 dB, I
mean they keep their mouths shut and don’t brag. The number one
killer of those the media would have us call hackers is bragging.
You tell a friend, or you run your mouth on a board, and sooner or
later people in power will find out what you did, who you are, and
you’re gone…[31]
7. Spying Snooping, monitoring of people, and invading their privacy
is wrong… so therefore is reading private e-mail, etc. This
follows from the new hacker ethic which sees privacy as a
fundamental right. However, part of the hacker praxis is about
finding out passwords and security holes from users, whether
through “social engineering” or simple snooping and “sniffing.”
This is the contradiction, once again, of embracing privacy but
also insisting on unrestricted information.

Some crackers are using computers in the exact *opposite* way that
the first hackers intended them: first, by restricting the
unimpeded and unmonitored flow of information through the computer
networks and phone lines; and second, by using computers to monitor
people, by intrusive methods of information-gathering.[32]
8. Narcing It is wrong to turn other hackers in. This part of their
ethical code is not different from many other criminal
organizations or subcultures, such as prison inmates, drug
addicts, prostitutes, etc., or even ‘above-ground’ subcultures
such as police departments. (“code of silence.”) However, this
code has special meaning for hackers, since many ex-hackers often
decide to become computer security personnel later in life. Many
of their peers consider this ‘selling out.’

There’s no lower form of life than the narc. Hackers who go and rat
on other hackers are scum. They get lots of promises of immunity
and stuff if they turn in all their friends. Some hackers get back
at other people by turning them into the feds. This is wrong, and
it only damages the hacker community. We need to stick together,
because nobody else is really on our side.[33]
_____________________________________________________________

The last thing I will mention, will be hackers turning in other
hackers to federal crime agencies, or to the PhoneCorp security
offices, or any other type of company that deals with computer
related phraud. This activity, refered to as Narcing, is getting to
be too popular for a hackers good… You may be saying, ” Come on,
no hacker in they’re right mind would turn another on in “. And
your right… It’s once again those self proclaimed hackers, or the
ones who think they are who will do this to get “Even”…[34]

We can then see that new hackers do believe certain things are wrong -
and people who commit these actions are frowned upon and often
prevented from being recognized by the hacker community. Many of the
things new hackers reject, would also be rejected by the community of
old hackers.

Reasons for Change

I coded various “emic” explanations in these texts for why some people
felt the Hacker Ethic had changed. These could potentially provide the
basis for looking for some interesting etic, measurable variables.

1. “More Stuff” Computers are more numerous, more powerful, more
networked, more distributed, more important, more widespread. More
power over society = more corruption, more incentive.

So the process of society adopting a new technology BY DEFINITION
must include the removal of all idealistic motivations originally
present in the promoters of the technology. Computers are power,
and direct contact with power can bring out the best or the worst
in a person. The Hacker Ethic is simply the ideal case: it’s
tempting to think that everyone exposed to the technology will be
so grandly inspired, but alas, it just ain’t so.

The “hacker ethic” was unnoticed before because fiddling with large
complex systems was so difficult until recently. There have always
been basement tinkers and young pranksters but their explorations
were very local. Once we are all connected, the work of these
investigators ripple through the world we have constructed and
affect us.[35]
_____________________________________________________________

We live in the age of computers. Everything is controlled by
massive mainframes; Our water distribution system, rail-road
control, airline control, electricity control, telephone companies,
etc, etc, etc… Imagine the fun someone can have in one of those
systems!!! Just the fact of getting in them can sometimes be a
major accomplishment. But my point is, what people do once they are
in…[36]
2. Society Society has changed for the worse. Either the old hackers
lived in a more sheltered, supportive, rewarding environment (the
MIT lab where they had access to everything they could ever want,
plus recognition from their mentors and peers), or they simply
lived in a larger society (the U.S. of the 50s) which was more
based on trust, honesty, etc., and that is why their behavior was
different. This might be the sort of sociological explanation
found in a sociology textbook.

PANTY RAIDS: When panty raids meet biotech it may be time to adapt
new rituals; or the cracker phenomena is more complex then that and
has at least something to do with increased levels of social
alienation and how the street finds its own use for things.[37]
_____________________________________________________________

It is my contention that hackers did not change. Society changed,
and it changed for the worse. The environment the early hackers
were working in rewarded them for their mischief and their desire
to experiment and try new things.[38]
3. The Computer Industry has Sold Out
The computer industry sold out; no commercial software developers
today believe in the Hacker Ethic either. They patent software,
copy-protect programs, lock up data and algorithms. New hackers
are merely responding to the times. They wouldn’t have to do what
they have to do if the computer industry believed in open
standards and systems and free source code.

And yet, in practice, I can’t help but conclude that the computer
revolution is over, and that the people lost. The computer
community is driven now not by a lust for knowledge but by a lust
for money. What were fledgling companies of wild-eyed programmers
sharing knowledge and feeding on each other’s ideas have become
corporate behemoths, run by suits and ties, and copyright lawyers,
and the bottom line.[39]
4. Generational Change Hackers, like other youth of their generation
(“generation X”), are more alienated, more pessimistic, more
self-centered, more thoughtless, more careless, more pragmatic,
etc. It’s not that society, technology, or computing practices
changed; it’s just that new hackers come from a generation which
was raised differently from its predecessors and was exposed to
different influences.

It’s like you sometimes see in the media – ‘GenX’ is more in it for
themselves, more likely to try and get ahead through using
information from any which way, and more often see themselves as
getting screwed over by their elders … so it’s not surprising
that they don’t have the same attitudes as Baby Boomer hackers.[40]

A future research project might be to try and turn these into etic
variables. If one could operationalize and measure “level of
alienation” for the authors of these texts, it might turn out to be a
causal factor for “level of adherence to the Hacker Ethic,” which
would be the degree to which the person espouses the old or new Hacker
ethics. Or one could try and correlate changes in the Hacker Ethic
with changes in computing practices or level of intensification of
computer use.

Repudiations

It’s interesting to examine the ways in which 90s hackers often
repudiate the original Hacker Ethic, or the possibility of embracing
any Ethic at all. These are based on some items I coded in the texts,
and other mentions found on the Net.

1. Fraud “The hacker ethic is a fraud” perpetrated by the original
hackers. It’s too idealistic to possibly work in the real world.

But the Hacker Ethic is also a fraud. It is a fraud because there
is nothing magical about computers that causes one of its users or
owners to undergo religious conversions and devote themselves to
use of the computer for the betterment of the public good. Early
automobile enthusiasts were tinkerers, inventors, people with a
dream building motorized transportation. Then the new invention
became popular and the elite used it to drive around in luxury.
Then the new invention became accessible, and for many, necessary
for survival. Now we have traffic jams, drunk drivers, air
pollution, and suburban sprawl. Whatever magic still present in the
use of the automobile occasionally surfaces, but we possess no
delusions that it automatically invades the consciousness of
everyone who sits behind the wheel.[41]
2. Individualism Individualistic loners don’t tend to subcribe to
communal ethics. Many hackers argue that hacking is by nature
oriented toward individualism rather than “groupthink,” and thus
the community of hackers is one of mutually reinforcing
self-interest rather than any true form of fellowship or common
ideology.
3. Many, not one There is no one single hacker ethic; in the extreme
position, every hacker has their own ethic.

I think the problem we’re all having is the fact that everyone is
deluding themselves thinking there is only ONE ‘hacker ethic’. The
truth of the matter is, everyone has their *OWN* hacker ‘ethic’. To
say that we all think the same way is foolish.[42]
4. Anti-professionalism Ethics are usually professional standards; by
their very nature hackers are anti-professional and tend to make
up the rules as they go along. Creating a professional, formalized
code for hackers would mean the end of hacking.
5. Natural Evolution The hacker ethic, like any belief system, must
evolve over time; it’s foolish to assume anyone could maintain the
same ethics when everything else (especially technology) changes
so rapidly.

In exploring some of the factors that lead to rejection of the
original Hacker Ethic, we might be able to understand better why
certain hackers do embrace either the old or new one or a combination
of both.

Investigations of Patterns

I did two index tree searches of the NUDIST tree-index to examine my
hypothesis of continuity between the 60s and 90s hackers.

Report 1

This was simply an index search where I told NUDIST to identify the
number of documents which contained codes from both the old and new
hacker ethics’ subcodes. Any document which contained one or more
codes from both sets of ethical codes was considered a ‘hit,’
indicating knowledge of (if not practice) of both systems. The results
were: retrievals in 15 out of 29 documents or 52 percent. This seems
to be statistically significant, and it is unlikely that hackers would
express elements of both ethical systems purely by chance unless they
were aware of both.

Report 2

I generated a matrix of overlapping documents for the Hacker Ethics
(old and new). This identifies where codes co-occur within the same
text units (as opposed to elsewhere in the same text) and in which
documents.

1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6
2 1 24 24, 18
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
2 8 27 27
2 9
2 10

In document 24, “hacker vs. cracker,” we see the co-occurence of the
old hacker ethic of “total access” and the new hacker ethic of “do no
harm,” as well as the co-occurence of “information wants to be free”
with “do no harm.” In document 18, “Hacker ethic jargon file,” we see
the co-occurence of these same sentiments. And in document 27, “Rebels
with a cause,” we see the co-occurence of “self defense” with
“information wants to be free” and “computers can change your life for
the better.”

Apparently, while hackers may express principles of both hacker
ethics, they are unlikely to do so at the same time or within the same
thought. Co-occurence within the same text unit did not occur very
often – only 3 out of 29 documents.

Conclusions – areas for future research

I feel it safe to say that I can conclude a few basic facts from this
early effort at text analysis. Mostly, I have a basis for a good deal
of future research. I might be able to state more, if I had access to
more documents or more information about their authors beyond their
“handles.”

1. New 90s hackers are not unethical. They are not unaware of the
original Hacker Ethic. They have their own ethical system which
combines elements of the old 60s Hacker Ethic with some new
innovations (the new hacker ethic.) The fact that ethics are
important to these hackers is suggested by the fact that they
anethematize “crackers” and “dark side” hackers for transgressions
which violate the spirit of their ethics.
2. There are four interesting areas of investigation for looking into
the changes between the old and new Hacker Ethic. Measurement of
changes in computer technology, social indicators, computer
industry practices, and generational demographics might provide
variables which covary with, and possibly even explain, the
changes in this ideological system.
3. Some new hackers do repudiate the original Hacker Ethic or the
possibility of having an ethic at all. It would be interesting to
find out what aspects of their profiles (age, background,
experience, gender, social class, etc.) correlate with whether or
not they repudiate it and why. There should be some way to predict
whether or not a hacker is likely to embrace the ethic, and how
much they fidelity to it they will demonstrate.
4. The (old and new) Hacker Ethic is not totally idiosyncratic.
Elements of it are similar to principles advocated by American
culture and its “democratic” constitutional and informal ideals;
the ethical codes of professional organizations such as academics,
doctors, and lawyers; the ethical systems of “underground” and
marginalized groups such as addicts, prostitutes, homeless people,
etc.; and traditional ethical precepts of philosophy (such as the
Golden Rule or Kantian categorical imperative.) Hackers are not
alone in wanting privacy, knowledge, or community.
5. The similarity between the old and new hacker ethics suggest that
the new hackers did not emerge out of a distinct “tradition” from
the old hackers. Ethical continuity suggests some demographic
continuity. The 60s and 90s hackers may not be all that different,
despite the fact that the 60s hackers consider the 90s hackers to
be less deserving of the mantle of the term “hacker.”

Text Sources

1. Rebels with a Cause
2. Revolt
3. From Crossbows to Crypto
4. Cryptoanarchist Manifesto
5. Declaration of Grievances of the Electronic Community
6. The Manifesto
7. Emmanuel Goldstein Testimony
8. Hack Ethics
9. Hacker vs. Cracker
10. Jargon file – hacker ethic
11. Assert your rights
12. Emmanuel Goldstein testimony
13. Discussion begins
14. Revolt
15. Assert your rights
16. What is hacking?
17. Pirate Newsletter
18. Government ethic
19. Jargon file – hacker ethic
20. The Manifesto
21. Discussion begins
22. Pirate Newsletter
23. Pirate Newsletter
24. Novice’s guide to hacking
25. The Hacker’s Code of Ethics
26. Cracker subculture
27. The Hacker’s Code of Ethics
28. The Manifesto
29. Emmanuel Goldstein testimony
30. What is hacking?
31. Ethics of Hacking
32. Government ethic
33. What is hacking?
34. The Hacker’s Code of Ethics
35. Discussion begins
36. The Hacker’s Code of Ethics
37. Cracker subculture
38. Digital Free Press #2
39. Discussion begins
40. Anarchist’s Guide to the BBS
41. Discussion begins
42. Discussion begins

Copyright 1997, Steve Mizrach
Permission granted to publish on www.infowar.com

seeker1@anthro.ufl.edu

[Bomb2]

Infowar.Com & Interpact, Inc. WebWarrior@Infowar.Com
Submit articles to: infowar@infowar.com
Voice: 813.393.6600 Fax: 813.393.6361