newspeak

[deeptech71 at gmail.com]

Matthew McDonald wrote:
> Well, because if it involves hacking it's obviously not as legitimate as
> anything that a corporation would do. After all, hackers are malicious by
> nature.
> 
> -Matt McDonald

"The idea of hacking may conjure up stylized images of electronic vandalism, 
espionage, dyed hair, and body piercings. Most people associate hacking with 
breaking the law, therefore dubbing all those who engage in hacking activities 
to be criminals. Granted, there are people out there who use hacking 
techniques to break the law, but hacking isn't really about that. In fact, 
hacking is more about following the law than breaking it.

The essence of hacking is finding unintended or overlooked uses for the laws 
and properties of a given situation and then applying them in new and 
inventive ways to solve a problem. The problem could be the lack of access to 
a computer system or figuring out a way to make old phone equipment control a 
model railroad system. Usually, the hacked solutions solve these problems in 
unique ways, unimaginable by those confined to conventional methodology.

In the late 1950s, the MIT model railroad club was given a donation of parts, 
most of which were old telephone equipment. The members used this equipment to 
rig up a complex system that allowed multiple operators to control different 
parts of the track by dialing into the appropriate section. They called this 
new and inventive use of equipment "hacking", and many consider this group to 
be the original hackers. They moved on to programming on punchcards and ticker 
tape for early computers like the IBM 704 and the TX-0. While others were 
content with just writing programs that solved problems, the early hackers 
were obsessed with writing programs that solved problems well. A program that 
could achieve the same result using fewer punchcards was considered better, 
even though it did the same thing. The key difference was how the program 
achieved its results—elegance.

Being able to reduce the number of punchcards needed for a program showed an 
artistic mastery over the computer, which was admired and appreciated by those 
who understood it. Analogously, a block of wood might solve the problem of 
supporting a vase, but a nicely crafted table built using refined techniques 
sure looks a lot better. The early hackers were transforming programming from 
an engineering task into an art form, which, like many forms of art, could 
only be appreciated by those who got it and would be misunderstood by those 
who didn't.

This approach to programming created an informal subculture, separating those 
who appreciated the beauty of hacking from those who were oblivious to it. 
This subculture was intensely focused on learning more and gaining yet higher 
levels of mastery over their art. They believed that information should be 
free, and anything that stood in the way of that freedom should be 
circumvented. Such obstructions included authority figures, the bureaucracy of 
college classes, and discrimination. In a sea of graduation-driven students, 
this unofficial group of hackers defied the conventional goals of getting good 
grades, instead pursuing knowledge itself. This drive to continuously learn 
and explore transcended even the conventional boundaries drawn by 
discrimination, evident in the group's acceptance of 12-year-old Peter Deutsch 
when he demonstrated his knowledge of the TX-0 and his desire to learn. Age, 
race, gender, appearance, academic degrees, and social status were not primary 
criteria for judging another's worth—this was not because of a desire for 
equality, but because of a desire to advance the emerging art of hacking."

THIS QUOTE WAS PIRATED FROM A COPY OF
Hacking: The Art of Exploitation
by Jon Erickson  ISBN:1593270070
No Starch Press © 2003

;)