Social shaping via networks - hackers and the Chinese!

[Pekka]

I think it's interesting how new forms of intercultural shaping is done via networks. There are strong ties to ones own culture when it comes to communication. We not only think with our own respective languages, giving us a bit different abstracts and constructs of thinking, but also the cultural manners are usually strong, often this is lost in intercultural communication. For example, Finns are not too talkative, and that could be interpreted as being rude, not wanting to have anything to do with the other person. This usually isn't the case. In our culture, it is important to give space to the other one. You do not want to make the other one uncomfortable, so you avoid the possibility of it by not even going into areas that might lead into these situations. It's not the same as not understanding what others want or need, we see it as polite behaviour and if we both know this is uncomfortable, we can just move on and it's not a problem. There's no need to make it more uncomfortable, so we're saving the face of the other one and therefor that is politeness.

I don't want to invade your space, and I expect you to respect my space. For foreigners this might be difficult, for example when making friends. How do you make friends here? Well, it is clear now, that there are cultural differencies that affects our behaviour, and one needs to be able to pick up clues from the communication, or the non-communication and recognize the context to avoid mistakes. Of course mistakes are allowed.

Now, since people are starting to network more, for example this board is very international, well mostly western though.. but anyway, it's interesting how there are new ways forming, new ways where people from different backgrounds can still be actors in the same context regardless of their cultural ties. Of course most of us have to change languages in order to be able to communicate, but that's the norm.

Even if this is true, there are still, most of the people in this world are stuck in their localities and interpreting others can be difficult.

So what I find interesting are these groups who communicate in new ways and are forming their own cultures, usually subcultures, regardless of position and/or time.

I've been studying the hacker culture for a while, I think it's a worthy task for myself. A lot of security people disagree, but then again I think many of them aren't that superior. In fact, many of them are behind the skill level of elite hackers. Some of these security people don't want to have anything to do with hackers. It's like a black and white world, we don't know the 'enemy' and we don't want to know the enemy. They are the enemy.

If this is your world view, you aren't going to be succesful in this field. The old phrase "you need a thief to catch a thief" still applies. Not saying that you need to do crimes in order to catch others, but you need to have the same skill set or more. You need more perspective. You need to know who you're going up against, you need tap into it and live it. I don't carry a flag, I don't have my loyalty in any group, I denounce the whole segmenting of this area for many reasons I can't be bothered to go over right now.

So, I find it interesting how hackers from day 1 have been communicating. And we get them from all over the world, they've been doing it when the stuff began and they have their own cultures. So you'd be surprised to see how say, US based group of hackers cooperates with Chinese hackers. The classic case is cult of the dead cow and hong kong blondes, where these Chinese dissident hackers would break the walls and blocked paths in order to report what's happening in China. So there are sometimes even humanitarian reasons behind some action, and they were able to do it for a long time and HKB are still active in China. They do not want to get caught, believe me.

So what it really was and still is about, it's about freedom of information, and were not talking about nuclear secrets. The same stuff we supposedly enjoy right now. So not only are they political, they also take huge personal risks and are superior to Chinese government counterparts and have been playing cat and mouse for years.

So we have people from different cultures, very different, yet they form their own subculture. It is a legit culture with code of ethics (this is a dynamic concept, depends what we mean by hackers, the ethics might change from definition to definition, but they are all similar). Of course computer underground has been active for a long time with all kinds of scenes... pirates, ascii artists, BBS folks around those particular scenes, music scene, demo scene, hacker scene that some people would call cracker scene, open source that is not really a scene and some would cal lthe true hacker platform... and when you go into the hacker domain, where we kick out open source fat asses who think are innovative but.. sure. Anyway, after that we are left with the scene that deals with security. So, they've been long sharing information freely. You needed the philes in the 80s to be able to have the info needed for this and this particular device, say maybe a router or a telephone switch inside telephone companies. So you shared that info and basically got the info you needed for some others. In fact, the knowledge of some hackers were superior to the manufacturers and developers of the devices.. this is pretty much the norm anyway, so not a surprised there. There are even philes (text file) with official manuals of some devices, really really complicated ones, and some of the more elit ehackers have in fact made corrections to the official manual, and these would deal with complicated hardware issues.

So anyway, oh **** I just started a whole other topic now and forgot what I was talking about in the first place. Ok, enjoy this weekend. Or something.

[bipolarbear]

Just yesterday I was reading about a study in this journal of Social Psychology (I'll find the name it) about the evolution of online cultures specifically by looking at hacker culture. It was pretty spot on and their findings really reflected the larger web community. Anyway yeah I'll find the name of the journal b/c I think this would be right up your alley.

[Pekka]

bipolarbear, please do find the article, I can most likely fetch it from my office for free if it's a journal article. I would _really_ appreciate it if you could find it again and give me the name of it, if you could even find it today, it would be even better. I haven't read any articles about this, but it's an image you get when you read lots of these books and articles and connect the dots so.. I'd really like to read this article, especially if it's social psychology, because sometimes these more .. technically apt writers tend to write kind of crappy articles about hackers, mostly because they do not use valid frameworks or .. just the things they rely on are not valid in their respective fields such as social psychology. I mean, you don't want to be writing an article and then giving a view to it from .. mind control and then quote weird books that can never be taken seriously. That would be a bad idea .

[bipolarbear]

I would like to point out though that internet communication is limited somewhat to certain demographics of people. Those who have the time and resources to support an internet habit. So there is some degree of cultural homogeny amongst the emerging net culture. I'm sure that as things like the $100 laptop and wireless internet networks (now getting as large as city wide iirc) become more ubiquitous the net culture will grow increasingly diversified (and saturated with idiots).

[bipolarbear]

I'll probably be able to get the journal name within 24 hours. I just have to check into my Uni library.

[Pekka]

Sure. I won't argue against that. And there will never be a one big internet community, because you have these different groups that have the same interest or a reason to be in the same place, so they're forming their own cultures and ways of communication. Like the .. traditional computer underground, even though it's not segmented from scene to scene rigidly, they still are their own scenes with their own and I should point out, rather strict rules. So to an outsider, it really seems to be cryptic, you need to know the rules, it would be even better to be part of it to understand it.

One of my security points is that if you have security personnel and none of them have the hacker mindset, which means that you're curious and you want to play with stuff, you will never be able to meet their level, simply because you don't even have the same personal qualities that are required. So it's rather cat and mouse game than the old cold war type of setting. You need to understand it, you need to be able to develop and adapt so.. if you're isolated and angry at people, you're going to be a bad security person.

[Pekka]

bipolarbear, thanks, I'd really appreciate it. Not only do I just want to read it for myself, I'm returning a paper on Monday and I might use it a bit in my conclusion kind of bit to support my reasoning, that we need to understand the inside of hackers and their groups.

[bipolarbear]

That definitely makes sense. As I understand it, the hacker mindset is one of constant learning and curiosity, and as such it presents a persistent problem for those involved with security. Though iirc aren;t hackers and "ex" hackers being hired more often in security positions and to test out security systems?

As long as you're waiting for the journal name, there is a documentary you might like. It's kind of a basic history of hacking etc. but its called "The Secret History of Hacking"

http://www.jonhs.net/freemovies/secret_history_of_hacking.htm

[Pekka]

bipolarbear, the term hacker is definitely not settled yet or maybe it never will be. The meaning of the term has changed through times. Here's a short description, a lot of people actually are not aware of it somehow, even in the security business. The big picture that is.

The first hackers would be the .. ones in the late 50s and 60s who were playing with the mainframe computers at MIT. Back then, IBM had these big mainframe comptuers and they couldn't do much, but the point was, you couldn't even touch them. There were people, staff, and you'd give your paper input to them and you were definitely not touching the computer.

So then the computers got a bit smaller, like the size of few fridges maybe, and MIT and others got their own computers they could touch and use. Of course the history of these people dates back, working with things like AI, train systems etc. So, now it's the early 60s, few more Unis get some of these computers, but they're still expensive and big. What these hackers did, they wanted to find out what you can do with this thing. It was interesting, and this is when the hacker 'culture' started forming.

They'd stay up all nights (because they couldn't have access during the daytime, processing time was _expensive_). Up until this point computer science didnt' really exist and they weren't respected. They were "wasting their time". And it wasn't until the mid 70s when people realized the PC dream, when Steve Jobs and Woz came up with their first Apple computer. This dream was shared by few in the computer clubs, mostly in California. So these were computer hobbyists, mostly just outcasts who were wasting their time, right?

So they were really visionaries, and since computing, especially in the 60s was kind of .. taking baby steps, they had to program everything themselves, and I mean everything. So they had to share their code in order to advance. It only makes sense. Everyone just wanted to do things, so fi someone had a solution, they'd give it. It had no monetary value, but it had lots of other kind of value.

Even the lockpicking, popular amongst hackers, got the start from this era. If a computer would break down, you'd need tools. But tools were often behind locks. So. They'd become good at picking locks. None of these departments were safe from their mastery of the lockpicking, even though they got almost like military grade security locks and safes. Many of these people actually got licensed as .. key people, I don't know what that is in english.

So, it was all about freedom of this information, for the greater good. It was necessary. So then computers started becoming smaller, even this mainframe ones. There were time shared systems, but when you really had a system that many people could log on to, the hackers never really saw a reason to secure them. Why would they secure them?

So this is the old school. These are were the open source community started getting their roots from. Building stuff. No secrets.

So people call open source developers hackers, and rightfully so. But open source community doesn't want to have their reputation tarnished by hackers who break into systems. So we needed a new term for those people, so they'd be crackers.

However, crackers never really accepted the term cracker but continues to call themselves hackers. Some of them feel that the original crew sold out, forming Apple, Microsoft etc. That was what they were against with the IBM in the first place, and now they were huge money making businesses with lots of secrets, not sharing their knowledge, that could help to make better things.

This pretty much is the history of cryptography as well with few individual developers vs. NSA in the 70s.

So, then became the 80s, and now you have movies like the wargames. Now, the media gets in. Sensationalism over nothing, so all hackers get a bad name. You know, a world war could start. The hackers have the knowledge, thus they have the power, and of course they might just do it. I mean, they are the hackers, with dark powers and magical skills. Black magic, social outcasts with motivations no one knows, except that they're dangerous.

This all relates to things we don't understand, those things are dangerous. Tons of people weren't and still aren't technically apt, so what we don't know is dangerous. It's pretty simple, if you believe I can personally start a new world war if I wanted to... I'd be a very dangerous person, regardless of can I REALLY do it, or why would I do it, or who I really am. The posession of this knowledge, or the perception of someone possibly having this knowledge is too much for societies.

But hacker communities never were about starting world wars. Even malicious hacking today does not have those kinds of tendencies.

So fast forward to the 90s and today, the internet has made it possible, that a lot of kids can access computers and become pretty good with them fast. So, with all this media hype about hackers, I mean, who wouldn't want become one? It's a subculture of its own, it's about rebellion against the adult world, it's about curiosity, it's about lot of things, making discoveries, being accepted by that underground community as someone who knows his stuff.

Today you have all kinds of scenes and groups. Today, it's a complicated mess and mixture of things. But there really is no one way to just say what a hacker is. If we are talking about hackers who are intersted in security and spesifically bypassing it, even then we have different kinds of groups and people in it with similarities but still distinction is needed. So you need to know who you are dealing with.

Hackers have never respected institutions or entities of power. It's not about that. More likely these entities are oppresive by nature. They're telling you what not to do, what not to pursue, holding secrets, not interested in the best possible solution, inferior with their knowledge and just generally secretive.

So back to security auditing. Yeah, hackers are contracted to test the security. Usually though, these days, they are companies that do the audits. Try to break in. But these auditing companies usually have hackers in them. Or at least "ex" hackers . You don't want to have felonies on your record if you wish to work in the field, but you know.. if you aren't a hacker, at least in some level, I don't think that person is going to be a very succesful security person either. I think you need the same kind of drive, the same way of thinking, because it's about the outside the box thinking and that's what you really need. You need creativity and the brain power to be able to follow what's going on. You don't do that by "not wanting to know the enemy".

[Pekka]

Also, not to mention that these old school hackers did break into systems as well. Richard Stallman etc. Well they broke into their own systems and printed out all the passwords of users and just posted them on everywhere. But that was because they argued against the idea of it. I guess this is why Steven Levy calls Stallman the last true hacker.

So, and even before this, the MIT hackers did phone phreaking and a lot of it. OK, and phone phreaking was the most notorious stuff the 80s hackers did, the most notorious cases were in NYC with big media cases like the ones with Phiber Optik (Mark Aberne) and his crew, the Masters of Deception. They were areally big threat, right?

But they were really just kids. Exceptionally talented kids. And that's all. Really the opposite of dangerous. But they had the skills and they got fame and.. more fuel to the fire.

And you know if you read stuff online and there's like a person calling himself dArkSATaN and he says things like "I'll destroy your networks, I will " blaa blaa blaa. But it's just teenage posturing, nothing but jest really, it kind of belongs to the whole thing . Then you see the documentaries where this old dude with a long beard and weights 40 kilos with big glasses and his name is darksatan, you know.. not really .

[Pekka]

And you might ask, so that's all? Bunch of kids? Well, most of the times yes. So you need to know who you are dealing with. Becaust _today_ we do have malicious folks who get a kick out of shutting things down. We do actually have people who do want money, steal information and sell it. We do have contract hackers etc etc.

Then we have organized crime, and especially today we have possible cyberterrorism, we have info war on a state level, you know, the field has expanded a bit. My point is, we need to know who we are dealing with, so we can a) catch them and b) handle it correctly. If we get some 15 year old kid with exceptional talent, like I said, if it's up to me, I'll let them go and try to talk them into legal side of it. Make some money, have the same fun. If it's some malicious *******, using ready made tools and just attacking things and doesn't knwo what they're realyl doing, just let them get busted by who ever wants them.

If it's organized crime, it's another matter, and if it's cyberterrorism etc. it's a state matter. So you need to know who you are playing with, and in case of hackers, you need to make distinctions. They're all different cases. I'm saying it' s a great advantage to know this stuff intimately. if you don't, you won't be a success, I'm repeating it but most peopel aren't listening

[Ecthy]

Must be a replacement for therapy. If it helps equally, I don't know.

[Pekka]

bipolarbear, I've seen that before. It's a good show, it shows the overlapping relationships of Woz, Captain Crunch and Mitnick. It makes a good bridge, even though it only tells one side, but it stills shows how things are overlapping, and it reveals that the issues is complex.

[bipolarbear]

Ba news. They sent the journals off for binding first thing this morning. I checked every social psych journal that was left, but I couldn't find the article. Your best bet would be the journal Environment and Behavior from Sage Publications. But really I can't get a look at the journal until at least two weeks from now (more likely a month).

[ZEE]

i think we need a fresh perspective on this whole thing. this may have been stated already, but hacking, while still a "fun" thing to do by some, quite simply is not a very profitable venue. Spambots and Adbots and Spyware actually brings a profit to the said creater/company. That seems to be the new wave of things. piece