Our Contest Winners

In our Summer 1990 issue we published a bunch of negative letters that were written about hackers.  We invited our readers to come up with replies.  The winner would get a free lifetime subscription.  We got a pile of really good entries.  And when the dust cleared, we realized that we had two winners.  Unfortunately, neither of our winners did a very good job of identifying themselves.  So we have absolutely no idea where to send the subscriptions.  If you recognize your piece below, contact us and think of some way to validate your identity.

Entry Number One

by TELEgodzilla

I found the Summer 1990 issue very intriguing - particularly the section dealing with the other point of view against those who attempt to learn more about systems.  As I was reading these letters of anger, shame, and disgust, I was struck by how similar this situation is to what Dr. Richard Feynman experienced during the development of the first atomic bomb.

In the book, Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, there is a chapter relating how Dr. Feynman was able to crack open U.S. Army safes which held the plans and makings of the then being developed atomic bomb in Los Alamos (chapter entitled "Safecracker Meets Safecracker," pages 119 to 137, Bantam Books).  Feynman had discovered, after speaking with a safecracker, how most safe factories give a standard assigned combination number to safes, instructing the buyer to reset the locks.  Most buyers, however, didn't bother reassigning their safes with new combinations, failing to realize that the standard assigned number was just that - a standard assigned number for all safes then being made.  What Feynman did was go around and open the Army's safes within the Los Alamos compound (he was able to open one out of every five) with little trouble for nobody had thought of bothering to change the combinations after the safes arrived from the factory!

How was Feynman treated?  With respect and understanding?  On the contrary - he was nearly thrown out!  Did the Army change the safe combinations?  Sure - eventually, but not until after several months into the project.

So you ask yourself - what the hell was Feynman doing?  Couldn't he just leave well enough alone?

No; Feynman had a curiosity - the very same curiosity which led him to develop new and better understandings of the atomic sub-structure led him also to find ways in which to open up Army safes.

This is the crux of the argument and controversy surrounding hackers: people are naturally curious.  Trying to stop this curiosity from enveloping the world around us is akin to trying to stop a mountain of water.  Even if we did, it'd only bring about more trouble (besides developing new and wild forms of nervous neurosis), for man is differentiated from animals on many points - and chief among these points, curiosity rules the pack.

It's fascinating, but none of these letters spoke of harnessing the very same curiosity and drive toward protecting their systems.  Instead, we all merrily throw things about, rant and rave about how terrible it is for people to go "walking through their house" without stopping and considering how to find out ways of positively utilizing the skills and powers of those capable of doing so.

But an even more important point not being raised throughout any of these discussions is the fact that perhaps privacy is nearly dead - and it ain't by those "kids."

When you stop and consider how many files the U.S. government has on each person - whether you're in the armed forces, receiving or have received a college loan, possess a driver's license, hold a Social Security card, maintain a farm or a grocery store, pay taxes on a regular basis, etc. - the fact of the matter is that there are bigger and more nasty people who rummage through your house on a regular basis - and you don't even realize it!

Protection of our credit records is probably one of the greatest non-issues today.  TRW or Dun & Bradstreet regularly sell information on your credit status and income standing to corporations which seek only to find new markets to sell their products.  It's a point of rule that every time you receive junk mail, somebody accessed your credit records.

And we're worried about punk kids taking a walk through telephone companies to get information that they could receive by the mail for $13 - as the Craig Neidorf case proved?

Somehow the real criminals are getting away scot-free.

I respect people who take the time and effort to find ways into computer systems, for we all learn much from it; it keeps us on our toes.  And in this apathetic society I also feel better when I know that there are people who do care about the world around themselves and take the time and risks upon themselves to learn more.

That's not only curiosity, that's entrepreneurship.  Equality is never something given; it is only achieved and maintained through diligence and persistence.  Having information hidden away is anathema to democratic freedoms.  Seeking out information makes us grow and become more competitive on the world market; this is what makes our country great.

As a professional operative, I think many of these people would be mildly shocked if they found out to what extent and degree private and public institutions employ people such as myself, and how much information is constantly available on the average citizen.

I have little regard for those who brand "hackers" as threats for no other reason than for their impassioned curiosity.  Grow up yourself!  This is a bigger world than you realize and, as a professional, I frankly find this talk of anger to be utterly misdirected and somewhat naive.  Attack TRW, Exxon, the Republican Party...  Any corporation - public or private - possessing of multi-faceted interests is inevitably going to have some sort of computer system and with that system are those who are going to make sure that it works - even if that system is meant to take information about your checking account, car insurance payments, psychiatric care, or even if you had recently purchased any Elvis records!

It is not surprising that the majority of these hackers are young.  We should come (and pray) to expect more of these individuals to arrive into prominence, for we are a country that is losing touch with its people, most particularly its youth.  Here we stand, bitterly complaining how many youths cannot read a map (much less actually read) and yet we have those able to discover new means of accessing information which even the so-called "experts" never realized existed!

We are punishing talent that this country desperately needs, rather than reaching out to exhort this raw and excellent energy into new and vital means beneficial to all - particularly those who possess this great inner strength.

No, don't go for the kids who rummage through your garbage; go for the faceless professional bastards who keep and maintain a detailed profile on you so that they can sell you watches, cars, beer, and, yes, political issues.  For it is they - those who maintain those giant mainframes without even bothering to think about the consequences (as well as those who rule) that we should be watching.

The child who discovers that the emperor is nude should never be punished.  It's time that we start noticing these little details.

Entry Number Two

by Anonymous

I'm a hacker.  I worship the computer and the endless possibilities it poses.  I see programming as an art, and I was born to explore.  When I sit down at my computer to do something, I don't debate in my: mind whether or not what I'm doing is illegal or unethical.  I just do it.  The computer is a medium which is so immediately explorable, with a scope so infinite and a depth so limitless that it makes "just doing it" extremely feasible.

That being the case, there is more to a computer than programming, and those with an insatiable instinct to learn and know easily assimilate themselves into the abundantly different aspects of the computer world and, inevitably, into aspects associated with underground activity.  This type of person, the hacker, does not think in terms of right or wrong, as the definition of these terms depends on how you look at life in general.

The means is the ends, and the ends justify the means.  Columbus was a hacker.  He explored new worlds because they were there.  He didn't stop to wonder what effect his discovering the New World would have on the Native Americans.  He just did it.   Leonardo da Vinci was a hacker.  He explored the human body, among other things.  In his time, it was forbidden by the church to dissect dead bodies to find out what made a human tick, but he couldn't care less what the church had to say about it.  He had a desire to know, so he just did it.

Humanity has a history of wanting to know and this desire to know sometimes leads to questionable means.  Questionable, depending on how you look at it.  If it wasn't for the hackers of different sorts throughout history, where would humanity be now?  Although we probably wouldn't still be dressed in animal skins if people had always remained complacent to those in authority and shied away from those things that we "weren't supposed to do," we wouldn't be as nearly advanced a civilization as we are today.

It's because of those people who dared to know and had the desire to understand the world around them that we are at the point in history we are today.  We owe a lot to hackers.

Although I'm not a gung-ho systems hacker, I've done enough to understand the thrill and relish the challenge.  I was once under surveillance by the phone company for "being where I shouldn't have been," so I feel I'm at least that much more qualified to comment on this subject than your average Joe computer user.  It's called experience, and that's something I have a fair amount of due to that peculiar instinct we all have inside of us called "hacking."

Some people believe that when you hack you are going somewhere you do not belong and equate this to breaking into someone's home.  This is a stupid analogy that is much overused.  Hacking is a game as much as life is a game.  If you choose to play, you accept the risks associated with it.  If you win, you win, and if you lose, you lose.  What are the rules?  What are your rules?  You play the game as you wish and you deal with the consequences as they come, and only your conscience and personal integrity dictate where the game leads.

Scenario #1:  You break into a house and you start looking around for something interesting that will tell you about the owner.  Many things can happen at this point, one thing being the owner of the house wakes up and finds you rummaging through his file cabinet, whereupon he pulls out a .357 magnum and blows a two-inch hole through your chest and you die.

You can see how the analogy between hacking into a system and breaking into someone's house doesn't hold up too well when you really put any thought into it.  When someone goes through the trouble of breaking into a home it is usually for malicious intent (i.e., to burglarize, rape, etc.) and rarely just to dig through personal files (which is not the definition of hacking anyhow).

Hacking is something you do casually in the comfort of your own home.  With the majority of hackers, there is little likelihood of any intent to do harm, but rather an innate curiosity.  Can the same be said of a burglar or a rapist walking into an unlocked home?  Someone breaking into a residence usually has premeditated a crime.  A hacker is merely exploring.

If, in the process of exploring, a very tempting bit of information is found, the hacker must make a decision: does he download the file or leave it be?  If you go to buy a newspaper from a machine and find that the last person to purchase a copy left the door open, do you take a copy without paying for it?  Nobody would probably ever know if you did or not, so the question comes down to your personal ethics.  Do you take it or leave it?  What are your rules?

Scenario #2:  This strange system you've just hacked into turns out to belong to one of those mailing list companies that sells your personal information to those annoying sweepstakes and mail order firms.  Is it alright for them to sell your personal information and for you to be looking around in their files?  Is it wrong for them to be selling your personal information as well as for you to be looking around in their files?  Neither?  Either?  Both?  What are your rules?  They're making money, which they enjoy, and you're learning the system, which you enjoy.  Are they wrong for wanting to make money?  Are you wrong for wanting to learn?  What are your rules?

Now let's say you've done something particularly heinous, such as broken into a BellSouth computer system and heisted some file called something like "E911 Overview" which is purported to be worth around $79,449 (actually, $13 with a $79,436 legal fee).  Eventually the all-powerful and all-knowing Secret Service, that institution of unfathomable intelligence, tracks you down and decides to smite thee and all in your path with its mighty wrath.  Well, now you've been caught.  You played the game and landed on "Go to Jail," and you ain't passing go, baby.  You took the risks and lost... but the game is more complicated than that.

Since we all have to participate in this game whether we like it or not, it is necessary to explore the effects of this broad-scoped action taken by the very government institution which we entrust to protect our God-given rights.  The minute details cannot be ignored, as they are the scariest and speak the loudest in terms of criminality and injustice.  Yes, even more so than that evil 19-year-old punk with the ego.

This treasure dubbed the "E911 Overview" makes its way through numerous systems via a network, unbeknownst to the owner of each particular system.  The SS (Storm Troopers), while tracing this document's trail, come across one system that the document made its way through.  To them, it's obvious that this system was involved in this plot to disable the emergency phone system and lead to the downfall of the government, the country, the world, and then eventually life itself.  So they see no problem with confiscating this system and everything else that looks suspicious inside the abode where it dwells: the disks, notes, books, magazines, music tapes, stereo, TV, lamp.  No, not even the toaster is immune from this rampage.  Hey, it's got a cord on it; it must be involved in this devious scheme somehow!

Maybe the person being stripped of all his possessions and dignity at this moment, who in all likelihood is being physically restrained by four men in dark sunglasses, his poor mother in handcuffs with a double-barreled shotgun pointed at her head (she just might try something, you know) is some undiscovered super-genius who has developed a method of encoding data on toast.  They want to check those bread crumbs at the bottom just in case.

Scenario #3:  Someone who has just burglarized a home runs through your yard as he attempts his getaway.  The cops trace his trail through your yard.  Are you now guilty by association?  Do the cops rampage into your house with destructive force, confiscate all your possessions and terrorize you and your family members to gather evidence that proves that your neighbor's house had been burglarized?  No.  Is this analogy more suitable than the one so commonly overused by those who have little or no understanding of what hacking is?  Yes.

Instead of being frightened by tall tales of hackers invading your privacy and taking over satellite transmissions and shutting down emergency phone systems, etc., I'm scared shitless over the fact that the government can kick my door in and take away my beloved computer because one day I called a bulletin board system that happened to be under surveillance for some random reason, or someone uploaded some sort of file to my bulletin board that I had no knowledge of.  This can and has happened to innocent, unsuspecting people whose only crime was wanting to communicate with other computer users or download a public domain game.

Scenario #4:  Joe Computeruser calls The Gates of Eliteness BBS one day hoping to get help on how to use his new spreadsheet package that he paid a large and legal sum of money for.  He applies for an account and, as a result, his real name, age, address, and phone number (information that is required to gain access) are now stored in the BBS' user files.  The sysop, Mr. Cool Joe Hacker, did something viciously maligned and has come under the scrutiny of the U.S. Government.  His computer and all his files (and TVs, stereos, lamps, etc.) are confiscated, including the personal information of Joe Computeruser and countless other people who have accounts on the system.  Joe Computeruser is now implicated in the investigation for collaborating in Mr. Cool Joe Hacker's exploits, along with the rest of the users on his BBS system, and is put under surveillance, even though he was calling for a most wholesome and legitimate reason.  You don't think so, huh?  Well, ignorance is bliss.

The government needs watching, not hackers.  If hackers led the world, there wouldn't be half a million American troops in Saudi Arabia.  Hackers don't send your sons and daughters to their deaths.  The U.S. government does.  While I cannot totally say "do not fear the hacker," I can say "fear the government."

After all is said and done, there is a limit.  If a system exists that houses information, and you were not meant to be able to peruse that information then you do not have a constitutional right to be inside that system.  But that's not to say that you won't go ahead and try to get into that system anyway.  That's the choice you make, the rules of your game.  There is such a thing as private property.  That's one of the fundamental foundations our country is based upon.

To use the argument that you have the right to be inside the computer systems of certain agencies gathering enormous amounts of information about you without your knowing, and to include in that argument that you have the right to be inside the computer systems of any private agency, company, etc. that houses information of any kind is not only entirely wrong, but stupid. But again, it all depends on the way the rules of your game are defined, the extent of your personal integrity, how screwed over you've ever been, and the way you look at life in general.

Since there will always be hackers, and there will always be those who think they have the right to be inside any system, the ultimate and unwavering responsibility lies on the owner of the system.  If you don't make it secure enough, although you're not asking for someone to break into it (who would be?), you've got to realize that not everyone out there gives a shit, and by golly, if they want to hack into your system and they can, well then that's just what they're going to do.  And that means that you overlooked something that you shouldn't have.

That's life.  That's the game.