Смекни!
smekni.com

Hackers Essay Research Paper The Computer UndergroundThe (стр. 1 из 2)

Hackers Essay, Research Paper

The Computer Underground.

The beginning of the electronic communication revolution

that started with the public use of telephones to the emergence

of home computers has been accompanied by corresponding social

problems involving the activities of so-called “computer

hackers,” or better referred to as the computer underground (CU).

The CU is composed of computer aficionados who stay on the

fringes of legality. The CU is composed of relatively intelligent

people, in contrast to the media’s description of the ultra

intelligent and sophisticated teenage “hacker.” The majority have

in common the belief that information should be free and that

they have “a right to know.” They often have some amount of

dislike for the government and the industries who try to

control and commercialize information of any sort. This paper

attempts to expose what the CU truly is and dispel some of the

myths propagated by the media and other organizations. This paper

also tries to show the processes and reasons behind the

criminalization of the CU and how the CU is viewed by different

organizations, as well as some of the processes by which it came

into being. What the CU is has been addressed by the media,

criminologists, secuity firms, and the CU themselves, they all

have a different understanding or levels of comprehention, this

paper attempts to show the differences between the views as well

as attempt to correct misunderstandings that may have been

propagated by misinformed sources. The differences between the

parties of the CU such as, “hackers,” “crackers,” “phreaks,”

“pirates,” and virus writers have rarely been recognized and some

deny that there are differences thus this paper attempts to give

a somewhat clearer view and define exactly what each party is

and does as well as how they relate to one another.

Every individual in the CU has a different level of

sophistication when it comes to computers, from the height of the

advanced virus writer and network hacker to the pirate who can be

at the same level as a novice computer user. The prevalence of

the problem has been dramatized by the media and enforcement

agents, and evidenced by the rise of specialized private security

firms to confront the “hackers.” The average person’s knowledge

about the CU has been derived mostly from the media. The media

gets their information from former CU individuals who have been

caught, from law enforcement agents, and from computer security

specialists. The computer underground, as it is called by those

who participate in it, is composed of people adhering to one or

several roles: “hacker,” “phreaker,” “pirate,” “cracker,” and

computer virus developer. Terms such as these have different

meanings for those who have written about the computer

underground, such as the media, and those who participate in it.

The media’s concept of the Computer Underground is the main

cause of the criminalization of the activity and has largely

occurred as the result of media dramatization of the “problem”

(Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce, 1988). In fact, it was a

collection of newspaper and film clips that was presented to the

United States Congress during legislative debates as evidence of

the computer hacking problem (Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce, 1988,

p.107). Unfortunately, the media assessment of the computer

underground displays a naive understanding of CU activity. The

media generally makes little distinction between different types

of CU activity. Most any computer- related crime activity can be

attributed to “hackers.” Everything from embezzlement to computer

viruses have, at one time or another, been attributed to them.

Additionally, hackers are often described as being sociopathic or

malicious, creating a media image of the computer underground

that may exaggerate their ability for doing damage. The labeling

of the CU and especially hackers as being “evil” is well

illustrated by these media examples. The first is from Eddie

Schwartz, a WGN-Radio talk show host.

Here Schwartz is addressing “Anna,” a self-identified hacker

that has phoned into the show: You know what Anna, you know what

disturbs me? You don’t sound like a stupid person but you

represent a . . . a . . . a . . . lack of morality that

disturbs me greatly. You really do. I think you represent a

certain way of thinking that is morally bankrupt. And I’m not

trying to offend you, but I . . .I’m offended by you! (WGN Radio,

1988)

Another example is from NBC-TV’s “Hour Magazine” featured a

segment on “computer crime.” In this example, Jay Bloombecker,

director of the National Center for Computer Crime Data,

discusses the “hacker problem” with the host of the show, Gary

Collins.

Collins: . . . are they (hackers) malicious in intent, or

are they simply out to prove, ah, a certain machismo amongst

their peers? Bloombecker: I think so. I’ve talked about “modem

macho” as one explanation for what’s being done. And a lot of the

cases seem to involve proving that he . . . can do something

really spiffy with computers. But, some of the cases are so evil,

like causing so many computers to break, they can’t look at that

as just trying to prove that you’re better than other people. GC:

So that’s just some of it, some kind of “bet” against the

computer industry, or against the company. JB: No, I think it’s

more than just rottenness. And like someone who uses graffiti

doesn’t care too much whose building it is, they just want to

be destructive.

GC: You’re talking about a sociopath in control of a

computer! JB: Ah, lots of computers, because there’s thousands,

or tens of thousands of hackers. (NBC-TV, 1988)

The media’s obsession with the computer underground, that is

generally labeled as hacking, focuses almost entirely upon the

morality of their actions. Since media stories are taken from the

accounts of the police, security personnel, and members of the

computer underground who have been caught, each of whom have

different perspectives and 20 definitions of their own, the

media’s definition, if not inherently biased, is at best

inconsistent.

Criminologists, are less judgmental than the media, but no

more precise. Labels of “electronic trespassers”(Parker, 1983),

and “electronic vandals” (Bequai, 1987) have both been applied to

the CU’s hacking element specifically. Both terms, while

acknowledging that “hacking” is deviant, shy away from labeling

it as “criminal” or sociopathic behavior. Yet despite this

seemingly non-judgmental approach to the computer underground,

both Parker and Bequai have testified before Congress, on

behalf of the computer security industry, on the “danger” of

computer hackers. Unfortunately, their “expert” testimony was

largely based on information culled from newspaper stories, the

objectiveness of which has been seriously questioned (Hollinger

and Lanza-Kaduce 1988 p.105).

Computer security specialists, on the other hand, are often

quick to identify the CU as criminals. Similarly, some reject the

notion that there are different roles and motivations among the

computer underground participants and thereby refuse to define

just what it is that a “hacker” or “phreaker” does. John

Maxfield, a “hacker expert,” suggests that differentiating

between “hackers” and “phone phreaks” is a moot point, preferring

instead that they all just be called “criminals.” The reluctance

or inability to differentiate between roles and activities in the

computer underground, as exhibited in the media and computer

security firms, creates an ambiguous definition of “hacker” that

possesses two extremes: the modern-day bank robber at one end,

the trespassing teenager at the other. Thus, most any criminal

or mischievous act that involves computers can be attributed to

“hackers,” regardless of the nature of the crime.

Participants in the computer underground also object the

overuse and misuse of the word hacking. Their objection centers

around the indiscriminate use of the word to refer to computer

related crime in general and not, specifically, the activities of

the computer underground: Whenever the slightest little thing

happens involving computer security, or the breach thereof, the

media goes *censored*ing bat*censored* and points all their fingers at us

‘nasty hackers.’ They’re so damned ignorant it’s sick (EN,

message log, 1988). . . . whenever the media happens upon

anything that involves malicious computer use it’s the “HACKERS.”

The wor

card.” What someone should do is tell the *censored*en media to get it

straight (TP2, message log, 1988).

The difference between the different elements of the

computer underground has been generally obscured by the media.

Terms such as Cracker, Phreaker, Pirate, or Virus writer have

been generally replaced with the all encompassing word “HACKER”.

Each element is associated with the computer underground and some

are bigger players than others but none of them can qualify

individually as the total sum of all the elements. There are

major differences between the elements of the CU that is rarely

understood by someone on the outside.

The use of the word “hacker”, which is now generally

accepted to be part of the CU, has gone through drastic changes

in definition. “Hacker” was first applied to computer

related activities when it was used by programmers in the late

1950’s. At that time it referred to the pioneering researchers,

such as those at M.I.T., who were constantly adjusting and

experimenting with the new technology (Levy, 1984. p.7). A

“hacker” in this context refers to an unorthodox, yet talented,

professional programmer. This use of the term still exits today,

though it is largely limited to professional computing circles.

The computer professionals maintain that using “hackers” (or

“hacking”) to refer to any illegal or illicit activity is a

corruption of the “true” meaning of the word. Bob Bickford, a

professional programmer who has organized several programmer

conferences, explains:

At a conference called “Hackers 4.0″ we had 200 of the most

brilliant computer professionals in the world together for one

weekend; this crowd included several PhD’s, several presidents of

companies (including large companies, such as Pixar), and

various artists, writers, engineers, and programmers. These

people all consider themselves Hackers: all derive great joy from

their work, from finding ways around problems and limits, from

creating rather than destroying. It would be a great disservice

to these people, and the thousands of professionals like them, to

let some pathetic teenaged criminals destroy the one word which

captures their style of interaction with the universe. (Bickford,

1988).

The more widely accepted definition of “hacker” refers to one who

obtains unauthorized, if not illegal, access to computer systems

and networks. This definition was popularized by the movie War

Games and, generally speaking, is the one used by the media. It

is also the definition favored by the computer underground. Both

the members of the computer underground and professional

computer programmers claim ownership of “hacker,” and each defend

the “proper” use of term. However, since computer break-ins are

likely to receive more media attention than clever feats of

programming, the CU definition is likely to dominate simply by

being used more often.

A “computer hacker” could be defined as an individual,

associated with the computer underground, who specializes in

obtaining unauthorize access to computer systems. “Hacking”

refers to gaining access and exploring computer systems and

networks. “Hacking” encompasses both the act and the methods used

to obtain valid user accounts on computer systems. “Hacking” also

refers to the activity that occurs once access to another

computer has been obtained. Since the system is being used

without authorization, the hacker does not, generally speaking,

have access to the usual operating manuals and other resources

that are available to legitimate users. Therefore, the hacker

must experiment with commands and explore various files in order

to understand and effectively use the system. The goal here is to

explore and experiment with the system that has been entered. By

examining files and, perhaps, by a little clever programming, the

hacker may be able to obtain protected information or more

powerful access privileges. Once a hacker has managed to gain

access to a computer system he will generally try make sure that

his activities are hidden so that he can keep access on the

system. This is the difference between hacker and cracker. Unlike

the hacker a cracker is only really interested in “cracking” the

machine/system and once the feat is accomplished he is generally

disinterested and leaves, he could be called the tourist of

the hacking element. (Bill Landreth, Outside the Inner Circle)

Another role in the computer underground is that of the

“phone phreak.” Phone phreaking, usually called just “phreaking,”

was widely publicized when the exploits of John “Cap’n Crunch”

Draper, the “father of phreaking,” were publicized in a 1971

Esquire magazine article. The term “phreaking” encompasses

several different means of getting around the billing mechanisms

of telephone companies. By using these methods, long distance

phone calls can be placed without cost. In ma y cases the

methods also prevent, or at least inhibit, the possibility of

calls being traced to their source thereby helping the phreaker

to avoid being caught. Early phreaking methods involved electro-

mechanical devices that generated key tones, or altered line

voltages in certain ways as to trick the mechanical switches of

the phone company into connecting calls without charging. This

method of phreaking is generally called “(color) boxing,” where

the type of box is referred to by a color such as “blue boxing.”

However the advent of computerized telephone-switching systems

largely made these devices obsolete. In order to continue their

practice the phreaks have had to learn hacking skills. Phreaking

and hacking have just recently merged, because now, the telephone

companies are using computers to operate their network. So, in

order to learn more about these computers in relation to the

network, phreaks have learned hacking skills, and can now

program, and get around inside the machines (AF, message log,

1988).

For most members of the computer underground, phreaking is

simply a tool that allows them to call long distance without

amassing enormous phone bills. Because the two activities are so

closely related, with phreakers learning hacking skills and

hackers breaking into “telco” computers, reference is usually

made to phreak/hacking or p/hackers.” Those who have a deeper

and more technically oriented interest in the “telco” (telephone

company) are known as phreakers. They, like the hackers discussed

earlier, desire to master and explore a system that few outsiders

really understand: The phone system is the most interesting,

fascinating thing that I know of. There is so much to know. Even

phreaks have their own areas of knowledge. There is so much to

know that one phreak could know something fairly important and

the next phreak not. The next phreak might know ten things that

the first phreak doesn’t though. It all depends upon where and

how they get their info. I myself would like to work for the

telco, doing something interesting, like programming a switch.

Something that isn’t slave labor bull*censored*. Something that you

enjoy, but have to take risks in order to participate unless you

are lucky enough to work for the telco. To have access

to telco things, manuals, etc would be great (DP, message log,

1988).

Phreaking involves having the dedication to commit yourself

to learning as much about the phone system/network as possible.

Since most of this information is not made public, phreaks have

to resort to legally questionable means to obtain the knowledge