Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!NRL3.ARPA!bal%va.DECnet
From: bal%va.DECnet@NRL3.ARPA ("VA::BAL")
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: hackers
Message-ID: <8707241636.AA21123@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Fri, 24-Jul-87 10:17:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8707241636.AA21123
Posted: Fri Jul 24 10:17:00 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jul-87 14:33:17 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: "VA::BAL" 
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 45

Reply-To: bal%va.decnet@nrl.arpa
Full-Name: Brian A. LaMacchia
Address: Code 4771, Naval Research Laboratory
Address: 4555 Overlook Ave. SW, Washington, DC  20375-5000
Phone: (202) 767-3066


>>>Another thing: two people can agree completely on the definition of the
>>>term "hacker" (I suspect my definiton is rather close to Ralph's) and
>>>disagree on whether that's good or bad.  I don't admire hackers, if for
>>>no other reason than I think they work (actively or passively) to keep
>>>technology inaccessible.
 
>>THIS IS WRONG.  180 degrees off the mark.  Plain and simple.  Not only
>>are "hackers" (in the good, original sense) against inaccessibility and
>>security, they work to increase the free flow of information.  One of
>>the goals of the "hacker ethic" (as stated by Steve Levy in _Hackers_)
>>is precisely this.  

>Consider the following argument: by strenuously attempting to make
>technology (or data, or computing resources) more "accessible" by
>breaking into installations which do not wish to share such resources,
>crackers or munchers (a term in common use, at least at Caltech, for
>antisocial hackers) cause the personnel working at such institutions
>(and at the companies who supply software to them; e.g., DEC) to devote
>much time and energy to working on "security".  This a) diverts
>resources from productive work; and b) does indeed lessen the
>accessibility of technology.

But this is not the type of "hacker" that I was talking about.  While
"crackers/munchers" may indeed lead to increased time spent on
"security," real hackers will still open their files to those on the
system.  They may even allow other people to have access to the machine
through their own account, or may allocate them disk space, other
resources, etc.  The difference is that where a cracker breaks into
other systems to get at information, the hacker willingly opens his
files in the first place so that one doesn't need to "break in" to get
at that information.  Where a cracker looks for loopholes in system
security, the hacker encourages responsible attitutes toward computer
systems and data, so that "system security" is not necessary.

				--Brian LaMacchia
				  bal%va.decnet@nrl.arpa
				  balamac@athena.mit.edu
------