Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!CITHEX.CALTECH.EDU!carl
From: carl@CITHEX.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: hackers
Message-ID: <870724012654.05f@CitHex.Caltech.Edu>
Date: Fri, 24-Jul-87 04:32:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: CitHex.870724012654.05f
Posted: Fri Jul 24 04:32:12 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jul-87 12:30:42 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 21


 > >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.