Hackers Bring Ethics To Las Vegas (backchannel.com) 33
Steven Levy, who has been extensively covering the world of hackers for decades (fun fact: the first time he wrote about it, the word "hacker" didn't really mean much), is sharing the changing perception about hacker conferences, and hackers themselves. In a newsletter, Backchannel's Levy writes about Black Hat conference: What I find most striking in the coverage of these events is that they are no longer seen as outlaw gatherings, but rather conclaves that form a valuable portion of the digital security mosaic. This is a big change from the long period, beginning in the late 1980s, during which the term "hacker" became synonymous with malfeasants, punks, and criminals. The glorious originals -- people who invented just about everything great we do on computers, including the internet -- were outraged at the denigration of a word that was once a badge of honor. [...]
The hackers who attend those conferences are true to that ethic. There's a core morality to both events, built on privacy, equal access to systems, and personal freedom. There's indignation at poorly built systems. There's contempt at those who see computers and the internet as means of controlling people instead of seeing them as tools of liberation.
So who gets to decide what a hacker is in 2016? The question comes up constantly because the term retains some fuzziness. I'll put aside the unquestioned hacker status of coders and designers who innovate on products and private infrastructure. Blissfully, it's now OK for Silicon Valley geeks to proudly declare themselves hackers, the best example of which is Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's naming of his corporate philosophy as "The Hacker Way." But I'm wondering about those people who take the law into their own hands, sometimes not even taking care to limit collateral damage of innocent people. While true hackers generally don't wreak actual destruction, there are some who invade or even tamper with systems for what they consider moral purposes. Some call it hacktivism. Does that mean they are still hackers? That's tough to answer. Hacking into a system doesn't make you a hacker. Using a computer to steal a credit card or a Bitcoin doesn't do it, either. If you work for China and hack into Google; if you work for Russia and hack into the DNC; or if you work for the United States of America and plant a software time bomb in a nuclear centrifuge in Iran -- you are not necessarily a hacker.
The hackers who attend those conferences are true to that ethic. There's a core morality to both events, built on privacy, equal access to systems, and personal freedom. There's indignation at poorly built systems. There's contempt at those who see computers and the internet as means of controlling people instead of seeing them as tools of liberation.
So who gets to decide what a hacker is in 2016? The question comes up constantly because the term retains some fuzziness. I'll put aside the unquestioned hacker status of coders and designers who innovate on products and private infrastructure. Blissfully, it's now OK for Silicon Valley geeks to proudly declare themselves hackers, the best example of which is Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's naming of his corporate philosophy as "The Hacker Way." But I'm wondering about those people who take the law into their own hands, sometimes not even taking care to limit collateral damage of innocent people. While true hackers generally don't wreak actual destruction, there are some who invade or even tamper with systems for what they consider moral purposes. Some call it hacktivism. Does that mean they are still hackers? That's tough to answer. Hacking into a system doesn't make you a hacker. Using a computer to steal a credit card or a Bitcoin doesn't do it, either. If you work for China and hack into Google; if you work for Russia and hack into the DNC; or if you work for the United States of America and plant a software time bomb in a nuclear centrifuge in Iran -- you are not necessarily a hacker.
Just Trying To Get Laid. (Score:2)
Just like everyone else. Unethical humans bring unethics to unethical place. FTFY.
Malfesants (Score:1)
Black Hat (Score:5, Interesting)
Defcon on the other hand, which takes place immediately following (in a different hotel in Vegas), is very much about hacking, security, and has grown into so much more. In addition to the usual talks, panels, and parties, there's all sorts of hands on things to do. It's a lot of fun, and it costs roughly a tenth of what Black Hat or any similar corporate conferences do. About the only negative thing I have to say about it is that it's terribly crowded (but for good reasons).
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, yes, so very yes, the last several security events that I have been to have been nothing more than sales events
On the other hand, Defcon's organizers work diligently to keep things fresh while leveraging their unique heritage
As far as the term 'hackers' goes, why do you have to turn it into a be-all and end-all term?
A hacker is somebody who tinkers, tears things apart, figures them out and makes them work (sometimes in unexpected ways)
Somebody can be BOTH a hacker and a saint, or an asshole or even a c
Re: (Score:2)
They do... (Score:2, Funny)
But now everybody just points at everybody else :)
Pshaw. (Score:1)
DefCon was just Black Hat for the guys who hadn't reached the big leagues yet, then kind of spiraled into a hipster ghoul of its former self.
I can't remember the events before it that indicated it was heading that way, but the Dmitri(y?) Skylarov incident, followed by some pulled lectures after that were proof it had lost its way as a true hacker's convention. Most of the people going there are suit and tie 'penetration specialists' now, or n00bs and groupies trying to pretend they are l33t. The real guys t
Ethics?!? (Score:2)
I get the feel this article was written by someone who's never actually BEEN in Vegas during these conferences. It's not at all uncommon to encounter skimming hardware on ATMs and fake cell sites that try to exploit and brick your phone. The likelihood of seeing either of those any other week anywhere in Vegas is near-zero.
Ethics my ass. The general opinion of the locals is that if the Paris casino burned down during Defcon with all the exit doors mysteriously barred, nothing of value would be lost.
I bring ethics with me everywhere.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. Language prescriptivists always lose. It's simply the way language works. The French have been trying to encase their language in amber for some decades now, with little success. You may as well try to teach young people that "vinyl" is only used as a collective noun for records. They'll still say, "I bought a vinyl" or, "I have a bunch of vinyls", as retarded as that sounds to older people. "Hacker", and all other words, mean what the speaker intends them to mean, and what people understand t
Nothing wrong with stopping nuclear proliferation (Score:3, Insightful)
Hacker. The new terrorist. (Score:2)
"..if you work for Russia and hack into the DNC -- you are not necessarily a hacker."
You're right. Not a hacker. In this case you would probably be considered a terrorist.
Since DHS is considered classifying elections as critical infrastructure, there's probably more truth here than we care to believe.
that's the problem with defcon (Score:2)
What I find most striking in the coverage of these events is that they are no longer seen as outlaw gatherings
That is the problem with Defcon now. It's starting to feel more like work.