Reading 02: Hardware Hackers

An ethical debate between "True Hackers" and "Hardware Hackers" is not something I had in mind when I first heard each of the individual terms. Both groups were stereotypical nerds who abhorred sleep schedules, were "afraid of women", and simply loved all things tech. I did not think there could POSSIBLY be a divide between these two groups. After all, how much disagreement can there be over a 6-part ethical code dedicated to spreading awareness and practicality for computers? The answer may shock you.

"True Hackers" wanted to keep their ideas locked behind a certain barrier to entry, namely how they judged your ability and character. While I can understand this, I think that "Hardware Hackers" had a much more reasonable approach to the Hacker Ethic: make computers more accessible by any means necessary. By spreading access to computers beyond college club rooms, more people could slip past the elitism of computing that had existed in its prior form. In my opinion, this idea of free access to information and the Hands-On Imperative is entirely predicated on spreading technology as far as possible. However, the spread of technology is sadly much more nuanced than I would like it to be.

I was really inspired by Efrem Lipkin's philosophy in particular. As access to computers spread in the 70's, the simultaneous Vietnam War meant that a lot of hackers saw the true potential for computing on the battlefield. Efrem decided to abandon his comfy military-contractor job when he noticed it was only being used in "anti-personnel" tech for the war, something that a lot of computer scientists would struggle to do. He saw that technology could quickly become a tool of oppression, especially in the hands of a government with plenty of funding and motive like the United States. These uses directly challenged the 5th and 6th commandment of the Hacker Ethic that computers should change lives for the better with their art and beauty.

This leads me back to the nuance in spreading technology, especially in a modern age. The forefront of technological advancement is seen in labs and government contracts, specifically to be used in war. At the same time, a lot of this advancement is also returned to civilian life in a way that is genuinely to their benefit. For example, ARPANET was founded in 1969 by the DoD before evolving into the internet we know today. Even though it was born out of militant desires, the internet has become a cornerstone of the Hacker Ethic in helping spread information. It is a lot harder to see how something like drone strikes could eventually benefit the masses in civilian use, but not impossible. Should the Hacker Ethic limit these advancements?

This nuance has me conflicted. I believe that spreading the Hacker Ethic is noble, but abandoning your ideals to do so is not. When you turn your motivation from creation to profit, you can quickly lose your sight of the original vision of hacking. However, these lines are becoming more and more blurred by the year. I do not think I could definitively answer whether compromising on the Hacker Ethic is worth both the destruction and creation computers/technology have sired.