Hackers as Knights

infoterror

Member
Apr 17, 2005
1,191
2
38
In any society, there will be those who need rules to tell them the obvious.
"Thou shalt not kill" reflects the tendency of most people to be unable to tell
the difference between a justifiable killing and one that is not. All killings
appear the same, just like all computer break-ins have the same appearance, thus
are dubbed "unethical" and "illegal".

Life is not as simple as it seems. When an individual reaches a certain stage
of proficiency, he or she either gets sidetracked by quick gratification, such
as theft, or rises to a higher proficiency because the love of learning and joy
in the powers granted by it drives them forward. Such is the case with hacking,
where those who have learned a few trivial skills become destructive, but those
who are constantly reverent toward their task become constructive, even if they
must use some destruction toward that end.

Some try to divide the hacking community by ethics, as in "white hat"
(ethical) and "black hat" (criminal) hackers, but the reality is that there is
another category for those who hack because they appreciate technology and like
pushing it to do things that otherwise could not be done. They do not get
sidetracked by appearance such as theft or vandalism, but use technology toward
the end of making technology better.

This is comparable to the state of a knight in ancient cultures. The knight
was above all laws made for normal people, as he was trusted to do what was
right according to the whole of civilization and nature, even if it meant that
some unfortunate would be deprived of life, liberty or happiness. The knight did
what was necessary to push his surroundings toward a higher state of order,
avoiding the entropy caused by those who were doomed to the world of appearance
and could thus see only binaries: living/dying, money/poverty, right/wrong. The
knight transcended these boundaries and "hacked" his surroundings by pushing
them to do things that otherwise could not be done, replacing previous designs
with better ones.

Design and logical structure are the "hidden world" in which hackers,
philosophers, artists and knights operate. The world of appearance deals with
physical objects, but not the underlying structure which connects them.
Similarly, users see the appearance which computers are programmed to show them,
but have no idea of the workings of networks and operating systems. A knight
must know how to manipulate this hidden world, and must have the moral strength
to be destructive only when it is constructive to do so.

Hacking today is far different than it was twenty years ago. During the
formative days of hacker culture, computing resources were scarce. Most people
used 1-10 MHz machines and could not get access to the instructive operating
systems like UNIX and VMS unless they hacked into larger machines for that
access. Today, desktop UNIX-like operating systems are plentiful, and network
access is a nominal monthly fee. One reason that hacking has appeared to
stagnate is that it has not re-invented itself to address this new reality.

When most people think of "hackers," they imagine the black hat criminal
element that steals credit cards and identities. White hat hackers have become
like adult chaperones at a teenage sex party, wagging disapproving fingers but
having little overall effect. Since it is no longer necessary to hack machines
for access, hacking must redefine itself according to its core principle:
understanding the structure behind the appearances of computing, and to like a
good knight, always reinvent the design of the underlying layers so that
technology and society move toward higher degrees of organization.

In this capacity hackers are a hedge against entropy, or the state of disorder
that occurs over time and is exacerbated by people acting on appearance as if it
were structure, causing them to manipulate form but not function. Most human
technologies are flawed and operate poorly, subjecting the user to untold
problems, much as governments and ideas are flawed and cause similar confusions.
The hacker of today must unite philosophy, computing and politics in a quest to
find better orders and to defeat entropy by understanding how things work, and
not what pleasing appearances will sell to a credulous consumer base.

Hackers as knights represent a potential force of change in our society. We
can see where technology could be organized better, so that without inventing a
new type of computer we can make older computers better; hackers can prank
society to point out its illusions and contradictions. Because we have the
skills to do this, we are necessarily above the law, and must use that status to
achieve the kind of reordering of civilization that normal people cannot. Should
we choose to accept the role with all of its responsibilities, we are the
knights who can redesign industrial society into something that serves humans
instead of imprisoning them in a world of appearance.

http://digzine.com/issues/4/dig4.txt
 
Perhaps you're glorifying hackers a little much? Years ago, hackers in the computer world were much like math students whose primary interest was problem solving. Gaining access to a remote system via unorthodox means was thrilling in-and-of-itself; it was never about exploitation, though they did indirectly inspire fear in the business world as computing became more and more ubiquitous.

Now-a-days, they're much more malicious and perhaps a little more oblivious to computing fundamentals, as their intentions are not motivated by knowledge and learning. Problem solving to these types are obstacles they'd much rather avoid; creating havoc and making a buck seem to be what they're all about.

I should also mention that most of the hacking is in the form of "social engineering" .. for example, gaining access from behind a telephone by tricking a person into divulging private information, than anything that is specfically software or computer related.

All and all, hackers do not equate to knights very well..
 
judas69 said:
Now-a-days, they're much more malicious and perhaps a little more oblivious to computing fundamentals, as their intentions are not motivated by knowledge and learning.

Exactly. But we're taking hacking back. FUCK those people :)
 
LRD philosophy is often long winded, the key is to make every sentence count and ignore the extraneous. That post was not "long-ass" and it certainly could not have been shortened into your suggestion.
 
Final_Product said:
LRD philosophy is often long winded, the key is to make every sentence count and ignore the extraneous. That post was not "long-ass" and it certainly could not have been shortened into your suggestion.
i'm not actually complaining about the lengthy-ness of philosophy, what i'm suggesting is that the first post be short-ER than the lengthy-ness of the other posts because i think that the way this (or any other) forum is set up, the first post (on a philosophical topic) should be the shortest one, just simply asking a question and then having the others try to give a "philosophical" answer and i had totally assumed that this is what i would see when i first saw the word "philosopher" attached to the word "forum"
 
If something can be summed up in a sentence or two that is great, but sometimes people just think what you're saying is senseless if you haven't further explained.
 
Norsemaiden said:
If something can be summed up in a sentence or two that is great, but sometimes people just think what you're saying is senseless if you haven't further explained.
like when your one-sentance response includes the name of someone that's supposedly famous but none of the people on the forum have any fucking idea who the hell the supposedly famous person is so that your one sentance doesn't make any fucking sense
 
You don't mean I did that!
About hackers: hackers in the Moslem states would like to wage a war through hacking. I'm surprised it is taking so long. Is it so difficult?
 
no i totally agree with Lord Red Drag (on this non-philosophical matter, might i add). The point of a forum isn't to present a small essay to no one who asked for it.

Regarding the first post, "Thou shalt not kill" DOES NOT reflect the tendency of most people to be unable to tell the difference between a justifiable killing and one that is not. It MAY HAVE at the time it was written, but something non-current could only coincidentally reflect another thing if it did happen to do so.
I believe the majority of people (in my society) are able to differentiate between a non-justifiable and a justifiable killing, although this difference is subjective in itself.
 
infoterror said:
The knight did what was necessary to push his surroundings toward a higher state of order, avoiding the entropy caused by those who were doomed to the world of appearance and could thus see only binaries: living/dying, money/poverty, right/wrong. The knight transcended these boundaries and "hacked" his surroundings by pushing them to do things that otherwise could not be done, replacing previous designs with better ones.

Again the typical glorification of the past, which is an idealisation and not reality.