The file you're about to read does not have any real purpose.  It is
purely speculatory, and based on my beliefs, and my beliefs alone.  They
reflect what most people would consider "the hacker ethic."  There have
been many files on this, and many "inspirational" files on this, The
Mentors Words being the most infamous of all.  This is meant to be
inspiration.  This is not meant to be anything.  Just a reflection of how
I wish all hacker's viewed the world, the computers they compromise, and
the sysop's they beat in their own game, in the ongoing game of I hack
you, you prosecute me.  First, I'd like to show you something I recently
read in a book.  Credit to the authors, whoever they may be, and if you
know this book, I urge you to get a copy.  Excerpt:

	There's a nearly blind hacker, you can tell that his eyes don't focus
because they aren't even the same size, aren't even open the same amount.
He walks up to any dark shape he sees, and isses a greeting: "Are you new
here?  I don't remember you from last month."  Maniac, a supremely wan
ponytailed hacker from Brooklyn who wears thick black wraparound lenses
for privacy, skulks the perimeter, swathed in a long coat.  Razor, an
ebullient fourteen-your-old who social skills are remarkable in this group
simply because they exist, flits from hacker to hacker, shaking hands,
introducing himself, beaming a jowly grin.  The Twithing Hacker, the
nervous one who used to have a whole list of questions for Mark on topics
like why the tone skipped a click when you dialed a 9, looks a little
forlorn.  So does Eric Corley, who carries with him the memory of dropping
off Mark at the prison gates.  Eric, who is thinner than ever, is dressed
all in black, T-shirt and open-necked shirt and jeans.  He looks older
now, and steadies his hand against his chin when he talks.  He carries a
scanner, and invites people to "hear a conversation in Russian."
	And into this fray, this wildly discombobulated massing of
alienated adolescence, walks Barlow.
	It's a quiet entrance, just a man in a black, belted leather
jacket and throat scarf ambling into the center of the activity.  And
stopping.  Barlow stands there, hands in pockets, eyes all lit up at the
wonder of this new experience.
	John Perry Barlow lives in New York City now, where he's the
ambassador from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.  Sometimes he goes on
TV.  Sometimes he writes articles.  The foundation has become a power
player in Washington, helping draft the blueprint for Vice President Al
Gore's vision of cyberspace.  Some people say the foundation has abandoned
the little guy to embrace big ideas instead.
	Tonight, for the first time since he moved back east, for the
first time since the December evening four years ago when he ran across
two electronic explorers named Phiber Optik and Acid Phreak, Barlow has
come to a 2600 meeting, but somehow Barlow arrived too late.
	His presence does not go unnoticed.  Some of the hackers recognize
him right away.  "Barlow--that's a trip," says Corley and comes to greet
him.
	Razor, who is about to launch his own commercial Internet gateway,
sees him, too, and hustles over to shake hands.  "Hey, I met you once,
when you were with Bruce Sterling," says Razor, wedging himself in next to
Corley.  Unaware of what all the fuss is about, Maniac wanders up, gets
introduced, half-hears Barlow's name, wanders off.  He doesn't know who
he's met, not yet, but it will only be minute before he realizes.  Barlow.
The news whizzes around the atrium at the speed of thought, as Mark said.
	"Did I miss the meeting?"  Barlow asks Corely, watching the
milling clumps of boys.  They are the picture of entropy, of
disorganization, of isolated growing pains and undeveloped social skills.
	"No, this is the meeting."
	Barlow's eyes sweep the indoor plaza, taking it all in.  The Asian
kid sitting crosslegged on the low wall, alone and reading 2600.  The
blind guy.  The table covered with wires.  Maniac's eyeglasses.  Razor's
grin.  German tourists standing in line to use a pay phone, puzzled by the
wait.  If he notices the absence of the most famous of hackers, he does
not comment on it.  If he thinks about how he once offered support to
them, he does not say so.
	"This IS the meeting," Barlow says.  "I get it.  I get it."  And
he laughs a huge, deep laugh.  "Of course this is the meeting."
	This is the conspiracy.


When I first read that, it surprised me how someone could embody the scene
of an old, "in the day" 2600 meeting.  That scene that it envisioned was
the 2600 meeting after the bust of MOD, after the trial, after everything
that had to do with it.  For me, I don't choose MOD, or LOD.  Or any side.
I respect both groups greatly for their skill, and for what they did.
But, I do not respect how they were in a match to prove which group had
the greater dominance.  MOD is often called "The gang that ruled
cyberspace."  If that is true, than MOD itself was a contradiction.  The
MOD member, Paul, AKA Scorpion, once said, in an argument of the
definition of hacker, hacking isn't dead, just that hackers today were
interested in the same things only they cadged processing time by sneaking
in over telephone lines.  They were different from crackers, who just like
to break into systems and have no idea of what to do once they get in
there.  Now, I'm turning this into how bad MOD is, I'm pointing out that
if MOD did "rule" cyberspace, then they were contradiction of their
beliefs.  Now, in MOD's defence, they never labeled themselves "Rulers of
Cyberspace."  At least not to the best of my knowledge.  I greatly respect
the members of MOD.  As for LOD, I do have great respect for them too.
But, what also gets to me about LOD is that they went to the government
agencies that tried to catch them before they formed ComSec, their
security company.  Now, I understand that ComSec's security over their
phoneline was "compramised," but their's still a fine line, out of sheer
respect due to MOD's skill that I wouldn't cross.  Even if I was in a war
with them.  I, personally, am sad that the members from MOD/LOD are not
around and as active as they were.  It would be a kick for me to see how
they faired against the security of today, versus the security of their
day.  I'm sure there's a few original members out there, playing around,
enjoying themselves.  If all hackers could not worry about petty things,
like skill level, and wether a person is a newbie or not, especially
wether they know what UNIX/LINUX is, or what "this is", or "that" is.  I'm
sure that will never be that way.  Their will always be the people out
there who think they were born knowing it all.  Sadly, they give the
people who actually have a real set of "ethics", or guidelines if you
will, a bad name.  Another MOD member, Acid Phreak, once said the
following:

	There is no one hacker ethic.  The hacker of old sought to find
	what the computer itself could do.  There was nothing illegal about 
	that.  Today, hackers and phreaks are drawn to specific, often
	corporate, systems.  It's no wonder everyone on the other side is
	getting mad.  We're always one step ahead.

That is more true than most people care to acknowledge.  There is no one
hacker ethic, most people adapt to their own ethics, rules, and
guidelines.  But, one bottom line rule, as MOD/LOD alike followed, was
"Thou shalt not destroy any system."  If no damage was done, security
would be much more lax, because most hack attempts would be ignored due to
lack of damage.  Second, hackers wouldn't have such a bad reputation.  And
third, if no system's were destroyed, and most hacker's followed that
bottom line rule, the attitude of many hacker's would not be as bad as
they are.  Some can consider that the downfall of the hacker, is the
hacker itself.  Or his set of ethics.  I often wonder the same thought
over and over.  What defines a hacker?  To me, what defines a hacker is
his ethics.  What he will, and will not do.  But, as I have recently
realized, I am a strong believer in the old, hacker ethic of the day's of
MOD/LOD.  Perhaps I was born in the wrong time.  But, what defines a
hacker is not his ethics.  I simply don't know.  I do know one thing.  The
hacker, himself, defines himself.  He decides what he will, or will not
do.  Meaning that there is no one set ethics.  Each one decides what he
will follow.


	Till the next paper I write about this.  Have fun hacking, and
don't get caught.  I can be found on #hackerzlair on irc.dal.net.
Pay a visit to hackerzlair.dyn.ml.org.



-phooey