F

i
c Hackers:
t
i An Anomalous Global Community
o
n Rod Pitcher

3P Publications
Canberra, Australia

1
  Copyright 2014 Rod Pitcher

Published by 3P Publications, Canberra, Australia.

Distributed worldwide by obooko

First published 1995

This edition 2014

This is a free digital edition from www.obooko.com

Although you do not have to pay for this e-book, the author’s
intellectual property rights remain fully protected by
international Copyright law. You are licensed to use this digital
copy strictly for your personal enjoyment only: it must not be
redistributed commercially or offered for sale in any form. If you
paid for this free edition, or to gain access to it, we suggest you
demand an immediate refund and report the transaction to the
author and obooko.

My FREE ebooks are available at http://www.obooko.com/

Search for 'Rod Pitcher'
Or see my website at http://rodsbusiness.wordpress.com/
for links to all my ebooks

2
Contents

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 4

PROLEGOMENON: ON DEFINING THE FIELD ................................ 7

A.P.COHEN AND THE SYMBOLIC CONSTRUCTION OF

COMMUNITY ............................................................................................ 18

THE HACKER ETHIC .............................................................................. 24

THE HACKER COMMUNITY ................................................................ 35

NON-LOCALISED COMMUNITIES .................................................... 56

CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................... 64

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................. 66

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................... 74

About the Author .................................................................................... 78

3
 INTRODUCTION

This book is about the people known as 'computer

hackers'. The concept of the 'hacker' has changed since its
inception, and it is now widely applied to a group of people
very different from those who first called themselves
hackers. It is hackers in their original incarnation who are
my subjects. (See glossary for explanations of jargon and
technical terms).
My analysis of the hacker community is informed
largely by the work of A.P.Cohen (1985), in which a
community is defined by the symbolic boundaries built
around it. I consider that Cohen's method is the most
suitable for the bounding and analysis of a community
which is difficult to define in any other way.
However, the hacker community is unlike most
which have been studied by ethnographers, is not confined
to one locality. Thus consideration must be given to
methods which have been applied to other groups which
are not so confined. The problem is that those methods do
not apply satisfactorily to the hacker community.
I argue that hackers are members of a world-wide
community different from any other and, therefore, that an
examination of them is not only useful ethnographically,
but can also raise questions about the methods of analysing
such groups.
The first chapter following this introduction is a
prolegomenon to the main discussion of the rest of the
thesis. In it I discuss a number of factors which determine

4
and define the field and the people under analysis. I look at
the differences in the two meanings of the term 'hacker',
how it took on its later meaning, and the differences
between the two groups. Some important doubts are raised
in relation to many of the sources of information about
hackers which not only tend to further confuse the
differences but also to reinforce stereotypes. I argue that
much of this material must be discarded since it is either
wrong or misleading.
In the next chapter I discuss the method I use in
arguing that the hackers are members of a community. I
follow A.P.Cohen's (1985) approach to the definition of the
boundaries of a community by their symbolic nature. This
chapter lays down the ground rules which I use in later
chapters.
In the third chapter I argue that hackers should be
seen as members of a community by discussing the Hacker
Ethic; the ethos or ideology on which the community is
built. I discuss the Hacker Ethic as the basis of the hacker
community and how it objectifies the hacker world-view.
I continue the argument in the following chapter
where I consider the hacker community as it is symbolically
constructed and defined. The community has a number of
boundary defining mechanisms which separate it from the
outer world and from the rest of the computer culture. I
also argue that, over time, the hacker community changed
from being confined to a number of separate localities, into
a single community which is international in its scope.

5
 Finally, I contrast the hacker community with other
communities which are not confined to one locality. I
suggest that the methods applied to those other
communities are inapplicable to the hacker community. I
argue that it differs from them both in its basis and in its
structure.
In conclusion, I argue that my analysis of the hacker
community challenges questions which we normally ask
when we approach communities which are not localised. As
I demonstrate, hackers are members of a global community
different from others which have been studied. Therefore
those differences must be taken into account when devising
definitions which can be applied to all global communities.

6
 PROLEGOMENON: ON DEFINING THE FIELD

The purpose of this chapter is to set out what ideas

and stereotypes should be put aside when first looking at
those people who call themselves hackers. I argue that
much that has been written about them is misleading or
wrong, and that common stereotypes have led to an image
of them which needs revising.
The term 'hacker' as most people understand it today
-- as referring to those who break into other people's
computer systems and either steal data or cause malicious
damage -- is largely a result of media attention. The original
'hackers' were very different. Attempts have been made to
replace 'hacker' in its current incarnation with other terms
such as 'cracker'. They have been largely unsuccessful,
partly because those who break into computer systems call
themselves 'hackers', and, perhaps more importantly, most
people are not aware that the term had an original, very
different meaning.
To avoid the confusion which occurs in many books,
and which follows from using the same term (hacker) to
refer to two different groups, I use 'cracker' or 'system
cracker' to refer to those who 'crack' or break into other
people's computer systems, and reserve 'hacker' to refer to
the original group known by that term.
Even those writers who are aware that there are two
types of hackers often confuse the issue and apply the same
criticisms to both groups. The purpose of this chapter is to
show that, despite what might be said of crackers, hackers

7
are not all "computer addicts unable to control their
irresponsible, compulsive behavior" (Sterling 1994:58), nor
any of a number of other derogatory descriptions which
have been applied to them.
The reader will notice that, when referring to
hackers, I use the designation 'he'. I am not being sexist nor
ignoring the contributions which women have made in the
field of computing. The reason is that I have been unable to
find any reference to a female hacker. There have been
many women who were excellent professional
programmers -- indeed it is claimed that the first
programmer was a woman: Countess Ada Lovelace wrote
the instructions for Charles Babbage's mechanical
computer, the 'differencing engine', in the 1830s. It seems
that women simply do not become hackers. Why this
should be so is an interesting question which I discuss later.
The beginning of hacking is usually traced back to
the group of young men who gathered around the computer
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the
late 1950s, "that pure hacker paradise, the Tech Square
monastery where one lived to hack, and hacked to live"
(Levy 1984:421). Tech (or Technology) Square is the
building at MIT where, on the ninth floor, the computers
are housed. Groups at other American universities, such as
Stanford, also formed around the same time.
From the beginning the boundary between the
hackers and professional computer people was drawn. To
the professionals, 'hacker' was a derisive term (Levy
1984:ix); to the hackers, the professionals were staid and
restricted access to the computer. The fact that some of the

8
hackers were not students at the Institute, and some of
those who were students were neglecting their studies, did
not make for a smooth relationship. Whilst some of the
staff, such as Marvin Minsky, (himself something of a
hacker) encouraged the hackers, others, such as Joseph
Weizenbaum, saw them only as "computer bums,
compulsive programmers" (Weizenbaum 1976:116).
During the 1970s the hackers at MIT played a great
part in developing the 'Incompatible' Time-Sharing (ITS)
system. The ITS system became something of a world
standard in operating systems, noted for its ease of use and
comprehensive facilities. But shortly after, a move began
which gradually excluded hackers from the main computers
to a great extent. Some of them moved into the Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory where they found a more congenial
atmosphere. But many resented the change because they
lost much of their freedom: they now worked mainly on
projects suggested or directed by other people; the freedom
to choose and follow their own interests was limited.
However, at about the same time, a new revolution began,
which would bring hacking within the compass of more
people, would open computers up to anyone who wanted
one, and was to produce a new generation of hackers. The
home computer was born.
In 1975 Model Instrumentation Telemetry Systems
(MITS), of Albuquerque, New Mexico, introduced the first
home computer kit, the Altair. It was small, had little
memory, and there was no software available, but it made
computing available to anyone who could put the kit

9
together. MITS expected to sell a few hundred kits; they
sold thousands. No longer was access to a mainframe
computer necessary, now anyone could be a hacker in his or
her own home. Soon other home computers appeared on
the market, either in kit form -- to be put together at home -
- or ready to use. Computer clubs proliferated across
America, and soon across the world.
An important aspect of both these periods, which I
discuss in greater detail when I examine the hacker
community, was that information gained by individual
hackers was made available to anyone who wanted it. The
sharing, and free availability, of such information was one
of the basic tenets of what has been called 'The Hacker
Ethic'. 'The Hacker Ethic' is, more correctly speaking, an
ethos rather than an ethic, since it is not a system of morals,
but rather an embodiment of the 'spirit' of hackerdom.
The third phase was a complex one and so I deal only
briefly with it, to bring out the contrasts with the previous
periods. A number of new avenues of interest were opened
to computer users. Communications between computers via
the telephone system became practical and more and more
business computers were accessible through telephone
links; computer games became more realistic; and very
importantly the cost of ready-to-run computers and
modems dropped in price. Thus, more and more people had
access to computers and could communicate with others
using their computers. An important influx of people into
the computer-hobbyist sub-culture at this stage were the
so-called 'phone phreaks' (sic) who had long before found

10
ways of using the public telephone system as their
'playground'.
It was during this phase that the conflicting
meanings of hacker developed. The most important
development being that 'hacking' became synonymous with
'system hacking' (or cracking) -- breaking into other
(usually business or other large organisations') computer
systems and either causing trouble or stealing information.
This use of the term 'hacker' was adopted by the media, and
became the one known to the general public, much to the
disgust of the 'old-time' hackers. Since many of the new
crackers considered access to information as a public right,
they condoned the breaking into of computer systems and
the theft of data. Also many of the new home-computer
users were politically active and saw the computer, and in
particular, bulletin boards, as a useful tool in breaking
down bureaucratic control of information.
Simons points out that crackers do not break into
computer systems for the challenge. They acquire
passwords and information from other crackers which
permits them to easily bypass any security procedures.
Their aim is access to the data on the computer in the
simplest way. Discovered or stolen passwords, telephone
numbers and access codes are often posted on bulletin
boards for anyone to read (Simons 1989:91).
On the other hand, the cracker problem may itself
have been a media creation. Bonnett shows that,
statistically speaking, crackers are only responsible for one-
tenth of one percent (0.1%) of computer crime; most of it is

11
committed by people who have legitimate access to the
computer (Bonnett 1987:7).
During this period, the original hackers did not
disappear. However, some of the criticism of crackers
spread to hackers, and hence the popularity of admitting to
being a hacker declined. I argue later that although the
number of hackers apparently declined, many people
became hackers in all but name. Although there was some
fragmentation, the hacker community did not completely
disappear, and the Hacker Ethic continued to be an ideal of
many computer hobbyists.
Most people who write on the subject are either not
aware of the difference between hackers and crackers, or
are aware but only add to the confusion of the issue. It is
difficult at times for one to identify those at whom
comments are aimed, since the term 'hacker' is used for
both groups. It appears that, of all the sources, only Levy
and Turkle went out and actually spoke to hackers about
themselves.
Sterling (1994: 55) notes the difference, and that:

there are hackers today who fiercely and publicly

resist any besmirching of the noble title of hacker.
Naturally and understandably, they deeply resent the
attack on their values implicit in using the word
'hacker' as a synonym for computer criminal
(Sterling 1994:55).

He rather spoils it when he adds:

12
 This book, sadly, but in my opinion unavoidably,
rather adds to the degradation of the term....
[because] 'hacker' is what computer intruders choose
to call themselves (Stirling 1994:55. Emphasis in
original).

Whatever the justification for using the same term

for both groups, there appears to be a need to show that
there is a difference. To not do so misleads the general
reader into believing the stereotype of all hackers being
criminals (Simons 1989; Forester and Morrison 1990; et
al.) or psychopathologically disturbed (Weizenbaum
1976:121).
Weizenbaum, a professor in the Computer Science
Department at MIT, contributed considerably towards the
stereotypical view of the hacker in his rather pessimistic
book Computer Power and Human Reason (1976). He
describes, with approval, the manner and appearance of
professional programmers and contrasts it with hackers
and hacking, to the detriment of hackers (Weizenbaum
1976:116 ff). But he takes the dictionary definition of 'to
hack', not realising that to hackers it means something very
different, indeed it is something of a self-parody.
Weizenbaum goes on to describe hackers as "bright
young men of dishevelled appearance, often with sunken
glowing eyes", "[t]heir rumpled clothes, their unwashed
and unshaven faces, and their uncombed hair all testify that
they are oblivious to their bodies and to the world in which
they move"; "These are computer bums, compulsive

13
programmers" (1976:116). He compares hackers with
compulsive gamblers: both, he says, suffer from
"megalomania and fantasies of omnipotence" (Weizenbaum
1976:122). The diatribe quickly becomes wearying.
Many later writers quote Weizenbaum -- often
without credit -- or paraphrase his description of hackers. It
is surprising that they do not, apparently, bother to explore
the reasons for his statements, perhaps because the
stereotype suits their purposes.
Levy calls the passage in Weizenbaum from which I
have taken the above, 'notorious' (Levy 1984:124), and says
that he "found them [hackers] quite different. Beneath their
often unimposing exteriors, they were adventurers,
visionaries, risk-takers, artists..." (Levy 1984:ix).
Levy describes Weizenbaum as "a thin,
moustachioed man" who rarely associated with the hackers.
Perhaps his (Weizenbaum's) greatest claim to fame was a
program called ELIZA. An adaptation called DOCTOR
performed the role of an analyst in encouraging the user to
talk about his or her problems (Weizenbaum 1976:4ff).
That Weizenbaum was a high-ranking academic, and that
ELIZA was written in BASIC would not have impressed the
hackers, for reasons which I discuss later. Indeed, he would
have been beyond the pale unless he could demonstrate his
ability to hack, and was probably ignored for all intents and
purposes. Since Weizenbaum comes over as rather
pompous in his book, it is possible that he disliked the
hackers simply because they did not show him the respect
that he felt his position deserved. And perhaps the hackers
were doing things with the computer, and achieving results,

14
such as Weizenbaum had never thought possible. Thus
Weizenbaum's description appears to be, in some respects,
the result of a personality clash. Levy points out that
Weizenbaum later modified his description, saying that it
was not derived from the hackers at MIT. But they still took
it personally (Levy 1984:125), even though Weizeman did
qualify his statement by saying that it did not apply to all
hackers and that some had contributed greatly to the
improvement of computers (Weizenbaum 1976:118-9).
Sherry Turkle sees the computer as a medium onto
which the individual can project her or his personality, like
the Rorschach ink-blot test of psychology (Turkle 1984:15-
6). To the hacker, the computer is always referred to as a
'machine'. It reflects the hacker personality in that it is a
device to be investigated, improved, and used to develop
ideas. Also, a program often contains algorithms and tricks
which reflect the way a hacker thinks. If this is what Turkle
means as a projection of the hacker's personality, then she
is correct. However, hackers rarely visualise their
computers as anything but machines. That fetishisation of
computers appears far more common amongst non-
hackers, can be illustrated by an observation.
Some time ago I saw a hacker demonstrating his new
computer to a group of fellow hackers. He had set it up so
that when it required a response from the user it printed
the message "Yes Master, what are your orders?" on the
screen. This appears at first sight to be a prime case of
fetishisation. However his purpose was two-fold: firstly it
was a joke, almost a self-parody; and, secondly, it was done

15
to show off the way in which he had hacked the operating
system. A week later the message had disappeared from the
screen, never to return. The joke had staled, the hack was
history.
On the other hand, I later observed a friend
(definitely a non-hacker) who had bought a new computer
by which she felt threatened. She had had the command
line prompt set up to use her name, so that she could feel
that the computer was talking to her, personally. She now
refuses to have it changed, since she feels comfortable with
it, and has given the computer a name. The name (Kit) is
interesting since as well as being a diminutive form of her
own name it also refers to a small, furry, baby animal. She
also has a pair of knitted baby's booties hanging from one of
the knobs, and photographs of her children sitting on top of
the computer. It appears that she has removed the threat
that she felt when she first acquired the computer by
making it, symbolically, part of her family, in particular,
one of her 'children'. A hacker would never feel threatened
in this way.
Thus, much of what has been said or written about
hackers is misleading as the basis for an understanding of
them and their community. Of necessity, some sources I
have had to use, but always with caution. Wherever
possible, I have used informants from within the hacker
community as foils against whom to test sources and ideas.
Unfortunately, hackers have rarely written about
themselves, so first-hand accounts are difficult to find.
Having now defined what hackers are not, I
continue, in the next chapter, by declaring the method by

16
which I shall discuss hackers as they are. It is the first step
towards defining hackers as members of a global
community.

17
A.P.COHEN AND THE SYMBOLIC CONSTRUCTION
OF COMMUNITY

In this chapter I consider A.P.Cohen's approach to

the definition of community. I suggest that his approach to
the community as a symbolic construct is suitable for
defining the hacker community.
Cohen (1985) argues that the meaning of community
is displayed in the form of symbols which the community
constructs for itself; that it is a system of ideals, values and
moral codes which provide its members with cohesion and
identity within the defined boundaries of the group; and
that the symbols define both the community and its
boundaries. He argues that those symbols are constructed
from the way the people think about their community, and
are in turn used to express how the members see their
community in their interaction with the wider world. But
the symbols need not, and probably will not, have rigid
meanings; the same symbol may mean different things to
different people.
Cohen rejects past attempts to define 'community',
since there seems to no one satisfactory definition which
fits all cases. Rather he says that he will interpret the word
by the manner in which it is used (Cohen 1985:12). He
suggests two related factors in the concept of community.
Firstly, that there are some common factors among the
people of the community, and secondly, that they are
distinguished from other similar groups by those factors,
which might include a way of life, a ritual or whatever. So
the meaning of 'community' depends on a relationship. To

18
Cohen, this relationship is most apparent at the boundary
between communities. It is at the boundary that one
community distinguishes itself from another, both by the
similarities within and the differences without (Cohen
1985:12).
Next he discusses the boundary, which he says
"marks the beginning and the end of a community" (Cohen
1985:12), and proceeds to answer the question of why it is
necessary to mark those limits. His answer is that it
"encapsulates the identity of the community and...is called
into being by the exigencies of social interaction." (Cohen
1985:12). That is, the boundaries set the limits of those who
belong and those who do not, and are necessary so that
both the members of the community and those outside will
know the limits of social interaction. The community, in
effect, says that the wider world stops here.
There are a number of ways in which the boundary
can be defined, depending on the community. They may be
national borders, legal proscriptions, or physical features of
the landscape. They may also be based on ideology,
religion, language or race. But, and Cohen stresses this
point (Cohen 1985:12), they may not be so objective, they
may only exist in the minds of the community members.
Thus, the boundary might have different meanings for
different people, both inside and out, and even for some of
those on the same side of the boundary. Again Cohen
stresses the importance of the boundary in understanding
community as an experience. He argues that the vital point
is the meaning that people give to a boundary, that is, its

19
symbolic function (Cohen 1985:12-3). Unfortunately,
perhaps, this means that the boundaries may not only mean
different things to different people, but also that they may
see the boundaries in different places, or not see them at
all.
Cohen is critical of earlier approaches to the study of
community, particularly those modelled on Durkheim's
methods (Cohen 1985:20). In his view, those methods
tended towards finding integrative structures which held
the social group together in spite of its tendency to
fragment. Culture was seen as part of that integrative force.
Cohen's approach is to see a community as
individuals, who have adopted a collection of common
symbols. The symbols are imprecise and may not have the
same meaning to all. But, providing that they share the
symbol, the differences in meaning are not important
(Cohen 1985:21). The individuals may not even be aware
that they have differences of meaning. Thus, Cohen argues
that the community coheres because the symbols can
accommodate different meanings, allowing individuality
without splitting the community (Cohen 1985:21). This
process he calls 'aggregation'.
Cohen argues that symbols are used to rebuild
boundaries when the normal structures of the community
begin to break down due to changes in itself or the outside
society. His main point is "that symbolism does not so
much carry meaning as allow people to impute meaning to
it" (Cohen 1985:70-1).
A community presents its boundary in two very
different ways: the view for the outsider, or for the insider.

20
According to Cohen, the view presented to the outside is
simple and rather stereotyped, whereas that seen inside is
complex, because it is a montage of the different values of
different people. These he calls the 'public' and the 'private'
faces of the community (Cohen 1985:74-5)
The public face is the image which the community
shows the outsider. It may be a stereotype of the
community as the outsider sees it, accepted by the people to
be used as a mask to hide their real identity. That is, it
might only reflect what the outsider thinks, consciously
adopted so that it does not reveal anything of the insiders'
values. Alternatively, it might be deliberately built by the
community, by, for instance, exaggerating some
characteristic of the group. Again, it will hide the inner
variety of the community.
The private face is more complex, in that it reflects
how the people in the community see themselves and their
community. It is at this level that Cohen defines
'community', where he finds the meanings of the symbols
and how they give value to the meaning of community.
Cohen also points out that similar appearances may
be deceptive, because the people of a community might
adopt a symbol from outside, but give it their own meaning.
He argues that they may adopt the structure but not the
meaning. This may or may not be done to mislead the
outsiders, by hiding the substance behind the symbol
(Cohen 1985:86).
To Cohen, community is a mental construct. It is
more than the structure of the community or the behaviour

21
of its members. It is, rather, how those members think
about the community. The extent and boundaries of the
community are products of the minds of the people who
belong to the community: it means what they want it to
mean.
This meaning, and its symbols, often come from the
past; either real or mythical. But it is not a simple slavish
following of tradition. The past is used to provide meaning
to current practices which are threatened by the
encroachment of the outside world. The community is
made to, or rather makes itself, feel different because its
past is different (Cohen 1985::99).
Cohen argues that because the community is so
highly symbolized that each person can interpret it in a way
that suits his or her own values. Furthermore, the
symbolism is sufficiently flexible that it can encompass a
variety of individuals without any of them feeling that they
have lost any individuality. By belonging to such a
community, the people have something to which they can
refer their individuality. They also have a means of
distinguishing their own community from those outside
(Cohen 1985:108-9).
A community may also adopt a particular symbol
because it draws attention to some important value, either
by exaggeration or contrast. In doing so it brings the value
to the forefront of attention and helps in its preservation.
The same, or similar, effect can be achieved by contrasting a
symbol with some value which belongs to the outsiders, but
against which the community wishes to protect itself
(Cohen 1985::115). Thus, by contrast or comparison, the

22
community is defined in the minds of its people. The
symbols remind the people that they belong to a
community which is different from that outside.
Perhaps the main advantage of approaching a
community through its symbols is that it attempts to see
the community as it sees itself, that is, from the inside
looking out, rather than from outside looking in. Further, it
shows how a community is able to adjust its view of itself
and its boundaries when required by the changing
conditions of contact with the wider world.
Thus, to summarise, the people who comprise a
community adopt certain symbols which have a meaning to
them. Those symbols then define the boundary between the
community and the rest of the world, by their different
interpretations from within and without.
I suggest, then, that by examining the symbols of the
hacker community I can establish its boundaries and,
therefore, the extent of the community. My task in the next
two chapters is to argue, from the presence of the symbols
and the consequent boundaries, that hackers are members
of a global community.

23
 THE HACKER ETHIC

This chapter begins my argument that hackers

should be understood as a community, based on the work
of A.P.Cohen described in the last chapter. I discuss an
important facet in the construction of the community; its
ethos or ideology. The 'Hacker Ethic' is an ethos rather than
an ethic. Whereas an ethic relates to the moral actions of a
group, an ethos is the formulation of the fundamental,
'spiritual' characteristics of a culture or community. The
'Hacker Ethic' is an unwritten statement of the way hackers
would like the world to be.
The contrast between the Ethic and what are seen as
the normal values of western capitalist society supports the
contention by Zimbardo (1980b) that hacking is the
rejection of society and its values. I discuss this issue
further when I analyse the hacker community and its
boundary defining mechanisms in the next chapter
Levy states the Ethic thus: "Access to computers --
and anything which might teach you something about the
way the world works -- should be unlimited and total.
Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative!" (Levy 1984:27).
Thus hackers have a drive to get to the bare bones of
anything, whether it be hardware or software, or even
something not related to computers. They see no reason
why anyone should stop them from exploring interesting
things. Levy continues with some of the implications of the
Ethic.

24
 First, he says, "All information should be free" (Levy
1984:27). Creativity depends on knowing how a thing is put
together, and how it works. Sharing information allows
anyone to take part in improving the world.
Next: "Mistrust Authority -- Promote
Decentralization" (Levy 1984:28). Bureaucracies limit the
flow of information, and hence the amount anyone can
learn about the world and the way it works. They hide
behind a flawed set of arbitrary rules, instead of acting in a
neat, logical fashion. They are the anti-thesis of the Hacker
Ethic.
"Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not
bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race, or position" (Levy
1984:30). Hackers do not care what credentials someone
has, only how he can perform at the keyboard. Contributing
to the pool of programs, thinking up new algorithms,
moving knowledge of computers forward: these are the
aims, and only someone who can contribute to them will be
awarded the title 'hacker'.
Levy continues, with the implication that: "You can
create art and beauty on a computer" (Levy 1984:30).
Computers can be programmed to play music or draw
patterns. But, even more, hackers believe that there is an
inherent beauty in a well constructed program, an elegant
algorithm, or a clever hack.
Finally: "Computers can change your life for the
better" (Levy 1984:33). Hackers do not try to convert other
people to their view about computers, but they believe, the
intellectual benefits of using the computer should be

25
appreciated and experienced by everyone: not from just
using the computer to do some job, but the act of getting it
to do something new, or in an unexpected or improved way.
These implications of the Ethic shaped the way in
which the hacker community grew. Sterling (1994:59)
argues that such unwritten rules are open to abuse, and can
only be "enforced by peer pressure and tribal feeling". But I
suggest that "peer pressure and tribal feeling" in a close
community, when combined with the risk of ostracism from
a community where one has found a refuge, can be a strong
force to conform. Anyway, the Ethic apparently presented
no problems to most people coming into the community,
since they appeared to hold a personal ethos of very similar
form before becoming hackers. Newcomers were not told of
the Ethic, nor was it often stated explicitly; it was implied
by the behaviour of hackers. Indeed, I have been informed
by some hackers that they were not explicitly aware of the
Ethic; they simply felt comfortable with the way in which
other hackers acted.
Although the Ethic was first developed amongst the
hackers at MIT and other places, it had its greatest
flowering in the growth of home computing. In particular, it
has been argued, the sharing of information led to the
proliferation of small companies which fed the growth.
Levy (1984) describes the situation that he observed
at the Homebrew Computer Club in America, but similar
events took place in Australia, and no doubt other
countries.
Since the first home computers were rather
rudimentary, they provided a rich field for development

26
and hacking. Computer club meetings were often a turmoil,
with groups discussing different computers, circuitry and
programs. Ideas would be interchanged freely, suggestions
flowed backwards and forwards, people would leave the
meetings overflowing with ideas for hardware or software
hacks, determined to return to the next meeting with a
working model or program.
Levy reports that, in America, a number of hackers
started their own businesses, based on ideas discussed at
club meetings. This was not seen as exploitation, since they
would return to the meetings with developmental models
and circuit diagrams which would be freely distributed, not
only to hackers but also to anyone who might be a business
competitor. In return, ideas would be fed back to the
designers who could then produce better designs. Similarly,
hacker-run companies which produced software would
often provide copies freely to the hackers, who would then
suggest improvements, sometimes to the extent of
modifying or rewriting the program and giving it back to
the company which could then release an upgraded or
improved version. Rarely did the hackers receive any
remuneration for their work -- they did it for the love of
hacking and as part of the ideal of providing the best
possible software for computer users. In the atmosphere of
the computer clubs, commercial monopolisation of ideas
was seen as harmful to the aim of promoting the use of
computers and making them available to everyone. No-one
worried about copyright or secret designs, information was
freely exchanged and could be copied by anyone. Hackers

27
and small businesses -- even when they were ostensibly in
competition with each other -- worked together to produce
the best computers and software possible.
It is probably not necessary to add that only
companies influenced by the Hacker Ethic participated in
this free exchange. Older, more staid companies, such as
IBM, have traditionally kept their secrets and taken action
against anyone who violated them: hackers were not part of
their world-view of computing or business. When IBM
released their PC, they released all the information on it
and encouraged other companies to design peripherals and
software, but that was done for commercial purposes not to
cater for hackers. Some of the companies which took part in
the hacker community when they were small, later changed
their attitudes and refused contact with hackers. This was
often the result of financiers and bureaucrats taking control
of the business. A prime example is Apple Computers,
which was originally begun by two hackers, Steven Job and
Steve Wozniak. Apple now keeps its designs a very close
secret, allowing information out only to its authorised
dealers.
In Australia, particularly during the 1980s, it
appears that a similar situation existed, although perhaps
not to the same extent. It is certain, though, that some
small commercial companies who produced add-on parts
for computers allowed their designs to be published in
magazines. Sufficient information was provided so that
anyone who wished could produce their own rather than
buy one.

28
 It has often been said that hackers 'pirate', or
produce illegal copies of software, but during this period no
one particularly worried -- and it was part of the Ethic. If a
program was needed by a hacker when working on his
computer then he would copy the program and use it.
Others copied programs and then set about improving
them. Copying software to explore the computer or develop
new programs has always been part of the hacker ethos of
free exchange of information, regardless of the illegality of
the practice. However, 'pirating' in the sense of producing
illegal copies and then selling them was never part of the
Ethic.
Hackers tell an interesting story about this period --
whether it is true or not is difficult to say at this stage, but
in the light of events and the Hacker Ethic it may have a
kernel of truth. The story is that a certain (unnamed)
company wanted to produce a program for which there was
a suitable demand -- usually said to be a word processor but
sometimes another type of program. However, the cost of
production -- especially the cost of getting all the bugs out
of it -- was prohibitive. So the company produced a first
version (which actually wasn't very good). They sold a few,
but, more importantly, made free copies available to
hackers. It is claimed that within a few months the
company was able to recover a version of their program
which not only had all the bugs removed but which had
been improved tremendously. The company then released it
for sale as a new, updated version of the old program.

29
 Not only were hackers not upset by this behaviour,
but it was seen as a clever way of producing better software
and keeping prices down.
Cohen (1985:99) argues that in this way the past is
used as a resource and that in such 'past-references' the
community selectively reconstructs its own past such as to
justify present actions which might be improper in some
way. It is, he says, 'a selective construction of the past
...[which] lends enchantment to an otherwise murky
contemporary view' (Cohen 1985:99). Thus, hackers are
able, to themselves, to justify the illegal copying of
programs by citing a period in the meta-historical past
when copying was not only permitted but encouraged: a
precedent had been set. Since the story is a-historical it
cannot easily be checked for accuracy and, therefore, it is
difficult for anyone outside the community to argue against
it. The past is not so much rewritten, rather it is blocked off
from rational scrutiny (Cohen 1985:99).
However, not all hackers will copy commercial
programs. Some believe that they can do a better job than
anyone who programs within a commercial atmosphere,
others would like to free computing from its dependence on
big business. It is in this spirit that the concept of
'shareware' developed.
The concept of shareware must be unique to the
computer field. It could only occur under the influence of
something like the Hacker Ethic. As a way of producing
articles for sale it is almost bizarre, but it has distinct
advantages.

30
 The system works like this: A programmer writes a
program which he or she feels has a market potential, but
does not have the capital to exploit. The program is
distributed to anyone who wants a copy, often through
bulletin boards and clubs. Copying is allowed, even
encouraged. Thus the first result is that distribution costs
the author virtually nothing.
Anyone can now use the program to see if it suits
their needs and is found to be useful. Information on how
to use it is always included in a form that can be printed out
at home. Thus, the second result: the program can be tried
free of charge, before committing oneself, a practice not
permitted with commercial software.
If the program is found to be useful, and there is an
intention to go on using it, then a donation to the author is
requested, usually in the vicinity of $50. Thus the third
result: cheap software when compared to commercial
programs which might cost many hundreds of dollars.
Payment of the donation often results in the author
sending a properly printed instruction manual and a later
version of the program. It might be thought that most
people would be reluctant to send the donation since they
already have the program, but there are some small
software companies which run their whole business this
way so they must receive enough donations to continue
producing software.
For the user, shareware produces cheap programs
which can be tried before they are paid for. Shareware
avoids the largest contribution to the cost of commercial

31
software -- advertising and distribution. It might be
thought that shareware would be of a low standard;
although some of it is not very good, much of it is equal to --
and sometimes better than -- commercial software.
Importantly, shareware embodies the ethos of the hacker
community.
Rosenberg (1992:356) argues that adherence to the
Hacker Ethic leads to system cracking. Discussions with
hackers, however, suggests that very few take that path.
Firstly, hackers are interested only in sharing information
about computers, the personal details of someone's bank
account or business are irrelevant. Secondly, hackers want
to encourage the use of computers. Divulging information
stolen from a computer will have the opposite effect of
increasing social distrust and fear of computers. Thirdly,
damaging data or crashing the system would not enhance a
hacker's reputation, whether done intentionally or
accidentally. Some hackers do admit to cracking, for the
challenge of breaking into the system. However, there are
only so many different systems to break, and once any one
is broken, it is no longer a challenge: being second into a
system does nothing for a hacker's status. In fact, any
hacker who persisted in cracking would probably be
ostracised: hackers are rather hostile to their being
categorised with crackers, and especially to the use of the
term hacker being used for both groups.
According to the Ethic, hackers -- and other people --
should only be judged by their performance, particularly
their performance as hackers. The issue of hackers and
their attitude to hacking is the subject of the next chapter,

32
but briefly, they reject the idea that a person's position or
qualifications such as degrees or certificates automatically
makes them worthy of attention. It is this attitude which
has often caused friction, such as that between the hackers
at MIT and Joseph Weizenbaum which I have already
discussed. On the other hand, hackers are not concerned
about another hacker's race, gender, age, class or financial
position.
It is probable that the ethos is reflected in some of
the accounts of hackers. Levy was a journalist who wrote a
regular column in a computer magazine. Thus he could
easily communicate with hackers -- he knew the jargon and
was possibly a hacker himself. Turkle, on the other hand,
was a sociologist investigating hackers for academic
purposes. This might explain why she seems unaware of the
Hacker Ethic. These are the only two writers who appear to
have had personal contact with hackers and whose accounts
give an insight into the way hackers see themselves.
The Hacker Ethic is a way of behaving, rather than a
set of rules which must be obeyed if a hacker is to be
accepted into the community. Despite Sterling's misgivings
about enforcement, hackers conform to the Ethic because it
is their 'natural' way of thinking and acting. It is the way
that they would like all the world to be, open for
experimentation and free of bureaucratic interference.
Therefore, enforcement is not necessary, and there is no
need to explicitly state the Ethic.
But, further, the Ethic has taken on a symbolic
character. It is an ideal which separates hackers (and

33
potential hackers) from non-hackers. It defines the
boundary between those who belong and the outside world.
As Cohen says: "By definition, the boundary marks the
beginning and end of a community....[It] encapsulates the
identity of the community" (Cohen 1985:12). He adds:

The quintessential referent of community is that its

members make, or believe they make, a similar sense
of things either generally or with respect to specific
and significant interests, and, further, that they
think that that sense may differ from one made
elsewhere (Cohen 1985:16).

Hackers have no doubts that, in their Ethic, they

differ from non-hackers. They are proud of the difference: it
is part of being a hacker; it is what makes a hacker part of
an elite group. It defines their community and places them
apart from non-hackers.
Thus, already the separation between hackers and
non-hackers is becoming apparent: the boundary is
becoming visible. In the next chapter, I continue my
argument that hackers should be analysed as a community.
I discuss further the ways in which hackers see themselves
and the symbols which define the boundaries between the
hacker community and the rest of the world.

34
 THE HACKER COMMUNITY

These are the members of a subculture so

foreign to most outsiders that it not only walls
itself off but is walled off, in turn, by those who
cannot understand it. The wall is built from
both sides at once.
('Gandalf' in Zimbardo 1980a:63).

In this chapter I shall analyse some aspects of the

hackers' relationships and continue my argument that there
is indeed a global community of hackers. The importance of
establishing that such a community exists, will become
apparent in the next chapter when I contrast the hacker
community with other communities. In my analysis I
consider the symbols of the hacker community, and the
ways in which those symbols define the boundaries of the
community, in the manner described by A.P.Cohen in The
Symbolic Construction of Community (1985).
Firstly, a consideration of the influences on the
beginning of the community and the way in which it
developed, and which I have already mentioned, will be
used as a means of understanding the way in which hackers
identify themselves with the community. I focus on two
particular phases of the development of the community:
firstly its origins at MIT, and secondly the form which it
took when home computers became available. An analysis
of the transformation of the computer field which led to the

35
second phase will bring out some of the differences between
the two phases.
Next I shall consider in more depth the way in which
the hacker community changed as the technology of
computers changed. The transformation of the community
which occurred when home computers became available
was largely caused by the influx of new hackers from
different backgrounds. Some of the boundaries were
weakened, some were strengthened. The community was
broadened and, to some extent, became less rigidly defined.
At the same time it opened up new areas for hacking, and
gave the community a new social identity.
Also, I discuss the ways in which different hackers
entered the hacker community, to show how they brought
different skills and approaches into hacking, and, further,
how those skills and approaches in turn shaped the hacker
community. An analysis based on Cohen's approach to the
symbolic nature of the community and its boundaries as
perceived differently from within and without, will then
provide the basis for an understanding of the hackers' view
of themselves.
Finally, an important point which must be examined
is the absence of female hackers. Some suggested reasons
for this absence will be considered, and an attempt made to
explain it.
In The Symbolic Construction of Community,
A.P.Cohen argues that "[the] consciousness of community
is ... encapsulated in perception of its boundaries"
(1985:13). The idea of community is itself essentially an
embodiment of the symbolic perception of the boundaries

36
which define the limits -- the beginning and end -- of the
community: "the boundary encapsulates the identity of the
community" (Cohen 1985:12, emphasis added). These
symbols need not have a physical or material nature, they
are often ideas and hence attaching meaning to them may
be problematic. Cohen argues that it is exactly this
imprecision which makes symbols so effective; their
subjective nature allows different, personal interpretations
of the same symbols to coexist. There is thus no "tyranny of
orthodoxy" (Cohen 1985:21).
He sums up his argument when he states that:

[Community] is a largely mental construct.... It is

highly symbolized, with the consequence that its
members can invest it with their selves. Its character
is sufficiently malleable that it can accommodate all
of its members' selves without them feeling their
individuality to be overly compromised. Indeed, the
gloss of commonality which it paints over its diverse
components gives to each of them an additional
referent for their identities (Cohen 1985:109).

The boundary between the hacker community and

everyone else is not a simple one, nor is there a single
boundary. The hacker community is, rather, defined by
successive steps, each of which separates it in some way
from the wider community and from other computer users.
Nor is the boundary everywhere rigidly defined, in some
places it is amorphous and overlaps other groups. However,

37
when all the boundary defining mechanisms and the
symbols of the hacker community are brought together, the
result is a well defined group very different from any other.
As both 'Gandalf', in the epigraph which heads this chapter,
and A.P.Cohen (1985) have pointed out, the boundaries are
constructed from both sides.
One of the most potent symbols which separates the
hacker community from those outside is the computer.
Another is the hacker community itself.
To the hacker, the computer -- any computer -- is a
source of wonder, to be explored, understood, developed,
and in which to become absorbed. Different hackers will
stress one or more aspects rather than others, but they will
all see the machine in a positive light. To outsiders the
computer is more often seen as a threat; to their privacy,
their employment, or their freedom. To many it is merely a
machine to be used for some particular job (For example,
see Turkle 1984:205).
The hacker community is also seen differently from
opposite sides of the boundary. To the hacker, it is a place
to belong and which provides a sense of identity, a way of
life which promises the excitement of discovery and
challenge and an ethos which, if allowed to, could reform
the world. To some outsiders, particularly to women who
have seen their husbands become strangers, the community
is a threat to their family, to their way of living, and to their
loved ones. To others it is an encouragement to obsession
and antisocial behaviour.
Thus, the individual meanings given to the symbols
vary, not only between insiders and outsiders, but also

38
between particular insiders, and between particular
outsiders. In the cases of the computer and the hacker
community, the main differences appear to be between the
positive interpretations of the hackers and the negative
interpretations of the outsiders. That both are referring to
the same symbols supports Cohen's view that "[t]he
symbols of community are mental constructs: they provide
people with the means to make meaning" (Cohen 1985:19).
The young men to whom Levy (1984) spoke at MIT
were already part of an elite group, since they were students
at one of America's most prestigious universities. They were
the students who had excelled at high school and college.
But they were also aware that all their fellow students were
as academically well-endowed as themselves, and that the
competition would be fierce.
The traditional MIT welcome to new students made
their status immediately apparent. They were greeted, at
the welcoming ceremony, with the following: "Look at the
person to your left ... look at the person to your right ... one
of you three will not graduate from the Institute" (Quoted
in Levy 1984:6). They were an elite, but there would still be
selection of the best from that elite. Most hackers came to
neglect their studies and although some did eventually
graduate, most did not.
According to Levy (1984:6ff), one of the largest
student clubs at MIT was The Tech Model Railroad Club,
which owned a large model railway layout, in a room in the
same building as the computer centre. Within the Model
Railroad Club there were two main groups. The first group

39
were interested in building models to a high degree of
accuracy; to them, the layout was merely a place where they
could display their handiwork. The second group was
comprised of those interested in running trains and to
whom the layout was a system which could be planned and
operated as though it were a real railway. Within this
second group were some who dreamed of making the layout
operate logically and systematically. Taken to its logical
conclusion this approach implied that it would run better
without human operators. To these people, the scenery and
models on the top of the layout were less interesting than
the underside where could be found the wiring and relays
which controlled it all. It was this latter group which
supplied the nucleus of the hacker community when they
discovered the computers in a nearby room. They found a
place where there were machines which operated logically
and could be controlled completely, providing the rules
were understood.
Levy spoke to a number of students who were what
one might call 'tinkerers', who, before they discovered the
computers at MIT, had been involved in amateur (ham)
radio or built electronic projects from parts taken from old
radio and TV sets (Levy 1984:61). Another had previously
rebuilt old broken clocks by taking them to pieces, making
replacements for broken parts and putting them back
together again.
Some of the computer hackers also had a side
interest in 'lock hacking'; taking locks apart to discover the
pattern of their tumblers. In this way they were able to
work out the pattern for the master keys which would open

40
any door in the computer building. With a master key, no-
one could stop the hackers from exploring anywhere they
desired, in their search for information to satisfy their
curiosity. As Levy says: "The master key was more than a
means to an end; it was a symbol of the hacker love of free
access" (Levy 1984:93. See also Turkle 1984:232).
To the hackers 'lock hacking' symbolised free access
to information and the freedom to explore, but to others it
symbolised an unwanted invasion of their privacy and sense
of security. Cohen states that most symbols are ideas rather
than having a physical form (Cohen 1985:18). The master
key, however, has both. The physical form of the key must
be common to both sides of the boundary: the 'idea',
though, is very different.
It can be seen that the hackers brought into the
protean community a number of attitudes which would
become part of the heritage of all hackers: the desire to take
something apart and then put it back together again,
probably improved; the search for knowledge gained from
understanding of a machine and the rules by which it
operates; a curiosity which was not limited by what is
permissible, but only by the limits of what can be known.
And, most importantly, that any knowledge gained should
be freely available to anyone who had a use for it. These
early hackers practiced the 'Hands-On Imperative', the
basis of the Hacker Ethic, and part of the boundary which
separates the hacker community from the wider society.
It is apparent that boundaries were already
appearing between hackers and those outside the

41
community. Being university students, they were part of an
elite group. Within that elite group the hackers were also
separated from the other students who used the computer
at MIT because of their deeper knowledge of its working.
Levy recounts a number of situations where the hackers
were aware that even graduate students had trouble in
writing programs, but were unwilling to accept the help of
the hackers. The computer itself, to the hackers a symbol of
freedom to experiment and learn, was seen by most people
in society as a threat and symbol of impersonal domination.
As I have indicated Cohen argues that the symbolic
nature of these boundaries is perceived differently from
opposite sides, but also by those on the same side of the
boundary (Cohen 1985:12). Not all hackers saw the same
values in the computer: to some it was the means of
developing skills at programming; others sought to
deconstruct the functions of the computer so that the
understanding obtained could be used to develop new
functions; yet others saw a future where computers would
serve humanity by broadening intellectual horizons. The
hackers took these different approaches into the
community which in turn gave them an identity. The
community was not integrative, in the sense that everyone
held the same ideals and aims, rather it was aggregative, in
that individual hackers felt themselves to have more in
common with other hackers than with anyone outside the
community (Cohen 1985:20).
The community became much more than a group of
individual hackers, it became an ideal with its own
standards and ethos. As Cohen notes, the boundaries are

42
constructed because either a community is, or wishes to be
seen as, apart from other groups with whom they interact
(Cohen 1985:12). So it was with the hackers: their
consciousness of the boundaries made them more aware of
their own community (Cohen 1985:13).
Most of these young men had little social life, even
before they entered MIT. Whether they were socially
ostracised because of their intelligence and interests, or
whether they developed their interests because they had no
social life is a debatable point. There have been numerous
arguments about why people become socially inactive. Two
opposite views related to hackers come from Zimbardo
(1980b) and Turkle (1984).
Zimbardo (1980b) argues that the hackers' attitude
was the result of social isolation, that they were turning
away from difficult social situations with which they could
not cope: they became introverted loners who lost touch
with the rest of humanity. In this view, the computer
became a substitute for interaction with people.
On the other hand, Turkle argues that much of the
criticism of hackers is a response to the way in which
hackers challenge the accepted causes of motivation. For
the hacker, interest in the machine is sufficient justification
for spending many hours learning about it or programming
it, in contrast to the generally accepted assumption in
capitalist societies that everyone is motivated by either
money or ego (Turkle 1984:205). Turkle goes on to quote
Marvin Minsky, an MIT worker in artificial intelligence,
who -- commenting on the hackers' alleged social ineptness

43
-- said that "hackers are superior to the psychologists who
trivialize human beings in their rush to stereotype and
classify" (Quoted in Turkle 1984:206). Levy remarks that he
found hackers very different from the stereotypes which he
had been led to expect: "they were" he says "adventurers,
visionaries, risk-takers, artists..." (Levy 1984:ix).
Whichever argument one accepts, the hackers were
drawn together by a common interest in computers and the
need to experiment and to understand. When they came
together they formed a group which developed a social life
of its own. The fact that they were able to have social
relationships within the hacker community suggests that
Turkle may be more correct than Zimbardo, and that the
hackers' prior social problems were not necessarily caused
by an inability to interact with other people, but rather that
they did not want to mix with people who did not share
their own interests.
Although the main focus of the MIT hackers was the
computer and hacking they appear to have had a quite
lively social life. Levy tells a story about the time that a new
more powerful computer arrived in the next room to the old
one. Most of the hackers quickly moved over to the new
computer, but some stayed with the old one. A group of
those who had moved over to the new computer devised a
short song and dance routine, poking fun at the others,
which was made up from the abbreviations for the
instruction codes on the new computer. Levy comments:
"What was lacking in choreography was more than
compensated for by enthusiasm" (Levy 1984:42. See also
Turkle 1984:196-7).

44
 Apparently, it was common for any hackers who
happened to be in the computer room late at night, to go
out together for a meal -- usually Chinese, because in
Boston the Chinese restaurants stayed open late. Not that
their curiosity and hacking was left back in the computer
room. They looked at a Chinese menu as a system to be
hacked! Some went so far as learning sufficient Chinese to
be able to order obscure dishes. Levy relates the story of a
group of hackers who prowled around Boston looking for
Chinese restaurants at which they had not previously eaten,
in search of new and more exotic dishes. At one place they
were offended that the Chinese waitress could not read
Chinese -- it seemed so illogical.
Following from this interest in Chinese food,
something of a ritual developed. On April Fools' Day the
group would descend upon a new Chinese restaurant and
order a previously untasted combination of dishes -- and
eat it regardless of how it tasted! To the hackers there was
nothing strange about this behaviour, it was all part of
'hacking' a new system, that is, trying to understand its own
internal logic (Levy 1984: 68-71).
The hackers were not devoid of human feelings
towards each other. Levy (1984:128-9) tells the story of a
young hacker he calls Louis Merton, who was also a
brilliant chess player. Merton, who apparently suffered
from a form of infrequent catatonia, would sometimes enter
a state where he went completely rigid for a short period.
Between these episodes he showed no signs of anything
wrong. On one occasion he was taken to a hospital where he

45
was admitted as a permanent catatonic. The hackers fought
their way through a bureaucratic quagmire to get Merton
released -- by this time he had woken up -- and from then
on took care of him. They learnt that when he entered a
catatonic state he could be awakened by inviting him to
play chess. Levy adds: "behind their single-mindedness
there was warmth, in the collective realization of the
Hacker Ethic" (Levy 1984:129. Emphasis in original).
Although many of these young men had had
problems with social interactions before they became part
of the hacker community, through the community they
learnt to be sociable (Cohen 1985:15). The difference being
that they had found a milieu in which they could be
comfortable and people with whom they shared similar
attitudes.
Of course, each hacker attached his own meanings to
the social and ritual aspects of this socialisation. There was
no rule of the hacker community which said a hacker must
go out and eat Chinese food, nor that eating Chinese food
was a necessary part of being a hacker. Rather, it was part
of the process of forming a community; the creation of
symbols and rituals which each hacker could endow with
his own meaning, but which would equip him to be part of
the hacker community (Cohen 1985:15-6). As Cohen notes:
"People can find common currency in behaviour whilst still
tailoring it subjectively (and interpretively) to their own
needs" (Cohen 1985:17. Emphasis in original).
Not all of the hackers at MIT took part in the social
activities. Some wanted only to work with the computer to
the point of ignoring everything else. They spent every

46
available waking moment hacking; sitting in front of a
keyboard for many hours at a time, often at night when the
official users were absent. It is probable that these people
were the extreme cases mentioned by Weizenbaum and
others, and which led to the categorisation of hackers as
computer addicts. In some ways these people were
peripheral to the community. In other ways they
contributed very much to the folklore of the hacker
community: they were the 'gurus' of hacking whose exploits
became legendary (For example see Levy 1984:Ch.4. and
Epilogue; Turkle 1984:203).
The hackers at MIT were, to a great extent, a product
of the American university system. They were protected and
isolated from much of 'the real world'. They were part of
"that pure hacker paradise, the Tech Square monastery
where one lived to hack, and hacked to live" (Levy
1984:421). At the time, the early 1970s, relatively few
people in the world had seen a computer, and less had used
one. The home computer was to change that situation; it
brought computing -- if in a limited form -- to anyone who
wanted it. The home computer revolution swept the world,
changing both it and the hacker. It brought hacking out
from the 'monastery' and into 'the real world'. More
importantly for my discussion here, it brought people from
outside the protected environment of the universities into
hacking. The hacking community spread throughout
America and into many other countries.
Many of the new hackers were older and had more
experience of the world. Many were married with families

47
and had regular jobs. For these reasons, most were well
aware that hacking could not be a single-minded pursuit
but had to be only a part of their lives.
The new centres of hacking were clubs; many of
them drawing together people of different social and
economic backgrounds, and of all ages, who had a common
interest in a particular type of computer. Where the
individuals came from made little difference, hackers
tended to ignore other boundaries in establishing the
boundaries of the hacker community.
An informant told me about the meetings at a
computer club here in Adelaide. The meetings were largely
informal, although someone usually took on the job of
gathering information from members on their latest
projects for printing in a simple photocopied newsletter.
Often the information was out of date before it was typed,
the way in which people took up different projects being
almost frenetic. But that was how the atmosphere at the
club affected people. A new idea for a program or
modification to the computer would circulate rapidly; the
meeting sometimes turning into an impromptu lecture with
questions and answers flying backwards and forwards as
people sought information or offered suggestions. At other
times, meetings would break up into small groups
discussing this or that idea. It was nothing unusual,
apparently, to see a youngster of fifteen in a deep
discussion, on equal terms, with a sixty-year-old
professional engineer. Age and qualifications did not
matter: being a hacker did.

48
 Someone would always bring along their computer
to show off their latest project. A hacking session would
often begin right there as ideas flowed. Others would bring
packets of disks to take home copies of any programs
available.
Although there was co-operation and support
available within the club, there was also competition. As
always there was a need to establish oneself as a hacker by
hacking. This took the form of writing programs or trying to
improve the programs written by others. Anyone who took
a program along to a meeting had to expect that others
would take copies home and return to the next meeting
with additions or improvements. One of the favourite
challenges was to rewrite someone else's program so that it
performed the same operations but used less instructions.
Squeezing a program down to its absolute minimum size
was a challenge that few hackers could ignore. But the
competition was always friendly, and rarely led to
recriminations: the aim was status, but not power over
others. Being able to hack with the best reinforced one's
status as a hacker but that is all.
A good hacker could always write code on the spot:
the best could do it directly into the machine in
hexadecimal code. When one could think and program in
hexadecimal code, one had achieved the heights of
hackerdom. Considering that a typical processing chip
might have around four hundred different instructions,
each with its own code, the dedication and absorption

49
required to achieve this level of proficiency must have been
total.
The clubs provided a place where hackers could
gather with those of like mind, and where the Hacker Ethic
flourished.
Clubs might have caused fragmentation of the
hacker community but for a number of further
developments. Computer magazines, both national and
international, arrived on the scene, allowing hackers to
publish their ideas and projects, and manufacturers to
advertise add-on parts. Another development was the
bulletin board. Hackers could leave their programs for
others to copy, and communicate ideas to anyone with a
modem and telephone. Many of the new hackers came from
amateur radio and, using their old hobby in the service of
the new, established communication networks world-wide.
Methods of transmitting computer data via radio were
developed and used to exchange programs. Thus, rather
than becoming fragmented the community took advantage
of technological advances to forge new ties. The hacker
community became a truly global phenomenon, bound
together by the multiple symbols of the computer, hacking
and the Hacker Ethic. I discuss the implications of this easy
availability of communications in the next chapter when I
argue that it is an important factor in the difference
between hackers and other global communities.
As the term hacker became more and more to be
applied to those I term crackers, the true hacker community
did decline to some extent. It became unpopular to call
oneself a hacker, because most people misunderstood the

50
term, knowing only its criminal associations. Also the
increased commercialisation of computer production has
led to considerable standardisation and a consequent
narrowing of the area in which hackers can provide any
input into the direction of development. Development is
now usually controlled by large companies: professional
engineers and programmers, as well as bureaucrats, have
taken away much of the control of information and
development which previously belonged largely to hackers.
However, it should not be thought that the community has
disappeared. It is harder to find hackers who will admit to
being hackers, but there are still many to be found.
There is one final boundary defining mechanism,
which I have left until last because it is more 'real' than
symbolic; that is jargon. Like all common-interest groups,
hackers have a specialised jargon. Not that it is their's
exclusively, they share much of it with other computer
users; but some belongs only to hackers, for instance, the
word 'hacker' itself. By Gumperz' definition, then, they
become a 'speech community' who are separated from other
people by the different way in which they speak to each
other (Gumperz 1972:219). As Turkle points out, jargon not
only marks the boundary, but also protects the in-group by
limiting the knowledge of the out-group. Since the outsiders
are less able to understand the conversation of the insiders,
they have access to less information about the insiders and
their interests (Turkle 1984:201).
The problem remains of why there were no female
hackers. It is not, apparently, the technology which deters

51
women, since both Steven Levy (1984:86) and Sherry
Turkle (1984:200) mention female computer science
students. Nor is it the hacker approach to programming,
since Sherry Turkle and Seymour Papert (1990:134-5)
mention a female student who has a need to know the
details of the computer's operation and understand the low
level functions of her programs. She adopts a hacker-like
approach because it is natural for her to do so.
But there is a difference between computer
programming as a profession and hacking as a hobby. A
technological profession might be a socially acceptable for a
woman whereas a technological hobby might not. That
women do have complex hobbies and pastimes becomes
plain if one considers dressmaking and knitting. Knitting
provides an interesting contrast to computer programming
in that both are sets of instructions written in a specialised
language: the loops and pattern changes in a knitting
pattern bear a remarkable resemblance to a computer
program. The influx of women into other technological
hobbies, such as amateur radio, in recent years shows that
women can, and do, follow such pursuits.
Levy recounts the time when a woman named Jude
Milhon, a professional programmer and political activist,
visited the Homebrew Computer Club, the largest in
California. Milhon was "repelled by the concentration on
sheer technology, exploration, and control for the sake of
control" exhibited by the hackers (Levy 1984:215). Milhon
knew a number of the hackers, and appears to have been
more upset by the lack of female hackers than anything
else.

52
 Margaret Shotton discusses some of the possible
reasons why male compulsive programmers predominate
over women (she gives the figure at 97%). Some reasons she
discounts herself, others parallel the above discussion.
Shotton finally suggests that the particular type of man who
becomes a compulsive programmer is one who has always
been obsessed with his hobbies. He has difficulties with
social relationships, and so adopts the computer as a
refuge. Whilst there appears to be some truth in this
statement, Shotton does not explain why only men suffer
from the obsession with hobbies. Thus she does not really
provide an answer to the question (Shotton 1985:125). It
should also be noted that she is specifically talking about
'compulsive programmers' and not necessarily hackers.
Perhaps the only reason women do not become
hackers is because there are no female hackers there before
them: no-one wants to be first. But if Shotton is right, then
there may be a small nucleus of women hackers which has
not expanded to equalise the numbers.
There appears to be no satisfactory answer to the
question of why more women do not become hackers.
In conclusion, then, it remains to sum up the hacker
community. It is an almost completely male community
because women appear unwilling to join it. It is an elite,
and elitist, community; but one into which anyone can be
accepted by demonstrating their ability to hack.
The community is defined by its symbols, some of
which have their basis in real objects, other of which are
ideas and concepts. The flexibility of those symbols allows a

53
wide range of interpretations both within and without the
community. The boundary between the community and
those outside it forms where the interpretations come into
conflict. For some symbols the boundary is ill-defined, for
others it is sharply delineated. It is the combination of these
different interpretations of different symbols which
determines the ultimate boundary.
The flexibility of interpretation allows individuals
within the community to retain their independence to some
degree, providing the difference is not too great. Since the
symbols are mental constructs, the interpretation will be
influenced by an individual's own private thoughts. Thus
the community can accommodate many individuals without
compromising their individuality. The common thread is
that they share the same symbols.
The flexibility of the symbols also allows different
commitments to the concept of the community. Those
people who have a narrow and rigid interpretation of the
symbols tend to form an inflexible, uncompromising,
perhaps fanatical, core. Others, whose interpretation is
more flexible, can step outside the community, if necessary.
An example might be the person who is a professional
programmer by day and a hacker at night. Both are, to
some extent, necessary for the continuing existence of the
community.
I have argued that hackers are part of a global
community, based on common acceptance of the symbols of
the community, albeit that individuals interpret those
symbols differently. The community has developed its own
ethos, community spirit and reason for being, and thus

54
deserves to be analysed at some depth. In the next chapter,
however, I discuss some of the problems that would be
associated with a deeper investigation. I argue that, due to
the differences between hackers and other communities
different methods of investigation would be necessary. The
methods currently in use will not work with the hacker
community.

55
 NON-LOCALISED COMMUNITIES

In the last chapter I argued that hackers should be

seen as part of a community and that, with the introduction
of the home computer, its members spread world-wide. In
this chapter I argue that the hacker community is different
from other wide-spread communities in that it has both a
different basis and a different structure. I contrast the
hacker community with other groups which have been
studied as communities, and argue that the differences
between these other groups and hackers warrants
consideration in relation to the study of communities.
Studies of community tend to be undertaken in one
of two areas. Either the community is localised or contained
in a small area which can be dealt with as a whole: people
can be observed in their interrelationship with all the others
who are also part of the community or outside it.
Global communities, on the other hand, are studied
by concentrating fieldwork on local sections of the global
community and then relating the local group to the whole
(For example, Meyerhoff and Mongulla 1980). Features
which are common to widely separated local groups suggest
ways in which the global community has adapted to local
conditions.
The first group which I consider is that in which
membership of a local group brings a member into a wider
group, such as Freemasonry and some sporting bodies.
Although some of these groups may not be considered as

56
communities, others have characteristics which do warrant
their consideration as such.
In this type of group a member joins a local
organisation, and through membership of that group,
becomes affiliated with a larger national or international
umbrella organisation. For instance, a person is invited to
join a local Freemasons' lodge by someone who is already a
member, and will usually join the lodge of his sponsor. On
joining a local lodge, the new member becomes part of the
larger community of world Freemasonry. As far as I have
been able to ascertain, it is not possible to become a
member of the larger group without being a member of a
local lodge. Thus, within the larger community, there is a
high degree of attachment to one's own locality. Further, a
member will become socialised into the larger community
through the local community, where most social contact of
ordinary members occurs, and where the appropriate
rituals are learnt. Contact between local groups most often
occurs at higher administrative or ritualised levels of the
organisation.
The other type of group which requires
consideration is based on ethnicity. Smith defines an ethnic
community as 'a named human group claiming a homeland
and sharing myths of common ancestry, historical
memories and a distinct culture' (Smith 1992:438). These
groups also often have a belief in themselves as the 'chosen'
people (Smith 1992:441). The prime example of such
groups is the Jews, who have carried their belief in being
'chosen' and their wish for a return to Israel, with them

57
throughout the world. But again, I would argue, the
primary connection between individual Jews and the global
ethnic community is through the local community.
I suggest that hackers do not fit within either of
these classifications since they have no ethnic heritage nor
is there a hierarchy of contact between local groups of
hackers and the wider hacker community.
Local hacker groups vary tremendously in their
organisation and structure. The membership might be
anywhere from three or four to dozens. Some are informal,
meeting whenever the group happens to come together,
others are more formally organised, with elected officers
and set times for meetings. There may be two or more
groups which overlap in their areas of interest. Some of the
members of one group may also be members of other
groups, whereas others will be members of only one group.
The particular members of a group also tend to vary over
time, with some leaving and other new ones coming in.
Hacker groups tend to cluster around particular
types of computers or micro-processors. Communications
between these clusters may be at local, national, or
international level. But an individual hacker may
participate in any of these clusters or levels, with or without
participation at other levels. This situation can perhaps be
best illustrated with an example.
I spoke to some hackers who had been members of
the South Australian Super-80 Users Group (SASUG),
which is now, unfortunately, defunct. The Super-80 is a
particular type of computer which was sold in kit form
throughout Australia (but not internationally) by a large

58
electronics retailer. SASUG had contact with other groups
interstate who formed around the same computer, through
the exchange of newsletters. A national, commercially-
published magazine often carried articles on the Super-80,
and news and notes about a variety of computer clubs.
Some of the members of SASUG joined the Microbee
Users Group of S.A. (MUGSA), since both the Microbee and
the Super-80 are based on the same microprocessor and
the designs are similar in many respects. These people
passed ideas between the two groups and, in particular,
adapted parts of the Microbee circuitry to the Super-80 to
improve its performance.
Later, a split occurred in MUGSA which resulted in a
number of its members leaving and joining SASUG. Since
the club now catered for two different type of computer, it
was necessary to change the name. Since both computers
were based on the Z80 microprocessor chip, the club
became the Z80 Users Group.
The Super-80 and the Microbee were both only
available in Australia, so there were no user groups in other
countries. But the Z80 microprocessor chip was very
popular and used in many types of computers, any of which
could run an operating system called CP/M (Control
Program for Microcomputers).
Importantly, any program which would run under
the CP/M operating system on one type of computer would
run under CP/M on any other type of computer. Programs
could be easily transported from one CP/M-based
computer to another, which allowed ties to other groups

59
centred around other brands of computers which used the
CP/M operating system.
Thus the members of the group had four possible
contact points with other groups: the others could be
Super-80 users, Microbee users, users of computers based
on the Z80 microprocessor, or users of the CP/M operating
system.
On the other hand, if we consider a local group
which has formed around a different type of computer, such
as the Commodore, we find that they have very little
interaction with those mentioned above. Since the
Commodore uses a different microprocessor and operating
system, the users of it will have little in common with them.
Thus, they will establish different networks around the
world, even though they might do so through the same
bulletin boards. Indeed, it is probable that Commodore
users in Adelaide will have closer ties with Commodore
users in Britain or America than with the users of
Microbees in Adelaide, since their computers are so
different. They would read different magazines, use
different machine codes and have a different circle of
contacts. The only common factor in the local relationship
is that is that they are hackers.
These contacts outside the immediate group are
mainly established on an individual rather than a group
basis. Individual members establish contact with different
others who share similar interests and rarely will two
hackers be part of the same total network of contacts. Thus,
within the hacker community, contact with others tends to
be established at the lowest level, that of the individual,

60
rather than through some form of hierarchy. Further, the
structure of the network will be seen differently from the
points of view of different hackers, since each establishes
contacts which suit his own purposes. Also, the
establishment of a web of contacts does not depend on
being part of a local group nor even on being in a particular
locality, since bulletin boards can be accessed from
anywhere in the world.
One of the primary reason for the dearth of local
concentrations of hackers is that communications between
widely spread hackers is no more difficult than
communications with near ones. Bulletin boards can be
accessed from anywhere in the world. Since telephone lines
can be brought right into the room where the hacker works,
such contacts are often easier to establish and maintain
than would be, for example, a face to face meeting with a
fellow hacker in the next suburb. Family commitments may
mean that attending a local user group is difficult, but they
will probably not prevent the use of a modem and bulletin
board at odd hours of the day or night.
Thus, the hacker community is different from most
other types of wide-spread communities. Its structure is
different in that there is no necessity for an individual to be
a member of a local group as part of being member of the
larger group. There is no hierarchy of communications
which might restrict the flow of information to individuals.
Although hackers have their heroes and archetypes, there is
no homeland which promises an idealised existence. A
hacker is not formally inducted into the community, and is

61
obviously not born into it (although the question of whether
hackers are born or made is one that is still being debated).
Further, I argue, there is no local, consistent
interaction which can be equated with the local
communities of other groups such as the Jews. Local
contacts are no more important than global contacts. In the
case of many hackers, local contacts are either non-existent
or less important than the global ones. But global contacts
are important for all hackers, because it is in that way that
information and programs primarily circulate throughout
the community. Being part of the global community turns
out to be more important than being part of any local
group. Thus examination of a localised group may not
provide data which is useful in understanding the global
community, it may even be misleading. To understand the
global hacker community it is, then, necessary to study it as
a whole, since the whole cannot be understood by
understanding its parts.
Another way in which communities, both local and
global, can be defined is through their symbolism -- the
method used by A.P.Cohen (1985), and which I have used
to define the hacker community. Whilst this method is
useful for defining a community, it is less useful for
analysing the individual responses of the people who make
up the community. It tends to be too abstract.
I have argued that the hacker community can be
defined, at least in part, by its symbols. However, those
symbols are largely useful only in defining the boundaries
between hackers and non-hackers, they do not, to any great
extent, illustrate the inner workings of the community.

62
Since the inner workings are important in understanding
the community, lack of data on them will make that
understanding incomplete. In analysing the hacker
community, data gathered at a local level will not be
particularly useful in producing an understanding of the
global community. Therefore fieldwork would have to be
conducted on a global basis, by interviewing many
thousands of hackers in numerous countries. Gathering
data in such a way would have obvious difficulties.
In the next and final chapter, I briefly summarise the
points which I have already made, and the problems which
arise from them. I also offer some tentative beginnings to
the ways in which the problems might be approached. I
suggest that a possible solution to the gathering of data
might be through the hackers own method of
communications; the bulletin boards which have
proliferated around the world.

63
 CONCLUSIONS

I have argued in this thesis that computer hackers

are a community. Using A.P.Cohen's (1985) method of
symbolic analysis, I have examined the symbolism of
various facets of hacking and shown how those symbols
define the community. I have shown that the hacker
community is international in its scope and that global
communications and interactions between hackers are as
important -- if not more important -- than local ones.
Also I have argued that the hacker community is
difficult to analyse by studying localised sections of the
global community. Unlike other global communities,
hackers often have more regular relationships with their
international compatriots than their local ones. Thus,
examining a particular local section of the community will
not necessarily produce the same or similar conclusions
which would arise from studying other, different, local
groups or the whole of the global community.
Thus, I further argue, the hacker community must be
studied as a whole, and that methods usually used for
studying global communities, which build a picture of the
whole from analyses of its parts, will not work satisfactorily
when studying hackers. Factors which tend to be important
in global communities, and which provide a connecting
sub-stratum between the parts, such as ethnicity, religion,
or a 'homeland', do not exist in the hacker community. The
hacker community can be seen as a complex
communication network, in which ideas and information

64
flow between individuals, both in semi-organised ways and
on an ad hoc basis. The major problem which arises from
these factors is the gathering of data.
I suggest that data relating to the global hacker
community might best be gathered using the hackers' own
means of global communications, that is, through bulletin
boards. Turkle (1984:200n) and Zimbardo (1980a) have
both shown the usefulness of bulletin boards in gathering
data about computer users, but only in a limited capacity;
they each used only a single board at a single location. Their
approach can only be considered as a starting point: the
network of contacts must be expanded to wherever there
are hackers.

65
 GLOSSARY

ALGORITHM: a set of well defined rules for solving a

problem in a finite number of steps.

ASSEMBLY LANGUAGE, ASSEMBLY CODE: a

programming language which is very close to the
machine code comprehensible to the machine.

BASIC: (acronym) Beginners All-purpose Symbolic

Instruction Code. Simple, though rather lengthy and
inelegant (to programmers) high-level computer
language.

BINARY: a numbering system on the base 2.

BIT: one Binary digIT. One piece of data, either a 0 or a 1.

BOMB, BOMB OUT: a program failure.

BOOTSTRAP (BOOT): a set of inbuilt instructions within

the computer which tell it how to load its own
operating system. Also the procedure involved in
starting up a computer.

BUG: an unwanted and unintended property of a program.

An error. Hence, debug, to fix a bug.

66
BULLETIN BOARD: a computer system which is available
for remote access by anyone (sometimes a fee is
charged) via the telephone lines, where programs,
messages, and so on, may be posted, either for a
particular individual or for general access.

BYTE: a group of eight bits of data considered as a group.

CENTRAL PROCESSING UNIT (CPU): the part of a

computer system which controls all its operations
and performs the arithmetical and logical functions.

COMPATIBLE: the ability of one computer to deal with

material intended and designed for a different type:
programs, data, peripherals, and so on.

COMPILER: a specialised program that translates a source

program into the code that the computer can
understand. Used for high-level languages, such as
FORTRAN, Pascal, etc..

CP/M: a computer operating system; Control Program for

Microcomputers. Very popular in the early days of
home computers; a forerunner of MS-DOS.

CRASH: any greater or lesser failure of the system.

Requires that the computer be rebooted. Also
applied to programs.

67
CRT: a Cathode Ray Tube, also called a VDU (Visual
Display Unit) or monitor.

DATABASE: a collection of information kept on an

electronic file.

DEBUG: to isolate and fix any errors in a program.

DISC: a medium for storing information. Data are stored on

discs of magnetic material and are retrievable by
high-speed read/write heads. They may be floppy
discs which are removable, or hard discs which are
built into the computer.

DOWN: for a computer to be out of action.

DUMP: transfer the information from a computer's

memory to a disc or printer.

GARBAGE: inaccurate or useless data.

GIGO: (acronym) Garbage In, Garbage Out: a dictum that

states that if one puts worthless data into a
computer, then the machine can only give worthless
answers back.

GLITCH: any form of unexplained electronic interference

that involves the computer, either in the electrical
supply or the program.

68
HACK: (1) a quick job that produces what is required but
with little sign of standards or quality, (2) the result
of a HACK JOB, (3) NEAT HACK: a clever
technique, also a stylish practical joke.

HACKER: (1) someone who enjoys learning the details of

programming systems and how to stretch and
develop their potentials, (2) one who programs
enthusiastically and will spend hours so doing just
for the pleasure of the discipline.

HARDWARE: the actual machinery that comprises the

working parts of a computer. (A hacker joke: The
hardware is the part that one can kick, as opposed to
the software at which one can only swear.)

HEXADECIMAL (HEX): numbering system with a base of

16. A byte can be written as two hexadecimal
numbers, each representing four bits which have 16
different possible combinations of 1s and 0s.
Hexadecimal is written using the numbers 0 to 9,
and the letters A to F, to represent the numbers 0 to
15.

HIGH-LEVEL LANGUAGE: any programming language

which uses words and syntax very close to English,
so that it can be read easily by humans. Must be
converted to machine code by a compiler or
interpreter.

69
HOME BREW: to build at home, as opposed to something
which has been bought.

IDLE TIME: the machine is on and ready, but is not being

used.

INPUT: to feed data or program instructions into the

machine.

INSTRUCTION: a single step in a program - each program

is thus made up of a series of instructions.

ITS: (acronym) Incompatible Time-sharing System,

designed by the hackers for the MIT computer. It
was 'incompatible' with other time-sharing systems
since it used no passwords, and anyone could have
access to any file on the computer.

LANGUAGE: any of the many systems and rules that have

been created for programming a computer.

LASHUP: any form of makeshift or home-made machine or

gadget.

LIVEWARE: the human beings who are involved with

computers. WETWARE is the computer which runs
in liveware, i.e. the human brain. (A hacker joke).

70
MACHINE CODE, MACHINE LANGUAGE: the binary
notation 'translation' of any other language which
can as such be 'understood' by the machine and is
necessary for the machine to perform the required
tasks.

MAINFRAME: the largest type of computer installation

with great capacity, large and static equipment,
requiring installation in air conditioned rooms and
other special criteria for use.

MEMORY: the part of a computer in which data and

programs can be temporarily stored and from which
they can be retrieved when required.

MODEM: a MOdulator-DEModulator. A device which

converts data from the computer into audio tones
which can be sent over telephone lines, and vice-
versa. Used for remote accessing a computer or
bulletin board.

MS-DOS (DOS): (acronym) MicroSoft Disc Operating

System, currently the most common operating
system used on PCs.

PC: personal computer. Usually applied to IBM-PCs and

compatibles.

71
PERIPHERALS: equipment linked to the central processing
unit of a computer which enhance and increase its
basic functions. Includes printers, disc drives, etc..

PIRATE: to illegally copy software, sometimes for sale.

PORTABLE: a program that will adapt simply for use on a

variety of computers.

PRINT-OUT: a long strip of paper printed with a program

or the results and processes of a computer's
calculations.

PROGRAM: a series of instructions to the computer. Also

the act of writing a program.

REAL USER: anyone who uses the machine for a specific

purpose, rather than a hacker who is working on the
machine for the joy of seeing what it can do.

RUN: a particular execution of a task or program by a

computer.

SOFTWARE: the programs which give instructions to the

hardware.

TIME SHARING: the simultaneous use of the same

computer by two or more operators, each of whom
works from his/her own remote terminal.

72
USER FRIENDLY: can be used without long months of
training and is designed to make its operation as
easy as possible.

USER GROUP: a computer club, made up of people who

share a common interest; for example, users of the
same type of computer.

WIZARD: a person who understands the most complex

machines and can debug any problem that may come
up.

ZAP: to wipe out anything contained in a computer's

memory.

Most of these definitions are taken from Green

(1984). Some have been edited. Others from various
sources.

73
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BARTH, F., 1969, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The

Social Organisation of Culture Difference, London:
George Allen & Unwin.

BONNETT, J., 1987, 'Is Your Computer Secure?', Leading

Edge, Australian Computer Society Inc. (S.A.
Branch), December: 7.

COHEN, A.P., 1985, The Symbolic Construction of

Community, London: Routledge.

COHEN, A.P., 1986, Symbolizing Boundaries, Manchester:

Manchester University Press.

FORESTER, T., 1987, High-Tech Society, Oxford: Basil

Blackwell.

FORESTER, T., & P.MORRISON, 1990, Computer Ethics:

Cautionary Tales and Ethical Dilemmas in
Computing, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

FRUDE, N., 1983a, 'Hacking with the Hackers.', New

Scientist, 24 February: 532-3.

FRUDE, N., 1983b, The Intimate Machine: Close

Encounters with the New Computer, London:
Century.

74
GARBETT, G.K., 1970, 'The Analysis of Social Situations',
Man (N.S.), 5: 213-227.

GREEN, J., 1984, Newspeak: A Dictionary of Jargon,

London: Routledge & Keegan Paul.

GUMPERZ, J., 1972, 'The Speech Community' in

P.P.Giglioli (ed.), Language and Social Context,
Harmondsworth: Penguin, Pp.219-231.

HOLDERNESS, M., 1993, 'Hackers Come in from the Cold',

New Scientist, 20 November, Vol.140. No.1900: 22-
3.

LEVY, S., 1984, Hackers: Heroes of the Computer

Revolution, New York: Anchor Press/ Doubleday.

MEYERHOFF, B. & S.MONGULLA, 1980, 'The Los Angeles

Jews' "Walk for Solidarity": Parade, Festival,
Pilgrimage', in H.Varenne (ed) Symbolizing
America, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

PLATT, C. (with D.Langford), 1984, Micromania: The

Whole Truth About Home Computers, London:
Victor Gollancz Ltd.

ROGERS, E.M., & J.K.LARSEN, 1984, Silicon Valley Fever,

London: George Allen & Unwin.

75
ROSENBERG, R.S., 1992, The Social Impact of Computers,
San Diego: Academic Press.

SCHEIBE, K.E. & ERWIN, M., 1979, 'The Computer as

Alter', The Journal of Social Psychology 108: 103-
109.

SHALLIS, M., 1984, The Silicon Idol: The Micro Revolution

and its Social Implications, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

SHOTTON, M.A., 1985, 'Compulsive Programmers - An

Alternative View.', Electronics Today International,
June 1985: 124-5.

SIMONS, G., 1989, Viruses, Bugs and Star Wars: The

Hazards of Unsafe Computing, Manchester: NCC
Blackwell.

SMITH, A.D., 1992, 'Chosen Peoples: Why Ethnic Groups

Survive', Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol.15, No.3
(July): 436-456.

STERLING, B., 1994, The Hacker Crackdown

Harmondsworth: Penguin.

TURKLE, S., 1980, 'Computer as Rorschach', Society, 17

(Jan/Feb): 15-24.

76
TURKLE, S., 1984, The Second Self: Computers and the
Human Spirit, New York: Simon and Schuster.

TURKLE, S. & S.PAPERT, 1990, 'Styles and Voices Within

the Computer Culture', Signs, 16 (Autumn): 128-57.

WEIZENBAUM, J., 1976, Computer Power and Human

Reason, San Francisco: W.H.Freeman and Co.

ZIMBARDO, P.G., 1980a, 'The Hacker Papers', Psychology

Today, August: 62-70.

ZIMBARDO, P.G., 1980b, 'The Age of Indifference',

Psychology Today, August: 71-76.

77
 About the Author

I live in Canberra, Australia, with a black cat named

Dog to keep me company.

I am a very mature aged PhD student at The

Australian National University.

I can be contacted at [email protected]

My academic publications are at

http://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=4vZSJ
T4AAAAJ

My website is at
http://rodsbusiness.wordpress.com/

My ebooks can be found by going to my website and

following the links.

If you enjoyed reading my book I would be

delighted if you would leave some feedback on
my obooko.com download page.

Please note: This is a free digital edition from www.obooko.com.

If you paid for this book, or to gain access to it, we suggest you
demand an immediate refund.

78
 This is a legally distributed free edition from
www.obooko.com

The author’s intellectual property rights are protected

by international Copyright law. You are licensed to use this digital
copy strictly for your personal enjoyment only: it must not be
redistributed commercially or offered for sale in any form.