archive:news:emmanuel
Q&A with Emmanuel Goldstein of
2600: The Hacker's Quarterly
(CNN) -- Emmanuel Goldstein is the
editor-in-chief of 2600: The Hacker Quarterly and
hosts a weekly radio program in New York called
"Off the Hook."
1. How do you define hacking?
Hacking is, very simply, asking a lot of
questions and refusing to stop asking. This
is why computers are perfect for inquisitive
people -- they don't tell you to shut up
when you keep asking questions or
inputting commands over and over and
over. But hacking doesn't have to confine
itself to computers. Anyone with an
inquisitive mind, a sense of adventure and
strong beliefs in free speech and the right
to know most definitely has a bit of the
hacker spirit in them.
2. Are there legal or appropriate forms of
hacking?
One of the common misconceptions is that
anyone considered a hacker is doing
something illegal. It's a sad commentary on
the state of our society when someone who
is basically seeking knowledge and the truth
is assumed to be up to something nefarious.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Hackers, in their idealistic naiveté, reveal
the facts that they discover, without
regard for money, corporate secrets or
government coverups. We have nothing to
hide, which is why we're always relatively
open with the things we do -- whether it's
having meetings in a public place or running
a system for everyone to participate in
regardless of background. The fact that we
don't "play the game" of secrets also makes
hackers a tremendous threat in the eyes of
many who want to keep things away from
the public.
Secrets are all well and good, but if the
only thing keeping them a secret is the fact
that you say it's a secret, then it's not
really a very good secret. We suggest using
strong encryption for those really interested
in keeping things out of the hands of
outsiders. It's interesting also that hackers
are the ones who are always pushing strong
encryption -- if we were truly interested in
getting into everyone's personal affairs, it's
unlikely we'd try and show them how to
stay secure. There are, however, entities
who are trying to weaken encryption.
People should look toward them with
concern, as they are the true threat to
privacy.
3. What in your mind is the purpose of
hacking?
To seek knowledge, discover something
new, be the first one to find a particular
weakness in a computer system or the first
to be able to get a certain result from a
program. As mentioned above, this doesn't
have to confine itself to the world of
computers. Anyone who's an adventurer or
explorer of some sort, or any good
investigative journalist, knows the feeling of
wanting to do something nobody has ever
done before or find the answer despite
being told that you can't. One thing that all
of the people involved in these endeavors
seem to share is the feeling from outsiders
that they're wasting their time.
4. Are you a hacker? Why? Or why not?
Absolutely. It's not something you can just
erase from your personality, nor should you
want to. Once you lose the desire to mess
around with things, tweak programs and
systems, or just pursue an answer doggedly
until you get a result, you've lost a very
important part of yourself. It's quite
possible that many "reformed" hackers will
lose that special ingredient as they become
more and more a part of some other entity
that demands their very souls. But for
those who can resist this, or figure out a
way to incorporate "legitimacy" into their
hacker personalities without compromising
them, there are some very interesting and
fun times ahead.
5. What kind of hacking do you do?
My main interest has always been phones
and rarely does a day pass when I don't
experiment in some way with a phone
system, voice mail system, pay phone, or
my own telephone. I've always been
fascinated by the fact that we're only a
few buttons away from virtually anyone on
the planet and I hope that I never lose that
sense of marvel.
One of the most amazing things I ever got
involved in was routing phone calls within
the network itself -- known as blue-boxing.
You can't do that as easily any more, but it
was a real fun way to learn how everything
was connected -- operators, services,
countries, you name it. And in the
not-too-distant past, there were so many
different sounds phones made depending on
where you were calling. Now they tend to
be standardized rings, busies, etc. But the
magic hasn't disappeared, it's just moved
on to new things ... satellite technology,
new phone networks and voice recognition
technologies.
Many times these new technologies are
designed by the very people who were
hacking the old technologies. The result is
usually more security and systems that
know what people will find useful. While I've
spent a great deal of time playing with
phones, I get the same sense of fun from
computer systems and have invested lots
of time exploring the Internet. It would fill a
book to outline all of the hacker potential
that exists out there. And, of course,
there's radio hacking, which predates a lot
of the current technology. It's gotten to
the point where simply listening to a certain
frequency has become a challenge. It's
hard to believe that it's actually turned into
a crime to listen to some of these
non-scrambled radio waves. But this is the
price we pay when people with no
understanding of technology are the ones in
charge of regulating it.
6. How much time do you spend at it a week?
That's like asking how much time you spend
breathing. It's always with you, you do
more of it at certain times, but it's always
something that's going on in your head.
Even when I sleep, I dream from a hacker
perspective.
7. Do you have a certain kind of site or
"target" sites that most attract you?
We don't sit around with a big map and a
list of targets. In fact, we don't even sit
around together. Most hacking is done by
individuals who simply find things by
messing around and making discoveries. We
share that info and others add input. Then
someone tells the press and the
government that we're plotting to move
satellites and all hell breaks loose.
I think most of us tend to be drawn to the
sites and systems that are said to be
impossible to access. This is a normal
human reaction to being challenged. The
very fact that we continue to do this after
so many of us have suffered so greatly
indicates that this is a very strong driving
force. When this finally becomes recognized
as a positive thing, perhaps we'll really be
able to learn from each other.
8. What, in general, do you think attracts
people to hacking?
People have always been attracted to
adventure and exploration. Never before
have you been able to get this without
leaving your house and without regard to
your skin color, religion, sex, or even the
sound of your voice. On the Internet,
everyone is an equal until they prove
themselves to be a moron. And even then,
you can always start over. It's the ability
to go anywhere, talk to anyone, and not
reveal your personal information unless you
choose to -- or don't know enough not to
-- that most attracts people to the hacker
culture, which is slowly becoming the
Internet culture.
We find that many "mainstream" people
share the values of hackers -- the value of
free speech, the power of the individual
against the state or the corporation, and
the overall sense of fun that we embrace.
Look in any movie where an individual is
fighting a huge entity, and who does the
audience without exception identify with?
Even if the character breaks the rules, most
people want him/her to succeed because
the individual is what it's all about.
9. Do you know enough hackers personally to
know what personality traits they share, if
any?
Hackers come from all different backgrounds
and have all kinds of lifestyles. They aren't
the geeks you see on television or the
cyberterrorists you see in Janet Reno news
conferences. They range in age from under
10 to over 70. They exist in all parts of the
world, and one of the most amazing and
inspiring things is to see what happens
when they come together. It's all about
technology, the thrill of discovery, and
sharing information. That supersedes any
personality issues that might be an issue in
other circumstances.
10. Do you think hackers are productive and
serve a useful purpose?
I think hackers are necessary, and the
future of technology and society itself
(freedom, privacy, etc.) hinges on how we
address the issues today that hackers are
very much a part of. This can be the
dawning of a great era. It can also be the
beginning of true hell.
11. What percentage would you say are
destructive as opposed to those in it out of
intellectual curiosity or to test their skills?
This raises several points that I feel
strongly about. For one thing, hacking is
the only field where the media believes
anyone who says they're a hacker. Would
you believe someone who said they were a
cop? Or a doctor? Or an airline pilot? Odds
are they'd have to prove their ability at
some point or say something that obviously
makes some degree of sense. But you can
walk up to any reporter and say you're a
hacker and they will write a story about
you telling the world that you're exactly
what you say you are without any real
proof.
So every time a movie like "Hackers" comes
out, 10 million people from AOL send us
e-mail saying they want to be hackers, too,
and suddenly, every 12-year-old with this
sentiment instantly becomes a hacker in
the eyes of the media and hence, the rest
of society. You don't become a hacker by
snapping your fingers. It's not about getting
easy answers or making free phone calls or
logging into someone else's computer.
Hackers "feel" what they do, and it excites
them.
I find that if the people around you think
you're wasting your time but you genuinely
like what you're doing, you're driven by it,
and you're relentless in your pursuit, you
have a good part of a hacker in you. But if
you're mobbed by people who are looking
for free phone calls, software or exploits,
you're just an opportunist, possibly even a
criminal. We already have words for these
people and it adequately defines what they
do. While it's certainly possible to use
hacking ability to commit a crime, once you
do this you cease being a hacker and
commence being a criminal. It's really not a
hard distinction to make.
Now, we have a small but vocal group who
insist on calling anyone they deem
unacceptable in the hacker world a
"cracker." This is an attempt to solve the
problem of the misuse of the word "hacker"
by simply misusing a new word. It's a very
misguided, though well-intentioned, effort.
The main problem is that when you make up
such a word, no further definition is
required. When you label someone with a
word that says they're evil, you never really
find out what the evil was to begin with.
Murderer, that's easy. Burglar, embezzler,
rapist, kidnapper, all pretty clear. Now
along comes cracker and you don't even
know what the crime was. It could be
crashing every computer system in
Botswana. Or it could be copying a single
file. We need to avoid the labeling and start
looking at what we're actually talking
about. But at the same time, we have to
remember that you don't become a hacker
simply because you say you are.
12. Do people stay in hacking a long time, or
is it the kind of thing that people do for a few
years and then move on to something else?
It can be either. I tend to believe that it's
more of a philosophy, a way of looking at
something. When you have the hacker
perspective, you see potential where others
don't. Also, hackers think of things like
phones, computers, pagers, etc., as toys
and things to be enjoyed whereas others
see work and responsibility and actually
come to dread these things. That's why
hackers like to hold onto their world and not
become part of the mainstream. But it
certainly can and does happen.
13. What is the future of hacking?
As long as the human spirit is alive, there
will always be hackers. We may have a hell
of a fight on our hands if we continue to be
imprisoned and victimized for exploring, but
that will do anything but stop us.
14. Given increased attention to corporate
and government security, is it getting
tougher to hack or not?
Hacking isn't really about success -- it's
more the process of discovery. Even if real
security is implemented, there will always
be new systems, new developments, new
vulnerabilities. Hackers are always going to
be necessary to the process and we're not
easily bored.
15. Is the possibility of being identified and
even prosecuted an issue for most hackers?
Hackers make very bad criminals. This is
why we always wind up being prosecuted.
We don't hide very well or keep our mouths
sealed shut to protect corporate or
government interests. But the same
security holes would exist even if we
weren't around, so I think the hackers
should be properly seen as messengers.
That doesn't mean that you should expect
them to just hand over all of their
knowledge -- it's important to listen and
interpret on your own, as any hacker
would.
16. Are there hackers who are up for hire?
What are they paid? Who hires them, and for
what?
Just as you can use hacker ability to attain
a life of crime, you can use that ability to
become a corporate success. Some are
able to hold onto their hacker ideals.
Others, sadly, lose them. It's especially
hard when young people who haven't
worked it all out yet are approached and
tempted with huge amounts of money by
these entities. It can be very hard to resist
and the cost is often greater than
anticipated.
17. Have you had any contact with people
you consider cyberterrorists? Do you endorse
what they do?
In all of the time I've been in the scene,
which is a pretty long time, I've never come
across anyone I consider to be a
"cyberterrorist," whatever that is. Most
people who talk of such creatures either
have something to sell or some bill to pass.
This is not to say that such a concept is
impossible. But I believe the current
discussions aren't based in reality and have
very suspicious ulterior motives.
18. What about the people who hack into
Pentagon sites? Do you think they should be
punished?
According to the Pentagon, there is no risk
of anything classified being compromised
because it's not on the Internet. If they
were wrong, I would like to see someone
prove that. If a non-classified site is
hacked, I don't see the harm unless
something is damaged in some way.
Remember, the security hole was already
there. If a hacker finds it, it's far more likely
the people running the system will learn of
the hole. If a criminal or someone with an
ulterior motive (espionage, etc.) finds the
hole first, it's likely to remain secret for
much longer and the harm will be far
greater.
While you may resent the fact that some
14-year-old from Topeka proved your
security sucks, think of what could have
happened had you not learned of this and
had someone else done it instead. I'm the
first to say that people who cause damage
should be punished, but I really don't think
prison should be considered for something
like this unless the offender is a true risk to
society. The great majority of these cases
do not involve damage or vandalism, a fact
that largely goes unreported. What people
have to remember is that most of the time,
this is simply an example of kids being kids
and playing games like they have always
done.
Obviously, the tools have changed, but
that's really not something the kids are
responsible for. If some kid somewhere can
access your medical records or your phone
records, he or she is not the one who put
them there. The true violator of your
privacy is the person who made the
decision to make them easily accessible.
19. Your real name is Eric Corley. Why do you
use the name Emmanuel Goldstein?
I believe everyone should be given the
opportunity to name themselves. That
name should reflect something about who
you are and what you believe in and stand
for. Emmanuel Goldstein is that for me, and
for those who want to learn why, get a
copy of George Orwell's "1984" and see for
yourself. Interestingly, our first issue of
2600 was published in January 1984. A
complete coincidence.
/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/archive/news/emmanuel.txt · Last modified: 1999/10/26 14:25 by 127.0.0.1