Computer Hacker Culture and Subcultures

Computer Hacker Culture and Subcultures

The explosion of global computer networking, and the increased reliance on computer technology, has made the study of computer hacker culture and subculture an increasingly important topic. According to Holt (2007), computer hackers are often viewed as being pathological individuals, rather than community members. However, the reality is that hackers have established social groups. These groups provide support, training, expertise, journals, and conferences for there members. As such, this paper explores hacker culture and subcultures. To this end, an overview of hackers and the quantity of hacks will be presented. This will be followed by the different aspects of hacker culture will be explored. Lastly, a general assessment of Forecast 4 will be presented.

Computer Hacker Culture and Subcultures

Introduction:

The explosion of global computer networking, and the increased reliance on computer technology, has made the study of computer hacker culture and subculture an increasingly important topic. According to Holt (2007), computer hackers are often viewed as being pathological individuals, rather than community members. However, the reality is that hackers have established social groups. These groups provide support, training, expertise, journals, and conferences for there members. As such, this paper explores hacker culture and subcultures. To this end, an overview of hackers and the quantity of hacks will be presented. This will be followed by the different aspects of hacker culture will be explored. Lastly, a general assessment of Forecast 4 will be presented.

Hacker and Quantity of Hacks Overview:

Due to the nature of an underground community, like hackers, it is often difficult to acquire specific data on their demographics.

In the early 1990s, following an American police crackdown, it was estimated, by Sterling, that there were approximately 5,000 active hackers, with approximately 100 who were skilled enough to be able to penetrate sophisticated systems. During this same time frame, though, researchers Clough and Mungo had surmised there were 2,000 that were in the upper echelons of skilled hackers and 10,000 more that were aspiring to reach this status (cited Holt, 2007).

However, these are just estimates.

A better estimation of the quantity of hackers can be found by investigating the number of hacks.

The 1990 UK Audit Commission surveyed 1,500 commercial, academic, and public service organizations, located in the United Kingdom. This research found that 14% of commercial, 5% of academic, and 11.5% of public service organizations had been hacked.

In 1993, research conducted by Taylor, surveyed 200 global organizations, with half coming from America and one-third coming from the United Kingdom. This study found that 64.5% of respondents had experienced a hack, 18.5% had been affected by a virus only, and 17% had not detected any illicit activity.

And, in 1996, WarRoom surveyed 236 respondents from commercial American, Fortune 1000, firms. Fifty-eight percent of respondents indicated that outsiders had attempted to gain computer access in the prior 12 months, 29.8% did not know, and 12.2% indicated that they were not aware of any attacks. Responses indicating that attacks had been made were further subcategorized into: 38.3% were malicious, 46.5% were either unidentifiable as malicious or were benign, and 15.1% were benign (cited Holt, 2007).

Holt (2007) notes the disparities in the research responses between the Audit Commission report and Taylor and WarRoom. He notes that the organizations surveyed in the United Kingdom had a significantly lower level of hacking, when compared to the American organizations.

In addition, the WarRoom and Taylor research stressed the confidentiality of the responses, and given the high level of caution, by organizations, in reporting hacks, it is likely organizations would be more likely to respond accurately in these two studies. Lastly, Holt (2007) notes, as these two reports were conducted after the Audit Commission research, they may indicate rising levels of hacking. In the end, what becomes clear is that although there may not be a large number of hackers, especially those in the more elite status, most companies are suffering hacks.

Facets of the Hacker Culture:

There are several facets that determine hacker culture. Technology is easily the largest facet. "Hackers share a certain appreciation of or attitude to technology in the assumption that technology can be turned to new and unexpected uses. (...) it is the belief that technology can be bent to new, unanticipated purposes that underpins hackers' collective imagination." (Holt, 2007).

This is not limited to computer technology. Any use of technology in a different way from what it was intended for can be considered hacking (Best, 2003).

Secrecy is another facet of hacker culture; however, hackers work on both ends of the secrecy spectrum. Because of the illicit nature of hacking, clearly there is a need for secrecy (Best, 2003). Yet, hackers also must sometimes forgo secrecy. One obvious instance is when hackers wish to receive recognition.

Although there is the rush from hacking there is an additional thrill hackers receive when sharing their adventures with others. By sharing their exploits, hackers gain status within their community, and gain access to more communal expertise, since hackers are only granted access to some of the more elite bulletin boards once they've proven themselves (Holt, 2007).

Another instance when secrecy goes by the wayside in the hacking community is instances when hackers must rely on information shared within their culture, to sometimes facilitate hacks and to develop their skills, which also negates secrecy within their culture.

Holt (2007) notes that hackers often work in groups to hack. This may include meeting physically, in the same room, to hack, or meeting virtually, via bulletin boards and other online areas, to exchange information. A new hacker typically is trained by a more experienced hacker, or, at the very least, draws on knowledge of hacking from online information (O'Neill, 2006).

These two aspects of the culture conflict with the need for secrecy from keeping the illicit activities away from the eyes of authorities.

Because of the need to prove themselves via a hack, hackers often take a trophy, in the form of a copied document or piece of software. However, the challenge with this is that these trophies are often the few solid pieces of evidence that can be used to prosecute hackers, making them a double-edged sword (Holt, 2007).

Anonymity is a third facet of the hacker culture. The anonymity afforded by the online community is a necessary component of hacking.

Although it's closely related to secrecy, the concept is distinct, according to Holt (2007).

Whereas secrecy refers to the secrecy of the hack itself, anonymity refers to the secrecy of the hacker's true identity. For the sake of anonymity, hackers develop public identities (O'Neill, 2006). These handles allow hackers to keep their anonymity, but relinquish some secrecy, so they can garner the benefits of increased status from a successful hack.

Another unique facet of the hacker culture is the fluidity of its membership. Best (2006) notes, that the hacking community is fluid. As with many other social movements, the hacking community is an informal network of members. For this reason, as Holt (2007) notes, the boundaries are very permeable. This, combined with the illicit and the obsessional nature of the culture means high turnover. Sustained hacking groups are impractical, as these often attract the attention of law enforcement.

The hacking culture is also heavily male dominant, and has an associated misogyny, according to Holt (2007).

Holt cites Taylor's research that failed to uncover any significant evidence of female hackers. In another set of research, Holt notes Giboa had met more than a thousand male hackers, yet less than a dozen female hackers.

Despite the fact that information technology is a male dominated industry, this low incidence of women in the hacking culture is significantly disproportionate. Holt outlines several reasons for this disparity including: " the paucity of women generally in the computer sciences: childhood socialisation, where boys are taught to relate to technology more easily than girls; education in computers occurs in a masculine environment; and, a gender bias towards men in the language used in computer science."

The hacking culture is quite hostile towards women. At best, male and female hackers operate in separate spheres. The anonymity that protects hackers from prosecution, also fuels sexual harassment, as hiding one's true persona, in the culture, often leads to a reduction in all levels of civility. Sexual harassment online is not uncommon, with male hackers often targeting female hackers specifically (Holt, 2007).

The last component of the hacker culture is their motivations for hacking. Best (2003) notes, members revel in the outside nature of their community, to the general public and although their motivations are unique to the individual hacker, there are common themes. Holt (2007) reports that hackers often confess to being addicted to computers and computer networks, feeling a compulsion to hack.

Curiosity as to what can be found online is also a common motivation category. Hackers are also often looking for a thrill, and find hacking more exciting then their boring offline lives.

A fourth motivation lies in gaining power, especially over high-profile systems such as NASA or the CIA.

Peer recognition too plays into many hackers motivation as they work towards being accepted and gaining status within the culture. and, lastly, some hackers are motivated by the thought that their efforts serve a public service (O'Neill, 2006). "Hackers built the Internet, they made the Unix operating system what it is, and they make the World Wide Web work" (Castelluccio, 2003).