        ммммммммммммм                            ммм           мммм
     мллллллллплпппппллм       ммппппмммм млм  мллллллллмммммлпп плл
    пллллллллллллллм  плл   млллмллммм   пллллм плллллллмллмммллн лп
        пппллллллллллм он  лллллллллллпплмоллл    лллллм    пплллоп
Mo.iMP  мллм  плллллллнл  оллллллллл    олллл     олллллн      плп
      мллллллл  ллллллллн оллллллллн     ллл       лллллл
     млллллллн  олллллллл олллллллл       п        оллллллм   мл
    млллллллн    лллллллл  ллллллллн               оолллллллллп
   млплллллл мм  ллллллллн ллолллллн               оллллллпп
  млпллллллмллллмолллллллл ол пллллл           м   лнллллл             м
 мл оллллллллллп  ллллллллл плм  плллмм    ммлллп ол олллн         ммлл
лл   ллллллллп    ллллллллллм плм  пплллллллллп мммп ллллмммммммлллллп
 плм   млллп       пллллллллллм  ппмм ппмллпп  пллм   ппплплллллллпп
    ппппп                ппллп      ппппп        ппппппппппппп
          ARRoGANT                CoURiERS      WiTH     ESSaYS

Grade Level:       Type of Work           Subject/Topic is on:
 [ ]6-8                 [ ]Class Notes    [The computer underground]
 [ ]9-10                [ ]Cliff Notes    [including hackers and   ]
 [ ]11-12               [ ]Essay/Report   [pirates.                ]
 [x]College             [x]Misc           [                        ]

 Dizzed:7/94    # of Words:10928 School: ?              State: ?
ФФФФФФФФФ>ФФФФФФФФФ>ФФФФФФФФФ>Chop Here>ФФФФФФФФФ>ФФФФФФФФФ>ФФФФФФФФФ>ФФФФФФФФФ




                 THE BAUDY WORLD OF THE BYTE BANDIT:
     A POSTMODERNIST INTERPRETATION OF THE COMPUTER UNDERGROUND

                   Gordon Meyer and Jim Thomas
                     Department of Sociology
                  Northern Illinois University
                        DeKalb, IL 60115
                         (5 March, 1990)

    An earlier version  of this paper was presented  at the American
Society of Criminology annual meetings, Reno (November 9,  1989). Authors
are listed in alphabetical order.  Address correspondence to Jim Thomas. We
are indebted  to the numerous anonymous  computer underground participants
who provided  information.  Special acknowledgement goes to Hatchet Molly,
Jedi, The Mentor,  Knight Lightning,  and Taran King.

                            ABSTRACT

     The criminalization  of "deviant  acts" transforms  social meanings
into legal ones.  Yet, legal meanings are not necessari- ly social
meanings.   The legitimacy of statutory social control generally requires
that one accept  the realist textual readings of those with the power to
interpret and stigmatize behaviors as inappropriate.   "Moral  crusades"
that lead to  definitions of criminalized deviance tend  to reduce the
meanings  of polysemic acts to unidimensional ones that  limit
understanding of both the nature of the acts and their  broader
relationship to the culture in which they occur.   This has occured with
the criminalization of computer phreaking and hacking.  In this paper, we
examine the computer underground as a cultural, rather than a deviant,
phe- nomenon.   Our data reveal the computer underground as an invisi- ble
community with a complex and interconnected culture,  depen- dent for
survival on information sharing,  norms of reciprocity, sophisticated
socialization rituals,  and an explicit value sys- tem.   We suggest that
the dominant image of the computer under- ground as one of criminal
deviance results in a failure to appre- ciate cultural meaning.   We
conclude  by arguing that there are characteristics of underground activity
that embrace a postmoder- nist rejection of conventional culture.


                             - ii -



               THE BAUDY WORLD OF THE BYTE BANDIT:
   A POSTMODERNIST INTERPRETATION OF THE COMPUTER UNDERGROUND Hackers are
"nothing more  than high-tech street gangs" (Federal Prosecutor, Chicago).
Transgression is not immoral. Quite to the contrary, it reconciles the law
with what it forbids; it is the dia- lectical game of good and evil
(Baudrillard, 1987: 81). There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue.
There's just stuff people do.   It's all part of the nice, but that's as
far as any man got a right to say (Steinbeck, 1939:31-32).

     The criminalization of "deviant acts" transforms and reduces social
meanings to legal ones.  Legal meanings are not necessari- ly social
meanings.   Most deviancy  research tends to reproduce conventional social
ideology and operative definitions of normal- ity within its concepts and
theories.   On occasion, these mean- ings represent a form of "class
politics" that protect the power and privilege of one group from the
challenge of another:

     Divorcing moral crusades from  status group competition while denying
     that cultures are linked to social class- es has undermined attempts
     to link lifestyle politics to group struggles (Beisel, 1990: 45).

     Once a category of behaviors  has become defined by statute as
sanctionably deviant,  the behaviors  so-defined assume a new set of
meanings that may obscure  ones possessed by those who en- gage in such
behaviors.   "Computer deviants" provide one example of a criminalized type
of "lifestyle politics."

     The proliferation of computer  technology has been accompa- nied by
the growth of a computer underground (CU),  often mistak- enly labeled
"hackers," that is  perceived as criminally deviant by the media, law
enforcement officials, and researchers.   Draw- ing from ethnographic data,
we offer  a cultural rather than a criminological analysis of the
underground  by suggesting that it reflects an attempt to recast,
re-appropriate,  and reconstruct the power-knowledge relationship that
increasingly dominates the ideology and actions of modern society.  Our
data reveal the com- puter underground as  an invisible community with  a
complex and interconnected cultural lifestyle, an inchoate
anti-authoritarian political consciousness,  and dependent on norms of
reciprocity, sophisticated socialization  rituals,  networks  of
information sharing, and an explicit value system.   We interpret the CU
cul- ture as a challenge to and parody of conventional culture,  as a
playful attempt to reject the seriousness of technocracy,  and as an ironic
substitution of rational  technological control of the present for an
anarchic and playful future.

              Stigmatizing the Computer Underground

     The computer underground refers to persons engaged in one or more of
several activities, including pirating, anarchy, hacking, and phreaking[1].
Because computer  underground participants freely share information and
often are involved collectively in a single incident,  media definitions
invoke the generalized meta- phors of  "conspiracies" and "criminal rings,"
(e.g.,  Camper, 1989;  Zablit,  1989),  "modem macho" evil-doers
(Bloombecker,

    1988), moral bankruptcy (Schwartz,  1988),  "electronic trespas- sers"
(Parker:  1983), "crazy kids dedicated to making mischief" (Sandza, 1984:
17), "electronic vandals" (Bequai:  1987), a new "threat" (Van, 1989),
saboteurs ("Computer Sabateur," 1988),  se- cret societies of criminals
(WMAQ, 1990),  and "high-tech street gangs" ("Hacker,  18," 1989).   These
images have prompted calls for community and  law enforcement vigilance
(Conly  and McEwen, 1990: 2) and for application of the Racketeer
Influenced and Cor- rupt Organizations (RICO) Act to prosecute and control
the "crim- inals" (Cooley, 1984).   These images fail to distinguish under-
ground "hobbyists," who may infringe on  legal norms but have no intention
of pillaging, from felonious predators,  who use tech- nology to loot[2].
Such terminology provides a common stock of knowledge that formats
interpretations of CU activity  in ways pre-patterned as requiring social
control  to protect the common- weal (e.g., Altheide, 1985).

    As Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce (1988:  119), Kane (1989), and Pfuhl
(1987) observed,  the stigmatization of hackers has emerged primarily
through value-laden media depictions.   When in 1990 a Cornell University
graduate student inadvertently infected an in- ternational computer network
by  planting a self-reproducing "vi- rus," or "rogue program," the news
media followed the story with considerable detail about  the dangers of
computer  abuse (e.g., Allman, 1990; Winter, 1988).  Five years earlier, in
May of 1983, a group of hackers known as  "The 414's" received equal media
at- tention when they  broke into the computer system  of the Sloan

    Kettering Cancer research center.   Between these dramatic and a-
typical events, the media have dramatized the dangers of computer
renegades,  and media anecdotes  presented during Congressional legislative
debates  to curtail "computer abuse"  dramatized the "computer hacking
problem" (Hollinger  and Lanza-Kaduce,  1988: 107).   Although the accuracy
and objectivity of the evidence has since been challenged (Hollinger and
Lanza-Kaduce 1988: 105), the media continue to format CU activity  by
suggesting that any com- puter-related felony can be attributed to hacking.
Additionally, media stories are taken from the accounts of police blotters,
se- curity personnel, and apprehended hackers, each of whom have dif-
ferent perspectives and definitions.   This creates a self-rein- forcing
imagery in  which  extreme  examples and  cursively circulated data are
discretely adduced  to substantiate the claim of criminality by  those with
a vested interest  in creating and maintaining such definitions.   For
example,  Conly and McEwen (1990)  list examples of law  enforcement
jurisdictions in which special units to  fight "computer crime," very
broadly defined, have been created.  These broad  definitions serve to
expand the scope of authority and resources of the units.   Nonetheless,
de- spite criminalization,  there is little  evidence to support the
contention that computer hacking has been sufficiently abusive or pervasive
to warrant prosecution (Michalowski and Pfuhl,  forth- coming).

     As an antidote to the  conventional meanings of CU activity as simply
one of deviance,  we shift the social meaning of CU behavior from one of
stigma to one of culture creation and meaning. Our work is tentative,  in
part  because of the lack of previous substantive literature and in part
because of the complexity of the data, which indicate a multiplicity of
subcultures within the CU.   This paper examines of two distinct CU
subcultures, phreaks and hackers,  and challenges the Manichean view that
hackers can be understood simply as profaners of  a sacred moral and
economic order. The Computer Underground and Postmodernism The computer
underground  is a culture of  persons who call computer bulletin board
systems (BBSs,  or just "boards"),  and share the interests fostered by the
BBS.

    In conceptualizing the computer underground as a distinct culture, we
draw from Geertz's (1973: 5) definition of culture as a system of meanings
that give significance to shared  behaviors that must be interpreted from
the perspective of those engaged in them.  A culture provides not only the
"systems of standards for perceiving, believing, evalu- ating, and acting"
(Goodenough,  1981:  110),  but includes the rules and symbols  of
interpretation and discourse  for partici- pants: In crude relief,  culture
can be understood as a set of solutions devised by a group of people to
meet specific problems  posed by  situations  they  face in  com- mon. . .
This notion of culture as a living, historical product of group problem
solving  allows an approach to cultural study that is applicable to any
group, be it a society, a neighborhood, a family, a dance band,  or an
organization and its segments  (Van Maanen and Barley, 1985: 33).

     Creating and maintaining a culture requires continuous indi- vidual or
group processes of  sustaining an identity through the coherence gained by
a consistent aesthetic point of view, a moral conception of self,  and a
lifestyle that expresses those concep- tions in one's immediate existence
and tastes (Bell, 1976:  36). These behavioral expressions signify a
variety of meanings,  and as signifiers they reflect a type of code that
can be interpreted semiotically,  or as a sign system amenable to readings
indepen- dent of either participants or of  those imposed by the super-or-
dinate culture:

     All aspects of culture possess  a semiotic value,  and the most
     taken-for-granted phenomena can  function as signs:   as elements in
     communication systems governed by semantic rules  and codes which are
     not themselves directly apprehended in experience.   These signs are,
     then,  as opaque as the social relations which produce them and which
     they re-present (Hebdige, 1982: 13).

     It is this symbolic cultural ethos,   by which we mean the style,
world view, and mood (Hebdige,  1979),  that reflects the postmodernist
elements of the CU and separates it from modernism. Modernist culture  is
characterized especially  by rationality, technological enhancement,
deference to centralized control,  and mass communication.   The emergence
of computer technology has created dramatic changes in social
communication, economic trans- actions, and information processing and
sharing, while simultane- ously introducing new forms of surveillance,
social control,  and intrusions on privacy (Marx, 1988a: 208-211;  Marx and
Reichman, 1985).  This has contributed to a:

     . . .  richly confused and hugely verbal age, energized by a multitude
     of competing discourses,  the very pro- liferation and plasticity of
     which increasingly determine what we defensively refer  to as our
     reality (New- man, 1985: 15).

     By Postmodernism we mean a reaction against "cultural moder- nity" and
a destruction of the  constraints of the present "maxi- mum security
society" (Marx,  1988b)  that reflect an attempt to gain control of an
alternative future. In the CU world, this con- stitutes a conscious
resistance to the  domination of but not the fact of technological
encroachment into  all realms of our social existence.  The CU represents a
reaction against modernism by of- fering an ironic response to the primacy
of a master technocratic language,  the incursion of computers into realms
once considered private, the politics of techno-society,  and the sanctity
of es- tablished civil and state authority.  Postmodernism is character-
ized not so much by a single  definition as by a number of inter- related
characteristics, including, but not limited to:

   1.  Dissent for dissent's sake (Lyotard, 1988).
   2.  The collapse of the  hierarchical distinction between mass
       and popular culture (Featherstone, 1988: 203).
   3.  A stylistic promiscuity favoring  eclecticism and the mix-
       ing of codes (Featherstone, 1988: 203).
   4.  Parody, pastiche, irony,  playfulness and the celebration
       of the surface "depthlessness"  of culture (Featherstone,
       1988: 203).
   5.  The decline of the originality/genius of the artistic pro-
       ducer and the assumption that  art can only be repetitious
       (Featherstone 1988: 203).
   6.  The stripping  away of social and  perceptual coordinates
       that let one "know where one is" (Latimer, 1984: 121).
   7.  A search for new ways  to make the unpresentable presenta-
       ble, and break down the barriers that keep the profane out
       of everyday life (Denzin, 1988: 471).
   8.  The introduction of new moves  into old games or inventing
       new games  that are evaluated pragmatically  rather than
       from some uniform stand point  of "truth" or philosophical
       discourse (Callinicos, 1985: 86).
   9.  Emphasis on the  visual over the literary  (Lash,  1988:
       314).
   10. Devaluation of formalism and  juxtaposition of signifiers
       taken from the banalities of  everyday life (Lash,  1988:
       314).
   11. Contesting of rationalist and/or  didactive views of cul-
       ture (Lash, 1988: 314).
   12. Asking not what a cultural text  means,  but what it does
       (Lash, 1988: 314).
   13. Operation through the spectator's immersion, the relative-
       ly unmediated investment of his/her desire in the cultural
       object (Lash, 1988: 314).
   14. Acknowledgement of the decenteredness  of modern life and
       "plays with the apparent emptiness  of modern life as well
       as the lack of coherence  in modern symbol systems" (Man-
       ning, 1989: 8).

     "Post-Modernism" in its positive  form constitutes an intel- lectual
attack upon the atomized,   passive and indifferent mass culture which,
through the saturation of electronic technology, has reached its zenith in
Post-War American (Newman,  1985:  5). It is this style of playful
rebellion, irreverent subversion, and juxtaposition of fantasy with
high-tech reality that impels us to interpret the computer underground as a
postmodernist culture.

                         Data and Method

     Obtaining data from any  underground culture requires tact. BBS
operators protect  the privacy of users and access to elite boards, or at
least to their relevant security levels,  virtually always requires
completion of a preliminary  questionnaire,  a screening process, and
occasional voice verification.   Research- ers generally do not themselves
violate laws or dominant norms, so they depend on their  informants for
potentially "dirty infor- mation" (Thomas and Marquart, 1988).   Our own
data are no excep- tion and derive from several sources.

     First,  the bulk  of our data come  from computer bulletin board
systems.   BBSs are personal computers (PCs) that have been equipped with a
telephone modem and special  software that con- nects users to other PCs by
telephone.   After "logging in" by supplying a valid user name and
password,  the user can receive and leave messages to other users of the
system.   These messages are rarely private and anyone calling the BBS can
freely read and respond to them.  There is usually the capacity to receive
(down- load) or send (upload) text files ("G-philes")  or software pro-
grams between the caller and host system.

     We logged the message section of CU BBSs to compile documen- tary
evidence of  the issues deemed important  for discussion by participants.
Logs are "captured" (recorded using the computer buffer)  messages left on
the board by users.   Calculating the quantity of logged data is  difficult
because of formatting vari- ance,  but we estimate that our logs exceed
10,000 printed pages. The logs  cited here are verbatim  with the exception
of minor editing changes in format and extreme typographical errors.

     Identifying underground BBSs can be  difficult,  and to the
uninitiated they may appear to be licit chat or shareware boards. For
callers with sufficient access,  however,  there exist back- stage realms
in  which "cracking" information is  exchanged and private text or
software files made available.    With current technology,  establishing a
BBS  requires little initial skill. Most boards  are short-lived and  serve
only local  or regional callers.   Because of the generally poor quality
and amateur na- ture of these systems, we focused on national elite boards.
We considered a board "elite" if it met all of the following charac-
teristics: At least one quarter of the users were registered out- side the
state of the board  called;  the phone line were exclu- sively for  BBS use
and  available 24  hours a day;   and the information and files/warez  were
current "state of  the field." Elite CU members argue that there are less
than ten "truly elite" p/hacker boards nationally.

     We obtained the  names and numbers of BBSs  from the first boards we
called, and used a snowball technique to supplement the list.   We obtained
additional numbers from CU periodicals, and, as we became more familiar
with the culture,  users also added to the list.   Our aggregate data
include no less than 300 Bulletin board systems,  of which at least 50
attract phreaks and hackers, and voice or on-line interviews with  no less
than 45 sysops (op- erators of BBS systems) and other active CU
participants.

     A second data source included  open-ended voice and on-line interviews
with hackers, phreaks and pirates.   The data include no less than 25
face-to-face, 25 telephone, and 60 on-line inter- views obtained as we
became familiar with our informants.

     Third,  data acquisition included  as much participation as legally
possible in CU activities[3].  This served to justify our presence in the
culture and  provided information about the mun- dane activity of the CU.

     Finally,  we obtained back and current issues of the primary
underground computerized magazines,  which are distributed on na- tional
BBSs as text files.  These contain information relevant to the particular
subculture,  and included PHRACK,  Activist Times Incorporated (ATI),
P/Hun, 2600 Magazine, PIRATE, TAP, and Legion of Doom (LoD/H).   We also
draw  data from national and interna- tional electronic mail (e-mail)
systems on which an active infor- mation-sharing CU network has developed
and spread.

     Assessing the validity and reliability  of data obtained in this
manner creates special problems.   One is that of sampling. The number of
boards,  their often ephemeral existence,  and the problem of obtaining
access  makes conventional sampling impossible.   We focused on national
boards and engaged in theoretical sampling (Glaser and Strauss, 1967:
45-77).  We consider our sam- ple representative, and accept Bordieu's
observation that:

     If, following the canon dictated by orthodox methodology, you take a
     random sample, you mutilate the very ob- ject you have set out to
     construct.  If, in a study of the field of lawyers, for instance, you
     do not draw the President of the Supreme Court,  or if,  in an inquiry
     into the French intellectual field  of the 1950s,  you leave out
     Jean-Paul Sartre,  or Princeton University in a study of American
     academics, your field is destroyed, insofar as these personas or
     institutions alone mark a crucial position--there are positions  in a
     field which command the whole structure  (Bordieu,  interviewed in
     Wacquant, 1989: 38).

     We judge our  sample of participants adequate  for several reasons.
First,  we presume that the members with whom we have had contact comprise
the elite members of the culture,  as deter- mined by the nature of the
boards they were on,  references to them on national  boards,  the level of
expertise displayed in their messages, and their appearance in the "user
lists" of elite boards.   We consider the BBSs to be "typical exemplars"
because of their status in the culture, because of the level of sophisti-
cation both of users and of message content,  and because of ref- erences
to these boards as "elite" in CU periodicals.

                    The Computer Underground

     The computer underground is both a  life style and a social network.
As a lifestyle, it provides identity and roles, an op- erational ideology,
and guides daily routine.  As a social net- work,  it functions as a
communications channel between persons engaged in one of three basic
activities:   Hacking,  phreaking, and pirating[4].   Each subgroup
possesses an explicit style that includes an ethic and "code  of honor,"
cohesive norms,  career paths,  and other characteristics that  typify a
culture (Meyer, 1989a, 1989b;; Meyer and Thomas, 1989).

     Hebdige (1982:  113-117) used the concept of homology to de- scribe
the structural unity that  binds participants and provides the "symbolic
fit between the values  and life-styles of a group" and how it expresses or
reinforces its focal concerns.   Homology refers to the affinity and
similarities  members of a group share that give it the particular cultural
identity.   These shared al- ternative values and actions connect CU
members to each other and their culture,  and create a celebration of
"otherness" from the broader culture.

Hackers
      (Tune: "Put Another Nickel in")
      Put another password in,
      Bomb it out, and try again,
      Try to get past logging in,
      Were hacking, hacking, hacking.
      Try his first wife's maiden name,
      This is more than just a game,
      It's real fun, but just the same
      It's hacking, hacking, hacking.
      Sys-call, let's try sys-call.
      Remember, that great bug from Version 3,
      Of R S X, It's here!  Whoopee!
      Put another sys-call in,
      Run those passwords out and then,
      Dial back up, we're logging on,
      We're hacking, hacking, hacking.
      (The Hacker Anthem, by Chesire Catalyst)

     Hacking broadly refers to attempts to gain access to comput- ers to
which one does not possess authorization.  The term "hack- ers" first came
into use in the  early 1960's when it was applied to a  group of pioneering
computer aficionados at  MIT (Levy, 1984).   Through the 1970s,  a hacker
was viewed as someone obs- essed with  understanding and mastering computer
systems (Levy 1984). But, in the early 1980's, stimulated by the release of
the movie "War Games"  and the much publicized arrest  of a "hacker gang"
known as "The 414s",  hackers were seen as young whiz-kids capable of
breaking into corporate  and government computer sys- tems (Landreth
1985:34).   The imprecise media definition and the lack of any clear
understanding of what  it means to be a hacker results in the
mis-application of the  label to all forms of com- puter malfeasance.

     Despite the inter-relationship between  phreaks and hackers, the label
of "hacker" is generally  reserved for those engaged in computer system
trespassing.   For CU participants,  hacking can mean either attempting to
gain access  to a computer system,  or the more refined goals of exploring
in,  experimenting with,  or testing a computer system.  In the first
connotation, hacking re- quires skills to obtain valid  user accounts on
computer systems that would otherwise be unavailable,   and the term
connotes the repetitive nature of break-in attempts.  Once successful entry
is made,  the illicit accounts are often shared among associates and
described as being "freshly (or newly) hacked."

     The second  connotation refers  to someone  possessing the knowledge,
ability,  and desire to fully explore a computer sys- tem.   For elite
hackers,  the mere act of gaining entry is not enough to warrant the
"hacker" label;  there must be a desire to master and  skill to  use the
system after  access has  been achieved:

     It's Sunday night,  and I'm in  my room,  deep into a hack.   My eyes
     are on the monitor, and my hands are on the keyboard,  but my mind  is
     really on the operating system of a super-minicomputer a  thousand
     miles away - a super-mini with an operating systems that does a good
     job of tracking users, and that will show my activities in its user
     logs,  unless I  can outwit it in the few hours before  the Monday
     morning staff  arrives for work.....Eighteen hours ago,  I managed to
     hack a pass- word for the PDP 11/44.  Now, I have only an hour or so
     left to alter the user logs.  If I don't the logs will lead the system
     operators to my secret account, and the hours of work  it took me to
     get this  account will be wasted (Landreth, 1985: 57-58).

     An elite hacker must experiment  with command structures and explore
the many files available in  order to understand and ef- fectively use the
system.  This is sometimes  called "hacking around" or simply "hacking a
system".  This distinction is neces- sary because not all trespassers are
necessarily skilled at hack- ing out passwords,  and not all hackers retain
interest in a sys- tem once  the challenge of  gaining entry has  been
surmounted. Further, passwords and accounts are often traded,  allowing
even an unskilled intruder to erroneously claim the title of "hacker."

     Our data indicate that, contrary to their media image, hack- ers avoid
deliberately destroying data  or otherwise damaging the system.   Doing so
would conflict with their instrumental goal of blending in with the average
user  to conceal their presence and prevent the deletion of the account.
After spending what may be a substantial amount  of time obtaining a  high
access  account, the hacker places a high priority  on not being discovered
using it,  and hackers share considerable  contempt for media stories that
portray them  as "criminals."  The leading  CU periodicals (e.g., PHRACK,
PIRATE)  and several CU "home boards" reprint and disseminate media
stories, adding ironic commentary.  The percep- tion of media  distortion
also provides grist  for message sec- tions:

     A1: I myself hate newspaper reporters who do stories on hackers,
     piraters, phreaks,  etc...because they always make us sound like these
     incred.  %sic% smart people (which isn't too bad) who are the biggest
     threat to to- days community.  Shit...the  BEST hackers/phreaks/etc
     will tell you that they only  do it to gain information on those
     systems,  etc...(Freedom  - That's what they call it...right?)  (grin)

     A2: Good point...never met a "real p/h type yet who was into ripping
     off. To rip of a line from the Steve Good- man song (loosely),  the
     game's the thing.  Even those who allegedly fly the jolly rodger
     %pirates%,  the true ones, don't do it for the rip-off, but,  like
     monopoly, to see if they can get Boardwalk and Park Place without
     losing any railroads.  Fun of the latter is to start on a board with a
     single good game or util %software util- ity% and see what it can be
     turned into,  so I'm told. Fuck the press (DS message log, 1989).

     One elite hacker,  a member of a loose-knit organization re- cently in
the national news  when some participants were indicted for hacking,
responded to media distortions of the group by is- sueing an underground
press release:

     My name is %deleted%, but to the computer world,  I am %deleted%.   I
     have been a member of the group known as Legion of Doom since its
     creation,  and admittedly I have not been the most legitimate computer
     user around, but when people start hinting at my supposed Communist-
     backed actions,  and say that I am involved in a world- wide
     conspiracy to destroy the nation's computer and/or 911 network,  I
     have to speak  up and hope that people will take what I have to say
     seriously. . . .

     People just can't seem to grasp  the fact that a group of 20 year old
     kids just  might know a little more than they do,  and rather than
     make  good use of us,  they would rather  just lock us  away and keep
     on letting things pass by them.   I've said this before, you can't
     stop burglars from robbing you when you leave the doors unlocked and
     merely bash them in the head with baseball bats when they walk in.
     You  need to lock the door. But when you leave the doors open, but
     lock up the peo- ple who can  close them for you  another burglar will
     just walk right in ("EB," 1990).

     Although skirting the law, hackers possess an explicit ethic and their
primary goal is  knowledge acquisition.   Levy (1984: 26-36) identifies six
"planks" of the original hacker ethic,  and these continue to guide modern
hackers:

   1.  First,  access to computers should be unlimited and total:
       "Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative!"
   2.  Second, all information should be free.
   3.  Third, mistrust authority and promote decentralization.
   4.  Fourth, hackers should be judged by their prowess as hack-
       ers rather than by formal  organizational or other irrele-
       vant criteria.
   5.  Fifth, one can create art and beauty on a computer.
   6.  Finally, computers can change lives for the better.

     PHRACK,  recognized as the  "official" p/hacker newsletter, expanded
on this creed with a rationale that can be summarized in three principles
("Doctor Crash," 1986).   First, hackers reject the notion that
"businesses" are the  only groups entitled to ac- cess and use of modern
technology.   Second,  hacking is a major weapon in the fight against
encroaching computer technology.  Fi- nally,  the high cost of equipment
is beyond the means of most hackers, which results in the perception that
hacking and phreak- ing are the only recourse to  spreading computer
literacy to the masses:

     Hacking.  It is a full  time hobby,  taking countless hours per week
     to learn,  experiment,  and execute the art of penetrating multi-user
     computers:   Why do hack- ers spend a good portion of their time
     hacking?   Some might say it is scientific curiosity, others that it
     is for mental stimulation.   But the true roots of hacker motives run
     much deeper than that.  In this file I will describe the underlying
     motives  of the aware hackers, make known the connections between
     Hacking,  Phreaking, Carding, and Anarchy,  and make known the
     "techno-revo- lution" which  is laying seeds  in the mind  of every
     hacker.  . .  .If you need a tutorial on how to perform any of the
     above stated  methods %of hacking%,  please read a %PHRACK% file on
     it.   And whatever you do, con- tinue the fight. Whether you know it
     or not, if you are a hacker, you are a revolutionary.  Don't worry,
     you're on the right side ("Doctor Crash," 1986).

     Computer software,  such as auto-dialers popularized in the film War
Games,  provides a  means for inexperienced hackers to search out other
computers.   Auto-dialers randomly dial numbers and save the "hits" for
manual testing later.  Some users self-i- dentify has hackers simply on
the basis of successfully collect- ing computer numbers or passwords, but
these users are considered "lamerz," because they do not possess sufficient
knowledge to ob- tain access or move about in  the system once access is
obtained. Lamerz are readily identified by their message content:

      Sub ->numbers
      From -> (#538)
      To   ->all
      Date ->02/21/xx 06:10:00 PM

     Does anyone know any numbers for hotels, schools, busi- nesses,
     etc..and passwords if you  do please leave a bulletin with the number
     and  the password and/or logon id.

      Sub ->phun
      From -> (#138)
      To   ->all
      Date ->02/22/xx 12:21:00 AM

     Anyone out there  got some good 800 dial  up that are fairly safe to
     hack?  If so could ya leave me em in e- mail or post em with  the
     formats.....any help would%be appreciated......

                       thanx
                             - 18 -

      Sub ->NUMBERS
      From -> (#538)
      To   ->ALL
      Date ->02/24/xx 03:12:00 PM

     Does anyone have any 1-800 numbers with id,  logon and passwords?

      Sub ->Credit Card's for Codez
      From -> (#134)
      To   ->All
      Date ->01/26/xx 07:43:00 AM

     Tell ya what.   I will  exchange any amount of credit cards for a code
     or two.  You name the credit limit you want on the credit card and I
     will get it for you.   I do this cause I to janitorial  work at night
     INSIDE the bank when no one is there..... heheheheheh

      Sub ->Codes..
      From -> (#660)
      To   ->All
      Date ->01/31/xx 01:29:00 AM

     Well,  instead of leaving codes,   could you leave us "uninformed"
     people with a few 800 dialups and formats? I don't need codes,  I just
     want dialups!   Is that so much to ask?   I would be willing to trade
     CC's %credit cards% for dialups.  Lemme know..

      Sub ->0266 Codez
      From -> (#134)
      To   ->All
      Date ->01/31/xx 06:56:00 AM

     Anyone, What is the full dial up for 0266 codez? Such requests are
     considered amateurish, rarely generate the requested information,  and
     elicit  predictable "flamez" (severe criticism) or even potentially
     dangerous pseudo-assistance:

      Sub ->Reply to: 0266 Codez
      From -> (#124)
      To   ->C-Poo
      Date ->01/31/xx 09:02:00 AM

     Okay,   here's  the full  info,   Chris:    Dial
     1-900-(pause)-%xxx%-REAL.   When it  answers,   hit
     #*9876321233456534323545766764 Got it?   Okay, here's a 800 number to
     try:  1-800-426-%xxxx%.   Give the opera- tor your zip,and fake it
     from there!   Enjoy, you hack- meister, you!

      Sub ->Reply to: 0266 Codez
      From -> (#448)
      To   -> #38
      Date ->01/31/xx 03:43:00 PM

     What the fuck kind of question  is that?  Are you that stupid?  what
     is the full dial up for an 0266?  Give me a break!  Call back when you
     learn not when you want to leech!

      Sub ->CC-ING
      From -> (#393)
      To   -> #38
      Date ->02/05/xx 01:41:00 AM

     WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU?  PROBABLY A NARC, AREN'T YA!  NO ONE IN HIS
     RIGHT MIND ASKS FOR CARDS. (AND NARCS AREN'T IN THEIR RIGHT MINDS) AND
     GIVE OUT CARDS,  WHAT DO YOU THINK WE ARE, SHLONGS?!  PERSONALLY I GET
     MY OWN ON THE JOB,  PUMPING GAS  PAYS A  LOT MORE  THAN YOU THINK,
     THEREFORE I DON'T NEED ANY.  THINK ABOUT IT, IF YOU ARE A GOOD HACKER,
     WHICH I CAN SEE YOU'RE NOT, THEN YOU CAN HACK OUT YOUR OWN CODEZ.
     PEOPLE WHO NEED CCS CAN CALL CC-VMBS.  I HAVE ONE,  BUT DON'T ASK FOR
     IT.   IF YOU DON'T KNOW  MY CC-VMB LINE  THEN YOU'RE NOT  TO WELL
     KNOWN.   A LOT OF KNOWN  HACKERS KNOW MY  CC-VMB LINE. WELL, IF YOU'RE
     A NARC, YOU'VE JUST BEEN FOUND OUT,  IF NOT YOU MIGHT WANT TO GET A
     JOB AS ONE CUZ YOU ACT JUST LIKE ONE %In BBS protocol,  upper case
     letters indicate emphasis, anger, or shouting%.

     Although hackers  freely acknowledge that  their activities may be
occasionally illegal,  considerable emphasis is placed on limiting
violations only to those  required to obtain access and learn a system, and
they display hostility  toward those who transgress beyond beyond these
limits.   Most experienced CU mem- bers are suspicious of young novices who
are often entranced with what they perceive to be the "romance" of hacking.
Elite hackers complain continuously that  novices are at an  increased risk
of apprehension and also can "trash"  accounts on which experienced hackers
have gained and hidden their access.   Nonetheless,  experienced hackers
take pride in  their ethic of mentoring promis- ing newcomers, both through
their BBSs and newsletters:

     As %my% reputation grew,  answering such requests [from novice hackers
     wanting help] became  a matter of pride. No matter how difficult the
     question happened to be,  I would sit at the terminal for five, ten,
     twenty hours at a time, until I had the answer (Landreth, 1985: 16).

     The nation's top elite p/hacker  board was particularly nurturing of
promising novices before it voluntarily closed in early 1990, and its
sysop's handle means "teacher."  PHRACK,  begun in 1985,  normally
contained 10-12  educational articles (or "phi- les"),  most of which
provided explicit sophisticated technical information about computer
networks  and telecommunications sys- tems[5].   Boundary  socialization
occurs in message  bases and newsletters that  either discourage  such
activity  or provide guidelines for concealing access once obtained:

     Welcome to the world of hacking!  We,  the people who live outside of
     the normal rules, and have been scorned and even arrested by those
     from the 'civilized world', are becoming scarcer  every day.  This is
     due to the greater fear of what a good hacker (skill wise, no mor- al
     judgements here) can do nowadays, thus causing anti- hacker sentiment
     in the masses.  Also, few hackers seem to actually know about the
     computer systems they hack, or what equipment they will run  into on
     the front end, or what they  could do wrong on a system  to alert the
     'higher' authorities who monitor the system. This arti- cle is
     intended  to tell you about some  things not to do, even before you
     get on the system. We will tell you about the new wave of  front end
     security devices that are beginning to be used on computers.  We will
     attempt to instill in you a second identity,  to be brought up at time
     of  great need,  to pull you  out of trouble. (p/hacker newsletter,
     1987).

     Elite hacking requires highly sophisticated technical skills to enter
the maze of protective barriers,  recognize the computer type, and move
about at the highest system levels.   As a conse- quence, information
sharing becomes the sine qua non of the hack- er culture.   "Main message"
sections  are generally open to all users, but only general information,
gossip,  and casual commen- tary is posted. Elite users, those with higher
security privileg- es and access to the "backstage" regions,  share
technical infor- mation and problems, of which the following is typical:

       89Mar11
       From ***** ** * ***>
     Help! Anyone familiar with a system that responds:
       A2:       SELECT     :       DISPLAY:
     1=TRUNK,2=SXS;INPUT:3=TRUNK,4=SXS,5=DELETE;7=MSG  <and
     then it gives you a prompt>  If you chose 1...  ENTER
     OLD#,(R=RETURN)
       At this point I know you can enter 7 digits,  the 8th
     will give you an INVALID ENTRY type message.  Some num-
     bers don't work however.  (1,2,7,8 I know will)

       Anybody?
       89Mar10
       From *********>

     I was hacking around on telenet (415 area code) and got a few things
     that I am stuck-o on if ya can help,  I'd be greatly happy.   First of
     all,   I got  one that is called RCC PALO ALTO and I can't figure it
     out.  Second (and this looks pretty fun)  is the ESPRIT COMMAIL  and I
     know that a user name is  SYSTEM because it asked for a password on
     ONLY that account (pretty obvious eh?)  a few primnet and  geonet
     nodes and a  bunch of TELENET ASYYNC to 3270 SERVICE.   It asks for
     TERMINAL TYPE, my LU NUMBER and on numbers  higher  than 0 and lower
     that 22 it asks for a password.  Is it an outdial?  What are some
     common passwords?  then I got a sushi-primnet sys- tem.  And a dELUT
     system.   And at 206174 there is JUST a :  prompt.  help!  (P/h
     message log, 1988).

     Rebelliousness also permeates the hacker  culture and is re- flected
in actions, messages, and symbolic identities.  Like oth- er CU
participants, hackers employ handles (aliases)  intended to display an
aspect of one's personality and interests,  and a han- dle can often reveal
whether its  owner is a "lamer" (an incompe- tent)  or sophisticated.
Hackers take  pride in their assumed names, and one of the greatest taboos
is to use the handle of an- other or to use multiple handles.  Handles are
borrowed liberally from the anti-heros of science fiction,  adventure
fantasy,  and heavy metal rock lyrics,  particularly among younger users,
and from word plays on technology, nihilism,  and violence.   The CU handle
reflects a stylistic identity  heavily influenced by meta- phors reflecting
color (especially red and black),  supernatural power (e.g., "Ultimate
Warrior, "Dragon Lord"), and chaos ("Death Stalker," "Black Avenger"), or
ironic twists on technology,  fan- tasy, or symbols of mass culture (e.g.,
Epeios,  Phelix the Hack, Ellis Dea, Rambo Pacifist, Hitch Hacker).

     This anti-establishment ethos also  provides an ideological unity for
collective  action.   Hackers have been  known to use their collective
skills in retaliation  for acts against the cul- ture that the perceive as
unfair by, for example, changing credit data or "revoking" driver's
licenses (Sandza, 1984;  "Yes,  you Sound very Sexy," 1989).   Following a
bust of a national hacker group, the message section of the "home board"
contained a lively debate on the desireability of  a retaliatory response,
and the moderates prevailed.   Influenced especially by such science fan-
tasy as William Gibson's Neuromancer (1984),  John Brunner's The Shockwave
Rider (1975), and cyber-punk, which is a fusion of ele- ments of electronic
communication technology  and the "punk" sub- culture,  the hacker ethic
promotes resistance to the very forms that create it.   Suggestive of
Frazer's (1922) The Golden Bough, power is challenged and supplanted  by
rituals combining both de- struction and rejuvenation.   From this emerges
a shared ethos of opposition against perceived Orwellian  domination by an
informa- tion-controlling elite:

     (Hackers will) always be necessary,  especially in the technological
     oppression of the future.   Just imagine an information system that
     systematically filters out certain obscene words.   Then it will move
     on to phras- es,  and then entire ideas will be replaced by comput-
     ers!   Anyway, there will always be people tripping out on paper and
     trying to keep it to themselves,  and it's up to us to at least loosen
     their grasp (P.A.  Message Log 1988).

Another hacker summarized the  near-anarchist ethic characterized
the CU style:

     Lookit, we're here as criminal hobbyists, peeping toms, and looters.
     I am in it for the fun.   Not providing the public what it has a right
     to know,  or keeping big brother in check.  I couldn't care less.   I
     am sick of the old journalistic hackers  nonsense about or (oops! OUR)
     computerized ego...I make  no attempt to justify what I am doing.
     Because it doesn't matter. As long as we live in this goddamn welfare
     state I might as well have some fun taking what isn't mine,  and I am
     better off than  those welfare-assholes  who justify  their stealing.
     At least I am smart enough to know that the free lunch  can't go on
     forever (U.U.   message log 1988).

     In sum, the hacker style reflects well-defined goals, commu- nication
networks, values, and an ethos of resistance to authori- ty.  Because
hacking requires a  broader range of knowledge than does phreaking,  and
because such knowledge can be acquired only through experience, hackers
tend to be both older and more knowl- edgeable than phreaks.   In addition,
despite some overlap,  the goals of the two are somewhat dissimilar.  As a
consequence, each group constitutes a separate analytic category. Phreaks.

     Running numbers is not only fun;  it's a moral impera- tive!  (Phreak
     credo).

     Phreaking broadly refers  to the practice of  using either technology
or telephone credit card numbers (called "codez")  to avoid long distance
charges.  Phreaking attained public visibili- ty with the  revelation of
the exploits of  John "Cap'n Crunch" Draper, the "father of phreaking"
(Rosenbaum,  1971).   Although phreaking and hacking each require different
skills,  phreaks and hackers tend to associate on same boards.   Unlike
hackers,  who attempt to master a computer system  and its command and
security structure,  phreaks struggle to  master telecom (tele-communica-
tions) technology:

     The phone system is the most interesting,  fascinating thing that I
     know of. There is so much to know.   Even phreaks have their own areas
     of knowledge.  There is so much to know that one phreak could know
     something fair- ly important and the next phreak not.  The next phreak
     might know  10 things that  the first  phreak doesn't though.  It all
     depends upon where and  how they get their info.  I myself would like
     to work for the telco, doing something interesting, like programming a
     switch. Something that isn't slave  labor bullshit.  Something that
     you enjoy, but have to take risks in order to par- ticipate unless you
     are lucky  enough to work for Bell/ AT&T/any telco.  To have legal
     access to telco things, manuals, etc. would be great (message log,
     1988).

     Early phreaking methods  involved electro-mechanical devices that
generated key tones or altered  phone line voltages to trick the mechanical
switches of the  phone company  into connecting calls without charging, but
the advent of computerized telephone- switching systems largely made these
devices obsolete.   In order to continue their practice,  phreaks  have had
to learn hacking skills in order to obtain  access to telephone company
computers and software.

     Access to telecom information takes several forms,  and the possesion
of numbers for "loops" and  "bridges," while lying in a grey area of law,
further enhances the reputation and status of a phreak.   P/hackers can
utilize "loop lines" to limit the number of eavesdroppers on their
conversations.  Unlike bridges,  which connect an unlimited number of
callers simultaneously,  loops are limited to just two people at a time[6].
A "bridge" is a techni- cal name for what is commonly known  as a "chat
line" or "confer- ence system." Bridges are familiar to the  public as the
pay-per- minute  group conversation  systems advertised  on late  night
television.   Many bridge systems are owned by large corporations that
maintain them for business use  during the day.   While the numbers to
these systems are not public knowledge,  many of them have been discovered
by phreaks who  then utilize the systems at night.   Phreaks are skilled at
arranging for a temporary, pri- vate bridge to  be created via ATT's
conference calling facili- ties.   This  provides a helpful information
sharing technique among a self-selected group of phreak/hackers:

     Bridges can be extremely  useful means of distributing information as
     long as the %phone% number is not known, and you don't have a  bunch
     of children online testing out their DTMF.   The last great discussion
     I partici- pated with over a bridge occurred about 2 months ago on an
     AT&T  Quorum where all  we did was  engineer 3/way %calls% and
     restrict ourselves  to purely technical in- formation. We could have
     convinced the Quorum operators that we were  AT&T technicians had the
     need occurred. Don't let the kids ruin all  the fun and convenience of
     bridges.   Lameness is one thing,  practicality is an- other (DC,
     message log, 1988).

     Phreaks recognize their precarious legal position,  but see no other
way to "play the game:"

     Phreaking involves  having the  dedication to  commit yourself to
     learning  as much about the  phone system/ network as possible.  Since
     most of this information is not made public,   phreaks have to resort
     to legally questionable means  to obtain the knowledge  they want
     (TP2, message log, 1988).

     Little sympathy exists among experienced phreaks for "teleco ripoff."
"Carding," or the use  of fraudulent credit cards,  is anathema to phreaks,
and not only violates the phreaking ethic, but is simply not the goal of
phreaking:

     Credit card  fraud truly gives  hacking a  bad name. Snooping around a
     VAX is just electronic voyeurism.  . .carding a  new modem is  just
     flat  out blue-collar crime.   It's just as bad as  breaking into a
     house or kicking a puppy!   %This phreak% does everything he can (even
     up to turning off a number)  to get credit infor- mation taken off a
     BBS.    %This phreak% also tries to remove codes from BBSes.   He
     doesn't see code abuse in the same light as credit card fraud,
     (although the law does),  but posted codes are  the quickest way to
     get your board busted, and your computer confiscated.  Peo- ple should
     just find a  local outdial to wherever they want to call  and use
     that.   If you  only make local calls from an outdial, it will never
     die, you will keep out of trouble,  and everyone  will be happy
     (PHRACK, 3(28): Phile 2).

     Experienced phreaks  become easily angered at  novices and "lamerz"
who engage in fraud or are interested only in "leeching" (obtaining
something for nothing):

      Sub ->Carding
      From ->JB (#208)
      To   ->ALL
      Date ->02/10/xx 02:22:00 PM

     What do you  people think about using  a parents card number for
     carding?   For instance,  if I had a friend order and receive via next
     day  air on my parents card, and receive it at my parents house while
     we were on va- cation.  Do you think that would work?   Cuz then, all
     that we have to do is to leave the note,  and have the bud pick up the
     packages,  and  when the bill came for over $1500, then we just say...
     'Fuck you!   We were on vacation!   Look at  our airline tickets!' I
     hope it does... Its such a great plan!

      Sub ->Reply to: Carding
      From -> (xxx)
      To   -> X
      Date ->02/11xx 03: 16:00 AM

     NO IT'S  NOT A GREAT  IDEA!   WHERE'S YOUR  SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY TO
     YOUR FAMILY?    ARE THEY  ALL IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU?   WOULD YOU WANT
     ANYONE TO USE YOUR PRIVATE STUFF  IN ILLEGAL (AND  IMMORAL)
     ACTIVITIES WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE?   DIDJA  EVER HEAR ABOUT TRUST
     BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS?   IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE A THIEF (AND THAT'S
     NOT  NEAT LIKE JAMES BOND  IN THE MOVIES), TAKE THE RISKS ONLY UPON
     YOURSELF!

      Sub ->Carding
      From -> (#208)
      To   -> (#47)
      Date ->02/12/xx 11: 18:00 AM

     Why not?   We  have a law that says that  we have the right to refuse
     payment to credit cards  if there are fraudulent charges.   All we do
     and it is settled.... what is so bad about it?  I'm going for it!

      Sub ->Reply to: Carding
      From -> (xxx)
      To   ->J.B.
      Date ->02/13/xx 02:08:00 AM

     APPARENTLY YOU MISSED THE MAIN  POINTS I TRIED TO MAKE TO YOU . . .
     YOU'RE  A THIEF AND A  LIAR,  AND ARE BETRAYING THE TRUST OF YOUR
     FAMILY AS WELL AS INVOLVING THEM IN YOUR RISK WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE.
     THAT MEANS YOU ARE A  FAIRLY SCUMMY INDIVIDUAL IF  YOU GO THROUGH WITH
     IT!   NOW AS TO YOUR "DEFENCE" ABOUT $50 MAXIMUMS AND ERRONEOUS
     BILLINGS..  LAW MAKES A CLEAR DISTINCTION ABOUT THEFT BY  FRAUD (OF
     WHICH YOU  WOULD BE GUILTY). AND IN A LARGER SENSE,  YOUR  THEFT JUST
     MAKES IT MORE COSTLY FOR YOU  YOU AND EVERYBODY ELSE  TO GET CREDIT,
     AND DO BUSINESS WITH CREDIT CARDS.   YOU'RE GOING TO DO WHATEVER YOU
     DO ANYWAY.....DON'T  LOOK FOR ANY APPROVAL IN THIS DIRECTION.

     Ironically,  experienced phreaks are  not only offended by such
disregard of law,  but also feel that "rip-off artists" have no information
to share and only increase the risk for the "tech- no-junkies."  Message
boards reflect hostility toward apprehended "lamerz" with such  comments as
"I hope they burn  him," or "the lamer probably narked  %turned informant%
to the  pheds %law en- forcement agents%."  Experienced phreaks  also post
continual re- minders that some actions, because of their illegality,  are
sim- ply unacceptable:

     It should be pointed out  however,  that should any of you crack any
     WATS EXTENDER access codes and attempt to use them,  you are guilty
     of Theft of communications services from the company who owns it, and
     Bell is very willing and able to help nail you!  WATS EXTENDERS can
     get you  in every bit as  much trouble as a  Blue Box should you be
     caught.

     Ex-phreaks,  especially those who are  no longer defined by law as
juveniles,  often attempt to caution younger phreaks from pursuing
phreaking:

     ZA1: One thing to consider, also, is that the phone co. knows where
     the  junction box is for all  of the lines that you are messing with
     and  if they get enough com- plaints about the bills, they may start
     to check things out (I hope your work is neat).  I would guess that
     the odds are probably against  this from happening though, because
     when  each of the  people call  to complain, they'll probably get a
     different  person from the oth- ers.   This means that someone at Ma
     Bell has to notice that all of  the complaints are coming  from the
     same area...I don't  think anybody there really  cares that much about
     their  job to really start  noticing things like that...anyway,
     enjoy!!!   My guess is that you're under-age.  Anyway, so if they
     catch you, they won't do anything to you anyway.

     ZB1:  Yeah I am a minor (17 years old) I just hope that they don't
     cause I would like to not have a criminal or juvenile record when I
     apply to college.  Also if they do come as I said in the  other
     message if there are no wires they can't prove shit. Also as I said I
     only hook up after 6 p.m.  The phone company doesn't service peo- ple
     after 6 p.m.   Just recently (today) I hooked up to an empty line.
     No wires were leading  from the two plugs to somebody  house but I got
     a  dial tone.  How great. Don't have to worry about billing somebody
     else. But I still  have to disconnect cause  the phone bills should be
     coming to the  other people  pretty soon. HEHEHEHE

     ZX1: Be cool on that, especially if you're calling oth- er boards.
     Easiest way for telecom security to catch you is match the number
     called to the time called, call the board,  look at users log or
     messages for hints of identity, then work from there.  If you do it
     too much to a pirate board,  they  can (and have successfully)
     pressured the sysop to reveal the identity under threat of
     prosecution.  They may or may not be able to always trace it back,
     but remember:  Yesterday's phreaks are today's telecom security folk.
     AND: IT'S NOT COOL TO PHREAK TO  A PIRATE  BOARD...draws attention  to
     that board and screws it up  for everybody.  So,  be cool
     phreaking....there's safer ways.

     ZC2:  Be cool, Wormburger.  They can use all sorts of stuff for
     evidence.  Here's what they'd do in Ill.  If they suspected you,
     they'd flag the phone lines,  send somebody out during the time you're
     on (or they suspect you're on) and nail you.  Don't want to squelch a
     bud- ding phreak,  but you're  really taking an unnecessary chance.
     Most of  us have been doing  stuff for some time,  and just don't want
     to  see you get nailed for something. There's some good boards with
     tips on how to phreak, and if you want the numbers, let me know. We've
     survived to warn you because  we know the dangers.  If you don't know
     what ESS is, best do some quick research (P/h message log, 1988).

     In sum,  the attraction of phreaking and its attendant life- style
appear to center on three fundamental characteristics:  The quest for
knowledge,  the belief in a higher ideological purpose of opposition to
potentially dangerous technological control, and the enjoyment of
risk-taking.   In a sense, CU participants con- sciously create dissonance
as a  means of creating social meaning in what is perceived as  an
increasingly meaningless world (Milo- vanovic and Thomas, 1989).
Together,  phreaks and hackers have created an overlapping culture that,
whatever the legality,  is seen by participants as a legitimate enterprise
in the new "tech- no-society."

                           Conclusion

     The transition to an  information-oriented society dependent on
computer technology brings with  it new symbolic metaphors and behaviors.
Baudrillard (1987:  15)  observed that our private sphere now ceases to be
the stage  where the drama of subjects at odds with their objects and with
their image is played out,  and we no longer exist as playwrites or actors,
but as terminals of multiple networks.   The public space of the social
arena is re- duced to the private space of  the computer desk,  which in
turn creates a new semi-public, but restricted,  public realm to which
dissonance seekers retreat.   To participate in the computer un- derground
is to engage in what Baudrillard (1987:  15) describes as private
telematics, in which individuals,  to extend Baudril- lard's fantasy
metaphor,  are transported from their mundane com- puter system to the
controls of a hypothetical machine,  isolated in a position of perfect
sovereignty,  at an infinite distance from the original universe.   There,
identity is created through symbolic strategies and collective  beliefs
(Bordieu,  cited in Wacquant, 1989: 35).

     We have argued  that the symbolic identity  of the computer
underground creates a rich and  diverse culture comprised of jus-
tifications, highly specialized skills,  information-sharing net- works,
norms, status hierarchies, language, and unifying symbolic meanings.   The
stylistic elements of  CU identity and activity serve what Denzin (1988:
471) sees as the primary characteristic of postmodern behavior,  which is
to  make fun of the past while keeping it alive and the search for  new
ways to present the un- presentable in order  to break down the barriers
that keep the profane out of the everyday.

     The risks entailed by acting on  the fringes of legality and
substituting definitions of acceptable  behavior with their own, the
playful parodying of mass culture,  and the challenge to au- thority
constitute an exploration of the limits of techno-culture while resisting
the  legal meanings that would  control such ac- tions.   The celebration
of anti-heros, re-enacted through forays into the world of computer
programs and software,  reflects the stylistic promiscuity,  eclecticism
and code-mixing that typifies the postmodern experience (Featherstone,
1988: 202).  Rather than attempt to fit within modern culture and adapt to
values and def- initions imposed on them,  CU  participants mediate it by
mixing art, science, and resistance to create a culture with an alterna-
tive meaning both to the dominant one and to those that observers would
impose on them and on their enterprise.

     Pfuhl (1987) cogently argued that criminalization of comput- er abuse
tends to polarize definitions of behavior.   As a conse- quence, To view
the CU as simply another form of deviance,  or as little more than
"high-tech street gangs" obscures  the ironic, mythic, and subversive
element,  the Nieztschean "will to power," reflected in the attempt to
master technology while challenging those forces that control it.   The
"new society" spawned by com- puter technology is in its infancy, and, as
Sennet (1970:  xvii) observed, the passage of societies through adolescence
to maturi- ty requires acceptance of disorder and painful dislocation.

     Instead of embracing the dominant culture, the CU has creat- ed an
irreducible cultural alternative, one that cannot be under- stood without
locating its place  within the dialectic of social change.  Especially in
counter-cultures, as Hebdige (1983: 3) ob- serves, "objects are made to
mean and mean again," often ending:

     .  .  .in the construction of a style, in a gesture of defiance or
     contempt, in a smile or a sneer.   It sig- nals a Refusal.  I would
     like to think that this Reusal is worth making,  that these  gestures
     have a meaning, that the smiles  and the sneers have  some subversive
     value. . .  (Hebdige, 1982: 3).



                            Footnotes

[1] Participants in the computer underground engage in considera- ble word
    play that includes juxtaposition of letters. For ex- ample, commonly
    used words beginning with "f" are customarily spelled with a  "ph."
    The CU spelling  conventions are re- tained throughout this paper.

[2] Conly and McEwen (1990:  3) classify "software piracy" in the same
    category as theft of  computers and trade secrets,  and grossly confuse
    both the concept  and definition of computer crime by conflating any
    illicit activity involving computers under a definition  so broad that
    embezzlement  and bulletin boards all fall within it.   However, the
    label of "computer criminal" should be reserved for those who
    manipulate comput- erized records in order to defraud or damage, a
    point implied by Bequai (1978: 4) and Parker (1983: 106).

[3] One author has been active  in the computer underground since 1984 and
    participated in Summercon-88 in St. Louis, a nation- al conference of
    elite hackers.   The other began researching p/hackers and pirates in
    1988.   Both authors have had sysop experience with national CU boards.
    As do virtually all CU participants, we used pseudonyms but, as we
    became more fully immersed in the culture,  our true identities were
    sometimes revealed.

[4] Although we consider software pirates an integral part of the computer
    underground,  we have excluded them from this analy- sis both for
    parsimony and  because their actions are suffi- ciently different  to
    warrant separate analysis  (Thomas and Meyer, 1990).   We also have
    excluded anarchist boards, which tend to be utilized by teenagers who
    use BBSs to exchange in- formation relating to social disruption, such
    as making home- made explosives, sabotaging equipment, and other less
    dramat- ic pranks. These boards are largely symbolic, and despite the
    name, are devoid of political intent.  However, our data sug- gest that
    many hackers began their careers because of the an- archist influence.

[5] In January, 1990,  the co-editor of the magazine was indicted for
    allegedly  "transporting" stolen property  across state lines.
    According to the Secret  Service agent in charge of the case in Atlanta
    (personal communication),  the offender was apprehended for receiving
    copies  of E911 ("enhanced" 911 emergency system)  documents by
    electronic mail,  but added that there was no evidence that those
    involved were motivated by, or received, material gain.

[6] "Loop lines" are telephone company  test lines installed for two
    separate telephone numbers that connect only to each oth- er.  Each end
    has a separate phone number, and when each per- son calls one end, they
    are connected to each other automati- cally.  A loop consists of "Dual
    Tone Multi-Frequency," which is the touch tone sounds used  to dial
    phone numbers.  These test lines are discovered by  phreaks and hackers
    by program- ming their home computer to dial  numbers at random and
    "lis- ten" for the distinctive tone  that an answering loop makes, by
    asking sympathetic telephone company employees, or through information
    contained on internal company computers.

                          BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allman, William F.  1990.  "Computer Hacking goes on Trial." U.S. News and
   World Report, January 22: 25.
Altheide, David L.  1985.  Media Power.  Beverly Hills: SAGE.
Baudrillard, Jean.  1987.  The Ecstasy of Communication.  New York:
   Semiotext(e).
Beisel, Nicola.  1990.  "Class, Culture, and Campaigns against Vice in
   Three American Cities, 1872-1892."  American Sociological Review,
   55(February): 44-62.
Bell, 1976.  The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism.  New York: Basic
   Books.
Bloombecker, Jay.  1988.  Interview, Hour Magazine.  NBC television,
   November 23.
Bordieu, Pierre.  1989.  "Social Space and Symbolic Power." Sociological
   Theory, 7(Spring): 14-25.
Brunner, John.  1989.  The Shockwave Rider.  New York: Ballantine.
Callinicos, Alex.  1985.  "Posmodernism, Post-Structuralism, Post-Marxism?"
   Theory, Culture and Society, 2(3): 85-101.
Camper, John.  1989.  "Woman Indicted as Computer Hacker Mastermind."
   Chicago Tribune, June 21: II-4.
"Computer Expert's Son Cited as Virus Creator.' 1988.  Chicago Tribune,
   November 5: 1, 2.
"Computer Saboteur gets Probation."  1988.  Chicago Tribune, Oct. 22: 4.
Conly, Catherine H. and J. Thomas McEwen.  1990.  "Computer Crime."  NIJ
   Reports, 218(January/February): 2-7.
Cooley, Ronald B.  1984.  "RICO: Modern Weaponry against Software Pirates."
   Computer Law>Law Journal, 5(Fall): 143-162.
Denzin, Norman K.  1988.  "Blue Velvet:  Postmodern Contradictions."
   Theory, Culture and Society.  5(June): 461-473.
"Doctor Crash."  1986.  "The Techno-Revolution."  PHRACK, I(6): Phile 3.
"EB" %anonymous computerphile%.  1990.  Circulated electronic letter,
   February.
Featherstone, Mike.  1988.  "In Pursuit of the Postmodern: An
   Introduction."  Theory, Culture and Society, 2-3(June): 195-215.
Frazer, James G.  1922.  The Golden Bough.  New York: MacMillan.
Geertz, Clifford.  1973.  The Interpretion of Cultures.  New York: Basic
   Books.  1973.
Gibson, William.  1984.  Neuromancer.  New York: Ace.
Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss.  1967.  The Discovery of Grounded
   Theory:  Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
Goodenough, Ward.  1981.  Culture, Language, and Society.  Menlo Park
   (Calif.): Benjamin/Cummings.
"Hacker, 18, Gets Prison for Fraud."  1989.  Chicago Tribune, February 15:
   III-1.
Hebdige, Dick.  1982.  Subculture: The Meaning of Style.  New York:
   Metheun.
Hollinger, Richard C. and Lonn Lanza-Kaduce.  1988.  "The Process of
   Criminalization: The Case of Computer Crime Laws." Criminology,
   26(February): 101-126.
Hume, Brit, and T.R. Reid.  1989.  "Software can be Safeguarded from
   Bootlegging, Power Surge.  Chicago Tribune, March 25: VII: 4.
Kane, Pamela.  1989.  V.I.R.U.S. Protection: Vital Information Resources
   under Siege.  New York: Bantam.
Landreth, Bill.  1985.  Out of the Inner Circle: A Hacker's Guide to
   Computer Security.  Belleview (Wash.): Microsoft Press.
Lash, Scott.  1988.  "Discourse or Figure? Postmodernism as 'Regime of
   Signification.'" Theory, Culture and Society, 5(June):311-336.
Latimer, Dan.  1984.  "Jameson on Post-Modernism."  New Left Review,
   148(November/December): 116-128.
Levy, Steven.  1984.  Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. Garden
   City: Doubleday.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois.  1988.  The Postmodern Condition: A Report on
   Knowledge.  Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Manning, Peter K.  (forthcoming).  "Strands in the Postmodernist Rope:
   Ethnographic Themes."  in N. Denzin (ed.), Studies in Symbolic
   Interaction (Vol. 13).  Greenwich (Conn.): JAI.
Marx, Gary T.  1988a.  Undercover: Police Surveillance in America.
   Berkeley: University of California Press. .  1988b.  "The Maximum
   Security Society."  Deviance et Societe, 12(2): 147-166.
Marx, Gary T., and Nancy Reichman.  1985.  "Routinizing the Discovery of
   Secrets: Computers as Informants."  Software Law Journal, 1(Fall): 95-121.
Meyer, Gordon R.  1989a.  The Social Organization of the computer
   underground.  Unpublished Masters Thesis, Northern Illinois University.
   of the Computer Age."  Pp. 74-82 in P. Kane, V.I.R.U.S. Protection:
   Vital Information Resources under Siege.  New York: Bantam.
Meyer, Gordon R. and Jim Thomas.  1989.  "Role Differentiation in the
   computer underground."  Paper presented at the Society for the Study of
   Social Problems annual meetings, Berkeley, August.
Michalowski, Raymond J. and Erdwin H. Pfuhl.  1990 (forthcoming).
   "Technology, Property, and Law: The Case of Computer Crime."
   Contemporary Crisis.
Milovanovic, Dragan, and Jim Thomas.  1989.  "Overcoming the Absurd:
   Prisoner Litigation as Primitive Rebellion."  Social Problems
   36(February): 48-60.
Newman, Charles.  1985.  The Post-Modern Aura: The Act of Fiction in an age
   of Inflation.  Evanston (Ill.): Northwestern University Press.
Pfuhl, Erdwin H.  1987.  "Computer Abuse: Problems of Instrumental
   Control."  Deviant Behavior, 8(2): 113-130.
Rosenbaum, Ron.  1971.  "Secrets of the Little Blue Box." Esquire,
   76(October): 116-1125, 222-226.
Sandza, Richard.  1984.  "The Night of the Hackers."  Newsweek,
   104(November 12): 17-18.
Schwartz, Eddie.  1988.  "Special on 'Computer Hacking.'" WGN Radio, Sept 27.
Sennett, Richard.  1979.  The Uses of Disorder: Personal Identity and City
   Life.  New York: Vintage Books.
Thomas, Jim and James B. Marquart.  1988.  "Dirty Knowledge and Clean
   Conscience: The Dilemmas of Ethnographic Research."  Pp. 81-96 in D.
   Maines and C. Couch (eds.), Information, Communication and Social
   Structure.  Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas.
Thomas, Jim and Gordon R. Meyer.  1990.  "Computer Pirates: 'Keeping the
   Dream Alive,' or 'A Nightmare on Elm Street?'" Unpublished manuscript,
   Northern Illinois University.
Tompkins, Joseph B., Jr., and Linda A. Mar.  1986.  "The 1984 Federal
   Computer Crime Statute: A Partial Answer to a Pervasive Problem."
   Computer>Law Journal, 6(Winter): 459-481.
Van, John.  1989.  "Oddballs no More, Hackers are now a Threat." Chicago
   Tribune, March 5, IV: 4.
Van Maanen, John, and Stephen Barley.  1985.  "Cultural Organization:
   Fragments of a Theory."  Pp. 31-53 in P.J. Frost, et. al., (eds.),
   Organizational Culture. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Wacquant, Loic J.D.  1989.  "Towards a Reflexive Sociology: A Workshop with
   Pierre Bordieu."  Sociological Theory, 7(Spring): 26-63.
Wilson, Debra S.  1984.  "Software Rental, Piracy, and Copyright
   Protection."  Computer>Law Journal, 5(Summer): 125-141.
Winter, Christine.  1988.  "Virus Infects Huge Computer Network." Chicago
   Tribune, November 4, 1, 18. "Yes, You Sound very Sexy, but I Really Need
   a Probation Officer."  1989.  Chicago Tribune, June 13, 10.
WMAQ Evening News.  1990.  (Channel 5, Chicago), February 6.
Zablit, Jocelyne.  1989.  "Fraud Sweep Nabs 2 Michigan Teens in Computer
   Ring."  Detroit Free Press, 25 May: 1, 18.
