informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/reports/ACE/undergrd.txt

1832 lines
105 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÜ
ÜÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛßÛßßßßßÛÛÜ ÜÜßßßßÜÜÜÜ ÜÛÜ ÜÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÜÜÜÜÜÛßß ßÛÛ
ßÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÜ ßÛÛ ÜÛÛÛÜÛÛÜÜÜ ßÛÛÛÛÜ ßÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÜÛÛÜÜÜÛÛÝ Ûß
ßßßÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÜ ÞÝ ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛßßÛÜÞÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛÛÜ ßßÛÛÛÞß
Mo.iMP ÜÛÛÜ ßÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÝÛ ÞÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ ÞÛÛÛÛ ÞÛÛÛÛÛÝ ßÛß
ÜÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÝ ÞÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÝ ÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛÛÛ
ÜÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÝ ÞÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ ÞÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ ß ÞÛÛÛÛÛÛÜ ÜÛ
ÜÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÝ ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÝ ÞÞÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛß
ÜÛßÛÛÛÛÛÛ ÜÜ ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÝ ÛÛÞÛÛÛÛÛÝ ÞÛÛÛÛÛÛßß
ÜÛßÛÛÛÛÛÛÜÛÛÛÛÜÞÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ ÞÛ ßÛÛÛÛÛ Ü ÛÝÛÛÛÛÛ Ü
ÜÛ ÞÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛß ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ ßÛÜ ßÛÛÛÜÜ ÜÜÛÛÛß ÞÛ ÞÛÛÛÝ ÜÜÛÛ
ÛÛ ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛß ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÜ ßÛÜ ßßÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛß ÜÜÜß ÛÛÛÛÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÛÛÛÛÛß
ßÛÜ ÜÛÛÛß ßÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÜ ßßÜÜ ßßÜÛÛßß ßÛÛÜ ßßßÛßÛÛÛÛÛÛÛßß
ßßßßß ßßÛÛß ßßßßß ßßßßßßßßßßßßß
ARRoGANT CoURiERS WiTH ESSaYS
Grade Level: Type of Work Subject/Topic is on:
[ ]6-8 [ ]Class Notes [College report on the ]
[ ]9-10 [ ]Cliff Notes [computer underground. ]
[ ]11-12 [x]Essay/Report [ ]
[ ]College [ ]Misc [ ]
Dizzed: 07/94 # of Words:16314 School:Public State:NY
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ>ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ>ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ>Chop Here>ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ>ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ>ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ>ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF THE COMPUTER UNDERGROUND
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
MASTER OF ARTS
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
BY
GORDON R. MEYER
%CompuServe: 72307,1502% %GEnie: GRMEYER%
DEKALB, ILLINOIS
AUGUST 1989
ABSTRACT
Mame: Gordon R. Meyer Department: Sociology
Title: The Social Organization of the Computer Underground
Major: Criminology Degree: M.A.
Aproved by: Date:
_____________________________________ ___________
Tesis Director
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the social organization of the "computer underground"
(CU). The CU is composed of actors in three roles, "computer hackers,"
"phone phreaks," and "software pirates." These roles have frequently been
ignored or confused in media and other accounts of CU activity. By
utilizing a data set culled from CU channels of communication this paper
provides an ethnographic account of computer underground organization. It
is concluded that despite the widespread social network of the computer
underground, it is organized primarily on the level of colleagues, with
only small groups approaching peer relationships.
Certification: In accordance with departmental and Graduate
School policies, this thesis
is accepted in partial fulfillment of degree
requirements.
______________________
Thesis Director
______________________
Date
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
FOR CRITIQUE, ADVICE, AND COMMENTS:
DR. JAMES L. MASSEY
DR. JIM THOMAS
DR. DAVID F. LUCKENBILL
FOR SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT:
GALE GREINKE
SPECIAL THANKS TO:
D.C., T.M., T.K., K.L., D.P.,
M.H., AND G.Z.
THIS WORK IS DEDICATED TO:
GEORGE HAYDUKE
AND
BARRY FREED
Introduction
The proliferation of home computers has been accompanied by a
corresponding social problem involving the activities of so-called
"computer hackers." "Hackers" are computer aficionados who "break in" to
corporate and government computer systems using their home computer and a
telephone modem. The prevalence of the problem has been dramatized by the
media and enforcement agents, and evidenced by the rise of specialized
private security firms to confront the "hackers." But despite this flurry
of attention, little research has examined the social world of the
"computer hacker." Our current knowledge in this regard derives from
hackers who have been caught, from enforcement agents, and from computer
security specialists. The everyday world and activities of the "computer
hacker" remain largely unknown.
This study examines the way actors in the "computer underground" (CU)
organize to perform their acts. The computer underground, as it is called
by those who participate in it, is composed of actors adhering to one of
three roles: "hackers," "phreakers," or "pirates." To further understanding
this growing "social problem," this project will isolate and clarify these
roles, and examine how each contributes to the culture as a whole. By doing
so the sociological question of how the "underground" is organized will be
answered, rather than the technical question of how CU participants perform
their acts.
Best and Luckenbill (1982) describe three basic approaches to the
study of "deviant" groups. The first approach is from a social
psychological level, where analysis focuses on the needs, motives, and
individual characteristics of the actors involved. Secondly, deviant
groups can be studied at a socio-structural level. Here the emphasis is on
the distribution and consequences of deviance within the society as a
whole. The third approach, the one adopted by this work, forms a middle
ground between the former two by addressing the social organization of
deviant groups. Focusing upon neither the individual nor societal
structures entirely, social organization refers to the network of social
relations between individuals involved in a common activity (pp. 13-14).
Assessing the degree and manner in which the underground is organized
provides the opportunity to also examine the culture, roles, and channels
of communication used by the computer underground. The focus here is on the
day to day experience of persons whose activities have been criminalized
over the past several years. Hackers, and the "danger" that they present
in our computer dependent society, have often received attention from the
legal community and the media. Since 1980, every state and the federal
government has criminalized "theft by browsing" of computerized information
(Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce, 1988, pp.101- 102). In the media, hackers have
been portrayed as maladjusted losers, forming "high-tech street gangs"
(Chicago Tribune, 1989) that are dangerous to society. My research will
show that the computer underground consists of a more sophisticated level
of social organization than has been generally recognized. The very fact
that CU participants are to some extent "networked" has implications for
social control policies that may have been Implemented based on an in-
complete understanding of the activity. This project not only offers
sociological insight into the organ- ization of deviant associations, but
may be helpful to policy makers as well.
I begin with a discussion of the definitional problems that inhibit
the sociological analysis of the computer underground. The emergence of the
computer underground is a recent phenomenon, and the lack of empirical
research on the topic has created an area where few "standard" definitions
and categories exist. This work will show that terms such as "hacker,"
"phreaker," and "pirate" have different meanings for those who have written
about the computer underground and those who participate in it. This work
bridges these inconsistencies by providing definitions that focus on the
intentions and goals of the participants, rather than the legality or
morality of their actions.
Following the definition of CU activities is a discussion of the
structure of the underground. Utilizing a typology for understanding the
social organization of deviant associations, developed by Best and
Luckenbill (1982), the organization of the computer underground is examined
in depth.
The analysis begins by examining the structure of mutual association.
This provides insight into how CU activity is organized, the ways in which
information is obtained and disseminated, and explores the subcultural
facets of the computer underground. More importantly, it clearly
illustrates that the computer underground is primarily a social network of
individuals that perform their acts separately, yet support each other by
sharing information and other resources.
After describing mutual association within the underground community,
evidence of mutual participation is presented. Although the CU is a social
network, the ties developed at the social level encourage the formation of
small "work groups." At this level, some members of the CU work in
cooperation to perform their acts. The organization and purposes of these
groups are examined, as well as their relationship to the CU as a whole.
However, because only limited numbers of individuals join these short-lived
associations, it is concluded that the CU is organized as colleagues.
Those who do join "work groups" display the characteristics of peers, but
most CU activity takes place at a fairly low level of sophistication.
Methodology
Adopting an ethnographic approach, data have been gathered by
participating in, monitoring, and cata- loging channels of communication
used by active members of the computer underground. These channels, which
will be examined in detail later, include electronic bulletin board
systems (BBS), voice mail boxes, bridges, loops, e-mail, and telephone
conversations. These sources provide a window through which to observe
interactions, language, and cultural meanings without intruding upon the
situation or violating the privacy of the participants. Because these
communication centers are the "back stage" area of the computer
underground, they provided insight into organizational (and other) issues
that CU participants face, and the methods they use to resolve them.
As with any ethnographic research, steps have been taken to protect
the identity of informants. The culture of the computer underground aids
the researcher in this task since phreakers, hackers, and pirates regularly
adopt pseudonyms to mask their identity. However to further ensure
confidentiality, all of the pseudonyms cited in this research have been
changed by the author. Additionally, any information that is potentially
incriminating has been removed or altered.
The data set used for this study consists primarily of messages, or
"logs," which are the primary form of communication between users. These
logs were "captured" (recorded using the computer to save the messages)
from several hundred computer bulletin boards1 located across the United
States. The bulk of the data were gathered over a seventeen month period
(12/87 to 4/89) and will reflect the characteristics of the computer
underground during that time span. However, some data, provided to the
researcher by cooperative subjects, dates as far back as 1984. The logged
data were supplemented by referring to several CU "publications." The
members of the computer underground produce and distribute several
technical and tutorial newsletters and "journals." Since these
"publications" are not widely available outside of CU circles I have given
a brief description of each below.
Legion of Doom/Hackers Technical Journal. This 1 Computer Bulletin
Boards (BBS) are personal computers that have been equipped with a
telephone modem and special software. Users can connect with a BBS by
dialing, with their own computer and modem, the phone number to which the
BBS is connected. After "logging in" by supplying a valid user name and
pass- word, the user can leave messages to other users of the system.
These messages are not private and anyone calling the BBS can freely read
and respond to them. publication is written and distributed by a group
known as "The Legion of Doom/Legion of Hackers" (LoD/H). It is available
in electronic format (a computer text file) and contains highly technical
information on computer operating systems. As of this writing, three issues
have been published.
PHRACK Inc.: Phrack Inc is a newsletter that contains various
articles, written by different authors, and "published" under one banner.
Phrack Inc's first issue was released in 1985, making it the oldest of the
electronically distributed underground publications. CU participants are
invited to submit articles to the editors, who release a new issue when a
sufficient number (about nine) of acceptable pieces have been gathered.
Phrack also features a lengthy "World News" with stories about hackers who
have been apprehended and interviews with various members of the
underground. As of this writing twenty-seven issues of Phrack, have been
published.
Phreakers/Hackers Underground Network (P/Hun): Like Phrack, P/Hun
collects articles from various authors and releases them as one issue.
Three issues have been published to date.
Activist Times, Incorporated (ATI): Unlike the other electronically
distributed publications, ATI does not limit itself to strictly
computer/telephone news. Articles normally include commentary on world and
government events, and other "general interest" topics. ATI issues are
generally small and consist of articles written by a core group of four to
seven people. Unlike the publications discussed thus far, ATI is available
in printed "hard copy" form by sending postage reimbursement to the editor.
ATI is currently on their 38th issue.
2600 Magazine: Published in a traditional (printed) magazine format,
2600 (named for the frequency tone used to make free long distance phone
calls) is arguably an "underground" publication as it is available on some
newsstands and at some libraries. Begun in 1987 as a monthly magazine, it
is now published quarterly. Subscription rates are $25.00 a year with a
complete back-issue selection available. The magazine specializes in
publishing technical information on telephone switching systems, satellite
descrambling codes, and news about the computer underground.
TAP/YIPL: First established in 1972 as YIPL (Youth International Party
Line), this publication soon changed its name to TAP (Technical Assistance
Party). Co-founded by Abbie Hoffman, it is generally recognized as the
grandfather of computer underground publications. Publication of the 2-4
page newsletter has been very sporadic over the years, and currently two
different versions of TAP, each published in different areas of the
country, are in circulation.
Utilizing a data set that consists of current message logs, old
messages logs, and various CU publications yields a reasonably rich
collection from which to draw the analysis. Examination of the older logs
and publications shows that while the actors have changed over the years,
cultural norms and characteristics have remained consistent over time.
What is the Computer Underground? Defining the "computer underground"
can be difficult. The sociologist soon finds that there are several
competing definitions of computer underground activity. Those who have
written on the subject, the media, criminologists, computer programmers,
social control agents, and CU participants themselves, have adopted
definitions consistent with their own social positions and perspectives.
Not surprisingly, these definitions rarely correspond. Therefore, before
discussing the organization of the computer underground, it is necessary to
discuss and compare the various definitions. This will illustrate the
range of beliefs about CU activity, and provide a springboard for the
discussion of types of roles and activities found in the underground.
We begin with a discussion of the media image of computer hackers. The
media's concept of "hackers" is important because the criminalization of
the activity has largely occurred as the result of media drama-tization of
the "problem" (Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce, 1988). In fact, it was a
collection of newspaper and film clips that was presented to the United
States Congress during legislative debates as evidence of the computer
hacking problem (Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce, 1988, p.107). Unfortunately,
the media assessment of the computer underground displays a naive
understanding of CU activity.
The media generally makes little distinction between different types
of CU activity. Most any computer-related crime activity can be attributed
to "hackers." Everything from embezzlement to computer viruses have, at
one time or another, been attributed to them. Additionally, hackers are
often described as being sociopathic or malicious, creating a media image
of the computer underground that may exaggerate their propensity for doing
damage.
The labeling of hackers as being "evil" is well illustrated by two
recent media examples. The first is from Eddie Schwartz, a WGN-Radio talk
show host. Here Schwartz is addressing "Anna," a self-identified hacker
that has phoned into the show:
You know what Anna, you know what disturbs me? You don't sound like a
stupid person but you represent a . . . a . . . a . . . lack of
morality that disturbs me greatly. You really do. I think you
represent a certain way of thinking that is morally bankrupt. And I'm
not trying to offend you, but I . . . I'm offended by you! (WGN
Radio, 1988) Just two months later, NBC-TV's "Hour Magazine"
featured a segment on "computer crime." In this example, Jay Bloombecker,
director of the National
Center for Computer Crime Data, discusses the "hacker problem" with the
host of the show, Gary Collins. Collins: . . .
are they %hackers% malicious in intent, or are they simply
out to prove, ah, a certain machismo amongst their peers?
Bloombecker: I think so. I've talked about "modem macho" as one
explanation for what's being done. And a lot of the cases seem to
involve %proving% %sic% that he . . . can do something really spiffy
with computers. But, some of the cases are so evil, like causing so
many computers to break, they can't look at that as just trying to
prove that you're better than other people.
GC: So that's just some of it, some kind of "bet" against the computer
industry, or against the company.
JB: No, I think it's more than just rottenness. And like someone who
uses graffiti doesn't care too much whose building it is, they just
want to be destructive.
GC: You're talking about a sociopath in control of a computer!
JB: Ah, lots of computers, because there's thousands, or tens of
thousands %of hackers% (NBC-TV, 1988).
The media image of computer hackers, and thus all Members of the
computer underground, is burdened with value-laden assumptions about their
psychological makeup, and focuses almost entirely upon the morality of
their actions. Additionally, since media stories are taken from the
accounts of police blotters, security personnel, and hackers who have been
caught, each of whom have different perspectives and definitions of their
own, the media definition, if not inherently biased, is at best
inconsistent. Criminologists, by way of contrast, have done little to
define the computer underground from a sociological perspective. Those
criminological definitions that do exist are less judgmental than the media
image, but no more precise. Labels of "electronic trespassers" (Parker,
1983), and "electronic vandals" (Bequai, 1987) have both been applied to
hackers. Both terms, while acknowledging that "hacking" is deviant, shy
away from labeling it as "criminal" or sociopathic behavior. Yet despite
this seemingly non-judgmental approach to the computer underground, both
Parker and Bequai have testified before Congress, on behalf of the computer
security in- dustry, on the "danger" of computer hackers. Unfortunately,
their "expert" testimony was largely based on information culled from
newspaper stories, the objectiveness of which has been seriously questioned
(Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce 1988 p.105).
Computer security specialists, on the other hand, are often quick to
identify CU participants as part of the criminal element. Correspondingly,
some reject the notion that there are different roles and motivations among
computer underground participants and thereby refuse to define just what it
is that a "hacker" or "phreaker" does. John Maxfield, a "hacker expert,"
suggests that differentiating between "hackers" and "phone phreaks" is a
moot point, preferring instead that they all just be called "criminals"
(WGN-Radio. Sept 28, 1988).
The reluctance or inability to differentiate between roles and
activities in the computer underground, as exhibited in the media and
computer security firms, creates an ambiguous definition of "hacker" that
possesses two extremes: the modern-day bank robber at one end, the
trespassing teenager at the other. Thus, most any criminal or mischievous
act that involves computers can be attributed to "hackers,"2 regardless of
the nature of the crime.
Further compounding the inconsistent use of "hacker" is the evolution
of meaning that the word has undergone. "Hacker" was first applied to
computer related activities when it was used by programmers in the late
1950's. At that time it referred to the pioneering researchers, such as
those at M.I.T., who
2 During the WGN-Radio show on computer crime one caller, who was
experiencing a malfunctioning phone that would "chirp" occasionally while
hung up, believed that "computer hackers" were responsible for the problem.
The panel assured her that it was unrelated to CU activity. were constantly
adjusting and experimenting with the new technology (Levy, 1984. p.7). A
"hacker" in this context refers to an unorthodox, yet talented,
professional programmer. This use of the term still exits today, though it
is largely limited to professional computing circles.
Another definition of "hacker" refers to one who obtains unauthorized,
if not illegal, access to computer systems and networks. This definition
was popularized by the movie War Games and, generally speaking, is the one
used by the media.3 It is also the definition favored by the computer
underground. Both the members of the computer underground and computer
programmers claim ownership of "hacker," and each defend the "proper" use
of term. The computer professionals maintain that using "hackers" (or
"hacking") to refer to any illegal or illicit activity is a corruption of
the "true" meaning of the word. Bob Bickford, a professional programmer
who has organized several programmer conferences, explains:
3 This is not always true of course. The AP Stylebook has yet to
specify how "hacker" should be used. A recent Associated Press story
featured a computer professional explaining that a "real hacker" would
never do anything illegal. Yet just a few weeks later Associated Press
distributed stories proclaiming that West German "hackers" had broken into
US Defense Department computer systems.
At the most recent conference %called "Hackers 4.0"% we had 200 of the
most brilliant computer professionals in the world together for one
weekend; this crowd included several PhD's, several presidents of companies
(including large companies, such as Pixar), and various artists, writers,
engineers, and programmers. These people all consider themselves Hackers:
all derive great joy from their work, from finding ways around problems and
limits, from creating rather than destroying. It would be a great
disservice to these people, and the thousands of professionals like them,
to let some pathetic teenaged criminals destroy the one word which captures
their style of interaction with the universe: Hackers (Bickford, 1988).
Participants in the computer underground also object to the "misuse" of the
term. Their objection centers around the indiscriminate use of the word to
refer to computer related crime in general and not, specifically, the
activities of the computer underground: Whenever the slightest little thing
happens involving computer security, or the breach thereof, the media goes
fucking bat shit and points all their fingers at us 'nasty hackers.'
They're so damned ignorant it's sick (EN, message log, 1988). . . .
whenever the media happens upon anything that involves malicious computer
use it's the "HACKERS." The word is a catch phrase it makes mom drop the
dishes and watch the TV. They use the word because not only they don't
really know the meaning but they have lack of a word to describe the
perpetrator. That's why hacker has such a bad name, its always associated
with evil things and such (PA, message log, 1988). I never seen a phreaker
called a phreaker when caught and he's printed in the newspaper. You always
see them "Hacker caught in telephone fraud." "Hacker defrauds old man with
phone calling card." What someone should do is tell the fucken (sic) media
to get it straight (TP2, message log, 1988). Obviously the CU and computer
professional definitions of "hacker" refer to different social groups. As
Best and Luckenbill (1982, p. 39) observe:
"Every social group modifies the basic language to fit its own
circumstance, creating new words or using ordinary words in special ways."
Which definition, if either, will come into widespread use remains to be
seen. However, since computer break-ins are likely to receive more media
attention than clever feats of programming, the CU definition is likely to
dominate simply by being used more often.4 But as long as the two
definitions do exist there will be confusion unless writers and researchers
adequately specify the group under discussion. For this reason, I suggest
that sociologists, and criminologists in particular, adopt the
"underground" definition for consistency and
4 Another factor may be the adoption of a close proximity to the
underground definition being included in the 1986 edition of Webster's New
World dictionary:
hack.er n. 1. a person who hacks 2. an unskilled golfer, tennis
player, etc. 3. a talented amateur user of computers, specif. one who
attempts to gain unauthorized access to files.
accuracy when speaking of the actions of CU participants.
While it is recognized that computer hacking is a relatively new
phenomenon, the indiscriminant use of the term to refer to many different
forms of unorthodox computer use has been counterproductive to
understanding the extent of the activity. To avoid this a "computer hacker"
should be defined as an individual, associated with the computer
underground, who specializes in obtaining unauthorized access to computer
systems. A "phone phreak" in an individual, associated with the computer
underground, who specializes in obtaining unauthorized information about
the phone system. A "software pirate" is an individual, associated with
the computer underground, who distributes or collects copyrighted computer
software. These definitions have been derived from the data, instead of
relying upon those who defend the "integrity" of the original meanings, or
those who are unfamiliar with the culture.
Topography of the Computer Underground Having defined the three main
roles in the computer underground, it is necessary to examine each activity
separately in order to provide a general typology of the computer
underground. In doing so, the ways in which each contributes to the
culture as a whole will be illustrated, and the divisions between them that
affect the overall organization will be developed. Analysis of these roles
and divisions is crucial to understanding identity, access, and mobility
within the culture. Hacking
In the vernacular of the computer underground, "hacking" refers to
gaining access and exploring computer systems and networks. "Hacking"
encompasses both the act and the methods used to obtain valid user accounts
on computer systems.
"Hacking" also refers to the activity that occurs once access to
another computer has been obtained. Since the system is being used without
authorization, the hacker does not, generally speaking, have access to the
usual operating manuals and other resources that are available to
legitimate users.
Therefore, the hacker must experiment with commands and explore
various files in order to understand and effectively use the system. The
goal here is to explore and experiment with the system that has been
entered. By examining files and, perhaps, by a little clever programming,
the hacker may be able to obtain protected information or more powerful
access privileges.5 Phreaking
Another role in the computer underground is that of the "phone
phreak." Phone phreaking, usually called just "phreaking," was widely
publicized when the exploits of John "Cap'n Crunch" Draper, the "father of
phreaking," were publicized in a 1971 Esquire magazine article. The term
"phreaking" encompasses several different means of circumventing the
billing mechanisms of telephone companies. By using these methods, long-
5 Contrary to the image sometimes perpetuated by computer security
consultants, the data indicate that hackers refrain from deliberately
destroying data or otherwise damaging the system. Doing so would conflict
with their instrumental goal of blending in with the average user so as not
to attract undue attention to their presence and cause the account to be
deleted. 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. distance phone calls can be placed without cost. In
many cases the methods also prevent, or at least inhibit, the possibility
of calls being traced to their source thereby helping the phreaker to avoid
being caught.
Early phreaking methods involved electro-mechanical devices that
generated key tones, or altered line voltages in certain ways as to trick
the mechanical switches of the phone company into connecting calls without
charging. However the advent of computerized telephone-switching systems
largely made these devices obsolete. In order to continue their practice
the phreaks have had to learn hacking skills:6
Phreaking and hacking have just recently merged, because now, the
telephone companies are using computers to operate their network. So, in
order to learn more about these computers in relation to the network,
phreaks have learned hacking skills, and can now program, and get around
inside the machines (AF, message log, 1988). For most members of the
computer underground, phreaking is simply a tool that allows them to call
long distance without amassing enormous phone bills.
6 Because the two activities are so closely related, with phreakers
learning hacking skills and hackers breaking into "telco" computers,
reference is usually made to phreak/hacking or "p/hackers." This paper
follows this convention.
Those who have a deeper and more technically oriented interest in
the "telco" (telephone company) are known as phreakers. They, like the
hackers discussed earlier, desire to master and explore a system that few
outsiders really understand:
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 fairly important and the next phreak not. The next phreak
might know ten things that the first phreak doesn't though. It all
depends upon where and how they get their info. I myself %sic% 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
participate unless you are lucky enough to work for the telco. To
have access to telco things, manuals, etc would be great (DP, message
log, 1988). 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).
Most members of the underground do not approach the telephone system
with such passion. Many hackers are interested in the phone system solely
to the extent that they can exploit its weaknesses and pursue other goals.
In this case, phreaking becomes a means and not a pursuit unto itself.
Another individual, one who identifies himself as a hacker, explains:
I know very little about phones . . . I just hack. See, I can't
exactly call these numbers direct. A lot of people are in the same
boat. In my case, phreaking is a tool, an often used one, but
nonetheless a tool (TU, message log, 1988).
In the world of the computer underground, the ability to "phreak a
call" is taken for granted. The invention of the telephone credit card has
opened the door to wide-scale phreaking. With these cards, no special
knowledge or equipment is required to phreak a call, only valid credit card
numbers, known as "codez," are needed to call any location in the world.
This easy access to free long-distance service is instrumental for
maintaining contact with CU participants scattered across the nation.
Pirating
The third major role in the computer underground is that of the
software pirate. Software piracy refers to the unauthorized copying and
distribution of copy- righted software. This activity centers around
computer bulletin board systems that specialize in "warez."7 There
pirates can contribute and share
7 "Warez" is a common underground term that refers to pirated
software. copies of commercial software. Having access to these systems
(usually obtained by contributing a copyrighted program via a telephone
modem) allows the pirate to copy, or "download," between two to six
programs that others have contributed.
Software piracy is a growing concern among software publishing
companies. Some contend that the illegal copying of software programs costs
the industry billions of dollars in lost revenues. Pirates challenge this,
and claim that in many ways pirating is a hobby, much like collecting
stamps or baseball cards, and their participation actually induces them to
spend more on software than they would otherwise, even to the point of
buying software they don't truly need: There's a certain sense of, ahh,
satisfaction in having the latest program, or being the first to upload a
program on the "want list." I just like to play around with them, see what
they can do. If I like something, I'll buy it, or try out several programs
like it, then buy one. In fact, if I wasn't pirating, I wouldn't buy any
warez, because some of these I buy I do for uploading or just for the fun
of it. So I figure the software companies are making money off me, and this
is pretty much the same for all the really elite boards, the ones that have
the best and most programs. . . . I just bought a $117. program, an
accounting program, and I have absolutely no use for it. It's for small
businesses. I thought maybe it would auto- write checks, but it's really a
bit too high powered for me. I thought it would be fun to trade to some
other boards, but I learned a lot from just looking at it (JX, field notes,
1989).
Pirates and phreak/hackers do not necessarily support the activities
of each other, and there is distrust and misunderstanding between the two
groups. At least part of this distrust lies in the phreak/hacker perception
that piracy is an unskilled activity.8 While p/hackers probably don't
disapprove of piracy as an activity, they nevertheless tend to avoid pirate
bulletin board systems --partly because there is little pertinent
phreak/hack information contained on them, and partly because of the belief
that pirates indiscriminately abuse the telephone network in pursuit of the
latest computer game. One hacker illustrates this belief by theorizing
that pirates are responsible for a large part of telephone credit card
fraud.
The media claims that it is solely hackers who are responsible for
losses pertaining to large telecommunication companies and long distance
services. This is not the case. We are %hackers% but a small portion of
these losses. The rest are caused by pirates and thieves who sell these
codes to people on the street (AF, message log, 1988). Other hackers
complained that uploading large
8 A possible exception to this are those pirates that have the
programming skills needed to remove copy protection from software. By
removing the program code that inhibits duplicate copies from being made
these individuals, known as "crackers," contribute greatly to the easy
distribution of "warez." programs frequently takes several hours to
complete, and it is pirate calls, not the ones placed by "tele-
communications enthusiasts" (a popular euphemism for phreakers and hackers)
that cost the telephone industry large sums of money. However, the data do
not support the assertation that all pirates phreak their calls. Phreaking
is considered "very tacky" among elite pirates, and system operators
(Sysops) of pirate bulletin boards discourage phreaked calls because it
draws attention to the system when the call is discovered by the telephone
company.
Regardless of whether it is the lack of phreak/ hack skills, the
reputation for abusing the network, or some other reason, there is indeed a
certain amount of division between the world of phreakers and hackers and
that of pirates. The two communities co-exist and share resources and
methods, but function separately.
Social Organization and Deviant Associations Having outlined and
defined the activities of the computer underground, the question of social
organization can be addressed. Joel Best and David Luckenbill (1982) have
developed a typology for identifying the social organization of deviant
associations. Essentially they state that deviant organizations,
regardless of their actual type of deviance, will vary in the complexity of
their division of labor, coordination among organization roles, and the
purposiveness with which they attempt to achieve their goals. Those
organizations which display high levels in each of these categories are
more sophisticated than those with lower levels. Deviants relations with
one another can be arrayed along the dimension of organizational
sophistication. Beginning with the least sophisticated form, %we% discuss
five forms of the social organization of deviants: loners, colleagues,
peers, mobs, and formal organizations. These organization forms are
defined in terms of four variables: whether the deviants associate with one
another; whether they participate in deviance together; whether their
deviance requires an elaborate division of labor; and whether their
organization's activities extend over time and space (Best and Luckenbill,
1982, p.24). These four variables, also known as mutual association, mutual
participation, elaborate division of labor, and extended organization, are
indicators of the social organization of deviant groups. The following,
taken
from Best and Luckenbill, illustrates:
FORM OF MUTUAL MUTUAL DIVISION EXTENDED
ORGAN- ASSOCIA- PARTICIPA-OF
ORGAN-
IZATION TION TION LABOR
IZATION
--------------------------------------
Loners no no no no
Colleagues yes no no no
Peers yes yes no no
Mobs yes yes yes no Formal
Organizations yes yes yes yes
_____________________________________ _
(1982, p.25)
Loners do not associate with other deviants, participate in shared
deviance, have a division of labor, or maintain their deviance over
extended time and space. Colleagues differ from loners because they
associate with fellow deviants. Peers not only associate with one another,
but also participate in deviance together. In mobs, this shared
participation requires an elaborate division of labor. Finally, formal
organizations involve mutual association, mutual participation, an
elaborate division of labor, and deviant activities extended over time and
space (Best and Luckenbill, 1982, pp.24-25).
The five forms of organizations are presented as ideal types, and
"organizational sophistication" should be regarded as forming a continuum
with groups located at various points along the range (Best and Luckenbill,
1982, p.25). With these two caveats in mind, we begin to examine the
computer underground in terms of each of the four organizational variables.
The first level, mutual association, is addressed in the following section.
Mutual Association
Mutual association is an indicator of organizational sophistication in
deviant associations. Its presence in the computer underground indicates
that on a social organization level phreak/hackers act as "colleagues."
Best and Luckenbill discuss the advantages of mutual association for
unconventional groups:
The more sophisticated the form of organization, the more likely the
deviants can help one another with their problems. Deviants help one
another in many ways: by teaching each other deviant skills and a
deviant ideology; by working together to carry out complicated tasks;
by giving each other sociable contacts and moral support; by supplying
one another with deviant equipment; by protecting each other from the
authorities; and so forth. Just as %others% rely on one another in
the course of everyday life, deviants find it easier to cope with
practical problems when they have the help of deviant associates
(1982,pp.27-28).
Hackers, phreakers, and pirates face practical problems. For example,
in order to pursue their activities they require equipment9 and knowledge.
The 9 The basic equipment consists of a modem, phone
line, and a computer -- all items that are available through legitimate
channels. It is the way the equipment is used, and the associated
knowledge that is required, that distinguishes hackers from other computer
users.
The problem of acquiring the latter must be solved and, additionally, they
must devise ways to prevent discovery , apprehension and sanctioning by
social control agents.10
One method of solving these problems is to turn to other CU members
for help and support. Various means of communication have been established
that allow individuals to interact regardless of their location. As might
be expected, the communication channels used by the CU reflect their
interest and ability in high- technology, but the technical aspects of
these methods should not overshadow the mutual association that they
support. This section examines the structure of mutual association within
the computer underground.
10 Telephone company security personnel, local law enforcement, FBI,
and Secret Service agents have all been involved in apprehending hackers.
The Structure of the Computer Underground Both computer underground
communities, the p/hackers and the pirates, depend on communications
technology to provide meeting places for social and "occupational"
exchanges. However, phreakers, hackers, and pirates are widely dispersed
across the country and, in many cases, the globe. In order for the
communication to be organized and available to participants in many time
zones and "working" under different schedules, centralized points of
information distribution are required. Several existing technologies --
computer bulletin boards, voice mail boxes, "chat" lines, and telephone
bridges/loops -- have been adopted by the CU for use as communication
points. Each of these technologies will be addressed in turn, giving
cultural insight into CU activities, and illustrating mutual association
among CU participants. Bulletin Board Systems
Communication in the computer underground takes place largely at
night, and primarily through Bulletin Board Systems (BBS). By calling
these systems and "logging on" with an account and password individuals can
leave messages to each other, download files and programs, and, depending
on the number of phone lines into the system, type messages to other users
that may be logged on at the same time.
Computer Bulletin Board Systems, or "boards," are quite common in this
computerized age. Nearly every medium-sized city or town has at least one.
But not all BBS are part of the computer underground culture. In fact,
many systems prohibit users from discussing CU related activity. However,
since all bulletin boards systems essentially function alike it is only the
content, users, and CU culture that distinguish an "underground" from a
"legitimate" bulletin board. Computer Underground BBS are generally owned
and operated by a single person (known as the "system operator" or
"sysop"). Typically setup in a spare bedroom, the costs of running the
system are paid by the sysop, though some boards solicit donations from
users. The sysop maintains the board and allocates accounts to people who
call the system.
It is difficult to assess the number of underground bulletin boards in
operation at any one time. BBS in general are transitory in nature, and CU
boards are no exception to this. Since they are operated by private
individuals, they are often set up and closed down at the whim of the
operator. A week that sees two new boards come online may also see another
close down. A "lifetime" of anywhere from 1 month to 1-1/2 years is common
for pirate and phreak/hack boards.11 One BBS, claimed to be the "busiest
phreak/hack board in the country" at the time,12 operated for less than one
year and was suddenly closed when the operator was laid off work.
Further compounding the difficulty of estimating the number of CU
boards is their "underground" status. CU systems do not typically publicize
their existence. However, once access to one has been achieved, it is easy
to learn of other systems by asking users for the phone numbers.
Additionally, most BBS maintain lists of other boards that users can
download or read. So it is possible, despite the difficulties, to get a
feel for the number of CU boards in operation. boards are the most common
of "underground" BBS. While there is no national "directory" of pirate
boards, there are several listings of numbers for specific
11 While some non-CU BBS' have been operating since 1981, the longest
operating phreak/hack board has only been in operation since 1984. 12 At
it's peak this p/h board was receiving 1000 calls a month and supported a
community of 167 users (TP BBS, message log, 1989). computer brands.13 One
list of Apple pirate boards has 700 entries. Another, for IBM boards, lists
just over 500. While there is no way of determining if these lists are
comprehensive, they provide a minimum estimate. Pirate boards for systems
other than IBM or Apple seem to exhibit similar numbers. David Small, a
software developer that has taken an aggressive stance in closing down
pirate boards, estimates that there are two thousand in existence at any
one time (1988). Based on the boards discovered in the course of this
research, and working from an assumption that each of the four major brands
of microcomputers have equal numbers of pirate boards, two thousand is a
reasonable estimate.
The phreak/hack BBS community is not divided by differing brands of
micro-computers. The applicability of phreak/hack information to a wide
range of systems does not require the specialization that pirate boards
exhibit. This makes it easier to estimate the number of systems in this
category.
John Maxfield, a computer security consultant, has asserted that there
are "thousands" of phreak/hack 13 Pirate boards are normally "system
specific" in that they only support one brand or model of microcomputer.
boards in existence (WGN-Radio, November 1988). The data, however, do not
confirm this. A list of phreak/hack boards compiled by asking active
p/hackers and downloading BBS lists from known phreak/hack boards,
indicates that there are probably no more than one hundred. Experienced
phreak/hackers say that the quality of these boards varies greatly, and of
those that are in operation today only a few (less than ten) attract the
active and knowledgeable user.
Right after "War Games" came out there must have been hundreds of
hacker bulletin boards spring up. But 99% of those were lame. Just a
bunch of dumb kids that saw the movie and spent all there %sic% time
asking "anyone got any k00l numberz?" instead of actually hacking on
anything. But for a while there was %sic% maybe ten systems worth
calling . . . where you could actually learn something and talk to
people who knew what was going Nowadays %sic% there are maybe three
that I consider good . . . and about four or five others that are
okay. The problem is that anybody can set up a board with a k-rad
name and call it a hacker board and the media/feds will consider it
one if it gets busted. But it never really was worth a shit from the
beginning.(TP2, field notes, 1989)
Towards a BBS Culture. Defining and identifying CU boards can be
problematic. The lack of an ideal type undoubtedly contributes to the
varying estimates of the number of CU bulletin board systems. While
developing such a typology is not the intent of this work, it is
appropriate to examine the activities and characteristics exhibited by BBS
supporting the pirate and phreak/hack communities. While much of the
culture of pirate and phreak/hack worlds overlap, there are some
differences in terms of how the BBS medium is used to serve their
interests. We begin with a short discussion of the differences between the
two communities, then discuss cultural characteristics common to all CU BBS
systems.
All BBS feature a "files area" where programs and text files are
available for downloading by users. Initially these programs/files are
supplied by the system operator, but as the board grows they are
contributed (called "uploading") by callers. The content and size of the
files area differs according to whether the board supports the pirate or
phreak/hack community.
The files area on a pirate board consists primarily of programs and
program documentation. Normally these programs are for only one brand of
micro-computer (usually the same as the system is being run on). Text files
on general or non-computer topics are uncommon. A "files area" menu from a
pirate BBS illustrates the emphasis on software:
%1% Documentation %2% Telecommunications
%3% Misc Applications %4% Word Processing
%5% Graphics %6% Utilities
%7% Games 1 %8% Games 2
%9% XXX Rated %10% Elite_1
%11% Elite_2 %12% Super_Elite
(IN BBS, message log, 1988) The "files area" on a phreak/hack BBS is
noticeably smaller than it is on pirate systems. It consists primarily of
instructional files (known as "g- files" for "general files") and copies of
phreak/hack newsletters and journals. Pirated commercial software is very
rare; any programs that are available are usually non- copyrighted
specialized programs used to automate the more mundane aspects of phreaking
or hacking. It is not uncommon to find them in forms usable by different
brands of computers. A "files area" list from a phreak/hack BBS is listed
here (edited for size):
Misc Stuff
-------------
BRR2 .TXT: Bell Research Report Volume II
BRR1 .TXT: Bell Research Report Volume I CONFIDE .ARC:
Confide v1.0 DES EnCryption/DeCryption
CNA .TXT: A bunch of CNA numbers
CLIPS .ARC: newsclippings/articles on hackers
and busts
ESS1 .TXT: FILE DESCRIBING THE ESS1 CHIP TELEPHON.TXT: NY
Times Article on hackers/phreaks
HP-3000 .TXT: This tells a little info about hp
VIRUS .TXT: Digest of PC anti-viral programs.
Hack/Phreak Programs
-----------------------
THIEF .ARC: Code Thief for IBM! PC-LOK11.ARC: IBM Hard
Disk Lock Utility-fairly good.
PHONELIS.COM: Do a PHONE DIR command on VAX from DCL.
XMO .FOR: VAX Xmodem Package in FORTRAN
PASSWORD.ARC: IBM Password on bootup. Not too bad.
Archived Gfiles
----------------------
PHRACK15.ARC: Phrack #15
PHRACK10.ARC: Phrack #10
PHRACK20.ARC: Phrack #20
ATI1_6.ARC : ATI issues one thru six
PHRACK5.ARC : Phrack #5
PHRACK25.ARC: Phrack #25
PHUN1.ARC : P/Hun first issue
TCSJ.ARC : Telecom Security Journal
ATI31.ARC : Activist Times Inc number 31 LODTECH3.ARC: LoD
Tech Journal three
(TPP BBS, message log, 1988)
The difference in files area size is consistent with the activities of
pirates and phreak/hackers. The main commodity of exchange between pirates
is, as discussed earlier, copyrighted software thus accounting for the
heavy use of that area of the board that permits exchange of programs. The
phreak/hackers, on the other hand, primarily exchange information about
outside systems and techniques. Their interests are better served by the
"message bases" of BBS.
The "message bases" (areas where callers leave messages to other
users) are heavily used on phreak/hack systems. The messages are not
specific to one brand of micro-computer due to the fact that not all users
own the same equipment. Rather than focus on the equipment owned by the
phreak/hacker, the messages deal with their "targets." Everything from
phreak/hacking techniques to CU gossip is discussed. On some boards all
the messages, regardless of topic, are strung together in one area. But on
others there are separate areas dealing with specific networks and
mainframe computers:
Message Boards available:
1 : General
2 : Telecommunications
3 : Electronics
4 : Packet Switched Nets
5 : VAX/DEC
6 : Unix
7 : Primos
8 : HP-x000
9 : Engineering
10 : Programming & Theory
11 : Phrack Inc.
12 : Sociological Inquiries
13 : Security Personnel & Discussion
14 : Upper Deck
15 : Instructors
(TPP BBS, message log, 1988)
The pirate community, on the other hand, makes little use of the
"message bases." Most users prefer to spend their time (which may be
limited by the system operator on a per day or per call basis) uploading
and/or downloading files rather than leaving messages for others. Those
messages that do exist are usually specific to the pirating enterprise such
as help with programs on the board, requests for specific programs ("want
lists"), and notices about other pirate bulletin boards that users may want
to call. Occasional discussion of phreaking may occur, but the emphasis is
on techniques used to make free calls, not technical network discussions as
often occurs on phreak/hack systems. A list of message areas from a large
pirate BBS illustrates the emphasis on the pirating enterprise. A message
area for general discussions has been created, but those areas devoted to
pirating display more use:
Area %1% General Discussion 15 messages
Area %2% Pirating Only!! 75 messages
Area %3% Warez Wants 31 messages
Area %4% **private messages** 10 messages (TL BBS, message log, 1988)
In addition to the differences between files and message use on pirate
and phreak/hack boards, they differ in degree of community cohesiveness.
Every BBS has a group of "users" --the people who have accounts on the
system. The group of users that call a specific BBS can be considered to be
a "community" of loosely associated individuals by virtue of their
"membership" in the BBS.
Additionally, the system itself, serving either pirates or
phreak/hackers, exists within a loose network of other bulletin boards that
serve these same interests. It is within this larger community where pirate
and phreak/hack boards seem to differ.
Due to the brand-specific nature of pirate boards, there is not a
strong network between pirate BBS that operate on other systems. This is
understandable as a pirate that owned an Apple computer would have little
use for the programs found on an IBM board. However, this creates separate
communities of active pirates, each loosely associated with other users of
their computer type, but with little or no contact with pirate communities
on other systems.
There is, however, a degree of cohesiveness among pirate boards that
support the same micro-computers. While the users may be different on
systems, the data shows that some pirate boards are "networked" with each
other via special software that allows messages and files to be
automatically shared between different boards. Thus a message posted on a
west coast pirate board will be automatically copied on an east coast BBS
later that night. In a like manner, software programs can be sent between
"networked" boards. The extent of this network is unknown.
The pirate BBS community also exhibits cohesiveness in the form of
"co-sysops." As discussed earlier, sysops are the system operators and
usually owners of BBS. On some pirate boards, "co-sysop" distinction is
given to an operator of another board, often located in another state. This
forms a loose network of "sister boards" where the sysop of one has
co-sysop privileges on the other. However, this cooperative effort appears
to be limited mainly to the system operators as comparing user lists from
sister boards shows little overlap between the regular callers. How co-
sysop positions are utilized is unknown, and it is suspected that they are
largely honorary. But nonetheless it is indicative of mutual association
between a small number of boards.
The phreak/hack board community does not exhibit the same
brand-specific division as the pirate community. Unlike the divided
community of pirates, phreak/hackers appear to maintain contacts throughout
the country. Obtaining and comparing user lists from several phreak/hack
BBS reveals largely the same group of people using several different boards
across the country.14 While phreak/hack boards have yet to adopt the
"networking" software used by pirate boards, an active group of
phreak/hackers is known to use the sophisticated university mainframe
computer network, called Bitnet, to exchange phreak/hack newsletters and
gossip.
Despite the operational differences between pirate 14 In fact, users
lists from phreak/hack BBSs located in Europe and Australia show that many
U.S. p/hackers utilize these systems as well. and phreak/hack boards, their
cultures are remarkably similar. Any discussion of the computer underground
must include both communities. Additionally, a formulation of the culture
of CU BBS must address the means in which access to the board, and thus
deviant associates, is obtained.
For a caller to successfully enter the CU BBS community, he must
display an awareness of CU culture and technical skill in the CU
enterprise. If the caller fails to exhibit cultural knowledge, then access
to the board is unlikely to be granted. The ways in which this cultural
knowledge is obtained and displayed illustrates the social nature of the CU
and further displays some of the subcultural norms of behavior.
On most "licit" (non-underground) boards, obtaining permission to use
the system is accomplished by logging on and providing a name and home
phone number to the system operator (sysop). Sysop's normally do not check
the validity of the information, and once a caller has provided it he or
she is granted full access to the system. There is normally one level of
access for all users, with only the sysop having more "powerful" access.
Obtaining access to underground bulletin boards is more complicated
and requires more steps to complete. In an attempt to prevent law
enforcement agents ("feds") from obtaining accounts on systems where
pirates or p/hackers are vulnerable, if not to actual arrest, then at least
to exposing their latest act- ivities and methods, sysop's of illicit
boards attempt to limit access to the system.
One method of doing this is to restrict publicizing the existence of
the board. Computer underground BBS are not normally included in BBS
listings found in computer books and magazines, and there is a norm,
particularly strong on p/hack systems, that the boards are not to be
mentioned on non-CU systems. There are, however, some "entry-level" CU BBS
that are fairly well known. These systems are known as "anarchist" boards.
"Anarchist" boards, while exhibiting many of the same characteristics
as pirate and phreak/hack boards, are really a cross between the two and
serve primarily as social outlets for both pirates and phreak/hackers. The
message areas on "anarchist" boards are quite active, "chatty" messages are
not discouraged. Indeed there are normally several different message
areas devoted to a wide range of topics including everything from "skipping
school" to "punk rock." The files area contains both warez (but normally
only the newest games, and specific to the computer system that the board
runs on) and phreak/hack text files. Neither collection is as extensive as
it would be on pirate- only or p/hack-only systems.
The data suggest that one function of "anarchist" boards is to
introduce newcomers to the culture of the computer underground. By acting
as "feeder boards," they can provide preliminary socialization and
instruction for CU behavior and techniques. Additionally, "anarchist"
boards frequently provide areas where phone numbers to pirate and p/hack
systems can be traded, thus providing systems where more in- depth
information, and other contacts, can be found. A phreak/hacker describes
how an "anarchist" board was instrumental in introducing him to the
computer underground:
I've been phreaking and hacking for about four years now. I
discovered phreaking on my own at this place I used to work. We had
this small LD %long distance% provider that used codez so I started
hacking them out and calling places myself . . . but I didn't know no
other phreaks at that time. Then I started using the codez to call
boards from home on my computer. Somebody gave me the number to Jack
Black's Whore House %an "anarchy board"% and I started learning about
hacking and shit from the people and philes they had there. Then one
day this guy, King Hammer, sent me some e-mail %a private message% and
told me to call his system. That's where I really learned my way
around the nets and shit. You could ask questions and people would
help you out and stuff. If I hadn't found out some of the tricks that
I did I probably would have got busted by now. (TP2, field notes,
1989)
Once an individual has obtained the telephone number to a CU BBS,
through whatever channels, callers follow essentially the same procedure as
they do on licit systems . . . that of calling and logging on. However,
since "underground" boards are not truly underground (that is, totally
secret) first-time callers are not given access to the board itself. When
a user is unable to provide an already valid username/password, the system
will automatically begin its registration procedure. First, the caller is
asked to enter a "username" (the name used by the system to distinguish
between callers) and "phone number." These first system requests, normally
seen only as "Enter Your Name and Phone Number," serve as partial screens
to keep out non-underground callers that may have happened across the
board. The way that a user responds to these questions indicates if they
have cultural knowledge of the CU. The norm is to enter a pseudonym and a
fake phone number.15 If a ___________________
15 A functional reason for this norm is that usernames and telephone
numbers are stored on the computer as part of the BBS system files. Should
the BBS ever be seized in legal proceedings, this list of names and numbers
(and on some systems addresses . . . which are also normally false) could
be used to identify the users of the system. caller enters his or her real
name (or at least a name that does not appear to be a pseudonym) the system
operator will be put on guard that the caller may not be aware of the type
of board that he has called, for the pseudonym is the most visible of CU
cultural traits.
All members of the underground adopt "handles" to protect their
identity. The pseudonyms become second identities and are used to log onto
bulletin boards, and as "signatures" on messages and instructional text
files.16 They are not unlike those adopted by citizens-band radio users,
and reflect both the humor and technical orientation of computer
underground participants. A review of handles used by phreakers, hackers,
and pirates finds that they fall into three broad categories: figures from
literature, films, and entertainment (often science fiction); names that
play upon computers and related technologies; and nouns/descriptive names.
(See Appendix A for fictional examples of each.)
After providing a user name and entering a ____________________ 16
The data suggest that, on the whole, individuals retain their handles over
time.
A password to be used for future calls, the caller is asked several
more questions designed to screen users and determine initial access
privileges. Unlike licit boards, underground BBS may have several
different levels of access with only the most trusted users being able to
read messages and get files in "elite" or "high access" areas that are
unknown and unavailable to other callers. In many cases, pirate boards are
able to operate "above ground" and appear to be open-public access systems
unless callers have the proper privileges to access the areas where the
"good stuff" is located. The answers given to access questionnaires
determine whether a caller will receive access to some, all, or none of the
higher levels. These questionnaires frequently ask for "personal
references" and a list of other boards the caller has "high access" on. The
question is vague, and random callers are unlikely to answer it correctly.
However, if the caller lists pseudonyms of other CU members that are known
and trustworthy to the sysop, as well as some other boards that are known
to have "good users" and "good security" access will usually be granted.17
If all the answers are relevant and indicative of CU ____________________
17 The data suggest that personal references are only checked if something
seems unusual or suspicious. knowledge, then initial access is normally
granted.
Other methods of controlling access include presenting a "quiz" to
determine if the technical knowledge of the user is up to par with the
expertise expected on the boards.18 Some systems, instead of a quiz, ask
the user to write a short statement (100 words or less) about why they want
access, where they got the phone number to the system, and what they can
provide to other users. Some pirate boards come right out and ask the user
to supply a list of the good "warez" that they can upload and what they are
looking to download. If the caller fails to list recent copyrighted
programs then it is evident that they are unaware of the nature of the BBS:
I had this one dude call up and he told me in his message
that he was looking for some "good games." So instead of
giving him access I just left him some e-mail %a private
message%. I asked what kind of games he was looking for.
Next time he called he wrote back and said "a public domain
Asteroids game." I couldn't believe it. Not only is
Asteroids so damn old it's lame, but this guy is looking for
pd %public domain% shit. No way was he going to get access.
He didn't even know what this board is. I left him a message
telling him that I didn't have one. He never called back
after that (CH, sysop of a pirate BBS, field notes, 1988).
____________________
18 One such quiz, from a p/h board, can be found in Appendix B.
Ironically, the pseudo-elaborate security methods of underground
boards, while they may be effective in keeping off random non-CU callers,
are not effective in screening out "feds." Data and media accounts show
that boards are regularly infiltrated by telephone security personnel and
software companies. Also, the adoption of handles to protect identities is
defeated by the consistent use of the same handle over time. But in order
to obtain and maintain status and prestige in the CU one must keep the same
pseudonym in order to (literally) "make a name for oneself." The fact that
CU communication is not face-to-face requires a consistent means of
identifying oneself to others. The handle fulfills this purpose but at the
same time becomes as attached to a single individual as a real name would.
The access rituals of the computer underground, which are contingent on
being a "known" pirate or phreak/hacker, make changing handles
unproductive. The life blood and center of the computer under- ground is
the bulletin board network. Acting as both the main trade center of
performance related tools and innovations and as a means of socialization,
the underground could not exist without the BBS network. They serve to
"recruit" and educate newcomers and provide a way to traffic in information
and software.
The pirating enterprise in particular is very dependent upon the
BBS as they are the very means by which "warez" are traded. For the
phreak/hacker community, BBS provide a means of trading the resources of
system numbers and passwords, as well as instructional texts on techniques.
The access process serves as evidence of mutual association amongst
phreakers, hackers, and pirates as cultural knowledge is needed as well as
personal references (evidence of acceptance and access to others).
The CU bulletin board systems are unique in that they provide a way to
exchange information with a large number of others. The other methods of
CU commun-ication are based on conversations rather than written texts and
thus are much less permanent. These methods, discussed next, are telephone
bridges/loops, voice mail boxes, and computer "chat" systems. Bridges,
Loops, and Voice Mail Boxes
Of the additional means of communication used by the CU, telephone
"bridges" and "loops" are most common. Unlike BBS, which require data
links provided by a computer and modem, bridges and loops are "old
fashioned" voice connections. Since they can not accommodate the transfer
of programs or files they are used primarily by phreakers and hackers, and
most often as a social/recreational outlet.
A "bridge" is a technical name for what is commonly known as a "chat
line" or "conference system." They 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 who
maintain them for business use during the day. While the numbers to these
systems is not public knowledge, many of them have been discovered by
phreaks who then utilize the systems during the night.
In addition to these pre-existing conference systems, phreakers have
become skilled at arranging for a temporary, private bridge to be created
via AT&T's conference calling facilities. This allows for conversations to
be held among a self-selected group of phreak/hackers:19
Bridges can be %sic% 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
19 The data indicates that these private conference calls aren't
"scheduled" in any real sense. One p/hacker will initiate the conference
and call others at home to add them to the conference. As more people join
they suggest others to add. The initiator can temporarily jump out of the
conference, call the new person and solicit their attendance. If they don't
want to join or aren't home, the initiator simply returns to the conference
without adding them in.
their DTMF.20 The last great discussion I participated 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
infor-mation. 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 another (DC, message log, 1988).
In addition to setting up "private" bridges, p/hackers can utilize
"loop lines" in a further attempt to limit the number of eavesdroppers on
their conversations. Unlike bridges, which connect a virtually unlimited
number of callers at once, "loops" are limited to just two people at a
time.
"Loop lines" are actually telephone company test lines installed for
internal use.21 A loop consists of two separate telephone numbers that
connect only to each other. Each end has a separate phone number, and when
each person calls one end, they are connected to each other automatically.
This allows for individuals 20 "Dual Tone Multi Frequency" or in laymen
terms, the touch tone sounds used to dial phone numbers.
These test lines are discovered by phreaks and hackers by programming
their home computer to dial numbers at random and "listen" for the
distinctive tone that an answering loop makes, by asking sympathetic
telephone company employees, or through information contained on internal
company computers. to hold private conversations without divulging their
location or identity by exchanging telephone numbers.
Finally, voice mail boxes ("VMB") are another means of communicating
with individual actors. There are several commercial voice mail box
systems located throughout the country. They function similar to a
telephone answering machine in that callers can call in, listen to a
recorded message, and then leave a message for the box owner. Many of these
systems are accessible via toll-free telephone numbers. The security of
some VMB systems is notoriously poor. Many phreaks have expertise in
"creating" boxes for themselves that are unknown (until discovered) by the
owner of the system. However, these boxes are usually short lived since
discovery by the system operator, and closure of the box, is only a matter
of time. But as long as the box is functioning, it can serve as a means of
communicating with others. VMB numbers are frequently posted on bulletin
boards with invitations to "call if you have any good stuff." They are
often used by pirates to exchange messages about new releases of software,
and by phreak/hackers to trade account and access numbers. Additionally,
some of the underground newsletters and journals obtain boxes so users can
call in news of arrests and other gossip.
Like bulletin boards, VMBs are systems that allow information to be
disseminated to a large number of associates, and unlike the live telephone
conversations of bridges and loops, they are available at any time of the
day. Additionally, VMB's don't require use of a computer and modem, only a
touch tone phone is needed to call the box. Their usefulness is limited
somewhat because they play only one "outgoing" message at a time, and their
transitory nature limits their reliability. Summary
Phreakers, hackers and pirates do not act as loners. They have
adopted existing methods of communication, consistent with their skills in
high technology, to form a social network that allows for the exchange of
information, the socialization of new members, socializing with others, and
in the case of pirates, performing the "deviant" act itself via these
means.
These communication points create and foster groups of loosely
associated individuals, with specific interests, coming together to
exchange information and/or software. It is impossible to be a part of the
social network of the computer underground and be a loner. Based upon the
Best and Luckenbill measure, actors in the computer underground, by
displaying mutual association, organize as colleagues.
The social network of the computer underground provides the
opportunity for colleagues to form cooperative working relationships with
others, thus moving the CU towards a more sophisticated form of social
organization. These "hacker groups" are addressed in the next section.
Mutual Participation
In the previous chapter the ways in which the structure of the
computer underground fosters mutual association were discussed. Their
social outlets and means for informational exchange bring the CU community
together as deviant colleagues. Their relationships fit quite well into
the Best and Luckenbill (1982) typology of collegial associations:
The relationship between deviant colleagues involves limited contact.
Like loners, colleagues perform their deviant acts alone. But unlike
loners colleagues associate with one another when they are not engaged
in deviance . . . In effect, there is a division between two
settings; onstage where individual performs alone; and backstage,
where colleagues meet (cf Goffman). In their backstage meetings,
colleagues discuss matters of common interest, including techniques
for performing effectively, common problems and how to deal with them,
and ways of coping with the outside world (1982 p.37). However,
despite the advantages of collegial association, ties between CU
participants are weak.
Loyalty between individuals seems rare, as the CU is replete with tales of
phreak/hackers who, when apprehended, expose identities or "trade secrets"
in order to avoid prosecution. These weak collegial ties may be fostered
by the anonymity of CU communication methods, and the fact that all CU
actors are, to some extent, in competition with each other. There are only
so many systems with weak security and once such a system is found, sharing
it with others will virtually ensure that the hole will be sealed when the
increased activity is noticed. Thus while p/hackers will share general
knowledge with each other, specific information is not disseminated
publicly.
As Best and Luckenbill have observed, in order to remain in a
collegial relationship individuals must be able to successfully carry out
operations alone (1982 p.45). In order to sustain a career in p/hacking one
must pursue and collect information independent of what is shared on the
communication channels. Despite the association with other phreakers and
hackers, the actual performance of the phreak/hacking act is a solitary
activity.22
That is not to say, however, that p/hackers never share specific
information with others. As discussed earlier, p/hack bulletin board
systems frequently have differentiated levels of access where only highly
regarded individuals are able to leave and read messages. These areas are
frequently used to keep ____________________
22 This does not hold true for pirates. By definition they must trade
programs with other individuals.
information from "unskilled" users at the lower levels. There are
strong social norms that some information should not be shared too widely,
as it may be either "abused" or fall into the hands of enforcement agents.
For example, when one p/hacker announced that he was going to release a
tutorial on how to infiltrate a new telephone company computer, he received
the following messages in reply:
Not smart, DT. %That computer% is a system which can be quite powerful
if used to its potential. I don't think that information on
programming the switches should be released to anyone. Do you realize
how destructive %that computer% could really be if used by someone who
is irresponsible and intends on destroying things? Don't even think
about releasing that file. If you do release that file, it will
disappear and will no longer remain in circulation. Believe me. Not
many have the right to know about %that computer%, or any other
delicate telco computers for that matter. Why do you think the fucking
New York Times published that big article on hackers screwing around
with telco machines? Not only will you get into a lot of trouble by
releasing that file on %computer%, you will be making telcos more
aware of what is actually happening, and soon no one will be able to
learn about their systems. Just think twice (EP, message log, 1988).
Why would you want normal people to have such knowledge? Any why would
you post about it? If you have knowledge that's fine but DON'T spread
that knowledge among others that may abuse it. It's not impressive! I
don't know why anyone would want to disperse that knowledge. Please
don't release any "in depth" files on such systems of great power.
Keep that to yourself it will just mess it up for others (UU, message
log, 1988).
The desire to share information with selected colleagues often leads
to the formation of cooperative "working groups." These partnerships are
easily formed, as the structure of mutual association in the CU creates a
means where "talent" can be judged on the basis of past interactions,
longevity in the field, and mutual interests. When allegiances are formed,
the CU actors begin "mutual participating" in their acts, thus becoming
"peers" in terms of social organization. Mutual participation, as defined
in the Best and Luckenbill typology, is exhibited by actors sharing in the
same deviant act, in the physical presence of one another (1982 p.45).
However, the measurement was "grounded" in studies of traditional deviant
associations (eg: street gangs, prostitutes, etc.) where "real-time"
interaction is common. The technology used by the CU negates this
requirement as actors can be located in different parts of the country.
Additionally, "hacking" on a system, by a group of peers, does not require
simultaneous participation by all members. However Best and Luckenbill's
typology is an ideal type, and the activities of peers in the computer
underground do not fall outside of the spirit or intention of their concept
of mutual participation. Their description of deviant peer associations is
presented here:
Deviant peers are distinguished from colleagues by their shared
participation in deviance. While colleagues carry out their deviant
operations alone, peers commit deviant acts in one another's presence.
Peers cooperate in carrying out deviant operations, but they have a
minimal division of labor, with each individual making roughly
comparable contribution. Peer relationships also tend to be
egalitarian and informal; some peers may be acknowledged leaders or
admired for their skill, but there is no set division of authority.
Like colleagues, peers share subcultural knowledge, but peer groups
typically provide their members with more support. In addition to
cooperating in deviant operations, peers may recruit and socialize
newcomers and supply one another with deviant equipment and social
support. Thus, the bonds between peers are stronger than those
linking colleagues (1982, p.45).
Peer associations in the CU are largely limited to small groups23
working on a specified goal. Both pirates and p/hackers organize
themselves in this regard, though their characteristics differ. We begin
with a discussion of mutual participation among pirates. Pirate Groups
In terms of the ideal type for deviant peers any two individuals
working in cooperation exhibit mutual participation. The discussion here
addresses groups that consist of three or more people that identify
themselves as a sort of "club." Short-lived interaction between two people
is not considered a "group" in the CU culture. members. Their primary
purpose is to obtain the latest software, remove any copy-protection from
it, and then distribute it to the pirate community. Often the "warez" that
they distribute will be adorned with the group name, so subsequent users
will be aware of the source of the software. Many pirate groups have
"home" BBS systems that act as key distribution points, and as places where
outsiders can communicate with members of the association. This researcher
was unable to obtain data about the internal organization of pirate groups,
but it appears that they are leaderless, with individual members working
alone but giving credit to the group as a whole. Phreak/hack groups The
existence of phreak/hacker groups is well documented in the data, and has
been heavily reported in the media. Two hacker groups in particular, The
414's (named for the Wisconsin area code in which they lived), and The
Inner Circle, received a large amount of press after being apprehended for
various computer break-ins. However, the "threat" that such groups
represent has probably been overstated as the data indicate that "hacker
gangs" vary greatly in organization and dedication to the CU enterprise.
Many hacker groups are short-lived associations of convenience, much like
the "no girls allowed!" clubs formed by young boys. They often consist of
four to nine beginning phreak/hackers who will assist each other in
obtaining telephone credit-card numbers. By pooling their resources, a
large number of illicit "codez" can be obtained and shared with others.
Distribution of the account numbers is not limited to the group, they are
often shared with the community at large, "courtesy of Codez Kidz Ltd."
Groups of this type are looked at with disdain by "elite" phreak/hackers
and are often criticized as being more interested in self-promotion then
they are with actually phreaking or hacking.
Some hacker groups are very proficient and dedicated to their craft,
however. These groups are characterized by smaller memberships, less
visibility to non-members, and commitment to the CU enterprise. They are
loosely organized, yet some have managed to exist six or more years despite
members dropping out or being arrested. These "elite" groups are selective
about membership, and cite trust and talent as the two leading requirements
for joining:
The group exists mainly for information trading. If you trust everyone
else in the group, it is very profitable to pool information on
systems . . . also it is nice to know someone that you can call if
you need help on operating system X and to have people feel free to
call you if they need help on operating system Y (AN, message log,
1988). Trust is a very important part of a group. I think that's
blatantly obvious. You have to be able to trust the other members of
the group with the information you are providing in order to be
productive, and have a secure situation (UU, message log, 1988). . . .
all groups serve the same purpose: to make their members feel better
about themselves (like, wow, I'm in a group) and to trade things,
whether it's wares, codes, or whatever. But the thing is that being in
a group is like saying "I trust you, so like, what can we do
together?" (NN, message log, 1988)
Indeed, hacker groups are formed primarily for the purpose of
information exchange. To this end, groups attempt to recruit members with
a wide variety of "specializations" in order to have a better support
network to turn to:
%Our group% has always been very selective about members (took me six
years to get in). The only reason the group exists is to bring
together a diverse group of talents. There is very little overlap in
%the group% these days. Everyone has one thing that they are the best
in the country at, and are conversant with just about any other form
of hacking. As an example, I got into a Primos computer this morning
around 9 am. Once I got in, I know enough about Primos to get around,
but that's it. So I call %PS% in New York, give him the info, and when
I get home tonight, he has gotten in and decrypted the entire
username/password file and uploaded it to me. But two weeks ago he
got into a VAX. He got the account to me, I called it up and set up
three backdoors into the system that we can get in if the account is
detected or deleted. Simple matter of communism. From each according
to his ability . . . etc. Also
it helps that everyone in the group is experienced enough that they
don't fuck up accounts you spend all day getting (TM, field notes,
1989).
Consistent with the Best and Luckenbill ideal type, hacker groups do
not exhibit a set division of authority or labor. Most groups are
leaderless, and every member is free to pursue their own interests,
involving other members of the group only when desired:
We just got our group together. We've got a guy that does VMB's and a
Sprinter %obtains "codez" from U.S. Sprint% and a couple of hackers.
Everybody's free to pursue whatever system they want but if they want
or need some help they can call on any of the other members if they
want to. Like if one guy is scanning and finds a VAX he might call
and give me the dialup. Then I might have to call our Sprinter to get
some codez so I can start hacking on it. Once I get through I'll give
the account to the other members. But if I found it myself I wouldn't
have to give it out but I probably would anyway 'cuz keeping it would
be bullshit (DC, field notes, 1988).
There isn't a leader really. The guy who starts the group sort of
acts like a contact point but everyone else has everyones' phone
number and you can call whoever you want to anytime. Usually when
you're putting a group together you just get everyone you want and you
all decide on a name. (DC, field notes, 1988).
Summary
By virtue of the extensive social network found in the CU, some
participants form work groups. The sophistication of these groups varies,
but in all cases it is evident that the groups exist to support what are
primarily individually performed activities. The groups exhibit many of
the ideal-type characteristics of peer associations, and it is clear that
in some cases the computer underground is socially organized as peers.
Conclusion
Phreakers, hackers, and pirates do not act as loners. Loners do not
associate with others, and are on their own in coping with the practical
problems presented by their activities (Best and Luckenbill 1982, p.28).
From the data presented here, it is evident that the computer underground
has established an extensive social network for the exchange of resources
and mutual support. The characteristics of the CU varies according to the
goals of the participants, but the presence of mutual association is
consistent. Contact between individuals is limited, with the acts of
phreaking or hacking being committed alone. Computer underground
participants do associate with one another in order to discuss matters of
common interest, such as performance techniques, news, and problem solving.
To facilitate this informational exchange, they have established a
technologically sophisticated network that utilizes computer bulletin
boards, voice mail boxes, telephone bridges, and telephone loops.
The collegial organization of the computer underground is further
evidenced by the establishment of a CU culture. The subcultural adaptation
of language, expectations of normative conduct, and status stratification
based on mastery of cultural knowledge and skill, all indicate that the
computer underground is, at the very least, a social organization of
colleagues (see Best and Luckenbill, 1982, p.37). The very structure that
permits mutual association among CU participants also encourages some to
form working relationships, thus acting as peers by mutually participating
in CU activities. Peers organized in this manner share in their deviance,
organizing informally with little division of labor or set division of
authority (Best and Luckenbill, 1982, p.45). These peer associations
provide support to members, and can provide socialization and recruitment
functions for newcomers. The establishment of work groups, through mutual
participation, indicates that though the computer underground is largely
organized as a network of colleagues, it is also, to some degree, a social
organization of peers.
Best and Luckenbill (1982) describe two additional forms of deviant
associations that are more organizationally sophisticated than peers:
"mobs" and "formal organizations." The computer underground, however, does
not display the requisite characteristics of these organizational types.
The primary characteristic of "mobs" is an elaborate division of labor
(Best and Luckenbill, 1982, p.25). While some CU groups do exhibit a
rudimentary division of labor based on individual members' specialization,
it is not by any means "elaborate." Any division of labor that does exist
is voluntary and arises on the basis of specialized knowledge, not a
specialized organizational role.
In much the same manner the lack of a designated leader or leadership
hierarchy prevents CU groups from being categorized as "formal
organizations" in the Best and Luckenbill typology. Deviant organizations
at this level are quite sophisticated and there is no empirical evidence
that the computer underground is organized in this manner.
This study of the computer underground has been a test of the Best and
Luckenbill typology of the social organization of deviants. As a test of
their organizational indicators, the CU has shown that the categories are
well constructed, with the possible exception of limiting "mutual
participation" to acts carried out in the presence of others. However, if
we modify this to include non-simultaneous, but cooperative, acts as found
in phreak/hacker groups, the category is otherwise robust. The flexibility
of the typology, which explicitly recognizes that not all deviant
associations will display all of the character- istics (Best and
Luckenbill, 1982, p.25), is a strength that allowed it to be easily used in
terms of the computer underground.
By addressing the CU from a social organizational viewpoint we have
seen that despite the high technology trappings of their craft, pirates,
phreakers, and hackers display organizational characteristics found in
other groups that have been criminalized. This may suggest that the
development of sophisticated tools to commit "crime" does not necessarily
affect the ways in which individuals organize their activities.
The implications of peer and collegial organization for the members of
the computer underground are vast. The level of sophistication has a
direct relationship to the types of resources on which individuals can draw
(Best and Luckenbill, 1982, p.54). Because CU members are mutually
associated, they are able to turn to colleagues for advice and support with
various problems. However, at the collegial level they are left to enact
the solutions independently. Whether or not they are successful in doing
so will determine if they choose to remain active in the computer
underground. The data show that involvement in the CU is short in
duration, unless success in early phreak/hack attempts is obtained. As
long as the CU remains organized as a collection of colleagues, this trend
will continue. Additionally, as the computer and telephone industries
become more sophisticated in preventing the unauthorized use of their
facilities, new phreak/hackers are unlikely to succeed in their initial
attempts at the act, thus dropping away from the activity and never
becoming acculturated to the point where peer relationships can be
developed.
At the peer level, a dimension of sophistication that some members of
the CU do display, the knowledge and resources to solve problems and obtain
resources is greater. However, even at this level the ties between peers
remain weak at best. Although their cooperative ties allow for more
sophisticated operations, and somewhat reduce the CU's vulnerability to
social control agents (Best and Luckenbill, 1982, p.53), it still does not
completely eliminate the need for individual success in order to sustain a
CU career. As long as the CU remains at the current level of
organizational sophistication, with weak ties and somewhat limited means of
support and resource attainment, it will continue to be a transitory and
limited "criminal" enterprise.
This realization should be considered by policy makers who desire to
further criminalize computer underground activities. Given the current
organization of the CU, the future social costs of their actions are not
likely to expand beyond the current level. There is no evidence to support
assertions that the CU is expanding, and the insight provided here shows
that it is not likely to do so on a large scale.
For sociologists, the computer underground is a field rich for insight
into several areas of concern. Future research into the career path of CU
members, and the relationships between individuals, could prove helpful to
those interested in applying theories of differential association and
career deviance. Additionally, the computer underground provides a unique
opportunity to study the process of criminalization, and its effect on
those who are engaged in the behavior.
REFERENCES
Best, Joel and David F. Luckenbill. 1982. Organizing
Deviance. Englewood Cliff, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Bequai, August. 1987. Technocrimes. Lexington, Mass.:Lexington
Books.
Bickford, Robert. 1988. Personal communication to Gordon Meyer.
Chicago Tribune. 1989. "Computer hacker, 18, gets prison for
fraud." Feb. 15:2,1.
Field Notes. Interviews with phreakers, hackers, and
pirates. Conducted from 7/88 to 4/89 (confidential material in
authors files).
Hollinger, Richard C. and Lonn Lanza-Kaduce. 1988. "The
Process of Criminalization: The Case of Computer Crime
Laws." Criminology 26:101-126.
Levy, Steven. 1984. Hackers: Heroes of the Computer
Revolution. New York: Dell Publishing.
Message Logs from a variety of computer underground
bulletin board systems, (confidential material), 1988-
1989.
NBC-TV. 1988. Hour Magazine. November 23, 1988. Parker, Donn B.
1983. Fighting Computer Crime. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons.
Rosenbaum, Ron. 1971. "Secrets of the Little Blue Box."
Esquire October, pp. 116-125.
Small, David. 1988. Personal communication to Gordon
Meyer.
WGN-Radio. 1988. Ed Schwartz Show. September 27, 1988.
APPENDIX A
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND PSEUDONYMS
_____________________________________ _____
Literature, films,|Computers & |Nouns, titles & |
and Entertainment |related technology |Descriptive names|
------------------------------------------
Pink Floyd | Mrs. Teletype | The Professor |
Hatchet Molly | Baudy Bastard | Perfect Asshole |
Jedi Knight | Doctor Phreak | The Messiah |
King Richard | Lord FAX | Right Wing Fool |
Captain Hoga | CNA Office | Bed Bug |
Al Crowley | Sir Mac | Sleepy Head |
Doc Holiday | Busy Signal | Mean Underwear |
Mr. Big Dog | Silicon Student | Cockroach |
Robin Williams | Fiber Cables | Primo Bomber |
Big Bird | Phone Crasher | The Prisoner |
Cross-eyed Mary | Doc Cryptic | Night Lighting |
Capt. America | Apple Maniac | No Regrets |
Uncle Sam | Fuzzy Sector | Grounded Zero |
Thumpr | Cntrl. Alt. Del. | Spit Wad |
Little John | Byte Ripper | Shado Dove |
-------------------------------------------
APPENDIX B
NEW USER QUESTIONNAIRE FROM A PHREAK/HACK BBS Welcome to Analog
Electronics Datum System. Please take this time to fill out a one-time
questionnaire that will allow us to determine your level of access on
Analog Electronics Datum System.
If any question is too difficult for you to answer, just answer with
your best guess or a simple "I don't know."
We basically have two different divisions or types of users on this
system:
(1) Apple (%%,Mac), and IBM software traders
(2) Telecommunication hobbyists -any/all computers
(networks, mainframes, engineering)
Your answers will help us decide which category you belong to and what
access you should get on our system.
* What type of computer & modem are you using to call this system?
* Where did you get the phone number to Analog Electronics Datum System?
* We'll need your first name and real phone # where you can be reached for
validation purposes only, this information is kept in a password encoded
file, on another computer (critical for higher validation):
First for the FILE TRANSFER AREA ACCESS
questions: (1) How many bits are in a nibble? (Assume 6502 micro
processor)
(2) Define WORM, RAM, ROM, VDT, CRT, BPS? (Pick any 3)
(3) What does 2400 baud mean in terms of bit transfer speed?
(4) What is PT,MT,AE,BIN2,Ymodem Batch,BLU? (Pick any 4)
(5) How many Megahertz does a standard Apple %%+ run at? (rounding OK)
Now for the TeleCommunication Questions:
(1) Describe the Voice Transmission Use of a Loop:
(2) If I gave you my phone #, how would you find my name and address?!
(3) Can you name any networking software operating systems or protocols?
(4) What is the highest frequency a twisted two wire pair can transmit at?
(5) We believe Phones and Computers Belong Together, what do you BELIEVE?
Ok, thanks for that info.
A MESSAGE FROM AL CAPONE (LOCAL) AND THE TRADER (LD) SYSTEM VALIDATORS
--------------------------------------
Welcome to ALDS! As a new user you have made a change for the
better in choosing this system as one of your places of telecommunication
exchange. In my opinion, this is one, if not the best, system in
telecommunications today as most of the good boards such as Shadowspawn,
Metal Shop Private, etc. do not exist anymore. Quality users exist on
this system that have established a reputation for themselves so questions
you ask will be answered thoroughly and precisely. We are a sponsor board
of the LOD/H Technical Journal, and accounts have been established
representing Phrack, Inc. and 2600 Magazine. (For our software trading
people, we also have an excellent file transfer area . . . consistent with
the rest of the nation . . . )
Due to the high quality of our system, we will need some additional
information about you. Maintenance of a high quality system requires high
quality users, so the first step in this process is keeping the low quality
users off of the system . . . so please cooperate with us . . . this is
for your benefit as well as ours. The information you give us will be
cross referenced with other systems for accuracy, and if you leave false
information, you may suffer low access or deletion.
All phone number information is stored outside of the housing of this
system inside of an encrypted, password locked file for your security. So
if you have left an invalid phone #, please leave one where you can be
reached, or someone's name and number (if possible) that will vouch for
you. Keep in mind this validation can take up to 1 week to complete due to
the high volume of new callers to our system. Note: Limited system access
will be granted within 24 Hrs if all of your info seems correct. Thanks in
advance . . . Bu gs y Ma lo ne
The Swapp er
SYSOP/SYSTEM VALIDATORS
% Bugsy Malone needs the following info: %
(1) Your references (sysops, other users on this system, other BBS).
(2) Your interests in having access to our system.
(3) How do you feel you can contribute to our system?
(4) How many years of telecommunication experience do you have?
(5) Do you have any special talents in programming, or operating systems?
If yes, then name the language(s) or operating system(s).
Enter message now, answering these questions: %after entering the message
the BBS hangs up and the caller will call back in 24 hours to see if
access has been granted.%
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink